|
|
Post by SamSpade on Jun 19, 2005 1:41:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 19, 2005 2:58:40 GMT -5
And now, my opinion.
First I think there needs to be a line drawn between the CPB funding for public radio and public television. I see there being a big difference in the needs there. Public TV is becoming more and more irrelevant all the time. There are equivalents to a large portion of PBS programming already. The biggest hole in that is children's programming, though I think that's improving too.
Radio is a different story. There isn't a whole lot of alternative there. The problem would be that most people would get fired up over PBS going under, but not as many would over NPR. There isn't really a marquee show on NPR that almost everyone knows. On PBS you could name a dozen. That's a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amanuensis on Jun 19, 2005 21:10:33 GMT -5
I think almost everyone who listens to NPR could identify "All Things Considered" as being the marquee program that NPR broadcasts. I am sure PBS viewers could name shows broadcast there, but they might not have consensus as to what a "marquee" program on that network was. "Nature" and "Nova" are certainly marquee programs, and "Sesame Street" is a gold-standard children's program, but if a viewer watches only "Antiques Roadshow" then to them that program is PBS' marquee program.
|
|
|
|
Post by dolt on Jun 19, 2005 23:39:35 GMT -5
Thanks for doing your part to bring public attention to this Sam. Reduce funding now, end funding in a few years. Auction off the frequencies after a few more?
The unmitigated greed and grasping for control and power has become nauseating.
My great grandmother watched KUED to learn French in her Sixties. My children had a friend I was comfortable with in their youth. I enjoy the documentaries and BBC productions on TV. The alternative points of view expressed on public radio are vital to this experiment in self- governance.
Great job PBS, shame on you government officials charged with protecting the public interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 20, 2005 2:28:45 GMT -5
I think almost everyone who listens to NPR could identify "All Things Considered" as being the marquee program that NPR broadcasts. True, but I'm not talking about NPR listeners. I'm talking about the public. Almost everyone in America has at least heard of "Sesame Street" or "Nova", but far fewer have heard of "All Things Considered" (IMO). |
|
|
|
Post by SamSpade on Jun 20, 2005 21:03:57 GMT -5
Thank you for your thoughts! I think more people listen to NPR than you'd think... I know it's very popular with my family (who don't live here)... Anyway, KBYU-TV is now running a few spots emphasizing this threat to their mission- more information at their Web site: kbyutv.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 20, 2005 23:30:36 GMT -5
Thank you for your thoughts! I think more people listen to NPR than you'd think... I know it's very popular with my family (who don't live here)... I didn't mean to imply that NPR isn't popular. It certainly is. It's just a scale thing. If you've got a Q score (familiarity with a subject) of 90% for something like "Sesame Street" vs. 50% for "All Things Considered", there's a big difference. 50% is still a pretty good number, but not as good as the 90%. Is it time we ended this yet?  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 28, 2005 14:19:17 GMT -5
I feel public stations should not recieve funding from the government, if they can't survive by their own fund raising then like commercial stations they should not exist, I think the local market should decide what stations live or die not the government
PS I support public TV, I just don't like government funding
|
|
|
|
Post by dolt on Jun 28, 2005 23:47:06 GMT -5
Sure, let the private sector fill that need. Same for the public school system, colleges, libraries, and scientific research. While I am at it waste disposal and sewage functions. If the people want to live like pigs, I say let them. Sure some can't afford these luxuries. Serves them right for not choosing their parents wisely. Besides, it is a drain on governmental budgets. There are plenty of well deserving corporations going wanting. Some fat government contracts would fix it.  Don't pluck Big Bird!  |
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 29, 2005 5:58:59 GMT -5
Some things work well as a monopoly. Some don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by dolt on Jun 29, 2005 10:20:20 GMT -5
Some things work well as a monopoly. Some don't. Monopoly  |
|
|
|
Post by x on Jun 29, 2005 23:42:54 GMT -5
Some of the things you mentioned are monopolies that make sense and work better as such (schools, libraries, garbage collection.) Other things don't work as well (eg the airlines before deregulation, though that's more accurately an oligopoly.)
