They want to kill off Public Broadcasting in America

of course, the fact that PBS runs things like Frontline & Now that are critical of the currently Administration is a totally unrelated and irrelevant fact. No possible connection, whatsoever.

(Marcello obviously OTM about the countless number of other far more worthless or actively nasty govt programs where money could be saved)

Making assumptions about my "self-obsessed prejudices" makes you look clueless Markelby, but it doesn't surprise me since all you have here is a shallow emotional argument based on your personal taste--what you think is "great TV and radio" is widely ignored by the public in the marketplace. Further, the vast majority of programming on public television in the United States would exist without federal funding.

And FWIW, I Tivo "Frontline", "The American Experience", and a handful of PBS cartoons for my kids on a weekly basis. I also contribute to my local PBS affiliate every year in amounts that exceed the "contributions" from my income tax. I'll do you a favor and assume that you do the same.

Ahahahaha.

Don, the UK has a thing called the BBC, for which each household with a television compulsorily pays somewhere in the region of US$987439834392423 per year to fund.

(at least, that was the setup 25 years ago when it was started; I'm not sure if things are different now. The other half of the setup was that if it made too much of a profit then the money had to be given back to the other TV stations, I think)

* comes back

OK, the UK has *three* publically-owned TV networks. One is the BBC's TV network, funded through the licence fee. Of the other two, one is partly funded by government subsidy; the other is *now* wholly funded from commercials, although I'm sure that when it was first started it was partially funded by levies on commercial broadcasters, as I said above.

Hi, I have an interview with NPR this morning and I also don't think there's any need for public broadcasting to be federally funded. I don't mind that it is, but there's no need for it. If is wasn't, the operators (which are mostly state universities) would probably make a more formal coalition to ensure survival of all viable channels/stations. Whatever.

I don't know much about public TV, but I think don is right in that it doesn't do terribly well ratings-wise. The value to advertisers is in the quality of the audience. Public radio, on the other hand, is frequently a top five station in its market where it's aired, and almost always owns the top slot for Time Spent Listening--and again the 'quality' of the audience ($$$) is untouchable.

My exact sentiments.

And Blount, I'm not sure why you ignore the "more or less" part of that post you refer to: the Constitution explicitly provides for a national defense--guns and tanks are modern, legitimate elements of this; that they are possibly used improperly is another argument for another thread entirely. I don't know where the Libertarians are against a "standing military" but since you know about that it'd be nice to see a link supporting that point.

If the audience of NPR or PBS is high quality (i.e. valuable to consumers), the market will support it without the intrusion of the federal government. There's no evidence anywhere to suggest otherwise. And there's the conflict of CBP supporters--they claim it's a negligible amount of federal support, but that it's somehow vital just the same.

Five.

Five.

Aren't more than 50% of the population on some sort of digital TV now? In which case, the number of free channels goes up to at least 15 or so, although several of those are only broadcast for a few hours per day.

John Tesh; Riverdance; nature specials; Kitaro; Sesame Street; Antiques Roadshow; news that's the same as all of the other news channels, but with much less yelling.

I was going to say "I rarely watch things that aren't on the main five channels," but then I realised that I watch ITV and Channel Five even less than the digital-only BBC stations.

Isn't there a Mike Myers song making fun of the scant number of TV channels in England? Because, you know, it's worth making fun of, since the 400 channels I could conceivably receive are all 100% good, 24 hours a day.

Isn't there a Mike Myers song making fun of the scant number of TV channels in England? Because, you know, it's worth making fun of, since the 400 channels I could conceivably receive are all 100% good, 24 hours a day.

It's on the Austin Powers soundtrack - I think it's just called "BBC", but I could be wrong.

For reference, for all you Americans who won't understand my half of my "PBS = BBC4" comparison above, here's today's BBC4 listing:

1900 Journeys From The Centre Of The Earth (doc about Mediterranean history)
2000 The World (news)
2030 BBC Cardiff Singer Of The World Competition 2005
2200 Sounds Of The Seventies (retro music footage)
2230 Look Around You (repeat of a BBC2 comedy series)
2300 Arrested Development
2320 Arrested Development
2345 Journeys From The Centre Of The Earth (as shown earlier)
0045 Nation On Film (1930s archive footage compilation)
0115 A Digital Picture Of Britain (photography and the UK landscape)
0145 BBC Cardiff Singer Of The World Competition (again, as shown earlier...)
0315 Journeys From The Centre Of The Earth (...for the THIRD bloody time!)

(that's the whole of today's programming; the channel is off-air in the daytime)

Fast Asleep Club was CLASSIC, btw.

(xpost)

Weird considering it's been going downhill since the day it started.

I can remember when "Do you get Channel 4?" was a chat up line :-/

i think watching all those episodes of "are you being served?" as a kid fucked me up permanently

I am going to have to second this statement. PBS also imports such greats as Masterpiece Theater, Keeping Up Appearances, whatever the hell the detective show with the woman from that last one is, and occasional Monty Python / Red Dwarf. It's also responsible for spreading the evils of the Red Green show to the US, inflicting the evils of Canada on the masses.

Local PBS shows are actually fairly decent here, with comprehensive state fair coverage and a regular show called Living in Iowa. Imagine a show where every other episode is about some random farmer guy who makes some sort of random thing as a hobby. It could be anything from wood carvings to dollhouses to found art sculptures! Every episode ends with a shot of the sunset, I think.

That is a crock.

HAHHAHAHAHA PET MRS. SLOCUMB'S PUSSY YOU SNAGGLED-TOOTHED PONCE!

Who says that's okay? Subsidizing those is equally wrong.

