I wish to discuss PBS

[gabosaurus]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/back-to-bias-basics-at-pbs.html

A few years ago, the left pulled several muscles exerting itself with the strange theory that the Public Broadcasting Service was lurching dangerously to the right. When Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had the audacity not only to speak internal profanities ("fairness" and "balance"), but to try to build on them, it became clear to them that he was out of control and needed to be stopped.
Tomlinson made several small but significant steps toward balance on our taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, nudging the creation of two right-leaning talk programs — "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" and "The Journal Editorial Report" — and both suffered from the TV equivalent of crib death.
Liberals really erupted when they learned Tomlinson secretly hired someone to assess the political balance of some PBS and NPR programs. This initiative was doomed, not only because the internal bureaucracy would never tolerate it, but because proving liberal bias at PBS is beyond easy. It's like proving Rosie O'Donnell has a liberal bias — is it really necessary to conduct a study?
The left maintains an iron grip on PBS with all the maturity and sophistication that a 4-year-old hangs on to a Happy Meal toy. The motto of its public and private campaign against Tomlinson's alleged transgressions should have been: "Mine! Mine! All Mine!"
Tomlinson is long gone, and Democrats now control Congress. But another step was necessary for the re-emergence of classic PBS propaganda: the return of Bill Moyers. He was back to full-time fulminating duties on April 25, with a special titled "Buying the War." The entire thesis of this 90-minute taxpayer-funded lecture? The national media were willing cogs in the neoconservative machine that took America to war.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You never saw liberal bias.. :laugh::laugh::laugh: -Tyr

[Kathianne]

When my kids were small, actually until I got divorced I also subscribed to PBS. Still would. Yes, they have a liberal bias in many ways, but they also have many, many programs that I personally like.

They do not need federal funding though, anymore than do museums, artists, etc.

[SassyLady]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

Gabby, how many other broadcast companies get federal funding?

[gabosaurus]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

[red states rule]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

Gabby PBS is just another MSNBC and why should the over taxed US taxpayer pay for it? With all the outlets for news and information, you libs would still have 99% of the media in your hip pocket to push your agenda on the folks if PBS went away

If there is such a demand for PBS then the rich lefties can step up and pay the bill

Hell, you might even be able to get a show on PBS and be able to spread your BS live on the air and not have anyone to call you on it and ask you questions

[KarlMarx]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

When I was a kid, there were 3 networks... if you had cable, you could get stations from New York for a grand total of about 10 channels. At that time, I think, PBS had its place. PBS came to my town in 1968..

Now we have hundreds of cable channels. There is a cable station for whatever you like... golf, cooking, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Soap Operas, Weather... and now there's streaming media with on demand viewing...

PBS has some good shows, e.g. Nova, which would do well if they were offered on the Learning Channel or other private channel. Sesame Street would be snatched up by private cable networks in a minute if PBS were to be shut down.

The argument that defunding PBS would cause us to lose educational shows like Sesame Street don't hold water in this day and age. It's 2012, not 1968.

[tailfins]

http://www.redgreen.com

(http://www.redgreen.com/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MMNwf7eXAc

I think Red Green should be put in charge of their news; it would be a huge improvement.

[taft2012]

I have watched PBS all my life

The result of which speaks for itself.

[fj1200]

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

Was a kid, have kids. PBS should be privatized.


Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

You don't think PBS sells commercial spots? They do, McDonald's even. :eek:

Any time you need to caveat your argument with "non-news shows" you've already lost.

Yes, PBS funding is minuscule, and so are earmarks in the grand scheme of things, but it reinforces the idea that government is the source for everything even when it should have no place and that elected officials can grant money thereby reinforcing their hold on office. The article below is pretty good but the last point is the only one needed.


And the number one reason to privatize public broadcasting is:
1. The separation of news and state. We wouldn't want the federal government to publish a national newspaper. Why should we have a government television network and a government radio network? If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it's the news and public affairs programming that Americans watch. When government brings us the news—with all the inevitable bias and spin—the government is putting its thumb on the scales of democracy. It's time for that to stop.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/top-ten-reasons-privatize-public-broadcasting

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The result of which speaks for itself.

EXACTLY, my guess is that PBS taught her how to announce to everybody how smart she is !-:laugh2:

Only thing good about PBS is the NOVA program..-Tyr

[aboutime]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.


gabby. You really are a complete idiot. I love your line above "Or you were never a child yourself."
What kind of brainless Obama-like statement is that?
Unless. Everyone is like you, and you were spit out at the AGE you are now....having never been a child...Liberally Speaking, Of course.

[cadet]

Gabby, how many other broadcast companies get federal funding?

lets make the same argument for the post office's crappy job. :laugh:
and then we can discuss the DMV's terrible service.

PBS doesn't even try, no one watches them anymore. Kids have Disney and all that now. Besides, you shouldn't be raising your kids on TV. (which, kinda goes without saying)

Start them kids off early being dependent on the gov't to teach them! Why think for yourself when you can just learn all your lessons on tv instead of by yourself!?

[fj1200]

PBS doesn't even try, no one watches them anymore. Kids have Disney and all that now.

I don't like public funding of PBS but to say that they don't try is false. They have to convince millions to voluntarily cut them a check, there's nothing easy about that. And there are plenty who watch it. We don't have cable and I would rather have my kids watch PBS than almost anything on any other channel, and I include Disney in that.

The privatization argument is that public funding discourages efficiencies, having redundant stations, and that their highly profitable shows, i.e. Sesame Street, do not need that funding.

