Do we NEED government funding for PBS etc.?

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm going to go a different way on this.

When I've traveled around the world, I've been surprised by one thing, *especially* in Ethiopia, which is one of the world's poorest nations.
In Ethiopia, the per capita income is between 300-400 bucks. You read that right. It helps that for many, housing is cheap and weather is extremely mild
in most parts of the country outside the rainy season. We went through the cities regularly and traveled the countryside and saw many examples of the
typical thatched roofs that look straight out of a movie.

With satellite dishes.

Looking out over Addis Ababa, we could see vast stretches of corrugated metal huts with the roofs held down with bailing wire and rocks. Pets and animals
sunning themselves and at night you can hear cows and sheep making noise - as my daughter told me and as we observed, many people have animals in their
huts with them.

And satellite dishes. Sometimes, providing internet, although experience is that they typically watch sports and news. In stores, cell phones are easily available
and people are watching stuff on their phones.

When my church makes their yearly trek out to Appalachia to help poor residents repair or replace broken roofs or appliances - they watch TV on satellite.
Or via wi-fi.



We live in the 21st century. Why do we any longer have this excuse that poor areas of the nation NEED government to provide them with public television,
when for one, it's not fully subsidized and two, the BIG excuse of "lack of access" has got to be a load of crap. If some of the world's poorest people can
STILL watch a soccer game with their friends out in rural Third World - why do we still need this?

It sounds like the 60's calling.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
We live in the 21st century. Why do we any longer have this excuse that poor areas of the nation NEED government to provide them with public television,
when for one, it's not fully subsidized and two, the BIG excuse of "lack of access" has got to be a load of crap.


considering how many 'poor' have smart phones ... I doubt it



What percentage of American households have televisions?
The Nielsen Company, which takes TV set ownership into account when it produces ratings, will tell television networks and advertisers on Tuesday that 96.7 percent of American households now own sets, down from 98.9 percent previously. There are two reasons for the decline, according to Nielsen.May 3, 2011
Television Ownership Drops in U.S., Nielsen Reports - The New York ... www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/media/03television.html
 

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
PBS and NPR, along with the arts, should fund themselves.

Speaking of Ethiopia, the two and a half years I lived there from 73 - 75, the per capita income was only about $60 - 70 per year. They have increased their income at least five fold, which means nothing, but the technology is available for even the poorest, for sure.
 
Last edited:

tommyjo

New Member
Rather dumb points....why? PBS isn't about access...it isn't about satellite dishes...Christ where do you get your information? (never mind)

PBS is about excellence and education...this is from Wikipedia (not the greatest source but this really isn't controversial info)
When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he described its purpose as:


"It announces to the world that our nation wants more than just material wealth; our nation wants more than a 'chicken in every pot.' We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.[3]

"It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and its potential use throughout the world. Finally — and most important — it builds a new institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."[3]


Here is the actual legislation...go read it...find where it says the goal is access to TV... http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Rather dumb points....why? PBS isn't about access...it isn't about satellite dishes...Christ where do you get your information? (never mind)

PBS is about excellence and education...this is from Wikipedia (not the greatest source but this really isn't controversial info)



Here is the actual legislation...go read it...find where it says the goal is access to TV... http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/

None of which changes the fact that without govt. funding, they'll be okay.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Rather dumb points....why? PBS isn't about access...it isn't about satellite dishes...Christ where do you get your information? (never mind)

From those insisting it needs government support. THAT is their most used argument, and until 20 years ago, the most compelling.

From the continual argument that its existence is predicated on the fact that those in remote areas NEED assistance to keep it on the air.
I don't give a rat's ass about its mission statement - if people can GET PBS and such without the need to have stations locally to provide it - the funding is irrelevant.
When Ethiopians in Sodo can watch the African Cup of Nations on their internet feed - why do Americans need their government to provide them with PBS?