Well Sky has 7.7 million subscribers, NTL (Cable) has 3 million subscribers and Freeview has over 5 million. About 2/3 of UK homes have access to digital TV so majority of Brits have access to multichannel TV from aound 15-30 on Freeview to several hundred on Sky. Most people only watch BBC 1,2 and ITV 1 though.

I disagree, especially with your adverb there. Congress has authority to hand out subsidies and grants, and award contracts and has done so for many, many years. You may disagree with the way the Transcontinental Railroad was built but it was certainly a huge success and economic spur generally.

Giving corn subsidies to prop up the economies of some midwestern states who could not otherwise make it in the modern commodities market and thus flooding the American food market with cheap corn syrup to fatten us up is fine but doling out a small pittance to locally run and funded radio and television stations is somehow a great blow to the idea of limited government? Give me a break.

"Guns and tanks are more or less explicitly required by the Constitution. The public broadcasting system enjoys no such luxury."

ah, yes, the tanks of the late 18th century were a sight to behold... but the television sucked.

is the "should" here constitutional or ethical/moral/etc? If the former, sure whatever, probably not tho the consitution has fuck-all to do with the modern-day U.S. anyhow: it's just a deity invoked to give sanction or rebuke to this or that action. If the latter, though, there are many countries whose thriving creative communities, arts scenes etc make a great case for public funding for radio, concerts, painting etc

A Mapplethorp or Serrano style Homeland Defense logo would really be something.

*Hunter clutches chest* :^O

< cynic>
Invoking a deity to give sanction/rebuke to something or other kinda IS what modern-day Amurrica's all about tho, no?

I listen to NPR all the time, and give them money. I almost never watch PBS, haven't donated in years and swore I'd never give them anything again after their ridiculous kow-towing on the Buster Bunny lesbian thing. The biggest problem I see with pulling the federal plug is that there are a lot of smaller communities that might not be able to keep their public broadcasting afloat without the subsidy. But maybe even that's not such a big issue, what with Webcasting and satellite broadcasts and whatever. Plus, almost everything I've ever read about the administrators at CPB -- even before the current crew of GOP operatives -- made them sound like the most craven dolts in the world. I say, let the GOP kill it and take the public hit for beating up Big Bird.

actually, that's part of what i'm on about. Among other things, the smaller PBS broadcasters would be even more fucked. Also, the educational programming DOES benefit folks, much more in poorer communities where, for better or worse, Sesame Street helps your kid learn English.

I still think MoveOn.org should call their current campaign, "Save Sesame Street."

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001544.asp

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001513.asp

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001569.asp

...As Pat Mitchell noted, polls show that Americans name PBS their "most trusted" source of news. PBS is accessible by 99 percent of Americans and currently reaches 70 percent of American homes -- making it the true "electronic public square" that it's founders had envisioned. But not since Richard Nixon tried to shutter PBS in the early 1970s has public broadcasting been in so much danger of failing to live up to its mandate to be a free, educational, and apolitical source of news and entertainment for Americans...

To me public broadcasting by definition needs to be publically funded. If you argue that public broadcasting is possible without the CPB, are you mainly arguing that responsibility for funding PBS stations should be shifted down to the local level? Or that it should survive soley on donations?

I don't think we can accept the latter without completely buying into Bush's concept of faith-based funding. Should we do away with Social Security and rely on Americans to support the elderly through charitable donations? Should we scrap any publically funded medical research and hope that private citizens donate enough money to the proper foundations?

good riddance to bad rubbish! people should start learning how to play the banjo again.

uh yeah, if you're conservative enough to think that any public program is a form of theft from the rich(and thus truly virtuous and moral) to give to the undeserving(lazy and thus immoral).

why would this just be an issue with programming, and not with the actions of any govt group? does not their money go into that, as well?

(There is also no mention of welfare programs – a reasonable counter-argument, granted – but one can argue (and it has been) that the general-warfare clause in the preamble to the Constitution is vague enough to allow for it.

My local NPR gets 10% of its $3 million budget from 'grants and other allocations.' I don't know how much of that is federal CPB money. They get about the same from the university that owns the license. 48% is listener support and 28% is underwriting; this is roughly the same as other university-owned public radio. The disappearance of CPB would really screw little community-owned stations, but they're usually on the brink of failure anyway, with any little crisis as likely as a big one to send them over the edge.

I personally am not necessarily saying that funding responsibilities should be shifted to the state/local level, but that they can be, and someone above made the point that it might do the system good--give them some backbone and teeth.

xpost

that's a thought, but the thing about shifting them to the state level is that most of the states are already broke as shit, having to deal with increased costs of education, health care, national security, highway contruction & maintenance, etc.

There's a really important point in there.

For years, every niche that PBS has occupied has been poached by commercial broadcasting. Shows like 1900 House and earlier, American Family inspired the popular trend of reality shows. A&E took over the Mystery niche. BBC America shows the imported British shows that were once a PBS staple. Shows like This Old House and Antiques Roadshow have spawned a thousand home improvement shows and stations like Home & Garden. Sesame Street paved the way for Noggin and a massive children's entertainment + merchandising industry.

The point is that PBS has been a very successful publically funded research program for the entertainment industry. TV R&D so to speak. PBS is able to experiment and innovate with new types of programming that are later co-opted and popularized by commercial channels, ultimately creating more jobs and helping the US economy. So I think you could actually make a strong pro-PBS case from a market-oriented, capitalist angle.

he disses Tomlinson and the whole thrust of the recent CPB meddling and doesn't even bother to posit how complete defunding would affect public broadcasting, I'd really like to know his take on that seeing as how he helped create CPB.

Hi,

You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress
is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true.
(Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.)

Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS:

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and
PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other
commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most
severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull
the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch.

The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year -- $100
million -- and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could
kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog,"
"Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving
low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to
increase corporate sponsorships.

Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach
400,000 signatures today?

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

Thanks!

P.S. Read the Washington Post report on the threat to NPR and PBS at:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745

If a weall-informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy, the US government has an obligation to create the conditions necessary for the public to inform itself properly. If that means setting up a BBC-like system, then that's what it means. I'm still waiting to hear the better ideas here from the "burn, baby, burn" crowd.

I don't get what you're trying to say, Tracer: we've had a public radio/TV system for decades and what do we have to show for it, except that it has a dwindling audience. Poll after poll Ratings book after ratings book show that PBS is not delivering a growing audience; the citizenry isn't choosing the Lehrer News Hour as its information source and how is the "obligation" going to force the choice? I really don't think this country is ready for Praavda. We can't force people to read, we can't force them to watch, and if history is any indication (PBS), they won't choose the government's choice either. Why would they suddenly choose a BBC-like system in the face of massive overthrow of the system by the Internet? Chances are, they won't.

And let's face it, the citizenry would rather be well-informed about Brangelina, Bennifer, and Katie Couric than whatever sneaky dealings Washington is up to.

hee hee. you heard about the new "Pentagon Channel" that they're creating, to directly go thru the "media filter", right?

thing is, we already have Pravda. "video news releases."

Do you have some inside scoop?

the other historical turn is that major-network news depts were once run as a "pbs" within the larger structure: they were run at a loss. i don't remember when news was asked to turn profits like other units, i'm guessing early 80s.

This misses the entire point of PBS. It's not meant to be a market oriented popularity contest. We shouldn't judge PBS's success by how well its ratings compare to MTV. The point is our media IS Pravda already. And PBS is one of the few outlets that at one time provided an alternative.

June 16, 2005
Lobbyists' Role for Public TV Is Investigated
By STEPHEN LABATON
WASHINGTON, June 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are examining $15,000 in payments to two Republican lobbyists last year that were not disclosed to the corporation's board, people involved in the inquiry said on Wednesday.

One of the lobbyists was retained at the direction of the corporation's Republican chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, they said, and the other at the suggestion of his Republican predecessor, who remains on the board.

The investigators, in the corporation's inspector general's office, are also examining $14,170 in payments made under contracts - which Mr. Tomlinson took the unusual step of signing personally, also without the knowledge of board members - with a man in Indiana who provided him with reports about the political leanings of guests on the "Now" program when its host was Bill Moyers.

While the amounts of the contracts are relatively small, the issues they pose are part of a broader examination by the inspector general of Mr. Tomlinson's efforts to bring what he says is more political balance to public television and radio and what critics say is political interference in programming.

It comes as Republicans in Congress are threatening to cut support for public broadcasting sharply, and as a number of crucial staff members at the corporation have quit and privately cited concerns on Mr. Tomlinson's leadership.

The people who described the inquiry and the declining morale include officials unhappy with the corporation's course under Mr. Tomlinson. Concerned about retribution, they spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor of Reader's Digest appointed to the board by President Bill Clinton in 2000, said on Wednesday that he would not comment on details of the investigation but was certain that he had done nothing improper.

"We are confident that the inspector general's report will conclude that all personnel arrangements were and continue to be made in accordance with the statutes and rules governing CPB's use of funds," he said in an e-mail message.

Corporation officials said the two lobbyists did not approach lawmakers but provided strategic advice on handling a bill last year that would have given public radio and television stations more representation on the corporation's board. The measure, which died, was opposed by the White House and Mr. Tomlinson but was supported by stations.

One of the lobbyists, Brian Darling, was paid $10,000 for his insights into Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana Republican who sponsored the provision. This year, he briefly served as a top aide to Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, but resigned after the disclosure that he had written a memorandum describing how to exploit politically the life-support case of Terri Schiavo.

Mr. Darling did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

The other lobbyist, Mark Buse, a former top aide to Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he provided advice on the legislative process over a month and did not talk to any lawmakers. Mr. Buse, who was paid $5,000, said he was hired at the suggestion of Katherine M. Anderson, a former chairwoman of the corporation and a current board member.

The corporation is financed entirely by taxpayer dollars and is supposed to be a political buffer between lawmakers and public television and radio. For years, it has told groups representing the stations that federal law prohibits it from retaining lobbyists to approach lawmakers or push for legislation.

Mr. Tomlinson has said in recent interviews that he has no desire to impose a political point of view on programming, and that his efforts are intended to help public broadcasting distinguish itself in a 500-channel universe and gain financial and political support. His critics, who include top officials at the Public Broadcasting Service and at National Public Radio, say his actions pose a threat to editorial independence.

The inspector general is looking at contracts signed by Mr. Tomlinson with a man named Fred Mann to monitor the political leanings of "Now." The inquiry was requested by two Democrats, Representatives John D. Dingell of Michigan and David R. Obey of Wisconsin, after they learned about the monitoring.

Officials said the inspector general was examining whether Mr. Tomlinson, as chairman of the corporation, had the authority to approve the contract or the payments.

Mr. Mann, who was listed in the contracts as living in Indianapolis, could not be located, and officials at the corporation said they knew nothing about him.

The inquiry comes as Mr. Tomlinson finds himself at the center of a political battle that threatens to reduce the corporation's budget significantly, and internal turmoil that has sharply eroded morale and recently prompted significant staff defections. The corporation's general counsel, Donna Gregg, left the corporation this month. Last week, Nancy R. Rohrbach, the senior vice president for corporate and public affairs, submitted her resignation.

