Not fans of PBS
The Moderate Voice – GOP Dominated House Committee Seeks To Starve Big Bird — P means “partisan.” And the Republicans would love to take the “P” out of PBS so we’d just have “BS.” Rock on boys! Death to Big Bird!
After all, we need the money for Iraq.
A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government’s financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children’s educational programs as “Sesame Street,” “Reading Rainbow,” “Arthur” and “Postcards From Buster.”
In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting %u2014 which passes federal funds to public broadcasters %u2014 starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB’s budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.
In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry’s total revenue.
found by E. Campbell
it’s about time – should have been killed uyears ago.
Privatize PBS and it either floats or it sinks. Stop spending my tax dollars on it.
What’s the point of PBS in today’s world of 100s of channels? This action to cut the cord is long past due.
On one hand they are cutting funding of CPB which is already becoming fast marginalized. One the other hand, through CPB they are trying to do a right wing takeover of PBS and NPR hierarchy .
I guess they feel the need to send a message over the backlash of their takeover of PBS. But this is a petty and counterproductive “burn the bridges” action that will probably reverse their gains in PBS and NPR.
I wonder what our government wants with the $100 million? That doesn’t even buy a fighter nowadays.
Color me amused. Guess it means I’ll be hearing more listener-supported pledge drives.
It’s about time. Now if they’d just get rid of the other $300 million. Even on artistic quality shows, PBS messes things up by just pricing Discovery, History, TLC, and Co. out of the market everytime they get involved.
John John John. Such vitriolic nonsense. Riddle me this:
Why isn’t CTW bankrolling PBS? Are you really going to try to say CTW hasn’t make billions off the Sesame Street merch rights?
OK, I stand ready to get blasted on this one, but here goes. Actually, I’d *like* for someone to change my mind, by showing me that Public Broadcasting serves a purpose. I’d like to see some thoughtful responses. Show me where I’m wrong.
Years ago, I financially supported PBS. But let’s look back. When I was a wee lad, I had the following options when viewing television: the big three networks, and two PBS stations. That meant that PBS accounted for 40% of my viewing choices. Compare that with today.
Sure PBS was worth funding at the time I did– especially since McNeil-Lehrer could beat the pants off venerable Walter Cronkite in quality of a news hour. And remember, we had no internet ! I won’t even get into the other media that have come into being since that time.
Today, by contrast, I can’t imagine why we need PBS. The old slogan, “If not PBS, who?” worked when options were limited, but times have changed. As more and more options come to us, the answer to the question changes from “Indeed!” to “Well, lots of sources actually.”
Admittedly, some individual shows would likely die with PBS, but so what? Would Sesame Street simply die, or would someone want to pick it up if it did not have a home at PBS? I’ve no idea, and, frankly, I’m not real concerned about what happens to Big Bird. If Sesame Street is as popular as everyone says, it is difficult to imagine why the concept would simply die. To argue that Sesame Street is only around because PBS is there to carry it strikes me, frankly, as a huge insult to Sesame Street.
It seems to me that we have reached an age where we can let stations live or die on their own. Where am I missing it? Now, my only tv is a 9-inch Philips hooked up to cable, and I don’t average even an hour of tv viewing a day. It’s not that I can’t afford a bigger set; it is that I picked this one out because its size mirrored the size of the importance of tv in my life. There seems to me so little time for television. Apparently most people disagree.
So my question is, if PBS died tomorrow, who would care, and why? Am I being too curmudgeonly?
I’d say about 75% of what I watch on TV is on PBS so it would be a big loss to me. I enjoy the Newshour, Frontline, Nova, nature programs and many others. Of course I do not have cable and sometimes would like to watch Disovery, TLC and (especially) the History channel but at $40 a month it is too costly for me right now. This is not just about Big Bird because many folks do not have cable, and the loss of PBS will shut out nearly the last source of programs for adults who enjoy learning along with their entertainment.
I know there are commercials on PBS now so maybe it can survive independently … sure hope so.
Commenters seem to assume that the GOP is in this case operating upon some kind of principle – are they kidding? Maybe they are being too subtle for me.
As for all the other stations now available – a typical economy or budget cable lineup in my area includes several PBS channels, but no discoverer, learning or history channels. Not everyone wants to or can shell out $45 a month for cable.
(On the other hand we would all be better off if TV did not exist)
It’s not “curmudgeonly”, it’s foolish and elitist; though conservative and Right Wing political voices rarely admit to that.
