What is the point of PBS and NPR?

[Visbek]

Then they should not mind paying for it directly by writing a check to PBS instead of the government

CPB, NPR etc do get most of their funding from private donations.

If federal funding was cut, the people who would suffer are mostly those living in rural areas, who rely more heavily on federal funding.

So glad you have the interests of rural Americans at heart.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

LOL

I have never suggested Soros is behind "everything Trump is against".

Do try to present at least a shred of credibility, otherwise there is no reason to waste my time responding to the hyperbole you're posting.

You suggested just that with this post:

Exactly. PBS and NPR have become political animals. Why else would George Soros give so much money to them?

Let them swim in the marketplace.

Trump wants to get rid of them, and you support doing that because you think George Soros and Progressives are apart of some vast, imaginary conspiracy against him.

 

[jmotivator]

Using that logic only if you used the public library or the fire department or police in any given year should you support them.

Um, no. You do realize that CPB has a thing called a "budget" that they stick to throughout the year and that they don't blow all of their pledge dollars the day they receive them like a kid spending their allowance on laffy taffy, right?

 

[BillRM]

Makes sense to me. Police and Fire are preventative though. Youre using them all the time if you live in a city. Rurals often go without and provide for themselves. I think the argument here is that we dont need govt for entertainment like we do for protection of life and property. And that by having them divide the taxes we give them, and the attention they focus, the more they do they worse they do it.

It not so must entertainment as aiding in having a more educated population in the same manner as our public schools and our support for public colleges does.

Trump love the poorly educated by his own words but it is not a desirable state of affairs for the nation welfare.

Second a fast check at say the history or science channel will proved that the free market does not meet this need in any manner.

Once I almost throw my shoes at my TV when the discover channel showed a gentleman looking for a black hole at the bottom of the ocean with a device with two LEDs on top of it.

First by all current theories tiny black holes can only exist for mirco-seconds and any such object would drift to the center of the earth not be supported by the ocean floor and so on..........

Somehow I never ran into such nonsense on Science Fridays programs on NPR for example.

 

[jonny5]

When people move further to the right over time things seem like they are moving to the left. They are not. NPR is a perfectly respectable news source, and if it didn't exist we would all be subject to wild partisan sources that don't reflect reality. PBS is also a solid source of educational television for kids and adults. It is available to almost all people, regardless of income, and is more trustworthy to me than the Ancient Aliens crap the history channel is pushing, or any of the sugar induced madness you get on any of the channels targeting children.

Ok, but why should I pay for your opinion?

 

[jonny5]

CPB, NPR etc do get most of their funding from private donations.

If federal funding was cut, the people who would suffer are mostly those living in rural areas, who rely more heavily on federal funding.

So glad you have the interests of rural Americans at heart.

We have the interests of everyone at heart, not just one faction.

 

[jonny5]

It not so must entertainment as aiding in having a more educated population in the same manner as our public schools and our support for public colleges does.

Trump love the poorly educated by his own words but it is not a desirable state of affairs for the nation welfare.

Second a fast check at say the history or science channel will proved that the free market does not meet this need in any manner.

Once I almost throw my shoes at my TV when the discover channel showed a gentleman looking for a black hole at the bottom of the ocean with a device with two LEDs on top of it.

First by all current theories tiny black holes can only exist for mirco-seconds and any such object would drift to the center of the earth not be supported by the ocean floor and so on..........

Somehow I never ran into such nonsense on Science Fridays programs on NPR for example.

Uh, what?

 

[Kobie]

You have failed to provide any shred of evidence that George Soros is behind everything Trump is against. Your argument is invalid.

They seem to think because some group received money from some other group that once got some of that sweet Soros cash, that group is fully funded by the bogeyman Soros and forced to do his evil bidding.

 

[calamity]

They seem to think because some group received money from some other group that once got some of that sweet Soros cash, that group is fully funded by the bogeyman Soros and forced to do his evil bidding.

