WDSC DAYTONA DROPPING PBS, TOO

[byron]

Figured with all the discussion WMFE TV's gotten here lately, you guys might want to know WDSC 15 in Daytona has just decided to drop PBS as well. This is in response to Gov. Scott's budget cuts. No word on replacement programming or if they're ultimately selling the station. It looks like the new-to-be WUCF is the winner here when it comes to PBS.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...each-station-will-stop-pbs-lineup-july-1.html

Byron

 

[azumanga]

Thank you, Rick Scott.

(In case you didn't know, I was being sarcastic.)

 

[upstate29651]

Thank you, Rick Scott.

(In case you didn't know, I was being sarcastic.)

Yes, thank you for saving the taxpayers money!

PBS is a dinosaur & needs to be put out to pasture.

G

 

[jmtillery]

Yes, thank you for saving the taxpayers money!

PBS is a dinosaur & needs to be put out to pasture.

G

I'm not so sure I agree that PBS is outdated. Of course, as with anything, there is always room for improvement, even with PBS.

Public television and public radio are two mediums where one can get away from the sameness found on commercial network television and commercial radio. And although I enjoy some mainstream talk radio, I much prefer NPR for radio listening while many PBS television shows provide a balance in cultural, news, educational and entertainment value. The fact that public broadcasting programming is commercial free, one get's the full hour or half hour with the exception of limited promotional announcements during each hour's programming content.

I'm very sorry to see WDSC-TV lose its PBS affiliation. That leaves WBCC / WUCF-TV as the sole PBS affiliate for Central Florida. I'm confident channel 68 will do a fine job in providing Central Florida with quality public television programming choices.

 

[austingrace]

agreed. pbs is a dinosaur. i wonder if you would see conservitive tv on pbs? didn't think so. pbs is public bullsh*t and npr is national propaganda radio. nothing against public radio and tv but come on, at least speak the truth.... not watering stuff down.

 

[jmtillery]

agreed. pbs is a dinosaur. i wonder if you would see conservitive tv on pbs? didn't think so. pbs is public bullsh*t and npr is national propaganda radio. nothing against public radio and tv but come on, at least speak the truth.... not watering stuff down.

If your comment is addressed to me, I am speaking the truth as it relates to my opinion. If PBS or NPR does nothing for you, the best and most simplistic advice I can give you is simply do not watch and support PBS nor listen to and support NPR as there are literally hundreds of alternate TV channels available via cable and direct home satellite for you to chose from, not to mention the multiple radio choices available from terrestrial and satellite radio. However, for the rest of us who enjoy PBS and NPR and gain something valuable from it, we'd like to keep both.

 

[upstate29651]

If your comment is addressed to me, I am speaking the truth as it relates to my opinion.

Nice doublespeak. :

If PBS or NPR does nothing for you, the best and most simplistic advice I can give you is simply do not watch and support PBS nor listen to and support NPR ......

As a taxpayer, this is simply not possible. Cut the taxpayer cord & compete! I'm sure PBS & NPR would keep their audiences, but they need to compete!

G

 

[jmtillery]

If your comment is addressed to me, I am speaking the truth as it relates to my opinion.

Nice doublespeak. :

If PBS or NPR does nothing for you, the best and most simplistic advice I can give you is simply do not watch and support PBS nor listen to and support NPR ......

As a taxpayer, this is simply not possible. Cut the taxpayer cord & compete! I'm sure PBS & NPR would keep their audiences, but they need to compete!

G

Please explain how you believe I am using "double speak"?

As for PBS and NPR funding, I completely agree public broadcasting should become 100% self sustaining through listener / viewer support along with advanced or enhanced corporate underwriting initiatives. I also support a limited relaxation in the rules governing public broadcasting advertising. To do so would enable public broadcasting to compete on a much more level playing field hence making it possible to more effectively "cut the taxpayer cord and compete".