Ms. Rohrbach has told friends that Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly ignored her advice. She and other officials were described as being upset last week when Mr. Tomlinson rejected a proposed statement by senior officials at the corporation denouncing a vote by a House appropriations subcommittee that would slash the corporation's budget by 25 percent, or $100 million, to $300 million.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to approve that measure on Thursday.

Officials said that after the panel's vote last Thursday, staff members confronted Mr. Tomlinson about his refusal to approve a statement condemning the Congressional action.

While public television and radio groups denounced the subcommittee vote and called the corporation to seek a similar statement, late in the day Mr. Tomlinson issued a milder response, saying that the corporation was "concerned" and would "be joining with our colleagues in the public broadcasting community to make the case for a higher level of funding as the appropriations measure makes its way through Congress."

The corporation's Democratic and independent members, meanwhile, are preparing to urge the Republican-controlled board to delay the appointment of a new president of the corporation at its regularly scheduled meeting next week. The former president, Kathleen Cox, left in April after her contract was not renewed.

Mr. Tomlinson has said that his top choice is Patricia Harrison, an assistant secretary of state and a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

Ohhhhhh, oh oh oh. You see that's a perversion of capitalism. That's why big government is bad bad bad. We told you! It turns into patronage and corruption, it doesn't matter which side. Also, it's tryanny,k? Conservatarian business interests may be benefiting NOW, but historically, liberal socialists and unions were the beneficiaries. So don't be mad, you parasitic elitists in your ivory towers, you had your day, but you've been discredited. Revealed. Now, our goal is to SHRINK government, if we don't bankrupt you all first. But it doesn't matter, in the end the government will be shrunk down to its explicit Constitutional (and moral) limits, and then...well then we can do like our Christian cohorts do, and just wait for the Ratpure.

anybody who in 2005 still seriously thinks that markets are rational and efficient and never subject to all kinds of weirdness must not own stock in healthsouth, or own any tulips, or whatever.

Get rid of regulation, it just pens me in.

I am oppressed.

If you argue that public broadcasting is possible without the CPB, are you mainly arguing that responsibility for funding PBS stations should be shifted down to the local level? Or that it should survive soley on donations?

I don't think we can accept the latter without completely buying into Bush's concept of faith-based funding. Should we do away with Social Security and rely on Americans to support the elderly through charitable donations? Should we scrap any publically funded medical research and hope that private citizens donate enough money to the proper foundations?

There is a huge difference. Supporting the elderly and medical funding are life-and-death, and the govt. has a moral obligation to those human beings to fund them.

Public broadcasting is education, which is close to life-and-death, but public TV is something that's only intended to supplement education, icing on the educational cake; and it's already largely funded by donations and foundations. I wouldn't want to minimize the importance of medical research and Social Security by putting public broadcasting in the same ballpark.

Poor people watch PBS? That's news to me. But even if you're right, this is no argument for continued funding. Poor people can't afford lots of stuff besides cable: should the government fund that stuff too? Why pay for PBS instead of free books, or internet access? In the winter when it gets cold, should we be taxed to buy them electric blankets? In the summer when it gets hot, should out taxes pay for their air conditioning? It just seems completely irrational, and based on your other posts I would not have imagined that you would want to allows your hated W to control funding for a television network.

Is state-run TV really what you want, given who runs the state?

I think this is about funding, period. It has nothing to do with control. Do you think this administration is going to take their hands off of public broadcasting just because the CPB is gone? If they don't like the programming they're still going to use every bit of muscle, intimidation and corporate control that they can to destroy people like Bill Moyers.

Removing federal funding makes PBS more (maybe slightly more, but more nonetheless) beholden to one of two things: audience share (to gather donations) or corporate donors. Which means they either have to dumb it down and model themselves after commercial broadcasters or self-censor to avoid pissing off their corporate backers.

Antiques Roadshow is like Undressed for me. I know it's lame and predictable ("oooh, he's going to break this loud and annoying woman's heart by telling her it's a fake!") but I just can't stop watching.

oh wait, here's the wiki bit on it:

NOW is a PBS newsmagazine especially covering social and political issues.

Launched in January 2002, and originally called NOW with Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers hosted the program for three years, retiring on December 17, 2004. David Brancaccio, whom Moyers introduced as a co-host in the autumn of 2003, took over hosting duties on January 7, 2005.

NOW tends to focus on issues such as corporate crime and the environment—a focus that has angered members of the presidentially appointed Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In the summer of 2004 the Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced that it would no longer provide funding for NOW. This loss of funding may explain why episodes of the new version of NOW are only 30 minutes long (unlike the hour-long NOW with Bill Moyers).

I'm imagining people getting nude and an expert (like a doctor who's also wise-ass celeb kissing loudmouth) telling them how sexy they are, how good looking they are, the state of their health, their life expectancy, and finally, the weight of their soul.

("oooh, he's going to break this loud and annoying woman's heart by telling her its failing, and she's shovel-faced!")

xpost

don, what I wrote doesn't touch on the popularity, or unpopularity, of our current actually-existing PBS/NPR system. So if you were looking for that in my post I can understand being confused.

Public television has been kneecapped from the beginning by the requirement that it not show advertising. This requirement was instituted not as a consequence of high-minded ideas about broadcasting going untainted by the whiff of commerce, but by NAB lobbyists worried about the effect that a government-funded network would have on their audiences, especially if in all other respects the playing field were level. So the playing field has never been level. There has been a tacit agreement for decades that PBS and NPR will not compete with private broadcasting. They show different kinds of programming. So holding up audience numbers as some proof that PBS couldn't survive "on its own" "in the wild" is bizarre -- it was never designed to compete in the first place. Because of the still incredibly powerful National Association of Broadcasters, the same people who watered down the original 1934 Communications Act that created the FCC, the same people who fought tooth and nail against the phrase "public interest, convenience, and necessity" being inserted into the Act as a prerequisite for broadcasting.