[Abbey Marie]

I suppose an Obama supporter has to try to find something in the debate to criticize Romney for.
If this is all there is, it's a knockout for the Romster.

[Robert A Whit]

One huge mistake I believe Romney made was his intention to cut funding for PBS. He must be out of his mind.
First of all, PBS should NEVER be a political issue. It is not a Republican or Democratic station. It's a station, first and foremost, to educate kids. I have watched PBS all my life and never noticed a liberal or conservative slant.

Does anyone realize what PBS is and how it operates? It's not just one channel. It's multiple channels, along with a website and outreach programs.
If you didn't grow up watching Sesame Street and other related programming, you are seriously warped. Or a Mormon. :cool:
A few months earlier, I sat down with my daughter and watched the NY Met Opera do the Ring Cycle. All 11 hours or so of it. It was fascinating. People in NYC paid thousands of dollars to see it in person. But everyone in America could watch it for nothing, at home.
Same thing with various world orchestras and ballets. It made my daughter more serious about her music.

PBS is the most important channel on TV. More important that Fox, MSNBC or any commercial channel. Because it doesn't take commercial funding, it needs public and government support to offset the multi-million dollar costs of programming.
There were very few things in the U.S. budget that are more important, because it educates our children.

If you don't agree, you don't have children. Or you were never a child yourself.

Just like a responsible person, when you can't afford something, stop getting it. PBS will survive nicely. As it is, little of it's funding comes from government. Most comes from foundations and individual donors.

If it is THAT valuable to the public, we will keep donating.

PBS will not vanish. The marvel of the free market is if it is that needed, and I think it is, it will manage due to public support.

[DragonStryk72]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

Really? Avatar: The Last Airbender was beholden to advertisers? The show was both educational and entertaining as hell without dumbing down the story "for kids". You really picked the wrong subject to test me on.

Beyond which, PBS is not "vital", as you put it. It's great, but it's not "vital". The Earth will not crash into the sun, nothing.

You know, you keep pointing out all of these "miniscule" expenses, but here's the thing: All of the miniscule stuff, added together, is a huge part of the problem. It's like my buddy Drew eating out all the time, sure it's only $8-$10 a hit, but it adds up.

The other point is this: PBS could get better funding, and likely more of it, if it would leave the federal funding. Dear god, could you imagine the money involved if PBS did a kickstarter? I have several roommates right now who would jump for it without a second thought. There is no shortage of The Public willing to put some money PBS's way.

[Robert A Whit]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.


Maybe you don't know about Bill Moyers being on PBS. Maybe you don't understand that Charlie Rose is left wing. Even on the Lehrer News hour you can tell that they support Obama.

Sure left wingers gnash teeth and foam at the mouth if PBS is asked to pick up just a bit more public support.

I won't pay for that cable channel merely for kids cartoons.

[gabosaurus]

Maybe you don't know about Bill Moyers being on PBS. Maybe you don't understand that Charlie Rose is left wing. Even on the Lehrer News hour you can tell that they support Obama.

Sure left wingers gnash teeth and foam at the mouth if PBS is asked to pick up just a bit more public support.

I won't pay for that cable channel merely for kids cartoons.

PBS is not a cable channel. I've never watched Charlie Rose or News Hour, so I can't comment on where they stand politically.
PBS is more than "cartoons." I recently watched a Frontline series on Inner City schools and how they deal with dropouts and kids at risk. It was fascinating. I have sat with my daughter and watched opera, symphonies, various NOVA broadcasts and other lighter fare.
If you ask for private funding to carry the load, you are beholden to their opinions. A company that does a lot of business with China is not going to support programming that offends the Chinese government, as PBS did with its series about dissidents.

Strictly my opinion. I think the government should continue to support the education of our children.

[Robert A Whit]

PBS is not a cable channel. I've never watched Charlie Rose or News Hour, so I can't comment on where they stand politically.
PBS is more than "cartoons." I recently watched a Frontline series on Inner City schools and how they deal with dropouts and kids at risk. It was fascinating. I have sat with my daughter and watched opera, symphonies, various NOVA broadcasts and other lighter fare.
If you ask for private funding to carry the load, you are beholden to their opinions. A company that does a lot of business with China is not going to support programming that offends the Chinese government, as PBS did with its series about dissidents.

Strictly my opinion. I think the government should continue to support the education of our children.

Well, I use Comcast as my provider. I have the bundle. I get phones, TV and internet on cable. While PBS is a FREE channel and of course if one has a HD TV set, they may not need Cable or the dish on the roof, i happen to have cable service for all of my needs.

News hour comes on at least twice a day. I see it on the west coast at 3pm local and then it repeats at 6 pm. This means in the east it is at noon then 3 pm. It can be recorded.

I saw the frontline series on schools.

I hate to toss a bomb, since to a left winger what I plan to say pisses them off, but if you could evaporate all the negro kids, and don't rant at me over the word negro since it is the same word I said in 1945 and plan to say as long as I live, the average grades at schools would dramatically increase. Not claiming that all negro kids don't perform well. I admire those who fight the negro system and manage to become very good students. PBS also featured the problems some years ago with negro schools. It was awful. A Negro teacher was followed for several years and on the program on PBS, it looked to me like she was super dedicated. This took place in NY City. No matter what she did, she could only manage to get one of the boys to care about school. Even though he cared, he was held back by his classmates. They kept the school disrupted, making it much harder on him to get well educated. He got good grades and told his teacher to please keep it a secret from the rest of the class. He did not want to be called out for trying. When he started college, due to all the disruption he faced in high school, he was not a very good student in college. Then the program ended. I don't know of that boy managed to figure out how to get good grades in college or not.

