George takes a swipe at Big Bird
 

Not surprising, the proposed budget makes a major cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and viewers like you)

Yahoo News Story Here

All part to stem the sea of red and fund more war funding (and since the CPB is also perceived as far too left leaning for the current administration's taste)

Grrrrrr
Donna

Good. All that public broadcasting funding should be cut completely. And using Sesame Street as the beggar in this situation is problematic since that show makes more money that most smallish countries.

In today's society where the unhinged walk around quite freely, I am hoping like PBS will keep it tactful when asking for more money.

I was watching a recorded tape the other day, and budget cuts had recently been made. KTCA (The Saint Paul-Minneapolis area's local PBS station) managed to keep the fact that they were facing government cuts very tactful.

Couldn't be happier.

Alex, Sca, are you serious?
If so, could you explain to the uninformed like me?

I think there must be something the non-political minded like me are missing.

(If you're joking, thats cool too, but I'm confused)

Gah! I love PBS programming and NPR and happily contribute.
Donna

I'm serious. There are many, many things the government funds that I do not think are necessary nor Constitutional. Countless things. This is but one. A small one in terms of overall funding, but you have to start somewhere. It isn't even political for me. There are plenty of media outlets providing the same things that PBS is.

Okay, I'll give you that. Like the local budgets, state by state and county by county, the first thing to go is funding for anything with arts. At least PBS is educational, and not only for the young-uns.

Oh well, my 2 centimes.

Donna

And Donna - I completely respect that you contribute. I would figure if there were enough like you that do, the stations could survive on their own.

I'm divided. In the short term, if this leads to the demise of public programming and/or even more commercials/pledge begging, I'll be qutie upset.

However in the long term, if the stations manage to pull in the funding from elsewhere, I'll be happy to see them free of meddlesome (and quite probably illegal) government pressure like has been seen recently.

Well, I've always been one that is in favor for governmant support for the arts. Generally speaking, I think we spend way too much money "protecting" ourselves and medeling in other country's affairs rather than improving our own country and educating our constituency. I'd rather have a governmant that was supportive of education and the arts first, since I believe that is what is one of the cornerstone of a great country.

But, this is where I am most liberal.

The constant cuts to the PCE and other public cultural oranizations saddens me, not for the amount of money that will be lost but for the example the government sets for the rest of the nation. Our leadership is narrow minded and short sighted and I find it extremly sad.

You're quite correct and thanks. What I cannot figure out is that many people find paying for Howard Stern a more attractive option. But hey, that's just me PBS and NPR give me more bang for every buck I give them!

Donna

I'm leaning more and more left these days, mainly because the right seems to be moving even further right. I love NPR, but admit I don't watch PBS at all these days....although I would love my own kids to watch Sesame Street and the like. I realize that my reasons for wanting the gov't to support these services is because they are good for me, which is a very self-serving reason. I used to be against all kinds of gov't funded things. Let's face it, if Sesame Street were kicked out of public television, a bidding war would ensue and some network would snap it up.

I'm still conservative enough to notice a liberal bias in much of NPR's programming. It bugs me that they don't have enough balance. But that's an administrative matter - who decides what gets on the air? I'm not talking about getting a Bill O'Reilly type but someone who's a little more middle. Much of the bias I've seen is rather light, they do a pretty good job of tempering themselves, but it's obvious that a program like This American Life (which I adore) isn't exactly a centered one.

So yeah, I hope public TV gets support because I like listening to it...any more than that hurts my head. And if it doesn't get support we'll have to donate more money, I guess.

Well, this is my special interest – so I’m biased.

I really wish the market would support the kind of programming that the CPB funds, but looking at how radio has consolidated, how the gazillion channels of cable TV still manage to offer little in the way of diverse programming and I wonder how my niche will get filled.

This is cause I put my money behind, contributing as generously as I can, but I fear that still isn’t enough – when the bandwidth can generate more cash by providing still more of the same programming in a different package.

I guess there is the internet, but I think even there they are hamstrung by the arcane workings of copyright and market share.

I might be more comfortable with this if the FCC and other regulatory agencies were doing more to protect/ensure diversity of thought, free speech, and creativity – but recent trends have moved to restrict content, and yield to the market.

I believe in the market system and think it a tremendous tool, but I also believe that not everything can be reduced to a monetary value or popularity ranking. This one has me worried.

For the record, I give money every year to my local public radio station (KQED) because I enjoy the programming. I also pay for Sirius radio almost exclusively for Howard Stern. They're not mutually exclusive.

However, I ceased giving money to public tv years ago. With the exception of one or two shows, the programming doesn't do it for me. Perhaps when I have kids, I'll donate something to keep commercials out of Sesame Street.