 

[quadman102]

Mark, I totally 100% agree with you. PBS and to a lesser degree NPR have been playing a game for years..the game is run underwriting credits that just clear the standards. PBS has or had seminars during development conferences every year, to go over how far the envelope can be
pushed. If the FCC would just let PS and NPR sell regular advertising, they might not even need those pledge drives etc. I spent 8 years in
pubcasting, so I know what I am talking about.

 

[jmtillery]

Quadman - I'm sure you have the inside scoop on public broadcasting, and one day I would very much like to meet with you and engage in a detailed discussion regarding public radio and public television as well as broadcasting in general. I always enjoy reading your comments [as well as others] as I always walk away having learned something useful.

For clarification purposes, I am for limited advertising content on public broadcasting stations with said limited commercial matter being used to offset the need for tax dollars which in the past have subsidized operational expenses.

I am not, however, in favor of an across the board commercialization of non-commercial licenses. Otherwise PBS and NPR stations will be nothing more than additional commercial outlets providing a commercial product with management eventually implementing programming based on ratings same as any other commercial radio or commercial television station in an effort to attract the highest and best advertising rate. This will completely destroy public broadcasting as a public broadcasting outlet. What is unique to PBS and NPR now, other than its programming content, is the non-commercial element whereas these stations provide full hour or half hour content [minus maybe two minutes of promotional announcements] unlike commercial broadcasting which saturates each hour with commercial matter. I am not at all for filling PBS or NPR hours with 22-minutes of hourly commercial matter which is common among many of the commercial broadcasters.

On the other hand I have no problem allowing the existing public broadcasting underwriting announcements become full commercial advertising content [same as commercial outlets] with no more than 5-minutes hourly of said commercial matter being aired on public broadcasting stations. This initiative along with viewer / listener fund drives should make public broadcasting self sustaining and self supporting without the need for any state or federal subsidies. Hence, only those viewers, listeners and advertisers who actually desire and appreciate public broadcasting will be financially supporting it and no one else!

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sure PBS & NPR would keep their audiences, but they need to compete!

They're not supposed to "compete." They're supposed to serve the public. It's like saying we shouldn't have to pay for firemen. They should compete for our business. You see what competition has done to commercial broadcasting. This is the only way to get an alternative. Otherwise it's just more of what you see with the big corporate owners. Without some public support you end up with lowest common denominator, sold to the highest bidder. Not in the public interest.

 

[quadman102]

Mark, you and I are very close in our fews of advertising on PBS/NRP. I don't favor breaking into programs with ads.. I just don't think "playing
games" with spots is the way to go. The original Idea for underwriting was to allow Pubcasters to "thank" business donors... ie, this program
made possible in part by so and so business. There are strict rules in underwriting credits...no call to action, no comparatives, qualitatives etc..
just who the the uw is, where they are located. There are even rules that say you can show a car, but not show a happy driver.. my point is,
let the run commercials, since they are doing so anyway, keep it to 2 or 3 minutes an hour...and let them generate enough revenue to keep them
from the government trough.
As far as ratings, much of the programming is geared to increase audience.. I kind feel sorry for Pub TV, they are between a rock and a hard place.
Would love to talk to you more about this..

 

[TheBigA]

my point is, let the run commercials, since they are doing so anyway, keep it to 2 or 3 minutes an hour...and let them generate enough revenue to keep them from the government trough.

That may be your view, but commercial broadcasters won't allow it to happen. And the commercial broadcasters usually get what they want.

 

[upstate29651]

That may be your view, but commercial broadcasters won't allow it to happen. And the commercial broadcasters usually get what they want.

Proof?

Oh, and in some places, fire services DO compete for business, primarily in some unincorporated areas. Your example doesn't cut it.

Those on the left fighting to keep one of their last vestiges of propoganda alive are losing.....

G

 

[TheBigA]

That may be your view, but commercial broadcasters won't allow it to happen. And the commercial broadcasters usually get what they want.

Proof?

What proof do you want? The NAB has long fought against the commercialization of public broadcasting, most recently in the LPFM legislation, but their role has been well documented going back to the original Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which is still law, and has never been challenged. If people don't like government funding of broadcasting, they should start with that law.