• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

#SavePBS

Absolutely agree with those who say keep it. Romney wouldn't cut it anyway.
 
I love these threads where people from Wake who clearly have never come into contact with poor people come in as their savior, painting them essentially as completely helpless morons (this is the way to show you care about them). Also they love, and need, Ken Burns documentaries, apparently


What would those poor rural people do without being exposed to Antique Road Show?? What a travesty! They'll never see the world!! Of antiques
 
Last edited:
As I said on the other thread, Sesame Street becoming a free agent would command a Texas Rangers / A-Rod type deal. As long as they didn't completely screw up their negotiations, they could keep the format exactly the same regardless of what channel it ends up on.

Most of the rest of PBS is either garbage that nobody watches or stuff like Austin City Limits that would be picked up pretty quick by another channel. And the poor rural shut-ins can simply get the free Sesame Street app on their government cell phone anyway. As mentioned by someone else, PBS was much more important when there were only like 7 channels and Steven Keaton was running shit at PBS.

One more alternate thought: if the populace is dead-set on PBS, then just prvatize the funding. Have the FCC charge a per-user PBS Fee to the cable providers that specifically goes to PBS. Lord knows they already charge FCC taxes for everything else.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As I said on the other thread, Sesame Street becoming a free agent would command a Texas Rangers / A-Rod type deal. As long as they didn't completely screw up their negotiations, they could keep the format exactly the same regardless of what channel it ends up on.

Most of the rest of PBS is either garbage that nobody watches or stuff like Austin City Limits that would be picked up pretty quick by another channel. And the poor rural shut-ins can simply get the free Sesame Street app on their government cell phone anyway. As mentioned by someone else, PBS was much more important when there were only like 7 channels and Steven Keaton was running shit at PBS.

One more alternate thought: if the populace is dead-set on PBS, then just prvatize the funding. Have the FCC charge a per-user PBS Fee to the cable providers that specifically goes to PBS. Lord knows they already charge FCC taxes for everything else.
Click to expand...

WHAT? That's a TAX on a PRIVATE BUSINESS mister! Shame on you. The corpse of Reagan will chew at your toes while you sleep for such an indiscretion.
 
I am perfectly fine with more taxes so long as they are specifically targeted at particular problems. When I ever get around to posting my manifesto, you will see that I propose a host of new taxes aimed at fixing several large problems.
 
No commercial station would pay a huge amount of money for Sesame Street if they couldn't make their money back. There is a reason that Jim Henson felt fine selling the likeness of the Muppets to Disney (even though it was his life's work and the biggest thing he ever did) but never, ever considered selling the rights to Sesame Street characters. It boggles my mind that people don't know the difference between public media and commercial media. PBS provides a ton of free educational materials for preschool and elementary school teachers, which they are only able to do because of their business model. Commercial stations are out to monetize their content by any means necessary
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I am perfectly fine with more taxes so long as they are specifically targeted at particular problems. When I ever get around to posting my manifesto, you will see that I propose a host of new taxes aimed at fixing several large problems.
Click to expand...

I tried to pos rep you just for having a manifesto...that makes me giggle. Apparently I have to spread it around some first, though.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
No commercial station would pay a huge amount of money for Sesame Street if they couldn't make their money back. There is a reason that Jim Henson felt fine selling the likeness of the Muppets to Disney (even though it was his life's work and the biggest thing he ever did) but never, ever considered selling the rights to Sesame Street characters. It boggles my mind that people don't know the difference between public media and commercial media. PBS provides a ton of free educational materials for preschool and elementary school teachers, which they are only able to do because of their business model. Commercial stations are out to monetize their content by any means necessary
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they make their money back? You don't think advertisers would kill to be in the one or two Sesame Street commercial breaks per hour? And you don't think the network kickbacks for primetime shows targeting the MILFs would be enormous? Sesame Street, brought to you commercial-free by Chik-Fil-A and Desperate Housewives, would be huge.

The bolded part is just stupid. So, in other words, PBS takes taxpayer money and uses it to buy stuff that goes to pre-school and elementary school teachers. Well hole-lee-sheeit, maybe someday somebody with some sense will turn that golden nugget of an idea into a huge federal agency called the Department of Education.
 
Just since I watched it this weekend, I'll recommend Half the Sky to anyone who hasn't seen it. (Not the easiest thing to get through, but very well done, I thought):

Part 1

Part 2

(And proof that PBS is more than just Sesame Street!)
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Why wouldn't they make their money back? You don't think advertisers would kill to be in the one or two Sesame Street commercial breaks per hour? And you don't think the network kickbacks for primetime shows targeting the MILFs would be enormous? Sesame Street, brought to you commercial-free by Chik-Fil-A and Desperate Housewives, would be huge.
Click to expand...

Good God. So you just want corporations to buy their way into children's educational programming. Fan-freaking-tastic.
 
This is such a pointless political dig.

Getting rid of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would not kill public television at all. In fact, it would probably still get government funding!

Why? Because many (most?) public TV stations are affiliated with state universities. Those broadcasting departments aren't going away just because the feds cut back. Either they'd get more state money, or more money from fundraising.

