Today's Seattle Times editorial is one of the most feeble-minded editorials it has ever published, which is saying a lot. "The newest threat to public broadcasting"
The U.S. House Appropriations Committee's vote to cripple public broadcasting stations is a cynical political move that should be overturned by the full House.If the public's elected representatives (which the Times editorialists deride in this instance as "politicians" because this particular group happens to be Republican) don't have oversight over "public" broadcasters who take public money, who will? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 21, 2005 03:34 PM | Email This
...
Better that politicians stay out of public broadcasting, and public broadcasters return to their charge of providing a credible alternative, taking creative risks and serving underserved audiences.
If the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had any sort of diversity of viewpoints in its hierarchy, this might not be the case, but it doesn't. It is a self-selecting subculture representing the Ivory Tower exclusively, in words and ideology. More power to the Administration (elected by the majority, remember lefties?) in cracking open the exclusive little club of the CPB.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 21, 2005 04:14 PMThey should show a picture of Big Bird with a gun to his head - the caption: "Give us our dough or da boid gets it!"
Posted by: a on June 21, 2005 04:28 PMAnd have you ever noticed that most of the "great programming" that PBS stations show during pledge weeks bears no resemblance to what they show the rest of the time?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006824
a sample:
"Conservative argue that in a 500-channel universe the programming of PBS could easily be duplicated or find a home at a free commercial network. The power of the marketplace will ensure that PBS's better offerings find a place to continue and flourish.
This I doubt. Actually I'm fairly certain it is not true. And I suspect most people on the Hill know it is not true.
"We live in the age of Viacom and "Who Wants to Be a Celebrity," not the age of Omnibus and "Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts." A lot of Democrats think that left to the marketplace, PBS will die. A lot of Republicans think so too, but don't mind.
"At its best, at its most thoughtful and intellectually honest and curious, PBS does the kind of work that no other network in America does or will do. Sumner Redstone is never going to pay for an 11-hour miniseries called "The Civil War"; he's not going to invest money and years of effort into a reverent exhumation of the rich loam of American history. Les Moonves is not going to do "Nova." Bob Iger is not going to OK a three-part series on relativity theory. Jeff Zucker isn't going to schedule a calm, unhurried adult drama like "Masterpiece Theatre." They live in a competitive environment. "
Posted by: JDB on June 21, 2005 05:21 PMCheck out the Discovery Channel or the History Channel for PBS-like fare. And reflect that if PBS is developing 11 hour miniseries on specific topics at government expense, then no commercial operation really dares to compete.
PBS should pay its own way. But, like all 'Rat creations, it prefers to pick pockets instead of earning its own.
Posted by: iconoclast on June 21, 2005 05:31 PMIsn't that you're mama calling?
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 21, 2005 05:48 PM
If only CPB could stick to programs like those above and leave politics to other channels, we would have no problem.
What PBS supporters really want is to "protect" some sort of "ideal" that they beleive must exist regardless of the actual demand. What they don't understand is that true art does not depend on revenue but the fire and inspiration of the artist him/herself.
And as far as NPR is concerned, if it is "fair and balanced" it will generate sufficient viewership to maintain braodcasting.
The funny thing is, the only poeple I know who think NPR is fair and balanced are ultra left wing liberals who believe anything with even a hint of alternative view in it must be extremely right wing and thus "out of the main stream."
What most city liberals don't understand is that there is a huge community of "normal" people in this country that do NOT think like they do and since they never visit anyone outside of their social circle, they don't understand how conservative values can possibly exist. They do not realize that conservative people exist, and vote: with the ballot, with their money, with their time, and with what they watch and listen to. Fair and balanced means taking into consideration the values of these folks which is something NPR and the NY Times does not do (though NYT has recently begun to realize their bias.)
Posted by: Eyago on June 21, 2005 06:06 PMYou probably haven't watched the discovery channel lately. It and it's sister station TLC have gone over to the dark side and primarily show "reality" programs like Trading Spaces, Monser Garage, Monster House, etc. Not much in the way of learning and discovery on those stations. We got cable so we could watch learning programs. We don't see so many of those any more.