Parents fouight the teachers efforts. So sad. Oh, her class had no white kids.

[Robert A Whit]

PBS is not a cable channel. I've never watched Charlie Rose or News Hour, so I can't comment on where they stand politically.
PBS is more than "cartoons." I recently watched a Frontline series on Inner City schools and how they deal with dropouts and kids at risk. It was fascinating. I have sat with my daughter and watched opera, symphonies, various NOVA broadcasts and other lighter fare.
If you ask for private funding to carry the load, you are beholden to their opinions. A company that does a lot of business with China is not going to support programming that offends the Chinese government, as PBS did with its series about dissidents.

Strictly my opinion. I think the government should continue to support the education of our children.

It might seem I did not address each of your points. I agree with much you say.

I do not agree that TV programs have to be this so called beholden. Generally speaking, TV stations have long advertised for a number of companies. When Ford puts on ADS on a station, you can be sure that they will also put on ads for any other auto company. The idea is to get it on TV. PBS asks all the time for more private funding. And foundations support them big time. I expect that the foundations might not always agree with each other.

You and I do business with China. Ever look at labels?

[fj1200]

I suppose an Obama supporter has to try to find something in the debate to criticize Romney for.
If this is all there is, it's a knockout for the Romster.

:laugh: I thought the same thing when I saw a Yahoo headline that said Big Bird won the debate.

[fj1200]

If you ask for private funding to carry the load, you are beholden to their opinions. A company that does a lot of business with China is not going to support programming that offends the Chinese government, as PBS did with its series about dissidents.


32.1% Individual contributions

21.1% Business contributions

13.6% University funds

10.1% Corporation for Public Broadcasting funds

9.6% Foundation money

5.6% Federal, state, and local government funds

7.6% Other

So it's your position that they are already ~85% sold out?

[logroller]

Ideologically, I agree with many of the posters here. But in a recent report to Congress, the findings don't support the invisible hand argument. So, even if you likewise rally against any and all federal appropriations to non-profit organizations, grim reality indicates otherwise.

The public-private partnership represented by the federal appropriation and public broadcastingis a uniquely American approach. Federal money is the foundation upon which stations build andraise, on average, at least six times the amount they receive from the federal government. Thisnonfederal money lets CPB know that stations are receiving a positive ―report card‖ from thecommunities they serve. Of every federal dollar, 95 cents goes to support local stations and theprograms and services they offer; only five cents goes to administration of funding programs andoverhead.8 This report also shows that, in the absence of the federal appropriation, a domino effect willresult in the loss of those stations most ―at risk‖ first, and then a cascading debilitating effect onremaining stations and the national programming services. At bottom, the loss of federal supportfor public broadcasting risks the collapse of the system itself.
Our key findings are:



1) Ending federal funding for public broadcasting would severely diminish, if not destroy,public broadcasting service in the United States. Noncommercial radio and televisionstations in many localities would struggle to survive without the national impact, high-quality content and accountability that federal funding has made possible for the last 45years.
2) Fifty-four public television stations in 19 states are at high risk of no longer being able tosustain operations if federal funding were eliminated. Of the 54 stations, 31 servepredominantly rural areas, and 19 provide the only public television service available toviewers in their service area. If these 54 stations ceased broadcasting, more than 12 millionAmericans would lose access to the only public television program service currentlyavailable to them over the air.
3) Seventy-six public radio stations in 38 states are at high risk of no longer being able tosustain operations if federal funding were eliminated. Of the 76 stations, 47 serve rural communities, 46 offer the only public radio service available to their listeners, and 10provide the only broadcast service—radio or television, public or commercial—availableover the air to their listeners. If these 76 stations at high risk ceased broadcasting, nearly 3.5million Americans would lose access to the only public radio program service currentlyavailable to them over the air.






4) None of the five options for alternative sources of revenue offers a realistic opportunity togenerate significant positive net revenue that could replace the current amount of federalfunding that CPB receives through the appropriations process on behalf of publicbroadcasting.
5) There is no combination of alternative sources of funding that together could replace orsignificantly reduce the federal appropriation.
6) A shift from a noncommercial model to a commercial advertising model would havedramatically negative consequences for many of the communities that public broadcastersserve. In the absence of federal funding, there are small urban stations, small-marketstations, rural stations and stations that serve diverse communities that will likely failbecause they do not have the capacity to either shift to a commercial model or raise therevenue to replace the loss of CPB funding.
7) Public broadcasting is raising at least six times the federal appropriation and engaging inenhanced efforts to increase revenue in appropriate ways. Even if public broadcasting couldraise additional revenue through charitable giving, corporate underwriting and other, smallerexisting sources of potential revenue in the faltering economic recovery, the revenues raisedwould barely begin to cover the losses that public broadcasting has experienced due to therecession and other funding cutbacks, and could never replace the federal appropriation.
8) There is no clear plan for how the sale of spectrum could provide revenue for publicbroadcasting. In fact, if any revenues were derived from the sale of spectrum, they wouldflow on a one-time basis and only to television stations willing to give up their channels.Even if the proceeds could be aggregated into a common endowment fund for publicbroadcasting, they would not be sufficient to provide an ongoing source of funding forpublic television and radio stations that could replace the federal appropriation.
9) The sale of issue or political advertising would quickly erode the public‘s trust in theintegrity of public broadcasting‘s content, even more quickly than would the sale ofcommercial advertising. Moreover, revenues that could be obtained from the sale of issue orpolitical advertising would be volatile and unevenly distributed, since any particularstation‘s attractiveness to prospective political or issue advertisers will depend on localpolitical, public opinion, and advertising conditions that may change from one election cycleor legislative session to the next.


