House panel targets public broadcasting

[Slinky]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

> It may not be the end of the world for those of us who live
> in metro areas, but for those small town communities it
> isn't good and certainly to those folks who get laid off,
> its no picnic. Those small towns lose the local element of
> radio as most of their other local commercial stations are
> probably already mostly if not entirely satellite.

What small towns have their own NPR station?

In Pennsylvania, for instance, there are 7 NPR stations: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Harrisburg, Allentown, State College, and Erie. If you're in a small town, or even one of the smaller rated markets like Williamsport or Altoona, you have no local NPR affiliate. You might be able to pick up a translator or simulcaster of one of the big city stations, but it won't have any local content.

Many small towns still DO have a commercial broadcaster that serves local needs, much moreso than an NPR affiliate broadcasting from 50-100 miles away that carries mostly network programming. If NPR funding gets cut, it won't be the small towns that get hurt, because they had no local NPR in the first place.

Public radio is not that expensive to run anyway, and the donations to NPR news/talk stations are pretty impressive. Most NPR affiliates could get by without the federal funding, which pales in comparison to the funding that TV gets. It's the small public TV stations that would really be in danger.

 

[raccoonradio]

A Human Events Online article (reproduced at the conservative messageboard Free Republic) urges the de-funding of PBS. Comments follow. Many conservatives, myself included, feel PBS/NPR has been on the taxpayer dole
too long and should be set free--surviving on listener and viewer contributions,
foundation grants, and corporate sponsorship only.

There was a time when PBS was the only game in town for educational/cultural
programming. Not any more.

How would liberals feel if a network with a _conservative bias_ were to be funded by taxpayer dollars? They would be all kinds of protests. That's kind of
what's going on with NPR and PBS, which has leaned leftward over the years.
Let them survive on the money made by selling Barney DVDs. Or at least
put on "the other side". (One article linked to nprsucks.com pointed out
how Terry Gross puts mostly left-leaning authors on, just about ignoring
right-leaning ones--and the few conservative ones she puts on, like
O'Reilly, get treated rudely. I heard the clip of the O'R confrontation
on Laura Ingraham's show...as well as her fawning over Franken.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1426049/posts

 

[uncamark]

> A Human Events Online article (reproduced at the
> conservative messageboard Free Republic) urges the
> de-funding of PBS. Comments follow. Many conservatives,
> myself included, feel PBS/NPR has been on the taxpayer dole
> too long and should be set free--surviving on listener and
> viewer contributions,
> foundation grants, and corporate sponsorship only.
>
> There was a time when PBS was the only game in town for
> educational/cultural
> programming. Not any more.

Then you and most other right-wingers haven't been watching most of the "cultural" cable channels lately. In the pressure to deliver the young demos that advertisers want, we're getting Bravo doing "Celebrity Poker Showdown" and "Being Bobby Brown" instead of Kurosawa films, A&E doing "Growing Up Gotti" and "Dog the Bounty Hunter," The Learning Channel shortening its name to TLC and being centered around makeover shows and the Discovery Channel doing "Monster Garage" and "American Chopper" instead of documentaries. There's a lot of negative things that could be said about PBS, but *for the most part* they haven't been forced into doing sleazy reality shows to stay afloat. Almost every "cultural" cable channel except the low-visibility Ovation and the totally-industry-funded C-SPAN have had to make that choice.

Maybe you should actually watch those channels just once instead of just watching FNC and the Jesus channels.

 

[Les]

> Then you and most other right-wingers haven't been watching
> most of the "cultural" cable channels lately. In the
> pressure to deliver the young demos that advertisers want,
> we're getting Bravo doing "Celebrity Poker Showdown" and
> "Being Bobby Brown" instead of Kurosawa films, A&E doing
> "Growing Up Gotti" and "Dog the Bounty Hunter," The Learning
> Channel shortening its name to TLC and being centered around
> makeover shows and the Discovery Channel doing "Monster
> Garage" and "American Chopper" instead of documentaries.
> There's a lot of negative things that could be said about
> PBS, but *for the most part* they haven't been forced into
> doing sleazy reality shows to stay afloat. Almost every
> "cultural" cable channel except the low-visibility Ovation
> and the totally-industry-funded C-SPAN have had to make that
> choice.

You raise some really valid points.

I've turned off my DISH service and may or may not turn it
back on come the "new season". I can get a fair number of
local channels, one PBS very clear; one very noisy. They
HAVE been running a much better selection of interesting
programs of late. Still, I'd rather contribute myself (what
they're currently programming is WORTH supporting) than
see a single tax dollar spent on what might or not be...but
has the potential to become a government propaganda channel.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold rules. It really
would be in the best interests of public television to sever
all ties with government.

I see something more ulterior in the commercial channels you
reference. Recall Discover and the great series "Wings"?
Suddenly it was gone and moved to a new entity called "Discovery
Wings" for which you had to pay for a most expensive tier! Not
an isolated case. It seems the standard A&E, Discovery, TLC,
etc. have really become shills for the add-ons. They'll run
a decent new show just long enough to get you hooked then
shift it to some channel for which you have to pay more and
more and more.

> Maybe you should actually watch those channels just once
> instead of just watching FNC and the Jesus channels.

Was this shot really necessary? It kinda ended a great discussion
on a downbeat.....

 

[uncamark]

> I see something more ulterior in the commercial channels you
>
> reference. Recall Discover and the great series "Wings"?
> Suddenly it was gone and moved to a new entity called
> "Discovery
> Wings" for which you had to pay for a most expensive tier!
> Not
> an isolated case. It seems the standard A&E, Discovery,
> TLC,
> etc. have really become shills for the add-ons. They'll run
>
> a decent new show just long enough to get you hooked then
> shift it to some channel for which you have to pay more and
>
> more and more.

And Discovery Wings has changed its name to The Miltary Channel and expanded beyond aviation to the military.

Their view is that the digital channels can be more in-depth on a topic that people are interested in and that the main channel will still present programs related to that topic. Of course, the pressure for ratings has made that belief less possible--and since the digital channels are also ad-supported, they'll be under the same pressures sooner or later.

> > Maybe you should actually watch those channels just once
> > instead of just watching FNC and the Jesus channels.
>
> Was this shot really necessary? It kinda ended a great
> discussion
> on a downbeat.....

To you as the moderator, I now have to agree with you. As you know, I wasn't aiming it at you, but I do now agree there could've been another way of saying that there are some conservatives who praise certain cable channels for programming they were doing a few years ago, not what they're doing now.

 

[Les]

Thanks!

Thank you for your understanding!

I tend to allow a little more political angle than some other
moderators but my real hot button is anything that denigrates
the opinion of another. Whether name-calling or insulting
one's intelligence. Perhaps I'm oversensitive...I know I
do try to nip that sort of thing early; perhaps a little too
early sometimes. It comes from having done a lot of
instruction of sales and marketing people and having to present
new information to large groups of engineers and, sometimes,
even their wives and kids. I was quick to notice that any
"put downs" can bring meaningful discussion and learning to
an immediate halt!

Truly, your understanding is very much appreciated!