PBS support

[AcWxRadar]

I have heard a rumor and I HOPE that it is not true, but the rumor is that Obama has requested that federal support for the PBS network be reduced (or possibly elliminated)

If this rumor has any legitimacy, I want to fight it before it ever goes into effect. I don't think that we want to bring politics into our forum and argue over such things, but the monetary support for PBS is extremely important. If funding is reduced, we may see PBS channels reduce their activity.

I do not want to see anything of the sort happen. I am sure that you agree with this.

Now, the next step is to resolve the notion of this rumor. If there is anything to it, if any piece of it is true, then we must stand together to stop it. If it is just a rumor started to take a jab at the President's administration and it is not true, then we need to qualify and correct it.

Please don't get excited about this just yet. I only know it as a rumor and rumors are not to be taken seriously.

I am in dangerous territory here, I understand that, but I must resolve this issue

If you have any information that confirms or cancels this, I would appreciate your input here. This is a very serious item for all of us.

I will apologize to everyone if this is just a false rumor, I don't wish to alarm you for no reason. But, if there is anything to it, I want to recruit everyone that I can in support to block it.

RADAR
(Gordy)

 

[Santa Clause]

Cutting PBS funding has been suggested.

Highlights of the deficit commission's proposal - Yahoo! News

 

[hd fan]

I do not think this is new I mean I beleive it has happened before and yet somehow PBS has managed to continue to produce and provide high quality programming throughout its lifetime.

This was back in 2006, wehter it happened or not I do not know, GOP takes aim at PBS funding - The Boston Globe

A year before funding was cut yet they managed to keep going, PBS funding slashed - TV.com

I guess I am optimistic that they will manage to continue but make no mistakes about it most of the funding will keep coming from the public pledges so keep them coming folks. (look who is talking , he who has never pledged not a penny!, lol)

 

[greg47]

With the change in controlling party in congress, I expect to see a lot of cuts in all areas of the goverment. I expect PBS to get their funding cut just like all other areas of goverment. PBS will have to tighten their belts and look for more funding from the business sector and the general public.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Some if not all of their funding SHOULD be eliminated.

I use to do a lot of work for the local PBS and every year they would upgrade their equipment because they HAD TO spend the money. So what did they do with their old equipment (stuff that was working great?) Did they give it to a local public access station or maybe a college? No they took it out to the parking lot and DESTROYED it with sledge hammers.

To make matters worse the head of our local PBS who is always begging for money takes home over a million a year. There is something wrong with that.

And from the time I worked with them that was the culture of PBS that I saw. A lot of waste. A Lot...

 

[mikelib]

Well the State of New Jersey has cut funding to the states NJN-PBS station. One of my friends works for NJN as a technician and he was told that Dec. 31, 2010 is his last day on the job. How’s that for a lousy Christmas present.
You can read about it here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-Jersey-Network-workers-apf-1909254197.html?x=0&.v=3
mikelib

 

[Mr Tony]

What's always interesting here in Minneapolis during the pledge drive they hype up supporting Red Green Show. Now dont get me wrong I love Red Green but here is my take on this. They plead for people to support PBS because of Red Green and say that its a "special" program that not all PBS stations carry (which is true) and it costs extra to get the tapes....but Red stopped production in 2006 and they are just replaying old shows. So if we dont support "Red Green" then they wont carry the show anymore....again its all reruns
seems kinda sneaky if you ask me.

Another sneaky one is this. Minnesota has 5 PBS networks...all independent of each other. The one in Northern Minnesota (KAWE/KAWB) this year is carrying Bemidji State hockey games (home games) so its on that station (available in the Minneapolis DMA on D* & E*)...they also cut a deal to show it on "The Minnesota Channel" (they show programs from various PBS stations in MN, ND, SD and Wisconsin) which is one feed available to all PBS in MN and ND (ND has a state run PBS).....so folks with OTA can see it too. Now KTCA (Minneapolis PBS) is making it sounds like they are spending all this money to show you hockey when all they are doing is taking the KAWE feed and rebroadcasting it.

again...sounds sneaky

 

[TNGTony]

Reruns COST MONEY TO AIR. Just because you have the tapes doesn't mean you can air them whenever you want. Copyright owners want to be paid each and every time the program is aired.