http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/Alternative_Sources_of_Funding_for_Public_Broadcas ting_Stations.pdf


ARLINGTON, VA – March 1, 2011 – A national survey (http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/319/PBS%20Survey%20Toplines.pdf)
undertaken by the bipartisan polling firms of Hart Research and American Viewpoint indicates overwhelming public opposition (69% to 27%) to proposals to eliminate government funding of public broadcasting, with voters across the political spectrum opposed to such a cut, including 83% of Democrats, 69% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans. More than two-thirds (68%) of voters say that Congressional budget cutters should “find other places in the budget to save money.”
according to the research polls, Americans consider this spending of secondary importance to only military spending; and
PBS is America’s most trusted institution. (http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/153/Public_Trust_chart_465px_webalt.jpg) In fact, American voters have twice the level of trust in PBS (44% “trust a great deal”) over the nearest tested institution, Courts of Law (with 22% “trust a great deal”).http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2011/voters-oppose-pbs-elimination/
In case you're wondering US Congress received 7% approval.
Just for L-A, here's the poll, a Bipartisan collaboration between Hart Research and American Viewpoint
Research:

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/319/PBS%20Survey%20Toplines.pdf

Analysis:

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/319/PBS%20Hart-AmView%20Polling%20Memo.pdf

[MtnBiker]

Makes me wonder, how much profit is generated from Elmo merchandise?

There are educational programs on several different cable networks, perhaps they should all receive federal funding.

[fj1200]

Ideologically, I agree with many of the posters here. But in a recent report to Congress, the findings don't support the invisible hand argument. So, even if you likewise rally against any and all federal appropriations to non-profit organizations, grim reality indicates otherwise.

One might argue that is exactly the invisible hand argument. ;) The point being however that why should this entity continue to receive subsidies that are for all intents and purposes is no longer necessary? It also subsidizes inefficient decision-making.


Makes me wonder, how much profit is generated from Elmo merchandise?

There are educational programs on several different cable networks, perhaps they should all receive federal funding.

$211 million from 2003-2006 iirc from my earlier searches.

[Robert A Whit]

Ideologically, I agree with many of the posters here. But in a recent report to Congress, the findings don't support the invisible hand argument. So, even if you likewise rally against any and all federal appropriations to non-profit organizations, grim reality indicates otherwise.
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/Alternative_Sources_of_Funding_for_Public_Broadcas ting_Stations.pdf

according to the research polls, Americans consider this spending of secondary importance to only military spending; and http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2011/voters-oppose-pbs-elimination/
In case you're wondering US Congress received 7% approval.
Just for L-A, here's the poll, a Bipartisan collaboration between Hart Research and American Viewpoint
Research:

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/319/PBS%20Survey%20Toplines.pdf

Analysis:

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cms_page_media/319/PBS%20Hart-AmView%20Polling%20Memo.pdf


I tust CSPAN the most since I can see the sausage being made.

CSPAN has 3 channels and yet has no federal funding. Federally funded, I would trust CSPAN a lot less.

Course the boys at PBS will fight by promoting such studies to keep it going.

Folks, I finished over 39 hrs work at a Foodbank. The way the public supports that as well as some major corporations makes me glow.

I learned by working there that corporations keep feeding the poor.

[logroller]

Makes me wonder, how much profit is generated from Elmo merchandise?

There are educational programs on several different cable networks, perhaps they should all receive federal funding.

2010: Sesame Street = Gross revenue $900 million, of which ~5% goes to producers= $45 million. (From the report CPB report I linked earlier, page 87-88.) http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/Alternative_Sources_of_Funding_for_Public_Broadcas ting_Stations.pdf

Sesame street doesn't get funded directly, its through CPB. I would think anybody could request a grant from CPB to syndicate a show through member stations. Probably not as lucrative as pitching it to cable though.

[Voted4Reagan]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

and with PUBLIC BROADCASTING being controlled by the Progressive Left...it is simply a mouthpiece for the Liberal Point of View.

PBS needs to go the way of the Dinosaurs...it's One Sided and Biased...

as a public entity it is duty bound to be impartial and it is NOT.

[Robert A Whit]

One might argue that is exactly the invisible hand argument. ;) The point being however that why should this entity continue to receive subsidies that are for all intents and purposes is no longer necessary? It also subsidizes inefficient decision-making.



$211 million from 2003-2006 iirc from my earlier searches.

When the feds pump money into anything, you know very well that they want some control over content.

[aboutime]

and with PUBLIC BROADCASTING being controlled by the Progressive Left...it is simply a mouthpiece for the Liberal Point of View.

PBS needs to go the way of the Dinosaurs...it's One Sided and Biased...

as a public entity it is duty bound to be impartial and it is NOT.



V4R. Liberals don't mind using their MINIMUM tax dollars being used for a Known, Liberal Mouthpiece like PBS. First. If they pay little, if any Federal Income taxes. No skin off their noses.
But when Congress authorizes OUR TAX DOLLARS to pay for it without OUR permission. That is wrong.
Wonder how many Liberals would feel the same way if RUSH LIMBAUGH could be heard on PBS????

