US HOUSE WANTS TO END PBS/NPR FUNDING

[MattParker]

Believe what you want to believe. The fact is that, as this article points out, the federal funding is just the tip of the iceberg. State governments, universities, and area arts councils, who provide funding and facilities, are being cut too. The independent community stations, like WNET, WGBH, WXXI, KQED, and WHYY, are in the minority, but are rich and powerful because they are based in big cities, with large endowments, and take the biggest liberties with funding regulations. KCET seems to feel it can survive with studio rentals and brokered broadcasting. But the vast majority of stations depend on state and local taxes, as well as support from area educational institutions, all of which will be cutting funding.

No, I'm dealing in facts. You want to count sticks. All sticks are not created equal. I count viewers. Most of the US population gets PBS and other public television programming from "rich and powerful" stations. Why? Well, yes, because they are in big cities, which is where or close to where most people live. And because they are carrying programs that more people want to watch. The cities represented on your list have more than one public TV station (as defined by CPB). Thanks to "must carry" they reach all the cable and satellite homes in their markets. But their "community" and "ethnic" programs don't draw much of an audience. However congress votes, people vote with their remotes.

 

[MattParker]

@MattParker--

Well, then, if I am not supposed to watch PBS because of my demographic, please tell me so I can start watching the mind-draining trash the local commercial stations pass off as "programming". Can't be out of compliance with the law, man.

I didn't say that. Watch what you want. But you are not a typical public television viewer. Public television programs to attract a certain audience and corporations sponsor programs to reach a certain audience. In addition, they get some non-target viewers.

The other day I was watching a program with an ad for a product used only by women. I'm not their target either. On the Oldies and Standards boards people have made the point that the audience for these radio formats is too old and advertisers want to reach younger consumers. Somebody will reply that they are twenty-something and they love oldies (and claim all their twenty-something friends love oldies). Broadcasting is a mass medium and TV programs to mass audiences, not individuals. Exceptions prove the rule. Public television programs to appeal to and reach an elite audience - and some other people watch, too.
Watch the sponsorship or "underwriting" announcements: How many of them relate to anything you are likely to buy?

 

[TheBigA]

But their "community" and "ethnic" programs don't draw much of an audience. However congress votes, people vote with their remotes.

If you scan through most of the discussions that go on around these boards, they deal with the effects of media consolidation on programming, employment, and public service. Not to generalize, but most of the conversation on those subjects is negative. Very few people seem to feel that media consolidation has been a good thing. So explain to me why we should allow the very same thing to happen to public broadcasting? This isn't the NAB or corporate radio or Wall Street that's looking to cut funding, thus consolidate public broadcasting. But rather people and their political representatives. I can understand some who feel their airwaves were hijacked by corporations and investment bankers 16 years ago. But now we're allowing non-commercial airwaves to be hijacked by a handful of large non-profits who have no interest in maintaining localism at the stations they gobble up. You'll see what I'm talking about first hand in New Jersey. Those who dislike corporate radio should be concerned about this defunding of public broadcasting, because the results will be the same.

 

[MattParker]

But their "community" and "ethnic" programs don't draw much of an audience. However congress votes, people vote with their remotes.

If you scan through most of the discussions that go on around these boards, they deal with the effects of media consolidation on programming, employment, and public service. Not to generalize, but most of the conversation on those subjects is negative. Very few people seem to feel that media consolidation has been a good thing. So explain to me why we should allow the very same thing to happen to public broadcasting? This isn't the NAB or corporate radio or Wall Street that's looking to cut funding, thus consolidate public broadcasting. But rather people and their political representatives. I can understand some who feel their airwaves were hijacked by corporations and investment bankers 16 years ago. But now we're allowing non-commercial airwaves to be hijacked by a handful of large non-profits who have no interest in maintaining localism at the stations they gobble up. You'll see what I'm talking about first hand in New Jersey. Those who dislike corporate radio should be concerned about this defunding of public broadcasting, because the results will be the same.