Throwing "Pravda" into the conversation is interesting. I think it shows how immature Americans are about media. We imagine that anything the government funds must be akin to communist propaganda. Why not look at the BBC model, the one that keeps getting mentioned? I know why not: because it's not only popular within the boundaries of its home nation, it's incredibly popular all over the world. But then you don't get to touch on your favorite spin points, you don't get to mention "Pravda," you don't get to make bizarre claims that I, or someone else here, wants to "force" people to watch or read government-funded television. No one forced anyone to watch Sesame Street or 3-2-1 Contact. The shit was awesome television. And it was hardly the government's handmaiden. Likewise, look at the BBC: it's been far more combative with its own government than the best-selling English newspaper has been (Rupert Murdoch's Sun, which cozies up to whomever is in power; trust me, when a Tory takes power in the UK again, the Sun will be Tory again.) Perhaps we're simply not up to it, here? Perhaps we just can't do it?

As I think we might have already pointed out, BBC TV is not government-funded at all. The only government-funded part of the BBC is the World Service, and I think they stopped producing TV a few years back.

If you compare the US and the UK at the moment: the US government probably puts more money into producing TV output, per capita, than the UK government does - in the form of those fake news segments. I think you can almost certainly say that US government-produced TV footage gets a much higher ratings share than anything on UK government-funded TV.*

look at the BBC: it's been far more combative with its own government than the best-selling English newspaper has been

Every British government always complains that the BBC has a pro-Opposition bias. It's one of those quaint British traditions like the State Opening Of Parliament.

* because the only British TV shows that are directly government-funded are in a language spoken by about 1% of the population.

As for the BBC being more combatative with its government than the networks in the U.S., I don't agree at all. It's a nice thought that us lowly, uncultured, war-mongering Americans could aspire to the paragon of virtue that is the BBC, but the cultural differences are too vast. And the biggest problem isn't that we don't have a BBC, it's that the rationale for something like it doesn't eminate from the laws of the land. Viewing (and reading and listening) audiences here will not watch longer news programs on the Chimperor and his many illegal escapades. They don't care about how he's left the environment in shambles, destroyed the economy, gave all our money to the rich, and turned the White House into a Christian revival tent. If PBS and NPR lose government funding, nothing will change. The programming with an audience will find another outlet or continue with private funds, and as Blount hoped way upthread, we'll all be better for it.

Doesn't everyone with a TV pay a mandatory tax (license fee) that goes directly to the BBC? How is that not government-funded?

First, the meme that Henson was altruistic is mostly myth. He readily licensed his characters and made millions doing so. There's nothing educational about simple stuffed animals, and he did that early on--that they were high-quality served him and his commerical enterprise as much as it did parents and kids. Yes, Henson avoided openly exploiting his characters for other advertised products, but he was certainly not afraid to exploit them to enrich himself. For example, "The Muppet Show" was made explicitly for network television and his feature length movies were made explicitly for widescale audiences; if those were supposed to be "educational" enterprises, we've lowered the bar to the ground. So as far as Henson having a conscience, I'd say he slept well on his own bed of money. That part doesn't bother me Walter, but to even intimate that Henson's main perogative was educating children ignores his actions. In the beginning, using that angle helped him sell his show but by the end, the guy's merchandising instinct took over. And there's been controversy about McDonad's, for example, sponsoring Sesame Street--if you have kids of your own who watch PBS, you'll know that they know all the sponsors of their favorite shows.

Thus, if PBS wants to provide a commercial-free space for kids programming, then they could start by eliminating mention of corporate sponsors, taglines, and characters on the air. I kind of doubt Kraft or Kellog's or McDonald's would get into that ploy, but it'd be revealing if it were actually demanded of them. The bottom line is that if you are looking for your television to provide a consistent, educational venue for your kids, you're missing the point entirely. You don't have to turn the television on for your kids, and if you do, you can utilize videotapes or DVDs to get better educational program without corporate or government sponsorship or a zillion commericals. It's nice that PBS is an option for kids programming--it's the best by far in my opinion--but we're also at a technological point where PVR/DVRs/VOD is going to make broadcasting totally different anyway. The days of plopping your kid in front of the TV for "whatever's on" will be gone in five years, and we're not going to need PBS to develop shows in that case at all. Leapfrog and other companies do a better job anyway.

You are correct, however, that there is almost no home for children's programming that does not involve merchandising as of now. It's almost impossible to develop without making that element a significant component (and this extends up into development of shows for Adult Swim and other tween/teen programming.) That's also why all the PBS shows whore their wares in the stores and in the videotape/DVD market and in syndication or other licensing. PBS has the same interest in creating these revenue streams from licensing that any other channel does.

The Muppet Show was a different set of characters and as far as I know it predated Sesame Street. Your point is taken though.

And there's been controversy about McDonad's, for example, sponsoring Sesame Street--if you have kids of your own who watch PBS, you'll know that they know all the sponsors of their favorite shows.

I don't remember any McDonalds advertising (or any sponsorship of any sort) on Sesame Street when I was a kid. What happened to the show after Henson's death I suppose is another matter.

Thus, if PBS wants to provide a commercial-free space for kids programming, then they could start by eliminating mention of corporate sponsors, taglines, and characters on the air.

Agreed. The point is that this is possible on PBS, even if the channel is a bit broken now. The possibility of this happening diminishes every time there are further cuts in public funding. And the possibility of something like this happening on commercial television are zilch.