Double standards, and Hypocrisy RULE....liberally speaking, of course.

[logroller]

One might argue that is exactly the invisible hand argument. ;) The point being however that why should this entity continue to receive subsidies that are for all intents and purposes is no longer necessary? It also subsidizes inefficient decision-making.


Touché. The invisible hand would just leave the rural poor w/o. Now you can argue that American's don't need TV; no disagreement there; but to argue that commercial television will satisfy all intents and purposes of CPB and PBS etc, is not supported by the report. So your point was that the intent had nothing to do with public broadcasting, it was just to subsidize broadcasting until such time as private commercial interests could sustain themselves. That is a valid argument, however, those subsidies were for public broadcasting, not private broadcasting, nor even broadcasting. As I linked, they cannot serve the same public without that funding, so the funds are still necessary.

Since when was government the beacon of efficient decision-making?:slap:

[gabosaurus]

When the feds pump money into anything, you know very well that they want some control over content.
When Bush was president and Republicans controlled the FTC, conservatives still complained that PBS was too liberal. Even thought conservatives had control over contest.
One good thing about Bush was that he was a supporter of PBS. He raised his daughters on it.
Trouble is, conservatives believe every media outlet except Fox is "too liberal." Perhaps they want state controlled broadcasting like in China or the Muslim world.

[aboutime]

When the feds pump money into anything, you know very well that they want some control over content.


Robert. Please take note of how the excuses, and examples being used have been repeated many times before. That's how it works when those who need to defend liberal idea's, and ideals run out of Factual, Proven Information.

[Trigg]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

PBS should not be getting public funding when this country is going down the shitter and is in debt up to it's eyeballs.

It hurts when you first have to tighten your belt, you get used to it and adjust.

[Robert A Whit]

When Bush was president and Republicans controlled the FTC, conservatives still complained that PBS was too liberal. Even thought conservatives had control over contest.
One good thing about Bush was that he was a supporter of PBS. He raised his daughters on it.
Trouble is, conservatives believe every media outlet except Fox is "too liberal." Perhaps they want state controlled broadcasting like in China or the Muslim world.

Actually, until Obama became president, I had not paid a lot of attention to bias by PBS

Once Jim Lehrer put the program in the hands of others, things really changed. I speak of the news hour only on that matter. I think Jim tried to keep it fair.

As to PBS in general, who do they have that counters Bill Moyers or Tavis Smiley?

I would love to see uncommon knowledge or the think tank programs on PBS.

Suppose to counter Moyers we lobby PBS to put on Rush Limbaugh?

FOX is hated by the left despite it being one of the very few stations you can pay for and find that both sides arguments get heard. Don't blame the program if the right wingers get the better of the argument.

I consider FOX no more biased than what you saw last night on all the channels that carried the debate. Both sides got heard.

Again get Rush on PBS and I will drop my claim they are biased.

Even have say Walter Williams do it. I am trying to think of the name of the other famous black that speaks republican very well. Put him on if you don't like the others.

[red states rule]

When Bush was president and Republicans controlled the FTC, conservatives still complained that PBS was too liberal. Even thought conservatives had control over contest.
One good thing about Bush was that he was a supporter of PBS. He raised his daughters on it.
Trouble is, conservatives believe every media outlet except Fox is "too liberal." Perhaps they want state controlled broadcasting like in China or the Muslim world.

Gabby, the list of anchors and on air personalities reads like a Who's Who of the far left




Since 2004, the usual participants have been syndicated columnist Mark Shields (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Mark_Shields) and New York Times columnist David Brooks (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)). Analysts who fill in when Shields and/or Brooks are absent have included David Gergen (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/David_Gergen), Thomas Oliphant (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Thomas_Oliphant), Rich Lowry (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Rich_Lowry), William Kristol (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/William_Kristol), Ramesh Ponnuru (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Ramesh_Ponnuru), Ruth Marcus (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Ruth_Marcus_(journalist)), and E. J. Dionne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/E._J._Dionne).

The program's senior correspondents are Gwen Ifill (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Gwen_Ifill), Ray Suarez (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Ray_Suarez), Margaret Warner (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Margaret_Warner), Jeffrey Brown (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Jeffrey_Brown_(journalist)), and Judy Woodruff (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Judy_Woodruff). Essayists have included Anne Taylor Fleming (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=Anne_Taylor_Fleming&action=edit&redlink=1), Richard Rodriguez (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Richard_Rodriguez), and Roger Rosenblatt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Roger_Rosenblatt).[10] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-9) Correspondents have been Tom Bearden, Betty Ann Bowser, Susan Dentzer (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Susan_Dentzer), Elizabeth Farnsworth, Kwame Holman, Spencer Michels, Fred de Sam Lazaro, Paul Solman, and others.[11] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-10)





They have a couple token conservatives but for the most part, like most of the liberal media, PBS is a network for far left libs

and the US taxpayer pays the tab

BTW, I do not know any conservative who wants PBS off the air (unlike libs when it comes to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) we simply do NOT want to pay for it

[fj1200]

Touché. The invisible hand would just leave the rural poor w/o. Now you can argue that American's don't need TV; no disagreement there; but to argue that commercial television will satisfy all intents and purposes of CPB and PBS etc, is not supported by the report. So your point was that the intent had nothing to do with public broadcasting, it was just to subsidize broadcasting until such time as private commercial interests could sustain themselves. That is a valid argument, however, those subsidies were for public broadcasting, not private broadcasting, nor even broadcasting. As I linked, they cannot serve the same public without that funding, so the funds are still necessary.