Plus many states simulcast to rural transmitters and certainly more of that could be done if necessary. With cable practically ubiquitous, even that seems a bit like overkill. But hey, right now we're subsidizing Brian "Boom Goes the Dynamite" Collins and Louis Bardalament, the Awful Weatherman. Wouldn't want to lose those golden moments.

I could also imagine pledge drives being more effective if people know there's no federal money going into the system anymore. How many people have listened to public radio or watched public TV? Now, how many have donated to a pledge drive? I imagine those numbers are very different, and would be less so if people felt like their contribution was really essential.

A guy in an 8 foot tall bird costume being a campaign issue is a complete joke. Lot of idiots in this country, and a few on this board as well. But I'm sure this is a lot bigger than the fact that drones in Pakistan are killing 49 civilians to every insurgent, about which no one seems to give a shit.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As I said on the other thread, Sesame Street becoming a free agent would command a Texas Rangers / A-Rod type deal. As long as they didn't completely screw up their negotiations, they could keep the format exactly the same regardless of what channel it ends up on.

Most of the rest of PBS is either garbage that nobody watches or stuff like Austin City Limits that would be picked up pretty quick by another channel. And the poor rural shut-ins can simply get the free Sesame Street app on their government cell phone anyway. As mentioned by someone else, PBS was much more important when there were only like 7 channels and Steven Keaton was running shit at PBS.

One more alternate thought: if the populace is dead-set on PBS, then just prvatize the funding. Have the FCC charge a per-user PBS Fee to the cable providers that specifically goes to PBS. Lord knows they already charge FCC taxes for everything else.
Click to expand...


This is actually a really good idea. Most of us agree PBS has a lot of value, but maybe we'd be better off paying for it with user fees. It's not like Comcast isn't dinging me far worse for dog shit programming that I will never watch.

At the same time, the suggestion that it's no big deal because it's only $500 million a year or only .01% of the budget is problematic. That's the thinking that got us in the hole we're in. You have a lot of "small" $500 million a year expenditures that add up to a lot. What is it they say? Make one extra payment on your mortgage per year directly to principle and you cut the repayment term in half? The test shouldn't be whether something is big enough to care. Romney is right - the test should be whether it's worth borrowing from China to pay for it. I the case of PBS, it is worth keeping. But maybe we can find a better way to pay for it than running up the debt.
 
More educated, more affluent people watch PBS and should support PBS by becoming members of their local stations and sending checks voluntarily to the network. There is no place in a supposedly free country for forcing other people to support your favorite cause, no matter how wonderful you may believe that cause to be. The less affluent crave more Lizard Lick Towing and Honey Boo Boo so if PBS really catered to that demographic we would have Big Bird and Cookie Monster slugging it out over a 2005 F-150. Worry about your own donations and leave other people the hell alone.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Why wouldn't they make their money back? You don't think advertisers would kill to be in the one or two Sesame Street commercial breaks per hour? And you don't think the network kickbacks for primetime shows targeting the MILFs would be enormous? Sesame Street, brought to you commercial-free by Chik-Fil-A and Desperate Housewives, would be huge.

The bolded part is just stupid. So, in other words, PBS takes taxpayer money and uses it to buy stuff that goes to pre-school and elementary school teachers. Well hole-lee-sheeit, maybe someday somebody with some sense will turn that golden nugget of an idea into a huge federal agency called the Department of Education.
Click to expand...

The advertisements during children's programming on other channels are pretty much the opposite of what Sesame Street teaches.
 
yeah i put my money where my mouth is and donate to pbs every year

eta: actually i donate to unctv but its the same effect.
 
KillSwofford said:
This is such a pointless political dig.

Getting rid of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would not kill public television at all. In fact, it would probably still get government funding!

Why? Because many (most?) public TV stations are affiliated with state universities. Those broadcasting departments aren't going away just because the feds cut back. Either they'd get more state money, or more money from fundraising.

Plus many states simulcast to rural transmitters and certainly more of that could be done if necessary. With cable practically ubiquitous, even that seems a bit like overkill. But hey, right now we're subsidizing Brian "Boom Goes the Dynamite" Collins and Louis Bardalament, the Awful Weatherman. Wouldn't want to lose those golden moments.

I could also imagine pledge drives being more effective if people know there's no federal money going into the system anymore. How many people have listened to public radio or watched public TV? Now, how many have donated to a pledge drive? I imagine those numbers are very different, and would be less so if people felt like their contribution was really essential.

A guy in an 8 foot tall bird costume being a campaign issue is a complete joke. Lot of idiots in this country, and a few on this board as well. But I'm sure this is a lot bigger than the fact that drones in Pakistan are killing 49 civilians to every insurgent, about which no one seems to give a shit.
Click to expand...

source?
 
WFFaithful said:
The advertisements during children's programming on other channels are pretty much the opposite of what Sesame Street teaches.
Click to expand...

Huh? The ads on Sesame Street-aged channels (i.e. Disney Junior; Sprout) are targeted at the moms, not the kids. Maybe once you get into cartoons for older kids you get the GI Joe and pizza ads, but the shows for little kids it is for online learning academies and hand soap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top