Rep. Lamborn Introduces Bill To Eliminate PBS Federal Funding

Toggle sidebar
Status
Please reply by conversation.
 
You are correct. That does not mean the taxwaste of PBS should not end. In the era of 3 networks, PBS was perhaps justified. Technology has rendered it obsolete.

The taxwaste used to, may still, I don't watch it, a slogan it used during its beg-o-thons "If PBS didn't do it, who would?" Umm, a combination of BBC-America, MSNBC, Nickelodeon, and the History Channel. Better, and without subsidy, freeing up tax money to spend on things like needy children, public safety, and education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clarbear
Yeah, this doesn't really have much to do with OTA TV and is much more political than I'd like. My inclination is to move it right now, but I'm going to be patient.

- Trip
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clarbear
PBS isnt OTA?...seems to be a reasonable conversation as long as programming is being discussed but I agree it could go south
Trip said:
Yeah, this doesn't really have much to do with OTA TV and is much more political than I'd like. My inclination is to move it right now, but I'm going to be patient.

- Trip
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 
  • Like
Reactions: comfortably_numb
PBS used to do a very good job of staying "in the middle" in it's news programs. In fact, I felt they did the best job among any of the networks in being apolitical during the News Hour. I'm not so sure of that any more. Not advocating for either side, just saying I don't feel as if they're neutral anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Juan said:
Controversial a better word
Click to expand...
The fact that night comes at the end of the day is controversial for some.

Many of these same people want the money to be spent on them rather than something the whole nation can choose to be enriched by.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of a group of female prisoners putting on a stage production of Hamlet but I believe that it had an audience and that audience deserves some love.

The OTA argument doesn't hold much water with me as a relatively small percentage of the population takes advantage of it. As time has gone by, the programming on the commercial networks has diminished steadily in quality and the void that PBS seeks to fill surely hasn't been addressed in a meaningful way. There have always been outliers like CBS Sunday Morning but there's rarely more than a handful of culturally interesting programs between the Big Four in a year.

We arguably need an outlet that isn't limited to programming doesn't offend any of the overly vocal special interest groups. They can protest all they want but they must not misrepresent how many viewers they represent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zookster
Pulling federal funding for PBS will mainly adversely affect affiliates in more rural areas that don't have easy access to a large private and corporate donor base (big cities will get along just fine for the most part). If pulling federal funding doesn't force some affiliates in less populated areas to shut down completely, it will greatly impair their ability to produce their own content. National PBS programming is diverse and eclectic, appealing to a broad range of audiences. Yet sadly, much like the NEA, PBS continues to be a political pawn, and attacks on it are merely symbolic, with federal funding for it being rather miniscule within the scope of the entire federal budget. It's better to find much more costly, wasteful and ethically questionable funding in the budget to cut than waste our time with this again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jegrant, harshness and comfortably_numb
comfortably_numb said:
https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/rep-lamborn-introduces-bill-to-eliminate-cpbs-federal-funding?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5133&utm_content=TVT_eNews_6/26/19+&utm_term=&m_i=ql0q1TJ17_z5U1rqkPUxWoInr79rfqw5JRmUbcxUJtbfMqrdL4qRVeDGArT6QkZIfSDrLWhOUcmuqvHoOCO6hp6uIphOfr0qqK&M_BT=553581886132

Says PBS, which is funded by CPB, is airing material “objectionable to many Americans.”
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything objectionable on PBS, but I still don't think ANY STATION should be publicly funded. There are products they sell and donations they receive that would make PBS survive. But even better is if they commercialize PBS, which would definitely help that station. The only thing if they commercialize it, it won't be the "PUBLIC" Broadcasting service anymore, so they'd have to change its name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clarbear and SamCdbs
comfortably_numb said:
PBS used to do a very good job of staying "in the middle" in it's news programs. In fact, I felt they did the best job among any of the networks in being apolitical during the News Hour. I'm not so sure of that any more. Not advocating for either side, just saying I don't feel as if they're neutral anymore.
Click to expand...
The "middle"? Are you f***ing kidding me? PBS is as far-left as it goes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamCdbs
Zookster is correct- most Federal funding for PBS goes to rural affiliates. Lack of funding would hurt rural OTA affiliates the most. Only 1% of Federal funding would affect large DMA's.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top