The CPB thread (Moderator warning)

[KMRichards]

I have closed the CPB thread because it became very political in nature, to the point where even one person who criticized that very fact couldn't resist adding some political comments.

I admit that I hesitated to take action because there were posts within the thread that did discuss the potential fate of CPB and public television in general, but that last post referenced above was the last straw for me.

Next time this sort of thing happens here, the thread will be deleted <u>regardless of whether or not there is non-political comment sacrificed by the deletion</u>.

If I notice certain people consistently taking threads into the direction of political commentary, you will be warned once, then banned if you continue.

Radio-Info has an "Off The Air" board for those who cannot resist discussing politics and other subjects not related to broadcasting.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[robbbc]

So can I start it again? The posts didn;t really discuss much on the subject. Should government in any way support Television/Radio? What about TV Marti and Radio Marti for Cuba? Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. Armed Forces Radio network and TV network?

What about other government agencies supporting programming? The NEA and Department of Education often uderwrite programs. I think Nova is underwritten by NSF.

> I have closed the CPB thread because it became very
> political in nature, to the point where even one person who
> criticized that very fact couldn't resist adding some
> political comments.
>
> I admit that I hesitated to take action because there were
> posts within the thread that did discuss the potential fate
> of CPB and public television in general, but that last post
> referenced above was the last straw for me.
>
> Next time this sort of thing happens here, the thread will
> be deleted regardless of whether or not there is
> non-political comment sacrificed by the deletion.
>
> If I notice certain people consistently taking threads into
> the direction of political commentary, you will be warned
> once, then banned if you continue.
>
> Radio-Info has an "Off The Air" board for those who cannot
> resist discussing politics and other subjects not related to
> broadcasting.
>

 

[KMRichards]

> So can I start it again? The posts didn;t really discuss
> much on the subject.

You're right, and you can certainly try again, but I hope you can keep it on-topic, because it seems everyone else who wanted to participate wanted to discuss politics instead ...
<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[moedog1]

> > So can I start it again? The posts didn;t really discuss
> > much on the subject.
>
> You're right, and you can certainly try again, but I hope
> you can keep it on-topic, because it seems everyone else who
> wanted to participate wanted to discuss politics instead ...
>
How can you discuss the government funding of a broadcasting company, without discussing politics? Especially when the stated intention of those who wish to cut off funding is to silence one segment of the population. Reopen a discussion of CPB under those conditions? No thank you.

 

[KMRichards]

> > > So can I start it again? The posts didn;t really discuss
>
> > > much on the subject.
> >
> > You're right, and you can certainly try again, but I hope
> > you can keep it on-topic, because it seems everyone else
> who
> > wanted to participate wanted to discuss politics instead
> ...
> >
> How can you discuss the government funding of a broadcasting
> company, without discussing politics? Especially when the
> stated intention of those who wish to cut off funding is to
> silence one segment of the population. Reopen a discussion
> of CPB under those conditions? No thank you.

The problem was that the first response to the original thread was entirely about the politics -- <u>like your response, above</u> ("those who wish to cut off funding is to silence one segment of the population") -- and all the subsequent posts discussed that instead of the ramifications on local stations, etc.

Yes, this <u>can</u> be discussed without becoming a political argument, but only if people <u>try</u>. You are apparently either unwilling or unable to do so, because the second sentence out of your mouth was an attack on the politics of those cutting CPB's funding.

<P ID="signature">______________


</P>

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Unfortunately, it appears from what has been said, on the non-comm board by those who work at the smaller NPR stations, the small market stations do rely on that government money to help them hire staff and produce local programming. So, based on what these folks have said, the impact on rural communities that already have their local commerical radio stations in their small market probably mostly automated on the bird and no local programming will lose the last vestage of local programming, because of this cut. A totally automated station that is run by a computer can't give the local community emergency weather info, or other emergency info,etc.

What I find interesting is the very people in government who advocate eliminating the funding for CPB are the same people who say that the programming on NPR is one sided against their point of view. That sort of reasoning for funding makes for poor radio. I listen to NPR regularly and I hear both sides of issues discussed. I've heard the key players from both sides of the isle present their point of view, etc. That is what makes NPR/PBS special. When corporations give funding, apparently from what those who work in Public radio/TV say, unlike their commercial cousins who dance to the tune of the sponsors, NPR/PBS don't. The corporate underwriters are not permitted to make programming, or content decisions. So, apparently NPR/PBS treat the government the same way, which seems to upset some of the folks in government who it seems believe they should be making programming decisions.

My guess is, IF NPR programming was precieved to be slanted in their direction politically as FOX News Channel is, then there probably wouldn't be any move by those particular folks in government to cut back the funding. So, sir, whether you like it or not, it appears that it is a political decision that will adversely affect those small market radio stations. I tried to make an effort to not name names of people, political parties, etc, just the issues that do affect those broadcasters. By the way, I am a register Indpendent. I don't totally agree with either party, but that is besides the point. I'd be just as upset, if the other party was trying to cut the funding.

I believe the small town folks deserve quality radio that has local content. If that small bit of government money makes that possible, then to my way of thinking that is a good use for some of the money the government spends. They certainly waste far more of our tax dollars on other things that do not benefit society at all. Hopefully I've expressed this thought in a way that is acceptable.

 

[dhett]

Government money funding radio or TV isn't necessarily bad; I just don't think that the federal government should be doing it. For one, it's unconstitutional (see 10th Amendment). Yes, there are a lot of things the Feds do that are unconstitutional, but anytime we can eliminate one, the better.

In a previous thread about the CPB, someone brought up the subject of the New Jersey Network, public TV (radio also?) funded by the State of New Jersey. If NJ residents wish to fund it, that's their decision and I support their right to do so. If Delaware residents wish to fund public broadcasting with state or local tax money, be my guest. As a resident of Arizona, I have enough things to spend my money on - things the federal government SHOULD be funding.

I can give you an example of where I think gov't funding of broadcasting is appropriate. Mohave County AZ is in the far NW corner of the state. The county has only 2 full-service transmitters, and the rest of the OTA TV is by translators, mostly relaying the Phoenix stations. They have set up a television district to operate the majority of those translators. It brings direct benefit to the residents in some of the most remote parts of the state, and they cover the costs through the Mohave County Television District. To my knowledge, this is just county funds, but even state funding would be acceptable to me.

So if locally-produced programming is important to those small markets, they need to put their money where their mouths are and fund it themselves as a city, county, or state entity.