This alleged far reach of the mighty George Soros is the craziest thing I ever saw. But, then again, when I consider the source---maybe not.

 

[Mac77]

CPB, NPR etc do get most of their funding from private donations.

If federal funding was cut, the people who would suffer are mostly those living in rural areas, who rely more heavily on federal funding.

So glad you have the interests of rural Americans at heart.

If federal funding is cut people in rural areas are no more affected than city folk

They can buy cable or satellite just like everyone else

 

[BillRM]

If federal funding is cut people in rural areas are no more affected than city folk

They can buy cable or satellite just like everyone else

LOL when the population density is small you need federal money and or other federal aid to get private companies to run cables and other infrastructure to such areas.

See the history of getting electric powers and phones for that matter to the farmers in the 20s to 40s as an example of this.

 

[tres borrachos]

PBS offered age appropriate television to small children without inundating them with advertising and marketing.

Much of it was also lightly educational.

So yeah, it had value.

I don't know if it still does, but it sure did about 15 years ago.

PBS is still great. My kids watch it a lot and are not bogged down with Viagra and Depends commercials. I've watched PBS for my entire life, from when I was little to my grown up days. I learned so much about science from Nova. I love their political shows like Washington Week. My husband and I learned so much about house projects by watching This Old House. We plan a lot of our European vacations getting ideas from Rick Steves' shows. My kids grew up on Thomas the Tank Engine. PBS was where I first saw Monty Python and Benny Hill.

PBS is awesome.

 

[Mac77]

LOL when the population density is small you need federal money and or other federal aid to get private companies to run cables and other infrastructure to such areas.

See the history of getting electric powers and phones for that matter to the farmers in the 20s to 40s as an example of this.

Well, fresh bair and clean living does have a price

But Hughes Net and Directv are available anywhere

 

[backpacker]

Because apart from the local broadcasters who would bother?

BBC America as to a lot of the top-shelf programs like Downton Abbey, etc.

 

[jonny5]

LOL when the population density is small you need federal money and or other federal aid to get private companies to run cables and other infrastructure to such areas.

See the history of getting electric powers and phones for that matter to the farmers in the 20s to 40s as an example of this.

How is that my problem though? I dont live there.

 

[Visbek]

If federal funding is cut people in rural areas are no more affected than city folk

They can buy cable or satellite just like everyone else

Try again.

The stations in urban areas are fairly well funded, as they have bigger audiences, and better options for fund-raising.

Rural stations have, for obvious reasons, much smaller funding bases. Therefore, they need more government funding.

High-speed Internet access is a major issue for rural areas; only around 55% of rural areas have access.

Paid TV is expensive, and also has some access issues in rural areas.

Equally important is that people "buying cable" doesn't change the fact that PBS stations tend to be local, which means that yes, if they don't get federal funding, then those stations will have to stop transmitting. The local TV provider would then have to either not offer PBS, or use something from a relatively distant urban area.

So again, thank you for displaying your deep interest in rural regions.

 

[Parrish]

Why does it seem that some people are afraid of PBS/NPR?

It's not because of the funding. There are far more wasteful programs with far greater budgets.

 

[MrPeanut]

Ok, but why should I pay for your opinion?

I still can't see where I said you should. Could you point it out to me?

 

[ocean515]

You suggested just that with this post:



Trump wants to get rid of them, and you support doing that because you think George Soros and Progressives are apart of some vast, imaginary conspiracy against him.

I suggested no such thing.

When you decide to stop making things up, I might take your posts more seriously.

As it is, I just view them as SOP from someone who struggles to make a cogent argument.

 

[eohrnberger]

I have a modest proposal for all of those people who love PBS and NPR. I count myself among them, and will do this myself...

CPB received $445 million in funding from the Federal Government last year. On a strictly per-capita basis that means we each contributed about $1.40 last year to CPB.

At the next pledge drive, call in and donate a mere $3.00 and we can easily cover the shortfall for the year. Repeat yearly.