Posted by: Eyago on June 21, 2005 06:13 PMWhere is the money going?
Posted by: JCM on June 21, 2005 06:19 PMAnd how better to stay out of public broadcasting than to NOT FUND it?!
Posted by: Shannon K on June 21, 2005 06:24 PMEliminate the tax advantage of these entertainment venues, and make them stand on their own merits. The good stuff will survive, if people actually want to watch it.
Posted by: Janet S on June 21, 2005 06:31 PMLet give a few examples:
J. Carter cuts the military budget to the point that routine maintence can not be done. Resulting in the crash of the 1980 Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission helicopters.
B. Clinton cuts the funding to CIA operations overseas. CIA Intelligence operations do not intercept information about China selling Scud missiles to Iraq until the missiles have already arrive in Iraq.
CIA also does not realize that missile that LORAL test launches in China did not self destruct as claimed. Thus providing the Chinese with access to missile guidence technology, they had not been able to develop on their own.
Just thought that I would add some perspective.
Posted by: Mike P on June 21, 2005 06:51 PMPBS funding should be cut 100%. There's nothing in the Constitution expressing or implying the power to fund it.
The Seattle Times seems to be on a roll lately! They have made a sharp left turn and are not going back....
Soon, their employees will be as embarrassed of their jobs as King County elections workers are!
Let's hope there are still some in this state who have shame.
1: What is more the epitome of politicians "staying out of public broadcasting" than NOT funding it, and allowing it to flourish on its merit?
2: 10 million people, less than a dollar a month would make up the proposed cut. Or is that too much like "supply and demand" for your liking?
RR
Posted by: RookieRick on June 21, 2005 07:10 PM1: What is more the epitome of politicians "staying out of public broadcasting" than NOT funding it, and allowing it to flourish on its merit?
You are literally correct that not funding means staying out. But the premise of us lefties is that one legitimate purpose of government is to sponsor cultural organizations, which includes public broadcasting. Of course the specifics (including whether PBS is worthwhile in the cable TV era) are negotiable. But it just makes sense to keep politicians from meddling in the content of any cultural work that they fund.
2: 10 million people, less than a dollar a month would make up the proposed cut. Or is that too much like "supply and demand" for your liking?
Some cultural organizations, such as public broadcasting, do not have a good mechanism for charging user fees under a "supply and demand" model. Nor does, say, the military. That's a major reason why government should fund it.
Posted by: Bruce on June 21, 2005 07:23 PMI think Mike's point was that military and CIA operations are more important to fund than television programs that aren't profitable in a free market. And yes, that probably would make him a Republican.
If you think that public support of TV programs, when there are hundreds of cable stations, is more important than spending on national defense, that would make you a Democrat.
So now that we know what we are - what's your point?
Posted by: Larry on June 21, 2005 07:28 PMBob in SeaTac (but visiting my sister in Upland CA right now)
Posted by: Bob on June 21, 2005 07:30 PM"the premise of us lefties is that one legitimate purpose of government is to sponsor cultural organizations"
I think you said it all, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
By the way, I'm starting a cultural organization for middle-aged white Christian men who are under-represented in the current slate of PBS programming. What do you think the odds are that my program receives federal funding? That's right! Nil!
The LAST thing we want is the government prioritzing cultural organizations, right? Aren't you liberals AGAINST that very thing?
Posted by: Larry on June 21, 2005 07:33 PMAs an adult - I can smell a liberal agenda in most of their news programming. Can't stand it - won't watch it! Certainly will never pay for it!
SNL's portrayal of NPR news is probably less liberal than the actual broadcast! This is scary...
Yes, we know that, given a chance, leftists would neuter our military and leave us defenseless against our enemies, but that's why God created Conservatives.
Now please go back to your bong and leave the heavy lifting to those with a little more mental acuity...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 21, 2005 08:41 PMThat said, it doesn't make you less wrong. :)
You say:
But the premise of us lefties is that one legitimate purpose of government is to sponsor cultural organizations, which includes public broadcasting.
