PBS on the chopping block!

[Dee_Ann]

NJ Public Television Signs Off; Other PBS, NPR Stations Threatened by Cuts | USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy


This is NOT looking good. It would be a total tragedy and injustice to lose PBS.

We need to end the wars, not education !!

 

[brentb636]

While I agree with you, Dee Ann, a lot of people apparently think that we should always have a war of some sorts going on, it's good for business. Education , on the other, likely leads to increased dis-satisfaction for those people who are on the losing end of our economic class war. Hopefully, the pendulum will start swinging back again.

 

[walrus1957]

Anytime we loose an FTA station it is not good. Actually I enjoy some of the PBS programing. But what concerns me is were is all the money being spent to keep them on the air. Besides the Feds money coming in, they run public fund raisers several times during the year, they are also supplied grants from many different foundations, and also get money from the state. Recently I have also seen some comercials on some of the PBS stations.

So my concen is where is all this money going? There should be plenty to keep them afloat, even in these times when the Feds try to trim the budget.

 

[televisionarchives]

It's time for PBS to grow with the times. Either become a national channel with no local affiliates or go 100 percent commercial like the other networks. I think PBS has some great programming but it's time to adjust . And I've got tons of old PBS shows in my archives. The quality of programs have really gone down in the last 10 years.

 

[riffjim4069]

Please, no political double-talk and rhetoric. While we enjoy a great deal of PBS programming, we dislike an increasingly greater amount each and every year for reasons that don't need to be discussed here at SatGuys. Take it to SonicBabble - Where America Debates America! - The Babble Zone

 

[Dee_Ann]

It's time for PBS to grow with the times. Either become a national channel with no local affiliates or go 100 percent commercial like the other networks. I think PBS has some great programming but it's time to adjust .

Well the problem is, the local affiliates broadcast OTA for free to people that can't afford satellite or cable. There are a lot of people out there that are poor who benefit greatly from this free programming which is 100% educational material. Even the kid shows in the daytime are educational, vs the kid cr*p on cable which is degenerate garbage of no value at all.

When they lose an OTA station it's the low income people who are harmed and especially the kids. Not everyone can afford cable or satellite. Times are tough.
Just the other day I went grocery shopping and it cost me $201 !!!
A year ago I was complaining the I couldn't get out of the store for less than $80. Six months ago I was complaining I couldn't get out for less than $120.
A year and a half ago I could spend $80 on groceries and feed myself and my (former) room mate for a week. That $201 I spent the other day is for me alone.
It's insanity. Gas is insanely high, food, clothes, everything.. EVERYTHING is insanely expensive now. A LOT of people have to decide, "Food or cable TV?"..

Having PBS available from a single point would mean that there would be no OTA at all and the low income would be cut out completely. That's not good at all..
And once something like that happens, the next thing you know some greedster profiteering capitalist corporation buys it up and starts slashing and burning programming like it's the Rain Forest in South America. They'll clearcut and burn it to the ground and replace everything with cr*p like is on all the cable channels. I do not want to see Larry the Cable guy doing "history" on PBS. He's funny but he does not belong on PBS..

The countless BILLIONS of dollars we throw into the black hole called "war" needs to stop. I read that the military spent $2 BILLION DOLLARS on air conditioning alone in Afghanistan. Seriosuly, that's insane. The war in Afghanistan is costing TAXPAYERS 2 billion dollars a week and will cost us half a trillion dollars for 2011. HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS.....

The money they spend on ONE fighter jet would fund ALL of PBS needs for one year...

Just think what a half a trillion dollars spent HERE in America could do to help educate, feed, clothe and house the poor. And help people that can't afford health care. Many people die because they can't afford expensive insurance. Health care costs are insanely expensive because of greedy profiteers on Wall Street who don't care about anyone or anything except making the highest profit possible even at the expense of human life..

So yeah, PBS is such a terrible business model. Non profit is BAD. Non profit is soooo un-American..


And that ends my rant for the day..

 

[navychop]

The time for public funding of PBS has passed. They can go commercial, they have great demographics.

 

[eurosport]

I thoroughly enjoy PBS and NPR. It would really stink to lose them.

 

[brentb636]

Well, I think it would be a dis-service to the nation to lose them, but there are many people whose first priority is not " of the people" , as Abraham Lincoln so eloquently spoke. "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" .

 

[Lone Gunman]

While I enjoy some of the reruns that PBS shows I'm with others here in that I feel that they need to stand on their own with sponsorship of their own and not be receiving support from our tax dollars since we have too few to begin with. If there are enough viewers to justify sponsor dollars then they'd do just fine like any other network.

 

[radio]

I never understood as I became a broadcaster why the word "Public" was put in the title for stations best known for being PBS or NPR. EVERY broadcaster, commercial or non commercial is supposed to operate as it was worded before de-regulation, "in the PUBLIC interest as a PUBLIC trustee." Meaning: TV or Radio, you program your BEST for your audience, and let the audience decide what lives and dies in programming (and in stations or networks) by audience loyalty to the programmers and to their sponsors. (By the way, that wording was removed long ago....but good broadcasters in both audio and video medium still believe it.)

Having the government involved at ALL in the funding of broadcasting is, indeed an old, outdated and unfair system. Public radio is exempt from some fees commercial broadcasters' pay. Public TV has been allowed to run video during "underwriter" announcements that are so close to commercials, the FCC should be disbanded for allowing it under the heading of underwriting, and all of this goes on while our same FCC/Feds can buy millions of TV converter boxes for welfare recipients, while forcing unfunded mandates for new "Emergency Alert Systems" on all local broadcasters, including your radio, TV, and cable operators. Broadcasters can't even secure zero interest loans for these expensive boxes from our "government" though we are all charged with informing you and helping to keep you safe!