It's nice that PBS is an option for kids programming--it's the best by far in my opinion--

Well that's basically all I was trying to say. It's a good option and unfortunately I don't think it's going to be around forever. Ideally you and I don't use the TV as a babysitter for our children but it's hard to deny that a lot of people in this country do. If a small fraction of those kids are being babysat by a slightly better alternative, I think we all benefit in the long run.

That's also why all the PBS shows whore their wares in the stores and in the videotape/DVD market and in syndication or other licensing. PBS has the same interest in creating these revenue streams from licensing that any other channel does.

That's because A: they're allowed to and B: they need the money. To me this is an argument for greater government funding and regulation, not less.

As far as the future of broadcasting being in flux because of DVDs and other new technology, I don't think that changes the picture. Who is going to shape where that future is going? These new entertainment/media/broadcasting models can be shaped and controlled completely by media conglomerates or we can choose to keep some publically funded media around to explore the alternatives.

xpost to don, I think it's interesting how PBS has become shorthand for "kids' programming." Once it's in this kind of ghetto it becomes much easier to phase out; after all, "Finding Nemo" uses more computing power is more innovative. It's reminiscent of Bush's strategy for Social Security; paint it as a program for poor people, rather than a program for all of us, and it becomes much easier to phase out.

Yes, but the beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder. Who gets to decide then, what those basic facts are? A referendum where a simple majority reigns? Would you be worried if Bush was in charge? As I noted upthread, I don't think the culture in the U.S. would allow a BBC styled system to emerge (and it goes without saying that the BBC has failed its citizenry from time to time.)

We are people, human beings, who have various systems of organization, and can freely choose to come up with whatever the fuck we want to

But the question then becomes, why do you need the coercive power of the federal of government to achieve means that you cannot achieve in the free market? Because you're right--your idea of what "the basic facts of national life" is--and thus you get the imperial power to rule over, say, me, with my own money? That's a really hard sell given that the alternatives to public broadcasting are equal or better to everything you've offered. It's not just children's programming. The distribution of news is far more thorough and revealing in print than television, so shouldn't that be the focus rather than TV?

You also say that the private broadcasting system has failed spectacularly--how so?

I agree. Pet programs like the Pentagon, the CIA, the "War on Terror", the war in Iraq: just because these can all be "justified" by the constitution doesn't mean they are good uses of taxpayers' money. If I'm having financial problems at home should I resolve to stop frittering away my pocket change on chewing gum or should I maybe think about giving up my $500 a month coke habit?

As soon as we make excuses for PBS then we have to make excuses for some other pet handout

Excuses? How about arguments? I'll make arguments in favor of any number of government spending programs that I think increase the quality of life in the US. That's what I believe the government is for. Your radical vision of a federal government that does nothing but patrol our borders and run our courts goes against most of our country's history.

I think a better argument could be made for the federal government to blow money discouraging kids and parents from sitting in front of the boob tube.

Good luck with that. And where is that mentioned in the Constitution BTW?

But the question then becomes, why do you need the coercive power of the federal of government to achieve means that you cannot achieve in the free market?

Because the free market doesn't exist. Why do you need the coercive power of the federal government to protect your factory from looters or protect your land from squatters? Why do you need the coercive power of the federal government to steal my money and pay for roads in your state so you can ship your products to WallMart? Shouldn't you be using the "free market" to build your own roads and run your own private police force?

What are the leading cases on this point? I can't find them in short order, and I'm not spending more time on that task now. The cases on CPB and PBS, and Journal articles, that I have found are almost entirely about equal access and political content, not the consitituional right of Congress to create the CPB, or the creation of PBS.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to provide "for the general Welfare of the United States...." in Article I, section 8, clause 1. Section D of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 gives a statement of purpose:

(a) Congressional declaration of policy

The Congress hereby finds and declares that —

1. it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes;

also

5. it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation;

6. it is in the public interest to encourage the development of programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities;

It then creates CPB and charges it as follows--

Purposes and Activities of Corporation
(g)
(1) In order to achieve the objectives and to carry out the purposes of this subpart, as set out in subsection (a), the Corporation is authorized to--
(A) facilitate the full development of public telecommunications in which programs of high quality, diversity, creativity, excellence, and innovation, which are obtained from diverse sources, will be made available to public telecommunications entities, with strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature;
. . .
(D) carry out its purposes and functions and engage in its activities in ways that will most effectively assure the maximum freedom of the public telecommunications entities and systems from interference with, or control of, program content or other activities.

The argument that we are awash in media content is undoubtedly true, and that commercial content sucks. Private outlets do a shitty job providing diverse educational and arts programming. CPB and PBS were designed to provide "programming that involves creative risks and that addresses the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities." Do you argue that CPB and PBS effectively suck up the entire market for creatively risky or diverse content, and that should they be shut down, commercial interests will jump in and fulfill that role? I say bullshit, because even now, I don't think that PBS is that risky or diverse. If you take PBS out of the equation, you will get even less. There are interests the market will not serve, despite the benefits to the country's general welfare.

Now, there may be an argument on constitutionality going on among congessmen, but I'm confident that most anti-CPB congressman would vote against CPB funding because they just don't like the government spending money this way (that is, CPB is not unconstitutional, just a waste--or a competition for space and advertising). Furthermore, they don't like diverse programming. It's weird, and for weirdo VT volvo driving latte sipping liberals. They could give a shit, it doesn't go to their bottom line.

But anyway, the courts have not struck down PBA. If the CPB and PBS have not been found unconstitutional, then I say fund them well, obey the PBA rules on keeping partisan interests as far away as possible (not easy with this lot of bastards around), and make the law function as it was designed to do.

