TheBigA said:
Then perhaps the law should be changed. Of course commercial broadcasters will howl.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
US HOUSE WANTS TO END PBS/NPR FUNDING
- Thread starter gregg75
- Start date
Then perhaps the law should be changed. Of course commercial broadcasters will howl.
tripinva said:
That really doesn't matter in this case. It's about finding a way to get more financial support for these shows. Besides, you would be hard pressed to find a PBS viewer who doesn't watch programming on other channels. They're just as susceptible to advertising as the rest of us.
recto101 said:
PBS has about 2 to 2.5 million viewers in primetime. Fox News has about 2.5 million.
MSNBC has nearly 1 million and CNN maybe 750,000.
azumanga said:
That defeats the purpose of public broadcasting.
You can easily see what the quest for advertising has done to the programming on commercial networks. There is a direct connection between funding sources and program content.
The purpose of public non-commercial broadcasting was to remove the commercial motivation from the equation. To keep the focus on quality content, not attracting big numbers at any cost to satisfy sponsors.
TheBigA said:
That's why I said earlier they should change the laws too. Let pubcasters run regular ads at the end of shows as underwriting. The restrictions on what can be put in underwriting now makes it difficult for pubcasters to get certain companies to buy underwriting sponsorships. Eliminate that difficulty and getting rid of federal funding won't be such a big problem.
tested said:
See my post above yours.
The point isn't WHERE the ads are run, but that they run at all. The business of advertising is a completely different beast than underwriting.
Underwriting is based on product association and corporate support. Advertising is based on cost per thousand.
TheBigA said:
I guess you haven't watched public television during pledge week. The bureaucrats who run public television stations are as avaricious as anybody and they will run any kind of trash to make money. Quality content in public television is defined as: Anything on public television because our purpose is to provide quality content. Therefore anything on public television is quality content. Bull! If anything its elitist content with sop for geezers during pledge week (because geezers are suckers for begathons).
Actually, the purpose of public television was to provide different programming to meet the interests of viewers not being well served by the then three commercial networks. Ah, diversity! There's that word the PC types love so much - except when it's about differing viewpoints.
If public TV is so good - and commercial TV is so bad, how come public TV gets such lousy numbers? If they ever passed a truth in advertising law, public TV would have to call itself Snob TV.
MattParker said:
Imagine that 24/7/365.
I can tell you that is a recent phenomenon. It came about to help wean these stations from government funding and improve viewer support. It works.
MattParker said:
How come we all don't drive BMWs and Mercedes? In fact, why can't American cars be as good as German cars?
The point here is that there can't be advertising in the kind of programming currently on PBS. Advertising will simply make those stations no different than the commercial stations, filled with the same reality TV shows that everyone complains about. Why is the point of that? Does that serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity?
TheBigA said:
I've worked in a PBS station. I can tell you they have people who go out and sell underwriting just like a regular sales staff at a commercial station sells advertising. In some cases they run the same ads you see on commercial stations as underwriting. Changing the rules about what could be in the underwriting message would not undermine the purpose of public broadcasting. The key is to keep the ads adjacent to programming and not have it interrupt programming like commercial stations.
tested said:
I made the transition from selling underwriting to selling advertising. It's not the same thing. And in the long run, it will destroy public broadcasting.
We're not simply talking about the loss of CPB money. There is also the loss of NEA, NEH, state government funding, and funding from other educational institutions, all at the same time. This is a significant loss of revenue, and won't be replaced by some small change in underwriting rules.
In Chicago, it might be possible for WTTW to survive without CPB funding, but who knows about WYCC, which is owned by the City Colleges of Chicago. I read many years ago about this very issue that WYIN receives 30-50% of their funding from CPB. A total elimination of CPB funding would force them to reduce their broadcast hours, and eliminate all local programming. They already fill their overnight hours with pledge drive programming, or they'd just sign off at night. I'm concerned that WYIN might rely on it more during the daytime hours too. I know WTTW will rely on pledge drives more often if it happens. I just hope they don't do double pledge drives on WTTW 11 & WTTW Prime at the same time. They usually hold pledge drives on one, or the other. If on WTTW 11, then most primetime programming gets moved to WTTW Prime. If on WTTW Prime, the regular schedule on WTTW 11 doesn't get interrupted. I just wonder if WYCC would be forced to cave into holding pledge drives regularly. I believe they only hold 3 or 4 pledge drives a year, while they typically ask for people to donate money to the station between promos for only a minute or 2.
As for PBS, I believe there's still a need for it, as commercial broadcasters don't really want to support children's programming that commercial broadcasters have nearly eliminated. Other programming they carry isn't necessarily available anywhere else. It might be true that certain types of programming are available on the cable/satellite chanels, but that requires a subscription to pay TV. Not everone can afford the high rates for pay TV (I'm one of those people right now). PBS fills those needs for those people. I watch PBS more than any commercial TV station. Now as for allowing PBS stations to be allowed to accept advertising, would require the FCC to change the licenses of PBS stations from non-commercial to commercial. Until that happens, that won't happen. I don't believe they're allocating new non-commercial licenses The Chicago market used to have 5 channels allocated as non-commercial, but only 3 ever signed on. I believe the other 2 have since been deleted, as there no takers.
As for PBS, I believe there's still a need for it, as commercial broadcasters don't really want to support children's programming that commercial broadcasters have nearly eliminated. Other programming they carry isn't necessarily available anywhere else. It might be true that certain types of programming are available on the cable/satellite chanels, but that requires a subscription to pay TV. Not everone can afford the high rates for pay TV (I'm one of those people right now). PBS fills those needs for those people. I watch PBS more than any commercial TV station. Now as for allowing PBS stations to be allowed to accept advertising, would require the FCC to change the licenses of PBS stations from non-commercial to commercial. Until that happens, that won't happen. I don't believe they're allocating new non-commercial licenses The Chicago market used to have 5 channels allocated as non-commercial, but only 3 ever signed on. I believe the other 2 have since been deleted, as there no takers.
Has anyone here ever given $ to their local PBS station?
I like PBS and would hate to see the loss of any of their outlets. That said, this country is in dire straits, financially. A lot of things will need to be cut from the federal budget to deal with the present crisis. Granted, cutting funding from PBS wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, but in concert with cuts to all of the other "optional" items in the budget there is sense to it. Sadly, we can't afford to keep paying for everything that we're now paying for. And, that may well include public television in an age when there are hundreds of programming options.
Of course (a bit OT), I'd like to see much bigger cuts to many of the big federal departments like the departments of Energy and Education, as well as the EPA. Homeland Security could use some chopping too. But most of all, the new 'health care' bill needs to be scrapped and scrapped immediately. All else aside, you can't afford to buy a new car when your bank account is empty and your credit cards are maxed out. And Obamacare is the financial equivalent of buying a Bentley on your way to the unemployment office.
Compared to all that, PBS represents a grain of sand on the beach.
Of course (a bit OT), I'd like to see much bigger cuts to many of the big federal departments like the departments of Energy and Education, as well as the EPA. Homeland Security could use some chopping too. But most of all, the new 'health care' bill needs to be scrapped and scrapped immediately. All else aside, you can't afford to buy a new car when your bank account is empty and your credit cards are maxed out. And Obamacare is the financial equivalent of buying a Bentley on your way to the unemployment office.
Compared to all that, PBS represents a grain of sand on the beach.
- Status