Since when was government the beacon of efficient decision-making?:slap:

I was saying that PBS was not beacon of efficient decision making but I get your point. ;)

Would the rural poor truly be without? I doubt it but they aren't going to have the choices that are available to 99% of the country no matter what you do. The problem is continuing the subsidization of an entire system when the only ones who are affected are scattered far and wide, a possible state solution no? It's like overhauling an entire healthcare system when only some are without health insurance... hey, wait a minute...

[logroller]

I was saying that PBS was not beacon of efficient decision making but I get your point. ;)

Would the rural poor truly be without? I doubt it but they aren't going to have the choices that are available to 99% of the country no matter what you do. The problem is continuing the subsidization of an entire system when the only ones who are affected are scattered far and wide, a possible state solution no? It's like overhauling an entire healthcare system when only some are without health insurance... hey, wait a minute...

Since when is 16% an entire system?

For little over a dollar per capita per year, 281 million people, 98% of the US population has access to over-the-air public broadcasting. If healthcare could offer the same, I'd agree with that too. I wonder how much the Feds spend every year in grants to nonprofit health clinics???

[Kathianne]

Actually, until Obama became president, I had not paid a lot of attention to bias by PBS

Once Jim Lehrer put the program in the hands of others, things really changed. I speak of the news hour only on that matter. I think Jim tried to keep it fair.

As to PBS in general, who do they have that counters Bill Moyers or Tavis Smiley?

I would love to see uncommon knowledge or the think tank programs on PBS.

Suppose to counter Moyers we lobby PBS to put on Rush Limbaugh?

FOX is hated by the left despite it being one of the very few stations you can pay for and find that both sides arguments get heard. Don't blame the program if the right wingers get the better of the argument.

I consider FOX no more biased than what you saw last night on all the channels that carried the debate. Both sides got heard.

Again get Rush on PBS and I will drop my claim they are biased.

Even have say Walter Williams do it. I am trying to think of the name of the other famous black that speaks republican very well. Put him on if you don't like the others.

I wouldn't care if PBS became 'conservative', I don't think it should be even partially funded by taxpayers. There is no need.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, in my home it has been a mainstay. I love the British programs; anyone who's read my posts over the years know I adore the theater. Like Gabby, my children and I watched hours of symphonies, jazz, and other musical arts via PBS. Like her, my kids were 'prepped' for going to the Chicago Symphony and Orchestra Hall. Anyone remember when my daughter sang at Orchestra Hall?

I'm far from someone thinking the arts are elitist. I wish all children had the opportunities to the exposure. They do, via PBS, the Learning Channel, Discovery, etc. PBS is not C-SPAN and shouldn't expect cable to 'bail them out.' However, they need to find a way to overcome the small amount the feds allocate for them. My suggestion, begin adverts on some stations like Disney and what they have to offer. Partner with school music, art, and drama departments. Make PBS the 'cool place,' not the nerdy place.

[Kathianne]

Other broadcast stations do not need federal funding because they sell commercial spots. Which makes them beholden to advertisers.

Some of you believe that any media outlet that does not support conservative causes is "liberal." Which non-news shows are allegedly liberal?

PBS is just that -- public broadcasting. It connects American young people to learning, culture and advanced understanding. With commercial interruption. Without strings.

How can either candidate pledge to improve education while cutting a vital educational resource? PBS funding is a miniscule portion of the government budget. We don't need more missiles, tanks or Pentagon overstaffing. We need to educate and enlighten our children.

PBS has plenty of commercials. Granted, last I checked they don't do commercials during children times, though they do fund raising during those hours, they did 28 years ago. I'd be shocked if Bill & Melinda Gates wouldn't pick up federal portion if dropped, really.

[fj1200]

Since when is 16% an entire system?

For little over a dollar per capita per year, 281 million people, 98% of the US population has access to over-the-air public broadcasting. If healthcare could offer the same, I'd agree with that too. I wonder how much the Feds spend every year in grants to nonprofit health clinics???

I didn't say it wasn't chump change, I said it was unnecessary. And I said we shouldn't have to fund (a portion of) the whole system for the rural poor that you mentioned. Government subsidy doesn't allow innovative solutions.

[Trinity]

sorry with all the talk about big bird and PBS I couldn't help myself......

Warning....Language

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/78oc

[Anton Chigurh]

Romney's meter for cutting is, "Is it vital enough to borrow from China to keep?"

PBS is not. And it will survive - as soon as left leaners learn what charitable giving is and start supporting it with their donations.

[007]

PBS should go, or at least taxpayer funding for PBS should go.

In the UK their PBS, called the BBC is funded by an interesting tax.

the government controlled propaganda machine, the BBC is funded mostly by forcing all residents of the UK who own a tv to purchase a tv license!!
I kid you not! A tv license!!
detector vans patrol streets looking for unlicensed tvs!!
Again, I kid you not!!
the programmes made by the bbc are all political in nature, the news is always skewed to the left!
pbs is the totalitarians future propaganda machine!!

[cadet]

PBS should go, or at least taxpayer funding for PBS should go.

In the UK their PBS, called the BBC is funded by an interesting tax.

the government controlled propaganda machine, the BBC is funded mostly by forcing all residents of the UK who own a tv to purchase a tv license!!
I kid you not! A tv license!!
detector vans patrol streets looking for unlicensed tvs!!
Again, I kid you not!!
the programmes made by the bbc are all political in nature, the news is always skewed to the left!
pbs is the totalitarians future propaganda machine!!