What are these innovations and what is this better programming in the vein of Sesame Street?

"It's nice that PBS is an option for kids programming--it's the best by far in my opinion"

Why is children's TV just a bunch of merchandising Don?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

To don weiner: whatever ideological justifications and arguments are put forward to justify this action, the motivation and practical consequences are exactly as I stated above. When ideology purity is more important than practical effects, then it is deeply misguided. Ideology can only be tested by its practical effects and not the other way around.

Sure, you may be very happy with FOX News today, but if you fear big government, then remember that the exact same reasons apply to fearing monopolies. I would submit that even when there are several corporations presumably "competing", if the fundamental interests of their owners align in all but a few particulars, then a de facto monopoly condition prevails.

I'm writing that one down!

er yeah but i'd assume that the uk government is funded by the people, too. just like the us is. which is why it always amuses me to hear people like dubya say "don't trust the government with your money." we have met the enemy and he is us.

also, blount's right, don's not a republican. he has some weirdly formed ideas about what actually constitutes american law and governance, but hey, whatevs.

funding PBS by selling off its analog spectrum in two years...

meanwhile, more fun with Tomlinson:

Given these funding issues, yesterday's report by Stephen Labaton in the New York Times takes on added significance. Labaton writes that Tomlinson, in what looks to be an unprecedented move, paid $15,000 to two Republican lobbyists last year without disclosing it to the CPB's board. What's more, the lobbyists, at least according to the "corporation officials" Labaton spoke to, "provided strategic advice on handling a bill last year that would have given public radio and television stations more representation on the corporation's board." The measure died, despite the support of local TV and radio operators. On top of this, Tomlinson paid over $14,000 to a consultant in Indiana to monitor Bill Moyers' "Now" for "liberal bias." Again, all of this was off the books, making one wonder how confident Tomlinson really is in his contention that public broadcasting tilts to the left, and how concerned he is about the looming budget cuts...

then i reiterate it.

I'm not asserting ideaological justifications; I'm asserting Constitutional ones. To your argument, the law isn't subject to undesired outcomes--redressing those outcomes requires changing the Constitution in this case. As Tracer hinted above, our representative democracy allows this and the Constitution provides for it. And as I've noted time and time and again on this thread, the alternatives to public broadcasting are vast and quite sufficient to serve the citizenry. In this context, the motivation and practical effects of the Constitution are well served.

a - where does it say that again, hstence?
b - even if it said that, we can and have changed the Constitution. Which makes my point for me. You love PBS? Then either find Constitutional justification or change the Constitution. I'll be happy with whichever you choose.

Yes. But insofar as I can see, you have stopped at assertion and have not yet offered any particular arguments or justifications in favor of this assertion. If the presumed unconstitutionality of public television is your primary objection, you've done nothing to argue your position effectively in this thread.

IIRC, the only legitimate forum for deciding the constitutionality of Congressional actions is the Supreme Court, and they haven't agreed with you. So, either you are compelled to argue that the Supreme Court did not have valid jurisdiction (an ideological POV if ever there was one) or that they made the "wrong" ruling (another ideologically driven position) or else you must concede that the consitutionality of CPB is not an issue.

As for the vastness of the alternatives to public television, you've halted at assertion there, too. If you are forced to name these vast resources, I think it can soon be demonstrated that, for all the many names these entities go under, the great majority of them will be owned by a handful of media conglomerates, such as Time-Warner-AOL, Clear Channel or Rupert Murdoch.

i'm totally for cpb over cia. porter goss couldn't find the motherfucking cookie monster.

If the presumed unconstitutionality of public television is your primary objection, you've done nothing to argue your position effectively in this thread.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the federal government should provide public broadcasting or anything like it. Does that mean that agency authority or executive authority is invalid? No, and I'm not arguing it for the same reason that every governmental action isn't challenged by the Supreme Court.

As for the vastness of the alternatives to public television, you've halted at assertion there, too. If you are forced to name these vast resources, I think it can soon be demonstrated that, for all the many names these entities go under, the great majority of them will be owned by a handful of media conglomerates, such as Time-Warner-AOL, Clear Channel or Rupert Murdoch.

That's a hilarious conspiracy theory that doesn't begin to justify anything you've proposed, including your whimsical tribute to the practicality of founding the Constitution on ideology, Aimless. Really.

weiner, please. it wasn't a thesis, it was a joke at your sorry ass's expense. how many times do you need to be seriously pwned by every poster on this thread before you stop posting nonsense? oh, i know the answer's never, because you will still keep blabbing your bizarre spiel day-in and day-out, regardless of whether you're actually right or not. in a way it's kinda endearing and cute, but someday i hope you grow up and give it up, bub.

This is kind of like fundie Christians telling the ones who don't hate gays they just aren't reading the Bible right.

I'm just gonna avoid the slavery thing altogether.

And then it's on to calling me crazy, as if a significant amount of daily leftwing echo chamber posting on ILX isn't filled with half-truths and opinion posing as fact. If that's not enough, you have to declare yourself the mature guy in the crowd, the all knowing discerner of truth and consequence who can remind me that I just need to grow up and face your facts before I'm taken seriously. Sorry, but I don't need to appeal to your intellect to validate my own, and if you don't like my opinion or think I'm full of shit, then ignore me. Or make fun of me. Doesn't bug me a bit.

As to you Milo, you're probably half-right.

In other words, you can make a lot of arguments about the sensibility of how and how much the government should be involved in this sphere, but to pretend that being involved at all is somehow outside the Constitutional scope of government is not, I don't think, going to fly.