The purpose of the government is to GOVERN. That includes creating laws that protect the rights of people to live in a free society. That includes providing the NECESSITIES for that free society to exist in a world where some do not treasure freedom as we do. The purpose of the government is to ensure that no one can infringe upon YOUR right to create and maintain "cultural organizations," NOT to create them FOR you.
Some cultural organizations, such as public broadcasting, do not have a good mechanism for charging user fees under a "supply and demand" model. Nor does, say, the military. That's a major reason why government should fund it.
Public broadcasting has a perfectly good mechanism for "charging user fees." It is the exact same method by which churches "charge user fees," by passing a collection plate, and relying on believers who feel strongly enough that their message is good, and important, and worth giving of their hard-earned dollars.
I never said the military was unimportant, but do you really believe that it's the most important function of government? That's what North Korea's government thinks; would you like to live there? That's what Iraq under Saddam thought, too.
Me, I'd rather live in a country where the government not only defends us from external and internal enemies, but also provides the infrastructure for an efficient free market, provides quality education, protects the environment, helps those who need help, and promotes things like parks and culture that make life worth living. (That's not a complete list.)
Posted by: Bruce on June 21, 2005 09:12 PMThe Airwaves that radio broadcasts on...they are public domain.
The transmission, however, the goes onto those waves is the property of whoever is running the company.
As a former broadcaster, I learned this the hard way.
Flimbaugh is a moron. No more, and no less.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on June 21, 2005 09:17 PMSomething like that. I think the song was trying to encourage kids to go for their dreams and not let people tell them they can't achieve, but the visuals and the way the song was worded really communicated, "do whatever you want to do and don't listen to your parents."
But we will let you clean our toilets (if you ask nice ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 21, 2005 10:23 PMI started discouraging my little son from watching Sesame Street because he really liked Oscar the Grouch. Oh boy, what a role model.
Posted by: cc on June 21, 2005 10:49 PMLet PBS learn to produce a superior product for real money instead of sucking from all taxpayers for the benefit of only some who want to watch.
If the shows like Sesame Street are really good, they'll find a market, if not, they will die and good riddance.
Get some balls liberals and let the market decide.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 21, 2005 11:36 PMTwo good points, one error:
The error first: PBS now has "commercials" that effectively tell kids to buy/eat this crap. They begin the program with a list of sponsors that include a bit of a pitch for their product. Not as bad as standard commercial fare, but commercials just the same.
Segue into your first good point: Commercials are often worse than the programs. My kids watch Noggin (when they watch at all) because there are not even "sponsors" ,much less commericals, and there is preschool programming from 3:00am to 3:00pm daily, so it is a relatively safe place to "land" on the dial.
Second good point: The US IS propping up domestic Sugar and that is pretty anti-free market. We should cut funding for sugar farmers as well as PBS.
Posted by: Eyago on June 22, 2005 06:45 AMThere also was the uproar a year or so ago at PBS for the porno show that the poster above's 4 year old child was watching. The producer was adamant that his free speech rights were being violated, because he was booted off of PBS. And of course, there was the rabbit who traveled America and of course he visited with Gays and every other minority family that he could find, but he somehow went through the heartland of America, otherwise known as the Bible Belt and somehow he missed all of the white Christian families....... millions of Americans are demanding that funding for PBS be cut, because they are offended by the pornographic and homosexual programming.
The NEA got wise when millions of Americans demanded that funding for it be eliminated!
I don't remember all of the radical so-called "art" programs that they were funding, but the one that comes to mind was the artist using blood, urine and his sperm to 'create' works of art. Metallica used a picture of that art as the background on one of their album covers.
Taxpayers get angry when they think their tax dollars are being wasted. When we are mad, we write letters.
Jimmy Carter did everything, but decimate the military, but the helicopters in Iran didn't crash, because of a lack of maintenance dollars.
The crash was caused by bad politics/leadership.