(For that matter - when honestly was the last time you REALLY watched it? I mean, really?).
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Leftists used to trot out Big Bird as a potential victim of CPB cuts ... guess what sparky PBS isn't getting the latest Sesame Street that honor goes to HBO who made a in 2015.
 

lovinmaryland

Well-Known Member
I usually don't get into political topics but... a lot of the shows that are offered on PBS make their own $ off products... Sesame Street I cant tell you how many toys I've bought my kids over the years...Cooking shows like ATK etc... sell cookbooks, utensils, pots, etc... why should the government fund this station why can't the shows kick down some of the $ their making hawking their products.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I usually don't get into political topics but... a lot of the shows that are offered on PBS make their own $ off products...



If I Recall Correctly .....


if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is de-funded - NPR loses 1% of its funding and PBS 4%
[or it might be the other way around]
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
I usually don't get into political topics but... a lot of the shows that are offered on PBS make their own $ off products... Sesame Street I cant tell you how many toys I've bought my kids over the years...Cooking shows like ATK etc... sell cookbooks, utensils, pots, etc... why should the government fund this station why can't the shows kick down some of the $ their making hawking their products.

:yeahthat: Curious to see how much they get from private donations as well and salaries of executives.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
:yeahthat: Curious to see how much they get from private donations as well and salaries of executives.

Last year, Sesame Workshop had $121.6 million in revenues. Of that, $49.6 million came in distribution fees and royalties and $36.6 million in licensing of toys, games, clothing, food and such. In 2014, only 4% of its revenue came from government grants.

Despite being a taxpayer-supported nonprofit, Sesame Workshop pays its top executives fabulously well.

According to IRS tax filings — the most recent of which covers 2014 — then-president and CEO Melvin Ming was paid more than $586,000 in salary and benefits in the nine months before retiring, which included a $37,500 bonus and $18,700 in benefits. The year before that, Ming cleared $672,391 in salary, bonuses and benefits.

That's five times the average pay for CEOs at nonprofits, according to Charity Navigator. (It's twice as much as the CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was paid that year.

What's more, Sesame Street isn't even technically a PBS show any more. In 2015, it signed a five-year deal with HBO, which gets exclusive rights to air new episodes for nine months on its premium cable network, after which the programs can be shown on PBS stations. The deal let Sesame Workshop create twice as many episodes as it could on PBS, as well as spinoff programming.

Only about 15% of PBS' budget comes from the taxpayer-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of its revenue comes from support by individuals, corporate underwriters and private grants, as well as state and local government support.

When the Washington Post looked into PBS' financing a few years ago, it concluded that "if Congress took this funding away, PBS would likely survive, though perhaps diminished."

Would a "diminished" PBS matter, in an era of 500-channel cable TV services, Netflix and YouTube?

Still, defenders of taxpayer funding for public broadcasting say the amount of money involved — $445 million a year — is a flyspeck in a $4 trillion federal budget.

This explains why no government programs ever get cut. Either federal programs are too big, and benefit too many people to be cut. Or they are too small to bother cutting, even though taxpayer money isn't needed.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/big-bird-is-rich-so-why-does-he-need-taxpayer-money/
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'm going to go a different way on this.

When I've traveled around the world, I've been surprised by one thing, *especially* in Ethiopia, which is one of the world's poorest nations.
In Ethiopia, the per capita income is between 300-400 bucks. You read that right. It helps that for many, housing is cheap and weather is extremely mild
in most parts of the country outside the rainy season. We went through the cities regularly and traveled the countryside and saw many examples of the
typical thatched roofs that look straight out of a movie.

With satellite dishes.

Looking out over Addis Ababa, we could see vast stretches of corrugated metal huts with the roofs held down with bailing wire and rocks. Pets and animals
sunning themselves and at night you can hear cows and sheep making noise - as my daughter told me and as we observed, many people have animals in their
huts with them.

And satellite dishes. Sometimes, providing internet, although experience is that they typically watch sports and news. In stores, cell phones are easily available
and people are watching stuff on their phones.