1. Most low income folks don’t have cable, much less access to the Internet. Your kids do. Their kids don’t.
2. Have you looked at what’s available OTA? Even the number of old soaps has diminished. It’s wall-to-wall infomercials. The network stuff that’s carried hasn’t gotten better in recent years — unless you’re one of the Fox sycophants. The only childrens’ TV available is PBS. But, just like the ongoing success of Headstart — which our native nutcases hate just as much — it’s only poor folks and families working four jobs to survive that have to rely on PBS. So, why should YOU care?
3. NPR is obvious. Even though network rating statistics show that NPR offers slightly more moderate and conservative sources than liberal — to cover their buns against the Philistine brigade — the fact that NPR relies on facts and broad coverage is enough to offend those who prefer folks maintain a satisfactory level of ignorance.
KB, you’re not a curmudgeon. You don’t think you’re an elitist. But, you didn’t even consider any political questions — in a very political issue. Censorship by withholding funds is still censorship. The schmucks who have a hard-on for anything that doesn’t kiss up to the egregious communications package of middle-of-the-road cowardice all the way over to self-gratifying preachers — won’t change. They shouldn’t be in charge, either.
You might recoil from this nation becoming more and more divided along class lines; but, take a serious look at the ideology and attitudes of the dudes who bopped in the door ahead of you. Which side are you on is becoming more important, day by day.
Color me amused. Guess it means I’ll be hearing more listener-supported pledge drives.
Same here.
I guess the next step will be for the non-profit status to be attacked – since “they” are making all of that money on merchandising Sesame Street, et. al.
People seem to think TLC, A&E, Discovery, etc can replace PBS. Maybe that was true 10 years ago but the “commercial” stations have headed downhill. A&E seems to be the “World’s Greatest Police Chases” station now (when did Fox buy them out???) and TLC is nothing but designers and decorators that I wouldn’t allow within a mile of my place or “World’s Greatest Operations”. The last time I saw the American Discovery channel it was either cutsey animal shows or motocycle choppper shops. The Canadian Discovery channel is heading in that direction but at least Daily Planet will have some good segments just about every day.
In short, I think there is still a need for PBS – if the conservative-minded types don’t like it, then join and produce a show.
PBS and NPR are a few, very few, media outlets that provide food for thought and meaningful news in this country. Sure, cut them and make us all watch Britney, WWF shows and “reality” TV. And then let’s wonder why this country keeps falling behind not only the developed world but China and India, why ~70% keeps believing in such non-sense as creationism and why the Yankees keep electing losers and liers to be their leaders.
The Chairman that is balancing the PBS bias was appointed by Pres. Clinton, and he was trying to avoid exactly this situation. He figures that if PBS were more balanced, the Republicans wouldn’t try to defund it. It’s not too hard to see the bias where they produce a history show that says Republicans insisted on a broad ranging impeachment clause in the Constitution which was written 70 years before the Party was created.
Did some neo-conservative blog link to this item? Everyone posting today seems to be violently anti-PBS.
I for one think PBS should be a stronger, more wll-funded force in television: the American version of the BBC.
Oh great….the gummint is going to save $100M by cutting funding for educational TV and NPR. Serves those commie Car Guys right. And that “Speaking of Faith” show??? That woman is going to burn in a LAKE OF FIRE. And don’t even get me started about Garrison Keillor….I’ve heard that Lake Woebegone is a thinly veiled reference to the resurrection of the Soviet Union.
Now, if they could only find two million more cost-cutting ventures like this, we could ALMOST pay for our our stunning victory in Iraq. It was a stunning victory, right? http://tinyurl.com/7ahfj Woops!!
Well, we’ll just have to cut off those left-leaning old people draining our economy by collecting Social Security payments. What do they think this is anyway, Stalingrad?
I still want to know what that boxy thing under Little George’s suit jacket was during the debate. I’m sure one of the other great cable news stations like Fox will clear that one up real soon now.
To all those who do not watch PBS or listen to NPR, don’t. Go back to watching the mindless crap the major networks carry. The stupid “reality” and “cop” shows are probably your speed anyway. Quality programming on commercial television and radio is minimal at best and non-existent on most.
The morning shows carried by PBS are for growing minds. The commercial networks don’t carry any children’s morning shows. They only carry “news” programming in the morning. The cable networks children’s shows are not very educational, with the possible exceptions of Dora the Explorer and Blue’s Clues, but seem quite exploitive. Anyone for some more Sponge Bob Squarepants or the latest Disney movie? The cable networks bombard kids to eat unhealthily (fruit chews?), buy useless junk (blow-up Frisbee things for $20), and see mindless, plotless movies.