In a lot of places, public television is one station or one network of stations. In SLC, we're lucky to have 2 1/2 stations (the half being KUEN, which is a hybrid of sorts.) Regardless, the overlap of programming is obvious. There's one main source of this programming. The PBS service. It's not a completely monopoly, but it's pretty darn close. Fortunately, there are alternatives. Now I don't believe you were suggesting that the alternatives like the Discovery networks, A&E/History Channel educational programming, even some premium programming like HBO, etc. should go away, you did seem to look at them as inferior. I would say that most of the programming produced for profit making networks is as good and ocassionally better than what comes out of PBS. The difference is how they make the money that produces it. I'd rather have the option of deciding whether or not I support a particular station or a particular program by pledging rather than having my money taken by the government and used without consulting me. If the programming that so-and-so station is running doesn't interest people, the don't get the pledge money and vice versa. Everyone has ratings. They just look different.
I don't hate PBS. I just would prefer that they be off public welfare and directly responsible to their constituancy. If they don't light a passion in me to call and pledge, they need to find something else that will.
|
|
|
|
Post by dolt on Jun 30, 2005 5:58:55 GMT -5
CA, this is not a personal attack. I have enjoyed reading your informative postings and appreciate the time you spend wading through the fcc quagmire database.
Please forgive my amusement over watching the right wing flap around the same dizzy circles.
(schools have private counterparts at all levels)
(libraries were private until some wealthy individuals realized having access to books elevates the citizenry and all benefit)
(garbage collection has a plethora of companies competing)
Surely you do not suggest PBS has a monopoly on broadcasting. Or dissemination of information. Your own cable examples(monopolies in some communities) show you know this not to be so.
Welfare, check out the IRS code for exemptions and deferments to income granted businesses, if you want to attack government subsidies? Corporate welfare dwarfs all other catagories.
This is more about having a monopoly on 'the truth.' The systematic represion of alternate viewpoints for those in power not wishing to conduct public business in the light of day. This is a 'pretty great state' to see the end result (ie debate happening in private caucasses and not on the floor).
Do not give DW a black eye legislative thugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by x on Jul 1, 2005 0:25:22 GMT -5
Don't worry. I didn't take that as a personal attack. Just opinions from someone who obviously feels very strongly about the subject.
No, I don't mean to suggest that PBS is a monopoly on anything other than its small particular niche. The bulk of educational/serious programming on broadcast TV is provided by PBS. Whether that is a good thing or not is left as an exercise for the reader. Me, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Jul 1, 2005 10:09:33 GMT -5
After my stint in radio, I got into the financial arena. (Stock Broker). And this discussion reminds me of the role of the specialist, or market maker on the New York stock exchange. Their function is to provide an orderly market which sometimes means buying when there are no buyers, and selling when their are no sellers. I think of PBS as the communications "market maker" their role is to provide programming in areas where no one else will. Doing this requires funding outside of the traditional 'advertizer' role, so for that reason I believe that they should be funded, and be provided with public funds to continue this mission. BUT, just as being a market maker on Wall Street is easialy abused, so is the position of broadcast content maker.
The big problem here in my mind is that in the financial arena, there are several watch-dog organizations whose sole responsibility is to monitor the activity of the market makers and prevent abuse. In the public broadcasting arena, I don't see the watch-dog organizations and agencies. Either they don't exist, or they don't do their job of insuring that PBS is indeed working in the public interest.
Of course, it's much easier to monitor financial transactions, because they involve money and it is easy to determine right and wrong. Broadcasting is a science of opinion and ethics, which is not easy to measure and quantify.
Bottom line... PBS needs substantial funding it's in the public interest and good. Therefore I am opposed to budget cuts. However, I also believe there needs to be an oversight organization to insure that the PBS meets the needs of the public, and spends the public money in the proper fashion.
|
|