For every spending horror story I can tell you 30 lack of funding meaning lost programming or oportunities that people litterally CRY about over the phone when they call to complain that something is no longer available. When a local PBS could no longer afford to pay to rerun Red Dwarf there were a slew of phone calls complaining. No one wanted to pony up a nickel, but thwy were mad that "the stations" pulled the program. The program director was beside himself! The funding was not there.

I can also probably explain most of the perceived misappropriations. In general, the "smashed" equipment did not work perfectly. New equipment is needed every single year because the average life expectancy of electronics like cameras, monitors, audio mixers, switchers, etc is LESS than 8 years. And in this business you cannot wait for something to fail completely before you replace it either. You may keep the old stuff for parts, but you have to replace stuff on a regular schedule. Then there is the recent change-over to digital and HD (two different things). I work at a non-profit and I can tell you at the end of the year we switch from "what do we have to have to maintain?", to the "wish list" to improve quality of programming and technical quality. In the last two years the "wish list" is gone. i was able to squeeze enough money for a MIC STAND! It costs $50. That's all we had! I need two to cover band concerts properly. I got one.

Now lets looks at the money: PBS (local stations and nationally total) receives less than $100,000,000 from the feds a year. Boy that is a lot of money isn't it? That is a grand total of 33¢ per person per year. In many cases it makes the difference between a particular station being able to exist or not! Again locally the three PBS affiliates that serve Dayton and Cincinnati recently merged management. On the radio side of things one local public radio station ceased operations. It is now a repeater for another public radio station locally. And that may not last as the expense of the programming is proportional to the POTENTIAL audience.

I know that the NEA is the proverbial whipping boy when the folks in political power want to LOOK like they are doing something about spending. Cutting the $162,000,000 the NEA gets for ALL arts projects including YOUR symphony orchestra, art museums, PBS, NPR and countless other organizations you take advantage of every day to make it LOOK like you are trying to do something about runaway spending is just plain ignorant! But it makes great press. There are just so many things that do not survive a straight capitalist test that add to the quality of life. The 0.03% of the national budget helps keep around for all of us to enjoy at some level.

Lets put it this way: A houshold making $50,000 a year and spending $75,000 a year needs to cut 25,000 in expenses right now. Is the first thing they looks at to cut the $15 a year expense?

 

[Santa Clause]

I want my 33¢ back.

 

[TNGTony]

Yeah...logic is not Santa's strong suit

 

[Tron]

I use to do a lot of work for the local PBS and every year they would upgrade their equipment because they HAD TO spend the money. So what did they do with their old equipment (stuff that was working great?) Did they give it to a local public access station or maybe a college? No they took it out to the parking lot and DESTROYED it with sledge hammers.

Ouch! As an broadcast equipment collector, just the mental image of that depresses me. Funding may vary from state to state and even affiliate to affiliate, and it probably does. I have toured the control rooms of both PBS affiliates here in New Orleans. One of them (I will not name which one) actually uses Tivos on the air, and still uses older technology such as D3 and MII tape machines. In fact, I own newer broadcast decks than the ones they use on the air, thanks to E-Bay ... So it probably does vary from station to station.

 

[Skyscanner]

I will try to keep this as apolitical as I can. People, even those who can barely afford food, will get what they want, be it liquor, cigarettes, PBS; whatever. If people really want PBS [and I believe they do], they will find a way to fund it, whether those funds come from foundations or from individual donors, it will be funded if there is a real demand.
PBS stations are not totally supported by government money anyway, most get funding from trusts, grants, foundations, and some even run local commercials for which they are paid.
Many local non-commercial [Christian] radio and TV stations exist, not because of government money, but because there is a demand for it, if there were no demand, it simply would not exist.
If the government only gives the "pittance" some have suggested it gives, then the "paltry" sum of $100,000,000 [yes, that's 100 MILLION dollars, apparently a small amount to some, but an astounding amount to me] doesn't really mean that much in the big picture for PBS, and the government can then [in theory] use the savings for reduction of the national debt. We are rapidly reaching the point where the deep well of taxpayer pockets is running dry.
If the patrons of PBS fear it will be cut off, they will have to ante up if there is a real, widespread demand for it; we'll see. It's time for [all] those on the government dole [PBS included] to tighten their belts like everyone else, and we will quickly see how much of a real demand there is for "the arts". I suspect those who are generous with other people's money will whine, complain, threaten to reduce programs, but in the end will find a way to fund it without government money. One thing I have found true in life is: If you can cut back and still survive, then you really didn't need what you thought you had to have before. It was just nice to have.
ss ><>

