Wouldn't it have to receive government funding in order to be truly "public" broadcasting? Otherwise it would just be private broadcasting. Kind of defeats the purpose if its private IMO. Plus its very educational and honestly unbiased. It would be a shame to see private sponsorship take it over and ruin it.
Too many people think that once a government program is established, it can never be eliminated. Federally supported public broadcasting is certainly one of those entities that we could take a look at moving into private, corporate, and individual user support. For instance, Sesame Street has become a marketing juggernaut. With merchandising and deals with Disney and ABC, Sesame Street shouldn't need any tax payer dollars. Shows like Downton Abby come right of the box and into Emmy wins. Nova and Antiques Roadshow have developed faithful followings. They can and should compete on their own in the open market. People who enjoy these shows and want programming free of advertising can ante up and support them. Just think of the amount of British shows that are subsidized with American tax payer dollars...can you say outsourcing?
If a government program is useful then there is no need to eliminate it. You don't get to pick and choose what your tax dollars go for unfortunately, so we all share the tax burden on these things. We all pay for things we don't like. But as long as a sector of society finds a particular government program beneficial, and that sector happens to be a large sector, then I will pay for it. Even if I don't agree with it because there are several government programs i do benefit from. We all do whether we realize it or not. However, I grew up watching PBS. I didn't always have cable so it was nice to have something to watch as a child. I found it quite educational and fun growing up and I personally want it to be there for my children. PBS could not stand on its own and privatizing it would hurt the unbiased and educational driven qualities that it has. Besides, it is such a small portion of the national budget that I really don't think this should be an issue. The ONLY reason anyone cares is because Mitt Romney brought it up during a debate, otherwise, no one would give it a second thought.
David, First of all your assumption that PBS is truly unbiased is questionable at best, remember Juan Williams was fired for exposing a conservative view on one issue although he is tried an true a liberal.
My children grew up watching Barney and Sesame street as well, but do you know what? Big Bird and The Cookie Monster are a $360 Million industry Barney is a $100 million dollar industry (DVD's, VHS, toys and Dolls), the receipts for the two combined actually exceed the federal subsidy for the entire PBS system. They can be self sufficient, and Educational Broadcasting can compete in a market place.
Further, while this poll may have been generated by Governor Romney's statement at the debate, the issue has been brewing for a decade or more. Quite simply, the government has absolutely NO BUSINESS in broadcasting what so ever. There was no PBS before Lyndon Johnson, and I as a child before then had plenty of educational TV to watch without it. I actually learned a lot from Gumby.
Dave,
Lots of programs might be useful but are not necessary. Since we are, as a country in fact broke, is it good policy to borrow money from overseas so Big Bird can be on TV?
All I am saying is, its quite a small portion of the federal budget, and i prefer to pay for it. So do many Americans. .014% of the budget is not the problem. And thats PBS and NPR combined. I know we have to make changes and generate revenue. But there are better ways of doing it. The policies proposed by the Obama administration would be more effective in my opinion. I know Mark, John and others wont agree. Thats fine. We are allowed to disagree. We don't borrow money from overseas for PBS. We borrow money to fund wars. PBS was in the budget long before them. Our priorities are not where they should be. Also, the money generated by those industries you speak of do not go directly to PBS. That figure is probably much less, as PBS more than likely licenses the rights to them for a much cheaper cost. And other companies make most of that profit. That is an assumption yes. Also, are you implying that it is a conservative point of view to be afraid of Muslims? Because that is what his contract was terminated for. I quote "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." I can understand why PBS would want to distance itself from someone who makes such a statement. And if he is a tried and true liberal then why does he now work for Fox News?
Not everyone working for Fox news is a conservative by any means. I mean seriously, you would call Bob Beckal or Alan Colmes conservative also, becasue they work for FOX?
Yes I know what he said, the point was he was being honest, not disrespectful.
The deficit spending is not nearly all about the wars, it is about everything being spent from legal pads to computers.
You are within your rights to prefer Obama policies, that is what elections are about.
I simply believe that the Federal Government has absolutely no business funding any business except possibly the occassional research and development grant and even those should be conditional.
You are right, I'm not familiar with Beckal but I do know Colmes. They do have a couple left leaners. Gotta keep it fair and balanced! Also, legal pads and computers are another story. I agree that too much is spent in that aspect. At least we can agree on somethings! Thanks for not turning this into a hostile debate. Too many on here do. I'll throw ya a thumbs up for that!
David I have to disagree on this statement. "We don't borrow money from overseas for PBS." Not directly, but when we burrow money to pay for other programs such as Obama's stimulus programs because, we spent our money on other unnecessary programs. Then yes we burrow because, we subsidized unnecessary programs. Simply put why give money to a billionaire when he does not need it? Sesame Street like Mark stated, earn hundreds of millions of dollars off of their merchandise. So, basically the government is aiding them to keep a larger profit. The bottom line is PBS can finance themselves without government assistance. Yes, it is very little, but every penny counts.
study not supporting
study not supporting prevailing opinion deleted.
I forgot. Sorry.
I forgot. Sorry.