Have you ever noticed that the great documentaries that they play on Public Television during the pledge drives are usually edited? The versions that you get on DVD in exchange for a pledge are almost always longer. That alone is enough to tick me off.

As I get older, I find that I am more of a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Exactly like neither of the two parties.

This story makes me neither happy nor sad. I guess I'd be happy if the sweeping cuts were less biased. It just shows how ugly the government really is. Come to think of it, maybe I am sad. But not for the "right" reasons.

I contribute to NPR (mostly for This American Life which is the best radio on the dial).

I just don't think the federal government should fund content creation and that what role it plays should be limited to ensuring the channel exists (reserving and licensing segments of the EM spectrum).

To the extent that government is involved in content creation it should be at the local level where it will be consumed. Though generally I don't support it there, either.

More specifically the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was a horrible idea that grew out of a specific moment in time (when there were only three networks on which to broadcast content and barriers to distribution were monumental) that doesn't exist any more and it should be done away with.

For those looking to label this left or right wing, for me it grows out of my libertarianism which I think of as neither left or right wing, though in this case it has a surface appearance of right wingism (just as my pro-drug legalization views tend to look left wing when viewed in isolation).

This, I'm not so sure about - certainly things are different that the days of 3 Networks. But the times when I cruise the gazzillion channels, I really don't find much that speaks to me in the same way as the publicly funded stuff. Maybe that's becasue that niche is already filled by them?

For the record, my support is mostly in terms of radio. I rarely watch TV (no judgement intended there, just a statement of my personal viewing facts) PBS or otherwise.

Taking what you said waaaay out of context...
I do fund public television, and NPR, and my local musuems, and I loved public broadcasting for my son when he was a wee one.
However, now with my nephew, we watch the other channels more. PLay with me Sesame is on Noggin, and they run the old Sesame street bits from when we were children.
Have you seen Sesame street recently? Its not the same as what you remember. (at least not the same as when I was a child) They seem to assume now that those of us the same as Sesame street had a longer attention span than the kiddies now.

My point... other networks do have part of it. Noggin airs the Play with me show.. and a lot of the other childrens programming that used to be delegated to PBS stations only.

I guess the other issue I have, is when someone cites an example of something potentially filling the void of publicly funded programming, it's almost always of the "pay" and not "public/broadcast" variety.

The Big Bird thing is also inaccurate. According to Sesame Workshop's 2004 990 (the non-profit version of the 1040 individuals have to file) they receive little government money.

http://bbbnewyork.org/charityreports...s.aspx?id=1055

And it is difficult to claim too much poverty when you have at least 7 executives with salaries of more than a $250,000/year. I'm not saying they're not worth it, but not they're not poor. Also according to the same form, the direct production costs of 50 new episodes/year of Sesame Street are about $11 million. Somehow they find ways to be a non-profit on annual revenues of about $100 million (and another quarter billion in securities investments).

Again, I know that Sesame Workshop is hardly typical but it about the worst example you could use when arguing the poverty of public broadcasting.

Eh, I give up. This damned 'war' is going to bankrupt the country, and I no longer even care. (Much). We can give hundreds of millions to some jackass up in Alaska to build what amounts to his own private bridge to his island, and no one seems to have a problem with that. Everything is being cut, at least everything that goes to help the poor and elderly and mentally ill and all the other powerless in this nation, and the industrial military complex grinds along with nary a protest. We have some really ****ed up values these days.

And this is where I get left behind. The feeling that if you have a preference in content, that the government should subsidize its existence if nobody else will.

I'd prefer that there be a commercial-free revival of Firefly but have no expectation that the government step in and give me one. Either I find enough like-minded people or it doesn't happen.

(Raises hand) I do.

I will never object to that. The protection of our country is one of the only constitutionally mandated functions of the feds. This, of course, does not mean there is not waste and/or corruption.

Yeah, I'm with you there. But, it's the focus on cutting these "liberal" programs that hurts me the most. There's not much emotion for me in striaght econmics and, while they both deal with quality of life, I think the "nice to have" is just as important as the economic niceties and I'm not sure why the feeling is that the government should only be concerned with one of these things.

That's exactly how I feel. I’ve always been a moderate; and I vote for the person or issue, not for the party. More and more the last few years, I have been voting Democrat. An ex-friend (long story) once accused me of becoming a liberal. I told him that my beliefs and opinions have not changed – I stayed put, the country moved.

Edited to add: Just a thought… If my beliefs don’t change with time, doesn’t that make me a conservative??? Hmmm….

There were an average of four earmarks per congressional district in the transportation bill, so it isn't so much that nobody has a problem with it but that everybody has a problem with it except when the money comes to their home town and so everybody looks away.

