Should PBS be publicly funded?

A friend sent me this. Don't know if you've seen it and already voted.

Of course the MSM would love to silence this voice in the darkness.


Please Vote and recommend

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Phil Corriveau, Wisconsin Public Radio" <membermail@wpr.org>
> Date: May 7, 2008 2:43:34 PM CDT
> To: <silvdreg@charter.net>
> Subject: Parade Magazine Poll on Taxpayer Support of Public
> Broadcasting
> Reply-To: membermail@wpr.org
>
> Dear WPR Listener,
>
> In its most recent edition, PARADE magazine posed the question of
> whether the federal government should continue its support for PBS
> and, by implication, NPR and the entire public broadcasting industry
> as well. While this is an unscientific poll put forward by one
> magazine, because of its wide circulation – estimated at 32 million
> households – the results of the poll could have an impact on policy-
> makers who must make funding decisions under difficult fiscal
> constraints.
>
> If you believe that the federal government should continue its
> support for PBS, NPR and local public television and radio stations,
> please go to <tr_1210563505515>
> http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/ <tr_1210563505515>
> edition_05-04-2008/Intelligence
<tr_1210563505515>_Report<http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_05-04-2008/Intelligence_Report>
> and take a few seconds to register your vote.
>
> Thanks, and please pass this along to other public broadcasting
> supporters!
>
> Phil Corriveau, Director
> Wisconsin Public Radio
>

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506220009

Tomlinson resigns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302235.html


Tomlinson busted for horse racing operation in the office: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30broadcast.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

The repugnicans attempted to tear the CPB and public broadcasting apart during the Raygun regime. It's one of their convenient whipping boys when they talk about being "fiscally responsible" and also codetalk to its base that they're going after the "librul media".

Thomlinson was the bull in the china shop...made a real mess of things, but to their credit, he was one of the first of this regime forced out.

Not WPR...but Parade...and the framing of that question.

Public Radio is not totally funded by government money...it also get grants from state and local governments and corporations. Many are operated by universities and state or local boards that do most of the legwork when it comes to paying the bills. CPB money is a small fraction of the operating budget, but it does go for techical upgrades and innovations...satellite, web streaming, digital TV and radio.

The right wing has long wanted to destroy the CPB, NPR and PBS...primarily as its competition to the corporate media and the religious media (who would love to get funded the same way)...using the "librul media" stalking horse as their top reason for "privitizing" Public Broadcasting. They bitch about the pennies given to the CPB yet want billions more spend on coporate welfare contractors.

Hopefully with Democratic control of the House & Senate...the CPB will be able to withstand the assaults they've endured during the 6 previous years of one-party rule.

Public broadcasting delivers a wide variety of music, information and communications that isn't "commercially viable" (such as classical music) and is one of the few remaining local voices remaining on the dial. The right wing hates it because it's "elitist"...and whenever they need a "whipping boy" in a political year, public broadcasting always gets the whip.

:grr:

Should Your Tax Money Support PBS?

YES ------ 77% (votes = 43395)

No ---- 23% (votes = 13072)

Total Votes = 56467

our government spends on it. I think increasing the funding for PBS would be money well spent for that matter.

Of course, it should. End of discussion.

Let's see what we got after November.

Public radio should be by law independent of government interference and to go with that it should have an endowment fund managed by an independent public corporation (CPB) that provides most if not all of its funding through a one-time seeding from the federal government. In addition, private (corporate) sponsorhip of individual programming should get banned as well, they can donate to CPB, for which they get no air time advertising. If CPB needs additional funding it should be via a checkoff system on your 1040, as is done with campaign financing.

And what bothers me is that everything that has governments attached to it ultimately gets subverted by a disingenuous government.

One of my first "real" jobs was working in the news department of a public radio station. It was a great experience and I gained a lot of friends working there.
I also learned about the political process (local, county, state) in ways that I never would have been exposed to otherwise. I also learned that fund-raising was by and large the most important way that PBS earns money and can pay its bills to keep up quality programming.
I realize that I'm biased because of my past affiliation, but when my son was young, I appreciated PBS programming for kids (Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, all that good stuff), and was able to relive some of my childhood through his eyes.
When fund-raising time comes, I still donate. Probably always will.
I've got a soft spot in my heart for PBS, and the feds should do more...not less.

response will be flamed but here it goes:

PBS/CPB came into being in the late 60's when the TV landscape was much different: 3 main networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) and a smattering of independent TV stations (mainly limited to the larger markets). The major networks programmed mainly entertainment style programming with a lesser amount of news and public interest programming. This left a huge hole in the area of educational and artistic programming which PBS was able to fill quite well.