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

PBS would do well as a commercial operation... hell how many commericals do they air before each show anyways now?

Iceberg, here in CT they do that as well last one I saw they were saying that if they didnt get enough money they weould stop airing Mr. Rogers as its still an expensive show for them to carry... I just dont see how its expensive... I dont see why they cant take every episode and put it on a hard drive and make a hard drive for each station. It would be a one time cost and the show can live on forever at minimual cost.

Tony I was a BIG supporter of our local PBS and did a lot of work for them up until I saw what was going on with my own eyes. I am sure not all PBS's are like ours. Some of the equipment they were smashing were not even ywo years old. Just a shame to see the waste. Our PBS was raking in the money as our local PBS is credited as being the creator of Barney. Everytime a Barney toy of DVD is purchased money goes to our local PBS. I have friends who work at ESPN who would KILL to have the state of the art over the top setup our local PBS has. And again the part that drop me nuts was the "president" of our local PBS was / is pocketing over a million a year in sallery and bonuses. There is something wrong with that. No reason a boss at a PBS makes more then the president of the United States.

I am just going on whats happening here in Connecticut so I am sure its not the same all over.

I think PBS would thrive more if they lost their funding

 

[TNGTony]

Scott, a can guarantee you that this is not the norm. As to smashing equipment rather than giving it away has to do with LAWS THAT PROHIBIT GIVING EQUIPMENT AWAY WHEN ACQUIRED WITH CERTAIN MONEYS like some grants...not just public grants. A station locally is still using U-matic 3/4 inch tapes for air!

As so "if there is no demand it should be allowed to go away" argument, it is the most short-sighted one of all. It also ignores history and the entire evolution of public TV in the first place. PBS would not even have come into existence had this attitude prevailed when the Eisenhower Administration made this educational network(for children and adults with cultural, historical, public affairs and news programming).

There are certain things that add to society that left to its own in a pure capitalist society would fail. Look at your own symphonies, zoos art museums and other items that are directly supported by taxes. The pittance of cash given by us through the feds (again less than 33 cents per american per year) that is scattered to hundreds of organizations can mean the difference between a quality organization or the beginning of a downward spiral for the organization.

But again here is where logic fails most people. They see one example of waste which may or may not be connected to the funding in question and now all NEA recipients are wasteful and never needed the money. A station find a few underwriters to cover the cost of airing one program and the leap is made that all programs are funded just fine by underwriters which is also very false.

People hear 162 million dollars and think it's a huge number. But fail to see the benefit they have been reaping by it for decades because to them, it was always there, and it will always be there. PBS is not even 50 years old. Most PBS stations are less than 40 years old. Keep that in mind. There was a time before Public broadcasting. And Public broadcasting has been the driving force behind most educational, science and historical programming. It is really the only source for cultural programming.

 

[Conky]

how much do they make on those Change your brain, Dwayne Dwyer, Suzy Orman, Learn the piano infomercials?

 

[Santa Clause]

Yeah...logic is not Santa's strong suit

Yeah...You told me.

 

[Skyscanner]

People hear 162 million dollars and think it's a huge number. But fail to see the benefit they have been reaping by it for decades because to them, it was always there, and it will always be there. PBS is not even 50 years old. Most PBS stations are less than 40 years old. Keep that in mind. There was a time before Public broadcasting. And Public broadcasting has been the driving force behind most educational, science and historical programming. It is really the only source for cultural programming.