If you haven't seen nary a protest you haven't been looking in the right places. The fiscally conservative side of the Republican base has been up in arms since the transportation bill passed. Check out Porkbusters for an example.

Hopefully the earmarks process will be killed but it benefits both parties so probably not.

To be sure, I don't expect the government to fund my interests (but I have expressed my bias above) but I want to at least ensure that I have access to my interests.

If cable is expected to replace CPB braodcasts - then give me a voucher I can use toward my cable billl to cover my access to the bandwidth I just lost to another identical network.

Libertarian, baby! :cool:

Ignore. Duplicate post.

(Why did the board add a second post when I went to edit the original???)

Me too. :)

I can't help but feel that this cut is retribution for CPB's critical report on Kenneth "Rove" Tomlinson. He quit after allegations about him came up when he used CPB money to monitor Moyers' show without the board's approval.

I donate to PBS and NPR when I can. Their listeners will fill that gap. Once they do, I'll be sure to listen in more. If Bush thinks they're critical of him now wait and see what they'll be saying soon enough.

You probably hit quite instead and didn't realize it (I do that a lot).

If only there was any proof that the billions of dollars we put into Iraq are actually protecting us from any real threat. We aren't one tiny bit safer due to this war. If anything, we have made things worse.

Meanwhile, we are perfectly fine cutting the arts, cutting medicare, cutting student loans, etc.

It is downright sickening.

When literally billions of dollars are wasted because congress insists on building more stealth bombers, despited the Air Force's insistence that they don't need any more (old example, but true and illustrative of how big of a military waste problem we have), I have a hard time swallowing the insistence that the CPB is the first place to start looking for budget cuts. Cutting $50 million may cripple public broadcasting, and will do next to nothing to restore spending order. Cutting several billion dollars of fat out of the military will barely register and would actually make a noticeable dent in spending. One word...priorities.

i have donated to PBS in the past because i love the programing. i watch frequently...in fact several times in the past week. i give when i can...the appeals suck me in and i feel obliged.

following Katrina, i donated a hefty sum to the ASPCA. since that time, the mailings, calendars, t-shirts, and sometimes more than one slick-mailing in a week has me reconsidering donating to non-profits.

i realize the execs need a salary and that they appeal to their "base" of previous donors... but damn... i'd bet the stuff they have mailed me since my contribution nearly negates what i gave.

PBS does sends me mailings every few weeks ... and it is such a waste of money.

The cost of such mailings is paltry compared to the return they get, else they wouldn't be doing it. That said, I'm sure you could contact them and ask them not to send mailings to you.

too much fun on LoT to accomplish things like writing out bills or sending a letter or grocery shopping. why have you made LoT so wonderful? damn you.

I could support the government getting out of the content business if they would fully get out of the content business and stop whinging about boobies on the telly.

Indeed we need public bandwidth set aside for specifically for porn - Why should the poor be expected to pay for something the rest of us take for granted?

Just for the record, I hardly consider getting rid of the CPB to be a high priority. If given access to the red pen there are plenty of places (including parts of the defense budget) where I'd start with much greater impact.

But just because I disagree with the prioritization of this cut doesn't mean I don't support the cut.

€uroMeinke, if Firefly is revived but instead of being on broadcast television (as it was the first time, on Fox) it is on the SciFi channel, should I get a goverment check to help me upgrade my cable to the package that includes SciFi channel.

As I said, I have no problem with the government guaranteeing a channel (through reserved spectrum space) but that isn't accomplished through CPB. They're providing content (and giving out grants for the design of the CPB annual report).

I get that - but, I guess I don't see the spectrum being preserved what with all the giant media company mergers. So given that the regulatory bodies in place don't seem to be accomplishing what I think their objective should be, that makes me knee-jerk protectionist for my pork barrel funding.

So yeah, if the governemnt is preventing your programming on getting onto our public spectrum, then I think they should give you a Sci-Fi channel voucher.

I find it interesting that people accuse the Right of moving to the right.

Michelle Malkin wrote a book (I've only read a little of it), about the left moving towards the extreme left, and how the party of John F Kennedy, Hubert Humphery, etc. has become the party that is driven by people like Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan.

She doesn't provide an explanation (her book is meant to be more entertaining about the Unhinged, such as Al Franken sticking his finger in the face of the producer of Laura Ingraham's show, or those who decide to attack conservatives), but I listen to the news, and I wonder how on earth the party went in the direction that it did. It seems like they are controlled by the most extreme elements. I have a feeling that the Democrats are going to implode soon and split into two parties... the extremists will be one party, and we'll have another party that will be more like the Democratic party before Reagan was president.