Now fast forward to today: there are currently numerous channels that fill the niche that was solely PBS': A&E, TLC, Discovery, History Biography, National Geographic Channels, to name a few.

So the question really is: Is PBS superfluous in today's media landscape? and if so should the federal government be spending their finite resources on something that is already available? or should they be weaned off their public funding (which is 30% of PBS' total revenue: $119.8MM of a total of $404MM)?

While these questions are difficult ones, all government programs should be reviewed to see if they are (a) successful and (b) necessary due to changes brought about thru time and evolution.

So the funding is 119.8MM? Thats less then one day of the cost of Iraq.

your point?

of the 111 million or so households in the USA, approximately 14% (15.5 million households) are OTA only viewers (no cable or satellite). A specific breakdown of whether they are rural, urban or suburban is not available but if they follow the normal population distribution the number in the rural areas that you indicate that have no cable (satellite is available in virtually all areas of the USA) would be exceedingly small and does it make sense to spend $100+ million to cover people who probably don't watch a ton of TV anyways (even with the expenditure)?

As to less than 1 day of the cost of Iraq: it's also < 1 day of social security, or a year of food stamps for another 85,000 people or coverage of the entire year's prescription drug costs for 63K seniors.

There is a lot of contention for federal dollars from a myriad of directions and political agendas and which ones are more important than others is a difficult choice to make...is TV something that is more important than any of the 3 that are listed above?

need for a profit margin or returning a dividend to its investors. Something as important as that shouldn't be entrusted to the free market. Haven't we seen enough examples of things that provide for the common good get privatized and go to absolute hell?

Also, how does the underpriviliged citizen get served by A&E, History Channel, etc when they can't afford a monthly cable bill because they are working three jobs to put food on their tables?

>>>Also, how does the underpriviliged citizen get served by A&E, History Channel, etc when they can't afford a monthly cable bill because they are working three jobs to put food on their tables?<<<

If they are working 3 jobs, do they have time to watch TV?

>>>the government has a duty to provide at least one source of media that isn't tainted by the
need for a profit margin or returning a dividend to its investors.<<<

I keep looking to the 1st Amendment and asking: why?

and why just TV? why not magazines? newspapers? music? books?

Also if direct profit is a concern and a potential negative influence, does that apply to ANY revenue source? More than half of PBS' total revenue is via "donated" broadcast rights from major corporations. Do you think that may have any impact upon their programming decisions?

"If they are working 3 jobs, do they have time to watch TV?"

Let me make it simpler for you, is there a duty to provide a source of unbiased media to the underprivileged?

"I keep looking to the 1st Amendment and asking: why?"

Because a well-informed populace doesn't elect people like Dubya and doesn't allow their government to run rough shod over their civil rights.


"and why just TV? why not magazines? newspapers? music? books?"

At a bare minimum it should be television since that is the easiest to access. A well informed populace is essential to good government.

"Also if direct profit is a concern and a potential negative influence, does that apply to ANY revenue source? More than half of PBS' total revenue is via "donated" broadcast rights from major corporations. Do you think that may have any impact upon their programming decisions?"

Direct profit isn't the main concern. No one is denying a corporation the right to make a profit, but history shows us that unbridled, unregulated corporations tend to only focus on how they can make a buck and they've forgotten that their is a payback for having a sense of social responsibility. Until proven otherwise, I'll believe that PBS is fair and unbiased by the influence of the donations that they receive.

For many Americans its the lone source of educational or informative programming given geographical location or lack money for cable/satellite.

Growing up in rural Missouri all we had was OTA antenna channels and PBS was a wonderful source of programs on history, science etc.

NPR especially is an organ of the well-to-do. Won't see/hear a multi-part expose of poverty or economic social justice on either.

That said, I listen to a lot to NPR.