Most shows on PBS and NPR are low budget affairs. I don’t know of any of them though that display a political bias. Both networks will go out of their way to be neutral and have both sides represented in any discussion. Their journalism is in-depth instead of the 30 seconds most stories rate with the Networks.
The NPR talk shows are not the “Butt Rash” Limbaugh or Bill “Get Real” O’Rielly crap. All NPR stations have local content, unlike the majority of commercial stations that use network feeds for everything except the stupid morning shows. I listen to NPR because I can hear music that NO local commercial station play, Blues and Jazz.
To those that don’t care for Public Broadcasting, fine. But I don’t find that the money dubya has spent flying around the country trying to convince selected audiences that his agenda is in our best interest very amusing. What he has spent so far this year would exceed the amount the government spends on Public Broadcasting. And I don’t find that the $90-95 million spent on Gitmo is money well spent. And I don’t think the billions (yup, that is a B) of dollars lost and unaccounted for in the Iraq rebuilding effort is something to be ignored. And I am appalled at the amount of money spent on securing Airports against terrorists when the nation’s harbors and land borders are so unprotected.
The money spent on Public Broadcasting is not the Government’s money. It belongs to all of us. Except for the huge deficit the Republicans have run up which will belong to our children. The government is not spending wisely when it ignores a valuable part of our society. It is not acting wisely when certain government representatives belittle and decry the Public Good to further their own political agenda.
What you are missing is that there is no other station that offers quality, educational children’s programming without forcing gobs of commercials down their throat. (or quality news for that matter) Sesame Street probably would get a new home… and Elmo would now be singing the “P is for Pepsi” song.
Not everyone can afford to buy these so-called 100s of channels. PBS was designed as a public service to provide quality programming to all for free. I agree that PBS was somewhat marginalized by the radical conservatives and their phony outrage over the non-issue of a child who happened to have lesbian parents. The real reason they want to kill PBS is because it is one of the last assessable, critical, and dissenting voices.
40% of my TV viewing would disappear if PBS went away. And that would be the most informativ e 40%. Newshour, McCloughlin Group, Frontline, Nova.
Mostly it’s perceived as liberal because it’s critical of the present administration. That’s journalism’s job. Bias seems to pervade all media these days, in the form of pre-digesting the facts presented in the name of “educating” readers/viewers. If you can form your own opinion based on the facts, then you can usually filter out the bias as well. The problem is finding programs that present all the facts. I’m not sure even PBS lives up to this, because some editing and decision making has to made about which facts are relevant. PBS does one of the best jobs, though, with Fox News Channel on the other side of the spectrum.
Meanwhile, I found the NOW program to be liberally biased. I think Bill Moyers designed it that way. When it comes to overtly highlighting liberal issues, I think there is a huge void to be filled (i.e. to balance Fox News). But that’s a serious risk to take when the Republicans control Congress.
“You might recoil from this nation becoming more and more divided along class lines; but, take a serious look at the ideology and attitudes of the dudes who bopped in the door ahead of you. Which side are you on is becoming more important, day by day.” — Ed Campbell
Hi, Ed. In the first place, I do agree that this nation is becoming more and more divided along class lines. In fact, I think it’s downright spooky. But I think that those of us on the lower end recognized the divide long before many in the richer suburbs have begun to wake up to it. I dare to think that many in the affluent suburbs are even beginning to realize that mailing a campaign check to Ted Kennedy does not make one a liberal. It’s about time, but it’s a good thing.
Ed, thanks for giving me a good and thoughtful blast. I enjoy your posts, but I hope I *never* see the day when the questions I ask or the positions I take are based on the questions other people think are important or the positions they take. I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass what the consensus was on this question when I made my post. I won’t take the position that I don’t know what I should be for until I know who I should be against. No way. That’s the trap that politicians left and right, and commercial news media without exception, want me to fall into, and I ain’t a gonna do it.
What I was getting at was that the question that people should ask themselves, before reading ANY political commentary, is whether PBS matters today as it did 40 years ago. (You do remember the part where I said it mattered 40 years ago, right? And about my dutifully sending in my financial contributions?) I even invited, “Show me where I am wrong.” It’s hard to see how my post reflects an elitist attitude. (My Webster’s doesn’t help me either: “Elitism: 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.”)