Amazing how 162 MILLION dollars is not "a huge number" when it's someone else's money. For 162 MILLION dollars, if people want culture, let them go to the theater or the opera or to a foreign film festival and pay for it themselves. In case anyone has missed it, America and indeed the rest of the world is in a huge financial crisis. I'm not anti-culture or anti-PBS, I'm anti-irresponsible spending. Our government should learn what every housewife on a budget knows: If you spend more than you have, you will get into financial difficulty, and you can't "spend your way out of trouble" or somehow "stimulate" yourself into a better financial position with the continued irresponsible use of credit without unpleasant consequences. Somehow we've gotten the mindset "I can't be overdrawn, I still have checks left". Pull PBS or any other nonessential government-supported porker kicking and squeeling away from the breast of the American taxpayer, and it will find another way to survive. Tax dollars would be better spent elsewhere.

ss ><>

 

[Santa Clause]

I think PBS has produced some great programs like all the Ken Burns stuff and Nova and I have read that PBS and NPR have stated that they could survive without government money and I think they could and should get off the taxpayers dollar. For anyone interested CPB: Operating Budget

 

[hd fan]

Well, and we have not taken into account the enormous and valuable benefits the american society has rippen the benefits in return since PBS creation. An amount that no one can put a tag price on as it is unmeasurable. Althought I agree this times there is no money to keep funding at the same level I am optimistic the public and private sector will come to the rescue. Matters are even more complicated due to the fact that the American society is and has always been a capital driven one (therefore its right name of capitalist) where it is normal to be greedy, oportunistic and selfish therefore one becomes blind and fail to see the benefits of having PBS.

I just wonder what America would have been if PBS would have not been created. 500+ channels of crap running 24x7 all year long in just 8 years in Canada have already damaged my brain and knowledge to the point that I wonder how come it is possible for a human being subjected to such bombarding (commercial ads added to it to make it even worst) throughout his/her life to acctually still keep the ability to somehow still use its brain. If it wasnt for PBS most americans would be eating grass at the nearby park and like sheeps would be heading in the same direction to the slaughter house. Illiteracy and mediocricy runs deep in the american society (dont want to go into the human values side of things) occupied more in creating or developing capital rather than developing human capital. PBS and the likes projects seems to do a good job at trying to keep the balance leveled therefore no matter how strong the forces of evil are , in my opinion, they (PBS) will find a way to keep running. The only argument is, whether I am naive or simply too optimistic?, lol.

One thing is for sure, the same mechanisms that has made the american society thrive (undoubtly history shows that) for the last 200 years , inevitably will rotten it deeply from within and eventually force them to finally sucumb. Every empire that has existed has suffered the same consecuences. It has always been a matter of who is going to be the next one and for how long. And now, off to enjoy PBS while it lasts, lol.

BTW 162 millions is nothing compared to the military budget but heck we are America , we are the world police , we have to bully everyone so we need the military budget no doubt about it eh?

 

[Skyscanner]

Here's just 1 of many possible scenarios if the gov't were to pull PBS funding:

E* and D* both air PBS programming. These sat providers [and others] and cable providers pay for some of their programming; why not pay for PBS? If they pay PBS now, why don't we hear about it and what are they doing with the money? If it's a matter of PBS not charging providers because they are "public" and therefore "free" and can't charge, then when the gov't pulls PBS funding, PBS will then be free to charge for airing their programming. Ah, you say; "But that would increase my bill". Friend, at least you would have the choice of whether you wanted to fund PBS or not. As it stands now, everyone who pays taxes is funding PBS with no choice in the matter. There are many smart people here who can think of other ways to fund PBS, and if you can, some of you should run for public office because our "national braintrust" also seems to be bankrupt. I know how strongly some of you feel about this issue, some of you bought new receivers when PBS Montana went S2, but I assure you, the sky is not falling; do not be afraid that PBS will disappear; barring mismanagement, embezzlement, incompetence, or lack of demand, it will find another way without the government. Government "help" in the form of $ and programs is not the hope of mankind.

Here's a question for you:

If 1 person out of 100 loves polka, hip hop, or rap music, should the other 99 be forced to pay for his entertainment? Or would it be better for that person to pay for his own entertainment? After all, these forms of music are a form of "culture" and "the arts", right? The principle is the same.

ss ><>