The country definately "has moved". It's clearly evident when the south, which ALWAYS used to vote Democrat now is voting Republican. Or when our neighbors in Canada start voting Conservative.

I would go as far to say that in order to be winning elections again, the Democrat party will have to purge itself of the extreme elements. When Cindy Sheehan hangs out with Hugo Chavez who vows to bring the United States down, when Michael Moore calls Americans the stupidest people in the world, and articles appear in the Washington Post say that Mrs. Alito (who looks like a normal person) criticize her clothing for looking like furniture fabric, they will continue to alienate people. Which is why I see a split coming.

As far as my own personal beliefs go, I received this message on another board I post at: .

I don't see how cutting funds to the CPB prevents access to the channel other than saying that without pupblic funding nobody would pay to have the content produced.

Regardless of whether CPB is funding specific content, the channel still exists and is equally accessible. Whether the rest of commercial broadcasting is owned by one giant company or 2,173 smaller ones is irrelevant to public broadcasting having a place in which to broadcast (whether anybody is willing to spend the money to develop content for broadcast in that space is a different matter entirely and not one I think the government should really be involved in).

I'm enjoying this conversation - but my biggest fear here is how being affilliated with a party forces me to support something I don't entirely believe in. Likewise, it suggests to others that my beliefs might be something other than they are.

When it comes to the Arts (with a capital "A"), I'm a radical supporter of free speech and down on government suppression (I'm not using the "c" word here). Do I think that cutting money to public television is a move toward truly reducing public spending? In face of the amazingly expensive war machine, I know that's ridiculous. However, I understand how the government's oversight would be less justified if public money was pulled - so it could be a boon on that front.

Darn it.

But is it really? It seems to me that Rupert Murdock or the Walt Disney Corporation has more access than I do? How do I get my channel?

Oh just as an aside, I believe anything publicly funded should be considered "work for hire" and placed into the public domain as far as copyright is concerned - but that's another issue ;)

On the personal level, your ability to have an idea and get it distributed globally is greater now than it has ever been in history and this is fully independent of whether CPB gets funded.

Now, if you want to talk about distributing your idea over the specific channels of broadcast television or broadcast radio access to the channel is no different whether you have one megacorporation or hundreds of small ones. But government assurances of publicly accessible sections of the broadband does not happen through funding of CPB but through regulation by the FCC.

Cool, so give me my channel, and I'll yield on CPB

I don't see what they have to do with each other. Nor do I see why you should be given a TV channel. You have the same access to one as everybody else.

I thought you were the one who linked the CPBs creation being a reaction to the limited selection of the 3 networks? I'm just saying I don't see much change as far as the broadcast spectrum goes.

Isn't that the tit for tat way government funding goes? At least I get to listen to NPR - no one's offered me a ride on a B2 yet and I think I paid way more for that thing.

As long as there are special interests, I want mine represented and pandered to. The rest of you libertarians can refund the governemnt your particular subsidy.

Yes, and CPB no longer does the infrastructural and channel management stuff it used to. Now it is almost purely a tool for content subsidization.

Also, the number of pipelines has so broadly increased as to make the physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum mostly meaningless.

Hell, Mousepod half a dozen friends are essentially running their own small radio stations (illegally due to copyright infringement) and mousepod is creating his own radio show and distributing them to a potentially global audience without relying on access to limited broadcast frequency.

I'll point wendybeth to your post when next she complains about bridges to nowhere.

Alex,
I'm with you almost all of the way. The one problem I have is that the same folks who run our government and do all sorts of fun grandstanding like the issue at hand are the same people who take money from lobbyists from Clear Channel and the RIAA and legislate against little upstarts who are trying to start their own "small radio stations". Go to the RIAA homepage and type 'podcast' into their search engine and tell me what you see. And don't even get me started on the FCC...

- MousePod (a registered Libertarian and EFF supporter)

Oh, I won't argue it is all wonderful. I just don't fall into the "since this incorrect thing is done, this other incorrect thing should be done as well."

You just end up with a briar patch of interlocked interests that can never be fixed because everybody is in love with there piece and will therefore protect the other pieces. Kind of like subsidizing the price of milk for the farmers and then subsidizing the purchase of milk by mothers.

There is a lot in the government I would dismantle or significantly alter, I'm just going to wait until it is all done at once or not at all.

See, and that's where I'm coming from. There's nothing in it for me to support ending funding for the CPB. I mean what does it really work out to? I recall the NEA worked out to $0.65 a person once upon a time. I doubt I'll see the penny a week increase in my paycheck.

Sure government funding is a clusterfvck, but until I have personal incentive otherwise, I've no deisre to sacrifice my own special interests. Why should I?