That would be reasonable. Hell, I'd be prepared to kick in a $20 each year.

Using that logic only if you used the public library or the fire department or police in any given year should you support them.

Well, I wouldn't put the library on the same category as police and fire.

Makes sense to me. Police and Fire are preventative though. Youre using them all the time if you live in a city. Rurals often go without and provide for themselves. I think the argument here is that we dont need govt for entertainment like we do for protection of life and property. And that by having them divide the taxes we give them, and the attention they focus, the more they do they worse they do it.

I'd have to agree with that.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I have to admit, Nova is one of my favorites as well.

But in spite of all the good things that we are mentioning, I'm still not seeing any justification that the tax payer needs to be on the hook for it.
Why does the CBP need tax payer money? What obligates the tax payer to support CBP?
Just citing good deeds isn't it. Lots of people do good deeds, as we can see from the funding sources for NPR.

Well I mean, from a budget standpoint PBS and NPR receive 0.02% of the total national budget. The funding they get is about as much as 1-2 of the thousands of fighter jets we make. IMHO the government should spend money on things that promote education, science, and curiosity. I don't see why we should fund the Smithsonian museums, but not "public digital museums" as well.

PBS offers some of the best free digital content out there. I am an 18 year old unschooler, and I can tell you I've relied very heavily on the amazing content that comes out of PBS for my education. From watching Sesame Street as a kid, to Novas and Ken Burns documentaries as a teen, PBS has contributed to maybe 30-40% of my homeschooled "curriculum."

Edit: I'd like to add that my family and I probably watch about 1-2 Nature/Novas a week on average. This is a great NOVA I watched a few days ago Watch Full Episodes Online of NOVA on PBS | The Origami Revolution

 

[eohrnberger]

I really liked how their goals mentioned diversity over and over and over and over and over.

Enlightening.

Defund them.

Diversity only in what toes the liberal / progressive ideological line, as Juan Williams found out. What of diversity there? Not permitted.

Agreed.

Defund them.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Diversity only in what toes the liberal / progressive ideological line, as Juan Williams found out. What of diversity there? Not permitted.

Agreed.

Defund them.

See my above post.

I'm slightly Liberal, but that doesn't mean I think the government should fund a Liberal leaning media. The thing is, PBS, and especially PBS Kids, are so much more that "entertainment." I can say with the highest confidence that without PBS I'd have had a hard time filling the gap in my education that PBS filled. I've literally watched over 50 hours of Ken Burns documentaries alone.

NPR I don't feel quite as strongly about, but I do enjoy their articles. If funding for both was kept the same, but they move some funding from NPR over to PBS that would be good.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Thanks for the quote.

All laudable goals, I have to admit. But why does the tax payer have to support it?

Given only 14% of their operating budget is from the government.
Given that they have valuable intellectual and artistic assets that are probably undervalued, and could earn more revenue for them.
Given that the TV and radio broadcast landscape has altered significantly since CPB's inception.

Why is it that tax payer needs to fund this? Seems they are more than capably equipped to fund themselves.

Why do you care? Bitching about funding for NPR and PBS is like bitching about the quarter your wife keeps in the car for her ALDI cart. In the end its a tiny, tiny, minuscule percentage of the budget. If someone were concerned about government spending, you would think they would be worried about the big stuff, not what amounts to nothing.

If you did away with taxpayer funding for NPR and PBS, the result would be that many rural stations would go under. That's what your taxpayer funding of NPR and PBS subsidizes. Its not the states in major metros, those can all raise the money to operate without tax dollars, its those states serving rural areas and small towns that need it. Considering the high quality programing on both NPR and PBS (probably second only to the BBC in terms of public broadcasting), in my opinion its a good use of the pennies it takes out of my tax dollars to fund them.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Diversity only in what toes the liberal / progressive ideological line, as Juan Williams found out. What of diversity there? Not permitted.

Agreed.

Defund them.

If you don't think there are a diverse array of voices on NPR on a daily basis, then obviously don't listen to it much.