Apples and broccoli. Nobody said anything about media consolidation. I'm all for multiple public television channels in a market. I'm all for multiple providers of programming to those stations. I don't particularly want to pay for television I have no interest in watching. I don't think tax dollars should go to television stations which viewers, benefactors and underwriters are not willing to support. I don't think "weakest link" stations and programming should be propped up by money the government takes from us. And as some have pointed out, there are more pressing uses for government money, especially when money is tight, than non-commercial niche programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Apples and broccoli. Nobody said anything about media consolidation. I'm all for multiple public television channels in a market. I'm all for multiple providers of programming to those stations.

That's not what's happening. As colleges and states sell off their public stations, they're being bought by the bigger, richer community licensees. That's what happened with WBFO in Buffalo. That's possibly what will happen with the NJN stations in New Jersey. It's consolidation caused by funding cuts.

I don't particularly want to pay for television I have no interest in watching. I don't think tax dollars should go to television stations which viewers, benefactors and underwriters are not willing to support. I don't think "weakest link" stations and programming should be propped up by money the government takes from us. And as some have pointed out, there are more pressing uses for government money, especially when money is tight, than non-commercial niche programming.

But this is not being put to a public vote. It's a decision being made by a few Republican politicians. And it's part of a campaign that includes the cutting of other funding sources, including tax deductions for charitable contributions. That means less money from benefactors or underwriters. Meanwhile, they want to increase deductions for capital gains. They're making these changes under the guise of federal deficites, without giving the public the complete picture.

 

[FightingIrish]

Let's put it in perspective. Our government spends less per year on public broadcasting than it spends per year for military marching bands.

I and many others get more benefit out of public broadcasting.

http://www.ricksteves.com/blog/index.cfm?fuseaction=entry&entryID=584

The Republicans merely want all of our media to resemble FOX News and bombastic AM talk radio. They like media that helps to shove their own agendas down peoples' throats. They certainly don't want to promote nonpartisan, intelligent programming that makes people actually think.

 

[MattParker]

@Big: We are not talking about capital gains or charitable deductions. If we were, I'd argue for a flat rate tax with no deductions.

We are talking about the pros and cons of using tax money for public TV (and radio). "Public funding" for public broadcasting has not been the subject of a referendum, as you say. If it had been, I doubt it would have passed in the first place. Congress started it; congress can stop it.

Stop bringing in extraneous issues. Consolidation of public media, as you also point out, has been happening - and it has been happening WITH tax payer funding.

This is a TV board, so I'm setting aside public radio here. I say there is no longer a need for public television. In an era of three channels, it served a valuable purpose. Now it does not as other broadcasters have filled public television's former niches. We now have channels offering kids shows. Channels offering nature documentaries. Channels offering historical documentaries. Channels offering British imports and high culture. Those channels are self-sustaining - without tax support or pledge drives. It's somewhat telling that when public television wants to raise money they trot out what are essentially infomercials by self-help or financial advice gurus and Lawrence Welk. Champagne music was not one of those needs the Carnegie Report envisioned public television filling.

 

[recto101]

What are the ratings between PBS and the Cable Propaganda like Fox News,MSNBC and CNN are like?

 

[TheBigA]

@Big: We are not talking about capital gains or charitable deductions. If we were, I'd argue for a flat rate tax with no deductions.

We are talking about the pros and cons of using tax money for public TV (and radio).

It's irresponsible to discuss eliminating tax money without discussing how it will be replaced. The problem, as I've tried to explain, is that the proposal eliminates taxpayer funding of public broadcasting, and all arts and educational organizations, and also discourages charitable giving. So that basically pulls the rug out from under public broadcasting. No one is discussing other funding options, such as commercialization. All they're talking about is defunding. Any funding options will require an act of Congress. It's not something the stations can do on their own.

Consolidation of public media IS relevant because it is taking place because of state or educational defunding. It is an indication of what will happen, except in a larger degree, if federal defunding happens.

The current proposal in the House, which is what this thread is about, isn't to eliminate public television. So that's extraneous. They're simply discussing eliminating its funding. Public broadcasting would still exist, as would CPB. Neither would receive public funds.