And here i was enjoying Doctor Who on BBC America...
Now, i'm not going to call BS on the tax, but maybe on that last part i might.

[007]

And here i was enjoying Doctor Who on BBC America...
Now, i'm not going to call BS on the tax, but maybe on that last part i might.
Watch, see how soldiers are portrayed in DR Who, the underlying social indoctrination is undeniable!

[Noir]

Watch, see how soldiers are portrayed in DR Who, the underlying social indoctrination is undeniable!

Oh my lord.
Are you serious?
Like genuinely serious?
This must be a joke

[Robert A Whit]

I wouldn't care if PBS became 'conservative', I don't think it should be even partially funded by taxpayers. There is no need.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, in my home it has been a mainstay. I love the British programs; anyone who's read my posts over the years know I adore the theater. Like Gabby, my children and I watched hours of symphonies, jazz, and other musical arts via PBS. Like her, my kids were 'prepped' for going to the Chicago Symphony and Orchestra Hall. Anyone remember when my daughter sang at Orchestra Hall?

I'm far from someone thinking the arts are elitist. I wish all children had the opportunities to the exposure. They do, via PBS, the Learning Channel, Discovery, etc. PBS is not C-SPAN and shouldn't expect cable to 'bail them out.' However, they need to find a way to overcome the small amount the feds allocate for them. My suggestion, begin adverts on some stations like Disney and what they have to offer. Partner with school music, art, and drama departments. Make PBS the 'cool place,' not the nerdy place.

I very much enjoy the singing of that prodigy young girl with the grown up voice. She makes music seem to come from heaven. Jackie Evancho I think it is spelled.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn100512dAPR20121005034512.jpg



http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20121005-Big%20Obird20121005121618.jpg

[007]

Oh my lord.
Are you serious?
Like genuinely serious?
This must be a joke
I an serious, I spent 33 years watching the diet of propaganda the bbc pushed when I lived in the UK.
each show they put out carries some form of indoctrination.
Waterloo Road dedicated a season to portraying fathers 4 Justice as a bunch of deadbeats.

A new kind of terror portrayed white cabbies as avaricious thugs whilst Pakistani cabbies were fun chaps who would accept payment in shekels if the customer wished it!

social indoctrination at its very worst, the BBC!!

[red states rule]

I an serious, I spent 33 years watching the diet of propaganda the bbc pushed when I lived in the UK.
each show they put out carries some form of indoctrination.
Waterloo Road dedicated a season to portraying fathers 4 Justice as a bunch of deadbeats.

A new kind of terror portrayed white cabbies as avaricious thugs whilst Pakistani cabbies were fun chaps who would accept payment in shekels if the customer wished it!

social indoctrination at its very worst, the BBC!!


Anyone with an IQ above room temp know the BBC is a liberal outfit, and the only ones who refuse to admit the truth are other liberals

[glockmail]

My kids loved PBS and I supported them at the time. I did not then nor do I now think that they should be supported by the government.

Back then we only had 4 channels on the TV. Now we have 120 and PBS should be a cable network like all the others. Big Bird can survive out of the nest.

NPR really needs to go private as well. The liberal bias is nauseating. Private stations have to compete with them in a given market.

[red states rule]

My kids loved PBS and I supported them at the time. I did not then nor do I now think that they should be supported by the government.

Back then we only had 4 channels on the TV. Now we have 120 and PBS should be a cable network like all the others. Big Bird can survive out of the nest.

NPR really needs to go private as well. The liberal bias is nauseating. Private stations have to compete with them in a given market.



It would be refreshing to see libs pay for something they want and say is needed - instead of demanding someone foot the bill for their liberal drivel

[Robert A Whit]

I do not watch enough BBC to know much about it. I at times see the financial BBC. I admit I can watch perhaps3 minutes of it and off I go.

I want to submit 2 programs for consideration.

DWTV from Germany is one. I find the news is just news, If there is spin, I sure can't find it.
I learn more and more about things over the pond watching that German program.

RT also is informative. I also learn things I had no clue were happening if all we had is the diet on American TV.

PBS has merit. But the issue is who pays for it. All of us or the customers. I say let the customers pay up.

[red states rule]

I do not watch enough BBC to know much about it. I at times see the financial BBC. I admit I can watch perhaps3 minutes of it and off I go.

I want to submit 2 programs for consideration.

DWTV from Germany is one. I find the news is just news, If there is spin, I sure can't find it.
I learn more and more about things over the pond watching that German program.

RT also is informative. I also learn things I had no clue were happening if all we had is the diet on American TV.

PBS has merit. But the issue is who pays for it. All of us or the customers. I say let the customers pay up.

All of us are NOT customers andyou cannot offer one logical reason why the overtaxed US taxpayer should pay once cent to finance PBS. The country is going bankrupt due to the insatiable appetite of government for money to spend

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do not watch enough BBC to know much about it. I at times see the financial BBC. I admit I can watch perhaps3 minutes of it and off I go.

I want to submit 2 programs for consideration.

DWTV from Germany is one. I find the news is just news, If there is spin, I sure can't find it.
I learn more and more about things over the pond watching that German program.

RT also is informative. I also learn things I had no clue were happening if all we had is the diet on American TV.

PBS has merit. But the issue is who pays for it. All of us or the customers. I say let the customers pay up.

