Possible cuts in Public Broadcasting budget

The house is considering what amounts to a 25% cut in the funding to The Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/11960148.htm

Here's a sample:

- Eliminate the $23 million "Ready to Learn" partnership with the Education Department that helps fund programs like "Sesame Street."

Not very happy about this. I donate every year, and while I wish more people would, I am a firm believer in public broadcasting, especially in educational programming. Why do we now need to cut their funding after all this time? Why do they have to fuck with Sesame Street? This would just hurt children. Bleh.

Bill Moyers appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart this evening last. He stated that PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established to be a "firewall" between politicians and journalists. While PBS typically presents itself in a "liberal" fashion, I think they do a fine job in many fields (ie) science "Nova" etc, and do it without commercialization, hence the need for subsidy. The gov't of today however, is not interested in facts or objectivity. Politicians and the media have merged closer, influencing each other in negative ways.

Cutting funding to PBS, like many other public organizations is prevalent these days, but at 25% budget reduction smells of something other than money.

Ugh...doesn't it just piss you off. I am just so disgusted with this whole government. They should be using all the billions of dollars they are using to fund a fuckin' war that should have NEVER taken place and used it for so many other programs that are really in need. I am beside myself with the budget cut on Public broadcasting. That is all the programming we let our girls watch, because regular television is nothing but shit programming and bombarding the children with advertisement (commercials). I could go on and on about where they are cutting budgets....

The PBS affiliate which produces SESAME STREET actually has HUGE annual budget surpluses and broadcast facilities that are way beyond "state of the art", mainly due to their ownership of "Sesame Street" and "This Old House", etc etc. They have no need at all for government funding or even much in the way of public contributions, and yet they continue to play the welfare queen whilst soaking other PBS affiliates with very high fees to broadcast their original programming. It's not the childrens' programming that is at risk, since no station would dare cut that.

I don’t watch PBS. I have no use of PBS. If you want PBS then send them some money at there next drive.

Considering that the CPB under Tomlinson is trying to turn public broadcasting into a propaganda organ for the far right, it may be worth the sacrifice to jettison the CPB and just become an independent non-profit that answers to nobody but the audience.

Hmm...some would call that "The Discovery Channel"

Considering that PBS for a while now has taken contributions and mentioned who contributed in atasteful manner I wonder

Would PBS be viable if they DID allow commericals? yes I know they wouldnt be "PBS" anymore.

But I have to think that the current corporate sponsors and other community and society concious corporations could buy advertizing in a controlled (By the PBS management local and national)

I know its agaisnt the whole concept and all that - but there is a place for the sorts of programs PBS provides, and I have a feeling if they were responsible - which I think they could be - they could use advertizing to replace the dwindling federal subsidies.

Like someoen mentioned - the Discovery Channel. We could Add the History channel and others. I think theres a definite audience already.

Advertizing during seseme street alone could go a long way to pay for funding.

They will continue to cut all programs that don't increase the wealth for conservative run corporations that have contributed, or are friends with, the White House administration.

This administration is not about what's best for our country as a whole. It's all about what makes certain corporations and entities more money and more power.

What about this? Is this true or not? Everyone has just ignored it...

Public Broadcasting suffers a tragedy of the commons unfortunately. If I'm not donating, someone else is, right? wrong.

Briana Dawson

Yesterday the House voted to restore $100 million to the CPB budget. The vote was 284-140, showing strong support from both sides of the aisle. Overall funding is still reduced, though not as deeply. A mandated conversion to digital broadcasting, for example, is still unfunded. Members of the Senate have announced that they will seek to restore that funding as well.

The CPB also announced the appointment of former co-chair of the Republican National Committee, Patricia Harrison, to be the new President of the Corporation.

Charges that "Big Bird is a billionaire" were dismissed as overheated partisan rhetoric. The funding cuts might not have significantly impacted Sesame Street, one of PBS' few money-making programs, but could have shut down service to stations serving rural and minority constituencies, including areas with no other broadcasting service.

David (Cartier) do you have some links?

It's noteworthy that these cuts would have affected the smaller affiliates much more than the parent CPB itself. They are mandated to upgrade to digital by the gov't, yet they wanted to take away some of their funding.

Those who touched on donations - I do donate and have every year since I turned 18 - but it is just not possible for them to rely 100% on charity.


From this story in the Washington post:

Small public radio stations, particularly those in rural areas and those serving minority audiences, may be the most vulnerable to federal cuts because they currently operate on shoestring budgets.

"This could literally put us out of business," said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming. "Almost all of us are down to the bone right now. If we lost 5 or 10 percent of our budgets in one fell swoop, we could end up being just a repeater service" for national news, with no funds to produce local content.

Stankavich, who also runs a public radio and TV station in Anchorage, said public radio is "an important source of news in urban areas, but it's life-critical in rural areas," especially in far-flung parts of Alaska unserved by any other broadcast medium.

Well, the public station I was just watching just played a new "commercial" (they had been playing thingys talking about these cuts)... they used the term "recently threatened"-- so I guess these cuts were called off? Good news I guess--assuming they don't have "extra" money as mentioned earlier in this thread.

You know, I have no knowledge whether or not what David said about the TV station that produces Sesame Street and This Old House is true or not. I do know that I value highly the programs on both NPR and PBS. My husband and I contribute at least $150-250 per year to our local public broadcasting organization (which happens to encompass both radio and TV programs), Oregon Public Broadcasting or opb.org. We look forward to the time when we can afford to give more.

I heard about the issue of public broadcasting potentially losing federal funding earlier this week when I got a notification from MoveOn.org, an e-mailing list to which I belong. They circulated a petition, which I signed, and helped gain over one million signatures in support of continuing the funding. I have no desire to squabble on this thread with anybody over whether or not public broadcasting should or shouldn't receive public money, I am just passing on this information.