If you want to read a good book about it, go find a book titled "Military Incompetence." I did a book report on it back in 1994, while I was attending one of the Army's leadership schools. It is a very good book. It analyzes many military operations and what went wrong with them.
I've noticed, though, that agendas such as yours get defeated in popular votes. That is, a solid majority does not agree with you.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 22, 2005 08:13 AMPosted by: Huey on June 22, 2005 08:29 AM
The feds role is very explicitly laid out in the constitution. Anything that is not stated belongs to the states. Politicians have been using blackmail to increase their power. Simple examples are
Make drinking age 21 or no highway funds.
Education or reduced funds
How anyone can accept the concept of - We will force you to give us your money (taxes) and unless you do as you are told we will not give you your money back. In civilian life that is considered the crime of blackmail - government gets an exemption!
Posted by: fred on June 22, 2005 08:47 AMSecond, PBS claims on its websites that federal funding makes up only 2% of its budgets. The other figure I've seen is 15% In either case, why would the elimination of such a tiny fraction of its funding be so apocalyptic?
Third, funny how none of the usual liberal crybabies are whining that this money could better be spent on schools, or parks, or Head Start. I guess school lunches are less important than keeping Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg in Lexuses.
Posted by: V the K on June 22, 2005 09:06 AMAnd don't forget the men's prayer at the lodge meeting at the end of every show, "I'm a man, I can change, if I have to, I guess".
How refreshing it would be if some liberals would change the word "man" in the men's prayer to "Democrat" and adopt it as their own prayer. But then that would require them to actually pray...
Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2005 12:49 PMI think that most shows on PBS are not up to the quality of ten years ago. Part of this is due to the political slant those producing these show's. Even Seasame Street is not as "educational" as it was before. I watched those shows in the 70's. I do not believe in the idea that those running these shows are going to change. It is funny to see people who demand that the government does not support one group over another (affirmative action). Now demand that PBS be funded, regardless of the obvious bias of this entity.
Just something for you to think about.
Posted by: Mike P on June 22, 2005 02:54 PMI would have put the people that wants the government to support one group over another (affirmative action) are the same that want to fund PBS & CPB. I do not see too many Rs supporting either. It is the life blood of libs, being devisive and identifying groups to create an us vs. them society.
Posted by: fred on June 22, 2005 04:01 PMThe US goverment should not be in the broadcasting business. Where in the Constitution does it allow this type of activity? I just hope the R's in DC have the guts to cut this and other needless programs...not roll over and give in to the "rights of the minority party"
I read that the cut was approx $200 MILLION...just how much is the total revenue from our tax dollars anyway?? Cut the thing and let it die.
There is plenty of similar and better programing on cable anyway. Check out the History Channel, Food Network, The Science Channel, History International Channel, Disney Channel, The Military Channel, AMC, Sundance and LOTS of others....
Posted by: Blueknight on June 23, 2005 01:18 AMThe title is "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" It was NOT the offical military investigation report which placed the blame on the ARMY for not using the proper equipment (ie intake particulate sheilds for the aircraft engines). Primary failure was the unit assigned did not have replacement parts, which had been on order for more than 2 years. Secondary failure was the ARMY did not request the use of NAVY helicopters of the same type with the proper equipment. I am not surprised that the ARMY instructors did not provide you with the offical account. That is very bad practice on their part considering what class you were taking at that time. For you are suppose to learn from the mistakes made by others.
Only a liberal ding dong believes that PBS should be funded by the government. This is simply typical shameless liberal partisan stupidity on parade. No programming except emergency broadcasts that are not privately financed for profit should be aired.
If PBS were dominated by conservative ideology instead of the liberal Bill Moyers liberal style crap, you would sing an entirely different tune, but I wouldn't. NONE of the programming including Burns' "The Civil War" series would have failed because the public would have gladly paid for it. I did. If not, it is not worth producing or viewing.
Anything the public is unwilling to pay for in the free market should not be subsidized.
You are a pandering liberal twink.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on June 23, 2005 11:47 PM