 

[TheBigA]

We now have channels offering kids shows. Channels offering nature documentaries. Channels offering historical documentaries. Channels offering British imports and high culture. Those channels are self-sustaining - without tax support or pledge drives.

No, instead they require paying a cable TV fee, which for me comes to about $850 a year. That's quite a bit more than the per capita cost of public TV. And if I don't pay my cable TV fee, they cut off my service. While if I don't become a PTV member, which costs $125 a year, I can simply become a freeloader.

My solution is far better. Use the money the FCC gets by auctioning off PTV channels to set up a fund for PTV. It becomes a self-sustaining endowment, with the interest being given to replace the former CPB grants. That way, your tax dollars aren't going to PTV, and the money the FCC gets from their fomer analog channels isn't going into some federal slush fund.

 

[nomadcowatbk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZKCSQJKTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxRO0jMBpPo

 

[gregg75]

...........well forgive me for REPHRASING an ABC title......

If anyone read the story it said that PBS only receives 2% of it's funding from the
government. I would think just signing off at 2AM ever morning would more than
cover that. After all how many are up watching THE WHITE LEOPARDS OF INDONESIA
(first broadcast in 1999) at 2AM anyway?

 

[MattParker]

...........well forgive me for REPHRASING an ABC title......

If anyone read the story it said that PBS only receives 2% of it's funding from the
government. I would think just signing off at 2AM ever morning would more than
cover that. After all how many are up watching THE WHITE LEOPARDS OF INDONESIA
(first broadcast in 1999) at 2AM anyway?

That wasn't rephrasing. You twisted it. What you said they said is not what they said. What you said is not accurate. But, what the heck, right-wing talk show hosts do that routinely.

PBS doesn't "sign off." TV stations sign off. PBS is not a TV station and doesn't own TV stations. They don't even produce TV shows. They distribute shows produced by others.

 

[tripinva]

If anyone read the story it said that PBS only receives 2% of it's funding from the government. I would think just signing off at 2AM ever morning would more than cover that.

Until the tube blows up before the end of its rated lifetime from the constant on and off.

Signing a station off at night is not an effective way of saving money for stations that operate on tube transmitters because the tubes blow up faster when they're constantly turned on and off.

(Slightly off topic, but... )

- Trip

 

[gregg75]

Once again Matt you are splitting hairs.

THE US HOUSE (mostly republicans) WANTS TO END PBS/NPR FUNDING

I think just the light bill, personnel, air conditioning and heat would more than make up
for the 2%. Turn the lights out. Put the heat on 60, go home. Send that 2% or more
savings to PBS.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not 2% for PBS. Here's a quote from the article:

While CPB appropriations equal about 15 percent of PBS's revenue, for many stations, the appropriation counts for as much as 40-50 percent of their budget, according to spokeswoman Anne Bentley.

The majority of the money goes to local PBS stations, not PBS itself.

 

[desertv]

Here's an idea for PBS...do what the govt-owned stations in Eurpoe do...take ads. Run them separately from the programs. They don't have to run during kiddie time shows.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's an idea for PBS...do what the govt-owned stations in Eurpoe do...take ads. Run them separately from the programs. They don't have to run during kiddie time shows.

Against the law in US.

 

[azumanga]

The majority of the money goes to local PBS stations, not PBS itself.

Which means if federal money is cut, we'll either see more stations go dark (just like KWBU-TV in Waco last year), or pledge specials becoming "the new normal" (many PBS outlets, especially in larger markets, have 3 or 4 weeks of pledge shows every other month, so it seems).

Here's an idea for PBS...do what the govt-owned stations in Eurpoe do...take ads. Run them separately from the programs. They don't have to run during kiddie time shows.

Or do what the CBC does in Canada and run ads during the shows like the commercial networks, except kiddie shows, where there are no ads at all.

 

[azumanga]

Here's an idea for PBS...do what the govt-owned stations in Eurpoe do...take ads. Run them separately from the programs. They don't have to run during kiddie time shows.

Against the law in US.

Some PBS stations already run ads between shows, disguising them as funding announcements. A little tweak in the legislation would enable PBS stations to run ads outright.