Wouldn't it have to receive
Wouldn't it have to receive government funding in order to be truly "public" broadcasting? Otherwise it would just be private broadcasting. Kind of defeats the purpose if its private IMO. Plus its very educational and honestly unbiased. It would be a shame to see private sponsorship take it over and ruin it.
Too many people think that
Too many people think that once a government program is established, it can never be eliminated. Federally supported public broadcasting is certainly one of those entities that we could take a look at moving into private, corporate, and individual user support. For instance, Sesame Street has become a marketing juggernaut. With merchandising and deals with Disney and ABC, Sesame Street shouldn't need any tax payer dollars. Shows like Downton Abby come right of the box and into Emmy wins. Nova and Antiques Roadshow have developed faithful followings. They can and should compete on their own in the open market. People who enjoy these shows and want programming free of advertising can ante up and support them. Just think of the amount of British shows that are subsidized with American tax payer dollars...can you say outsourcing?
If a government program is
If a government program is useful then there is no need to eliminate it. You don't get to pick and choose what your tax dollars go for unfortunately, so we all share the tax burden on these things. We all pay for things we don't like. But as long as a sector of society finds a particular government program beneficial, and that sector happens to be a large sector, then I will pay for it. Even if I don't agree with it because there are several government programs i do benefit from. We all do whether we realize it or not. However, I grew up watching PBS. I didn't always have cable so it was nice to have something to watch as a child. I found it quite educational and fun growing up and I personally want it to be there for my children. PBS could not stand on its own and privatizing it would hurt the unbiased and educational driven qualities that it has. Besides, it is such a small portion of the national budget that I really don't think this should be an issue. The ONLY reason anyone cares is because Mitt Romney brought it up during a debate, otherwise, no one would give it a second thought.
David, First of all your
David, First of all your assumption that PBS is truly unbiased is questionable at best, remember Juan Williams was fired for exposing a conservative view on one issue although he is tried an true a liberal.
My children grew up watching Barney and Sesame street as well, but do you know what? Big Bird and The Cookie Monster are a $360 Million industry Barney is a $100 million dollar industry (DVD's, VHS, toys and Dolls), the receipts for the two combined actually exceed the federal subsidy for the entire PBS system. They can be self sufficient, and Educational Broadcasting can compete in a market place.
Further, while this poll may have been generated by Governor Romney's statement at the debate, the issue has been brewing for a decade or more. Quite simply, the government has absolutely NO BUSINESS in broadcasting what so ever. There was no PBS before Lyndon Johnson, and I as a child before then had plenty of educational TV to watch without it. I actually learned a lot from Gumby.
Dave, Lots of programs might
Dave,
Lots of programs might be useful but are not necessary. Since we are, as a country in fact broke, is it good policy to borrow money from overseas so Big Bird can be on TV?
All I am saying is, its quite
All I am saying is, its quite a small portion of the federal budget, and i prefer to pay for it. So do many Americans. .014% of the budget is not the problem. And thats PBS and NPR combined. I know we have to make changes and generate revenue. But there are better ways of doing it. The policies proposed by the Obama administration would be more effective in my opinion. I know Mark, John and others wont agree. Thats fine. We are allowed to disagree. We don't borrow money from overseas for PBS. We borrow money to fund wars. PBS was in the budget long before them. Our priorities are not where they should be. Also, the money generated by those industries you speak of do not go directly to PBS. That figure is probably much less, as PBS more than likely licenses the rights to them for a much cheaper cost. And other companies make most of that profit. That is an assumption yes. Also, are you implying that it is a conservative point of view to be afraid of Muslims? Because that is what his contract was terminated for. I quote "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." I can understand why PBS would want to distance itself from someone who makes such a statement. And if he is a tried and true liberal then why does he now work for Fox News?
Not everyone working for Fox
Not everyone working for Fox news is a conservative by any means. I mean seriously, you would call Bob Beckal or Alan Colmes conservative also, becasue they work for FOX?
Yes I know what he said, the point was he was being honest, not disrespectful.
The deficit spending is not nearly all about the wars, it is about everything being spent from legal pads to computers.
You are within your rights to prefer Obama policies, that is what elections are about.
I simply believe that the Federal Government has absolutely no business funding any business except possibly the occassional research and development grant and even those should be conditional.
You are right, I'm not
You are right, I'm not familiar with Beckal but I do know Colmes. They do have a couple left leaners. Gotta keep it fair and balanced! Also, legal pads and computers are another story. I agree that too much is spent in that aspect. At least we can agree on somethings! Thanks for not turning this into a hostile debate. Too many on here do. I'll throw ya a thumbs up for that!
David I have to disagree on
David I have to disagree on this statement. "We don't borrow money from overseas for PBS." Not directly, but when we burrow money to pay for other programs such as Obama's stimulus programs because, we spent our money on other unnecessary programs. Then yes we burrow because, we subsidized unnecessary programs. Simply put why give money to a billionaire when he does not need it? Sesame Street like Mark stated, earn hundreds of millions of dollars off of their merchandise. So, basically the government is aiding them to keep a larger profit. The bottom line is PBS can finance themselves without government assistance. Yes, it is very little, but every penny counts.