When my church makes their yearly trek out to Appalachia to help poor residents repair or replace broken roofs or appliances - they watch TV on satellite.
Or via wi-fi.



We live in the 21st century. Why do we any longer have this excuse that poor areas of the nation NEED government to provide them with public television,
when for one, it's not fully subsidized and two, the BIG excuse of "lack of access" has got to be a load of crap. If some of the world's poorest people can
STILL watch a soccer game with their friends out in rural Third World - why do we still need this?

It sounds like the 60's calling.


OK, so, you're entire post is about HOW people watch TV, not content. PBS is content. Look around on your TV, be it sat or cable, and tell me how much of the wonderful free market content on there you would actually choose to pay for, specifically. Not some bundle tossed down your throat, but what you would actually choose to pay for.

Now, amidst that sea of wonderful programming provided to us by the various monopolies, is PBS a bad thing? Is it OK for the gummint to provide a little content? Some of the best, most informative TV I ever see, or here on the radio, is public broadcasting. And, yes, I send in a few bucks here and there. If there is ONE place where there is not too much gummint, in my view, it's on the tele and the radio. :shrug:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The first question I ask when trying to determine if the federal government should fund something (and, I think the first question legislators should ask) is: Where is it in the Constitution (Article One, Section Eight) that provides the authority to fund this thing?



No, the government should not be funding PBS.


TJ, if you can tell me where in the Constitution the federal authority would fall for it, I'd be happy to discuss that with you.
 

Wishbone

New Member
The first question I ask when trying to determine if the federal government should fund something (and, I think the first question legislators should ask) is: Where is it in the Constitution (Article One, Section Eight) that provides the authority to fund this thing?



No, the government should not be funding PBS.

Geez.... If you're gonna start using the constitution to justify things, 99% of the Fed Govt. will have to go away!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Geez.... If you're gonna start using the constitution to justify things, 99% of the Fed Govt. will have to go away!

:lol: Maybe not quite that high, but pretty darned high. I'd say Soc Sec and Medicare/Medicaid would be gone (what is that, 70% of the federal expenditures?), Dept of Education (should be the states), HUD, HHS, NEA.... EPA would stay, but would be greatly diminished, DoD would stay but be greatly diminished, Dept of Energy same, State would stay....um.....DHS....Transportation would stay, but be significantly diminished......tens of thousand of jobs, but probably hundreds of billions of dollars.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
OK, so, you're entire post is about HOW people watch TV, not content. PBS is content.

So?
The REASON given most often is that it is NEEDED for those who have no other options - e.g. those in remote areas.
People living in big cities can get PBS no matter what - but the reasoning for years was, what about the poor yokels in Appalachia who can only get one or two stations?
They NEED it funded, or they're just stuck with CBS. Or NBC. Or heck, just the big four (used to be three, but FOX is a major network).

Now - an enormous part of the TV viewing audience can watch channels where all they do is fish or golf.
Saturday morning cartoons? Heck, we got twenty channels blasting cartoons all day long.

And educational TV? "Quality" TV? Most of the stuff piped into schools is *streamed*.
Frankly, when I want to learn something valuable, I can get it from a video off the internet in about five seconds.

The rationale for the existence of public television comes from a time when there WASN'T a million choices out there.

It doesn't matter if you wouldn't choose to pay for those "other bundles". For one thing, you're paying for them BECAUSE they give you the free market stuff you want.

And it doesn't matter if you don't watch it on TV or pay for it - you can get it online, cheap - and there's tons of it.
My church already sponsors subscriptions to religious programming which we can watch on our Smart TV's, our tablets and our cell phones, if need be.

And basically - it's archaic. Public television is archaic. It is not needed, and if YOU had a choice to pay for it or not - you would not choose it.
I don't see fighting THAT concept as the job of the government - it is not the government's job to provide programming the public wouldn't buy even if it was cheap.
 
Top