PBS, and similar audio broadcast networks should be playing on the ame field as commercial broadcasters! It wouldn't mean they had to change their programming! On the contrary! It could still be of the level of quality you expect and associate with them. If its so good, shouldn't it work with a changed (and similar) business model to the rest of the nation's broadcasters? It seems that many of those who worry about PBS and NPR going away don't give a second thought about the loss of local broadcasters' radio or TV stations in their communities when they change hands or "go dark" That's OK...but "God forgive us if PBS or NPR should be threatened."

 

[Dee_Ann]

PBS is ~QUALITY~ TV. That's because it's not a commercial venture like all the other cr*p on satellite and cable.

NO ONE can dispute the fact that PBS is GOOD, QUALITY stuff. Commercialize it and PBS will be dead, dead, dead...
The very first thing to go will be quality programs. Que up the reality shows. Bye bye educational material.

OTA? Nope! Thou shalt not provide free anything. Thou shalt make a profit above all other things.

Without OTA how will people who can't afford cable or satellite get it? They won't..

Turning PBS into just another For Profit corporation will surely destroy it beyond all recognition.

And by the way, I am a financial supporter of PBS. I make a small, yearly financial contribution to PBS. It's not much, just a drop in the bucket but if everyone pitched in $5 a year, that would be BIG.....

 

[radio]

It's already commercialized. What's that thing between programs where they're allowed to show a rolling car, a logo, and do everything but give the price? Or the "mention" of undewriting that now pushes 30 seconds in length, vs just their name and logo of years gone by?

And, what's wrong with making a profit on a good product? PBS and NPR have been banking bucks for years, or they wouldn't still be here.

You're confusing "not for profit" (non profit) and "non commercial" which is what the aforementioned organizations are currently classified as by your FCC.
There IS a difference.

Oh, and on that note about programming differences? Why were Colorado affiliates on 4DTV buying and airing old CBS COMMERCIAL sitcoms? Programming IS PROGRAMMING. And, they used it to RAISE MONEY for their affiliates through "athons" and the attractiveness of the show's stuffed mastcot, DVD's and other premiums! PBS NEEDED a commercial network's program. Bet that's not the only place
its ever happened.

 

[televisionarchives]

I started having a problem with PBS when they wanted to charge me $250 dollars for the same CD I could get on Amazon for $10 bucks.

Just kidding.

 

[brentb636]

These days, "commercialized" means "GREED" . There doesn't seem so be any conscience associated with those who simply desire to make a "profit". If we had the society of the '50's , where CEO didn't makes 100-200 times the money of the average worker, I'd be more likely to sympathize with the "commercial" argument, but right now, GREED rules the marketplace, and I'd like PBS not to have to compete on that same basis.

 

[radio]

I'd like PBS not to have to compete on that same basis.

Why should PBS not have to "compete" for dollars like the rest of broadcasting in the United States?

Your local stores compete. Your local stations compete. Your local schools compete. (They even advertise to get each others' students in Michigan under "Schools of choice") Competition fuels innovation, job creation, and is the backbone of our country's whole economic system. Like it or not, Broadcasters live and die with economics, too. We're all BUSINESSES. Would you feel the same way if the Feds suddenly backed a box store and ignored one downtown run locally in your community?

PBS is a business. MY government shouldn't be favoring one business over another within any given industry.

 

[Mr Tony]

I dont get why in some areas you need 5 different versions of PBS in the state. Minnesota is a great example
We have 5 different PBS affiliates in the state.....depending on where you live
KTCA-the "mothership" here in Minneapolis...they have 2 stations (KTCA & KTCI)
WDSE in Duluth
KAWE/KAWB in Bemidji/Brainderd-still in the Minneapolis market as noted by Nielsen but different shows. They do have a newscast at night
KSMQ-Austin/Albert Lea
Pioneer Public TV-Western MN
Prarie Public TV-NW Minnesota..this is the North Dakota PBS

All show different shows...why not make them "state run" like other states do where its one channel for the whole state? Save some money there

 

[eurosport]

Ours mostly run out of the universities. WFSU in Tallahassee from Florida State. WUFT in Gainesville from University of Florida, etc.

 

[brentb636]

And , according to your logic, IF a private company were to decide to offer ARMY services, the US government, in it role of "government of the people , by the people and for the people" , would be forced to quit subsidizing it's Army so that the private company could be competitive.
Our nation's founding documents have NOTHING to do with fairness to businesses, favoring competition, etc. It's a distortion to suggest that raw capitalism is the principle on which this nation is founded , or upon which this nation should continue to survive. I'm not a person who believes that corporations have equal rights . Nothing will change that opinion. Sorry to disagree !

 

[brentb636]

The founding documents of PBS prefer the preservation of local content, which is basically a non-economical thing to do. However, in some cases, it has resulted in superior programming. Other cases, not so superior. Perhaps, much the same logic that is used by localalites to required public access programming of their cable providers.

I dont get why in some areas you need 5 different versions of PBS in the state. Minnesota is a great example
We have 5 different PBS affiliates in the state.....depending on where you live
KTCA-the "mothership" here in Minneapolis...they have 2 stations (KTCA & KTCI)
WDSE in Duluth
KAWE/KAWB in Bemidji/Brainderd-still in the Minneapolis market as noted by Nielsen but different shows. They do have a newscast at night
KSMQ-Austin/Albert Lea
Pioneer Public TV-Western MN
Prarie Public TV-NW Minnesota..this is the North Dakota PBS

All show different shows...why not make them "state run" like other states do where its one channel for the whole state? Save some money there