I’ve seen elitism on this blog many times (definition #2). Take, for example, the numerous posts about Americans having a poor world view because they do not travel the globe as the posters have. Is that not elitest? It implies, inherently, that a poor person could have no significant world view, since a poor person has no financial means of travel. And you and I know that many of the people who post about the importance of overseas travel would never, and not on their life, rent an apartment for six months in *my* part of town, where they could see firsthand what poverty, crack peddlers, prostitutes, etc. can do to what used to be a nice neighborhood. I’ve had two high-speed police chases in front of my house in the past year, the last of which ended in my front yard, taking out a tree and a mailbox. Me an elitest? Sure, to the extent we all are. But probably not as much as the good people, liberals and conservatives alike, who fled my neighborhood to make life easier for themselves.
Ed, a poor family can often “afford” a pack of cigarettes a day, yet that same family will claim to have no money for internet access. I don’t smoke, never have, never will, and I use my “savings” to buy what I think are worthwhile assets, like internet access to stimulate my mind and provide educational opportunities for myself. Until several months ago, I was on dial-up access. Plans were available for $10 a month; I splurged and paid 20. Remind me again how much one pack of cigarettes costs.
And by the way, Ed, what are poor people doing having children if they do not have $10 a month for internet access? (You stated ” Most low income folks don’t have cable, much less access to the Internet. Your kids do. Their kids don’t.”) Ed, I chose not to have kids. I don’t think anyone should have kids who cannot afford them. And I surely don’t think that people who don’t have $10 a month for internet access should have kids.
TC Moore, you make a good point about the 40%. Thanks for reminding me that for many people, PBS still comprises a significant portion of their viewing options. Eric too made a similar point.
But anyway, if I got a good blast from Ed Campbell, it has been a good day. 😉
I do understand where the vitriol comes from– you never heard me defend the Republicans on this issue– but I’m still not convinced that we need PBS. And that’s the only question I am interested in, not what the Democrats or Republicans happen to think about it. I only want to consider whether my taxes are well spent on this or not. I may be right, I may not. But I still think it’s a fair question, not an elitist one. I may come down on the side that we should support PBS with tax dollars– for people who do not have access to a wide variety of media for many reasons (geography, strained budgets, etc.), but first I have to convince myself that *any* television is vital. Since I watch less than an hour a day, and only find myself with more time to read as a result, it’s hard to convince myself of that.
I’m a bit suprised by the responce. Nice that once in a while people don’t simply fall into line to bash the Republicans.
kudos
Take a look at PBS’ ratings. They’re very low for a broadcast network. PBS was started not to provide poor people an alternative to cable, but rather to provide television in places where broadcast networks weren’t reaching yet. I’m prettty sure you can get the main television networks now. As for losing all this programming, keep in mind that many of these stations would probably survive the loss of government funding, and as I said before if PBS isn’t in the market, then the other networks would be in a better position to buy the quality shows. The government’s money has driven up the prices, just like with health care, and taking away that money puts several other channels in the running. Perhaps even the main networks will put up a few shows every now and then.
K B
Your post is perhaps the best written I have ever read in this blog. I am not sure you could ever have your question answered to your satisfaction, but you said it well. I tip my hat to you, sir.
First, I am a Republican and business owner who gets almost ill at what what has happened to this sane, well balanced political party (of 20-30yrs ago). 1) I was shocked to see that the Fed budget for both NPR and PBS is only $100m/yr . 2) I was amazed and shocked to have read my moveon.org email informing that the Feds wanted to slash this budget. 3) I was saddened but not shocked to NOT read about this in any “normal” media such as my local paper, or local/national news. Nope-they are too busy boring me with MJ news, with the latest of Hollywood gossip, etc. 4) I emailed by state’s Federal elected officials as to my opinion they should NOT cut 1 cent from PBS/NPR. * It is sad that my best 11pm news source of American news is watching BBC covering America and the world. The airwaves belong to Americans, the national networks simply have paid a fee to License them, and not own them forever. Sadly, the spineless FCC has allowed the major networks to carry ZERO quality TV for children, which my FCC Mandate, they are required to do. * When I was a teenager reading novels talking about the 21st century, year 2005 and the world we live in is NOT what I had hoped for or expected. It is more like the novel “1984”
Listen…PBS is expendable because it doesn’t further any cause of this Republican administration. It doesn’t support it’s corporate sponsors, it doesn’t support it’s propaganda and it doesn’t instill a strong moral religious belief system so it will be starved of financial funding so that the Trinity Broadcast System can absorb those freeloading heathens.
I don’t see how having internet access is a necessity for raising children. The cost is more than $10 a month as you also need to buy a computer. And perhaps a printer, which requires toner and of course that printer cable. Should they also shell out for wireless and broadband?
NPR’s ratings have half their viewers making more than 75 thousand, and three quearters over 50 thousand. This seems to me a subsidy by the 99 percent of people who don’t watch PBS for the other one percent who does.