I agree that it is sensible to define the airwaves that way (which I think the SCOTUS has, actually) in the same sense that we can validate, say, environmental laws on exactly the same grounds. But I don't see regulation as authority to provide programming, even in the form of grants. As I've noted upthread, it made a lot more sense decades ago but now, given current market and economical conditions it seems much less harder to rationalize. It's fine that they divy up the airwaves just like they might pave interstate roads, but I don't see why they should fund a television or radio station. After all, they don't pave roads to then fund a national newspaper, do they? It's not that I'm saying the government has no right to govern a sphere that is reasonably of national interest, I'm saying that they don't need to fill that sphere either on Constitutional grounds or market/economic grounds.

wait, huh? Dude, we already are down to about half-a-dozen big companies owning like 95% of the channels/stations/broadcast venues as it is...

To your argument, the law isn't subject to undesired outcomes--redressing those outcomes requires changing the Constitution in this case.

But when I point out that you are wrong by any accepted measure of constitutional law, your position changes to this:

I don't see anything in the Constitution that says the federal government should provide public broadcasting or anything like it.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but you just waffled your position like crazy. Since doing this once is probably a good indicator that you'll do it again and again, I think I'll quit while you're behind. Thanks for all the fish.

nabisco, OTM and sorry to everyone whom I've confused by being batshit or not grown up enough to communicate clearly.

Don, do you feel that, in the face of all the socially conservative criticism and inqury coming from Congress and the Administration, the CPB and the various NPR and PBS stations around the country would end up with better content (more independence) if they just gave up the federal teat altogether?

anyhoo, back to your regularly-scheduled convo, already in progress...

don, caricaturing my positions is not the same as making an argument. Asserting your conclusions is not the same as making an argument. Arguments are built, not excreted.

When you find yourself shaping paragraphs that propose theses and then marshall supposrting evidence, drawing connections between antecedants and consequences, then you will know you are arguing your point. It feels qualitatively different than spouting off.

YES and I noted it way upthread after jblount made a comment about this. See my other comments upthread that relate to a Rove-ian public broadcasting world.

And to you Aimless--funny how I knew you weren't leaving without shooting a few more fish. Like hstencil, you've given me valuable advice on how to conduct myself and I promise to do as you say, even if you're reduced to hypocrisy in your lecturing.

the Red Green show.

The audience for NPR programming has doubled in the last ten years to 26 million weekly listeners. Since Spring 1999, the audience to NPR programming has added nearly 9 million listeners, an increase of 60 percent. In the early 1980s, about 2 million people listened to NPR.

This upward listener trend in the last two decades is in large part attributable to the astounding growth of NPR News, a national service anchored by hourly newscasts and two signature, award-winning newsmagazines Morning Edition and All Things Considered. These programs are currently the second and third most listened-to radio programs in America. NPR News saw significant audience growth and retention after each major news event from the 1991 Gulf War to the Sept. 11 attacks to recent events in Iraq.

But I think radio is different.

Personally, I probably wouldn't bother shelling out the serious cash my gf does to have all the cable gewgaws we have and KQED and KCSM are broadcast so I will have to make an old fashioned argument for keeping informative TV available to the poor. I will admit, however, that Discovery/National Geographic/BBC America/et al... have taken to broadcasting content that once was the mainstay of much of PBS, but if anything that should be a spur for PBS stations to further tailor their lineups to the tastes of the subscribers keeping them in business. If there is a Federally (under)funded corporation that helps to pool resources and provide a source of programming that is not entirely designed around the commercial model, that's more than fine with me. Our popular culture tends to get so easily degraded by consumerism, escapism, and sex/violence that a little gentle elitism isn't uncalled for. You are either conceding a political battle to social conservatives (a defeatism I will never allow myself) or an inherent antipathy toward 'big govt.', taxpayer funded programs has soured you on the value and utility of public broadcasting, but the 'totally' in total waste of taxpayer money seems like mere hyperbole to me.

Largest radio broadcasters merge

The two largest radio broadcasting companies in the United States, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Infinity Broadcasting Corporation, merged. Federal communications law had recently lifted restrictions on the number of radio stations one company could own: Together, the combined firms ran eighty-three stations.

Note that this consultant defined "liberal bias" as "anti-Bush," which is NOT THE SAME THING.

I am glad that you have made the most credible argument for public broadcasting, which of course is for the poor. I am interested in knowing, in fact, how much the poor watch PBS or listen to NPR. I have suspicions given my knowledge of daypart television ratings, but will withold further assumptions on this particular issue until you or someone else can inform me. For if we supply the poor with "informational programming", it would greatly validate the cause if they were consumers of it. If they are not, then we have something to reconcile (and that still doesn't really reconcile the fact that it's much more informative to read the newspaper or books, and the fed doesn't play nearly the same role in that context.)

funding was saved, but at what cost?

Also Thursday, the corporation's board selected Patricia S. Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chairman, as president and chief executive.

so this is the deal they had to strike to save the funding.

Fuck.

Of course, there are plenty of other party hacks still at CPB, and his stepping down probably has something to do with this:

It's widely expected that the Corporation's Inspector General Kenneth Konz will deliver his long-anticipated report on "deficiencies in policies and procedures" at the CPB meeting today, although the contents of his investigation aren't likely to be made public for a couple of weeks. Konz has been working on his report for some time, initially acting on a request made in May by several members of Congress to explore whether CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act by secretly hiring outside contractors to search for evidence of "liberal bias" in PBS' programs, and by bringing aboard a White House staffer to help write rules for two new ombudsmen to monitor public broadcasting's content...

Of course, as that article notes, they've brought in some State Dept folks with no shortage of experience in propaganda...