I agree. No more government funding!!
-Tyr

[aboutime]

Let's look at PBS this way. To make this problem easier to understand.

I, as an American citizen. DO NOT wish to pay for the BIRTH CONTROL of any other person living in this nation...as directed by Govt.

And...I also. DO NOT wish to pay for a PUBLIC broadcast via TV, or Radio that leans toward Govt in political matters, or that supports opposite beliefs than I have...that I must pay for according to Govt.

In Other words. Obama, and Congress DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION...to spend my tax dollars (and yes. I do pay federal taxes) on anything I do not use, want, or need to pay for to help anyone else who is UNWILLING to pay for it.

[gabosaurus]

Watch, see how soldiers are portrayed in DR Who, the underlying social indoctrination is undeniable!
Seriously? :lol:

I guess I can blame Mr. Rogers for liberal upbringing. He was such a socialist! And we won't even go into that nasty purple dinosaur. :rolleyes:

[logroller]

Let's look at PBS this way. To make this problem easier to understand.

I, as an American citizen. DO NOT wish to pay for the BIRTH CONTROL of any other person living in this nation...as directed by Govt.

And...I also. DO NOT wish to pay for a PUBLIC broadcast via TV, or Radio that leans toward Govt in political matters, or that supports opposite beliefs than I have...that I must pay for according to Govt.

In Other words. Obama, and Congress DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION...to spend my tax dollars (and yes. I do pay federal taxes) on anything I do not use, want, or need to pay for to help anyone else who is UNWILLING to pay for it.
They don't need YOUR permission. Perhaps that's what troubles you so.

[glockmail]

Seriously? :lol:

I guess I can blame Mr. Rogers for liberal upbringing. He was such a socialist! And we won't even go into that nasty purple dinosaur. :rolleyes:

What makes you think that Rogers was a socialist, or one who disdains constitutional principles?

[gabosaurus]

What makes you think that Rogers was a socialist, or one who disdains constitutional principles?

Mostly the pajamas. They were very revolutionary. And he always wanted to be your friend.

[taft2012]

I don't get cable or satellite television. I watch terrestrial television (antenna).

We have a local PBS affiliate here; WLIW, channel 21. Prior to the digital conversion, the few of us left who still like to view antenna television were able to receive the WLIW signal very well. After the conversion the signal disappeared. The feedback page on their website was filled with complaints from people all over who lost the signal.

The point being ... WLIW obviously decided they would half-ass their terrestrial transmissions because the area is predominantly cable/satellite oriented. However, they are taking public funding to run a public television station, which IMO places an onus on them to ensure their signal is receivable by the public in their broadcast range. Their signal virtually disappeared overnight.

If they want to be another cable channel, and receive the fees from the cable and satellite companies, that's fine. However, they should then be compelled to drop the charade of being a public television channel. At the moment they are just like HBO; you can't receive their signal on a television antenna. The big difference being, HBO doesn't receive taxpayer dollars.

[logroller]

Mostly the pajamas. They were very revolutionary. And he always wanted to be your friend.
Bite your tongue-- Fred Rogers was the best neighbor ever.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/5943

[glockmail]

Mostly the pajamas. They were very revolutionary. And he always wanted to be your friend.But he advocated personal responsibility and helping your neighbor. I don't recall him telling kids to look for government freebies.

Maybe you don't understand what socialism really is.

[red states rule]

Someone here mentioned Bill Moyers - and this is the latest liberal garbage that aired on his show




Bill Moyers is at it again. In a documentary entitled “The United States of ALEC (http://billmoyers.com/segment/united-states-of-alec/)” aired as an episode of “Moyers & Company,” Moyers and the Center for Media and Democracy’s Lisa Graves attacked the American Legislative Exchange Council for half an hour.

“The United States of ALEC” was typical of a Center for Media and Democracy/ Common Cause hit job on ALEC. The documentary slammed the Koch Brothers and Koch Industries and attacked Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at length, accusing him of being an ALEC pawn. Moyers also claimed that the state of Arizona is “practically an ALEC subsidiary.”

To Moyers’ nominal credit, this time he admitted at the beginning of the documentary that the research conducted for this project had been funded by both his own Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and by the Schumann-funded Center for Media and Democracy.

Common Cause was also involved in the making of the video, although Moyers did not mention his connection to that group. The Schumann Center is listed as a donor on Common Cause’s website, but the amount is not specified.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2012/10/08/moyers-documentary-slams-conservatives-pushes-soros-funded-group#ixzz28nWt0tNw

[red states rule]

I don't get cable or satellite television. I watch terrestrial television (antenna).

We have a local PBS affiliate here; WLIW, channel 21. Prior to the digital conversion, the few of us left who still like to view antenna television were able to receive the WLIW signal very well. After the conversion the signal disappeared. The feedback page on their website was filled with complaints from people all over who lost the signal.

The point being ... WLIW obviously decided they would half-ass their terrestrial transmissions because the area is predominantly cable/satellite oriented. However, they are taking public funding to run a public television station, which IMO places an onus on them to ensure their signal is receivable by the public in their broadcast range. Their signal virtually disappeared overnight.

If they want to be another cable channel, and receive the fees from the cable and satellite companies, that's fine. However, they should then be compelled to drop the charade of being a public television channel. At the moment they are just like HBO; you can't receive their signal on a television antenna. The big difference being, HBO doesn't receive taxpayer dollars.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv100812dAPR20121008014517.jpg