What’s at Stake for PBS Viewers? Budget Cuts Could Harm More Than Big Bird and Elmo

[NickyMaz]

It became an option after PBS made them.
Is “the internet” making quality programs?

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

Conversely, the ‘internet’ does make quality programming, Hulu and Netflix make tons of great shows and even feature-length movies.

 

[gracepoole]

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

PBS is responsible for Mercy Street, Victory Garden, Nova… All original, not imported by other broadcast companies.

 

[Jeanne_S]

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

Conversely, the ‘internet’ does make quality programming, Hulu and Netflix make tons of great shows and even feature-length movies.

Exactly!

 

[meltzerboy]

First, the Feds supply only 14% of PBS and NPR funding, and second, Sesame Street has moved to HBO, and third, Sesame Street had a HUGE revenue from selling Muppets and it’s brand for lunch boxes and the like.

Originally, public broadcasting was set up because they were supposed to support the sort of programming that was not commercially viable. This is no longer the case.

And they are extremely biased in their reporting; why should my taxes go to that?

But I think you must admit they do have some interesting programs apart from the news reporting.

 

[tweedlealice]

Salutations,
We had Barney and Sesame Street before any BBC
was ABLE to transmit on our TV’s. My son is, good grief, 46yo. He watched them. Now, I give you Antique Road Show. I rarely watch anymore. I do donate because of Barney and Sesame Street.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
May God help them to be financially stable and good stewards of their programming.
in Jesus’s name,
Amen

 

[meltzerboy]

The people I know who like opera are the types who would pay $90 for a ticket to the opera. Somehow, that group does not seem the most deserving of subsidized entertainment.

Not true. In my experience, most opera lovers buy subscriptions and sit in the rear balcony since they cannot afford the high-priced orchestra tickets.

Of course the elite aficionados may not even go to the opera at all since they believe the quality of singing has declined (like everything else) and the non-period productions are so weird.

 

[NickyMaz]

PBS is responsible for Mercy Street, Victory Garden, Nova… All original, not imported by other broadcast companies.

Yes, they do make some programming but those shows could exist under a system without government funding. I am not saying PBS needs to be shut down, just that it has to make due without government funds. People who enjoy PBS can continue to support it through donations and they can sell ad time to make up the rest.

 

[dvdjs]

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

Conversely, the ‘internet’ does make quality programming, Hulu and Netflix make tons of great shows and even feature-length movies.

Fair enough. Thankfully, against the vast wasteland of commercial programming, there is good programming available from public broadcasting services like BBC in addition to that made by PBS. Not sure about the quality of the other sources you mention.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

PBS didn’t make any of those shows! They were made by BBC and ITV in the UK and PBS bought the rights to present them in the US, but any other channel could have done the same thing.

Conversely, the ‘internet’ does make quality programming, Hulu and Netflix make tons of great shows and even feature-length movies.

Netflix has the PBS presentation of Call the Midwife and others.

Downton Abbey is still not available.

Although all produced by the BBC, we would not see them if not for PBS.

Jim

 

[JonNC]

I’m ok with Trump cutting PBS as long as he stops gouging taxpayers for his weekly golfing trips to Mar-a-Lago (a demonstrable strain on both national security and taxpayers’ pocketbooks.) It seems odd that he always has the money for golfing when he’s already on track to out-deficit spend Reagan.

The general government has sn obligation to protect the president. It does not have an enumerated power to pay for radio and tv networks.
On the other hand, I too would like to see a balanced budget. Maybe in year two?

 

[PJH_74]

I love PBS, I guess it irks me is the ~$450 Million for PBS has been proposed to be spent on increased military spending. Do we really need more money throw towards our $600 BILLION defence department? I’m also bothered by the pulling of public transit support…jammed up roads and more cars are not going to cut it. My opinion…we need to raise the gas tax to support road reconstruction and public transit development.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I love PBS, I guess it irks me is the ~$450 Million for PBS has been proposed to be spent on increased military spending. Do we really need more money throw towards our $600 BILLION defence department? I’m also bothered by the pulling of public transit support…jammed up roads and more cars are not going to cut it. My opinion…we need to raise the gas tax to support road reconstruction and public transit development.

The concerns about defense spending are noted. But every time there’s a proposed draw-down in some red or purple district with an unneeded old fort or a withdrawal from Europe or Asia, the usual whining of “where’s my government job” ensues.

I can guarantee you that a gas tax will not be spent on transportation infrastructure and it will be wasted somewhere down the line, probably sooner rather later.

If the Democrats win back Congress in 2018, such a tax would be spent in part or mostly on bondoggle mass transit.

 

[victrolatim]

One thing I wish PBS would do is make available more of its archive of programming. Perhaps this is a way for them to offset the government subsidy. Create a “PBS Archive” and have a viable subscription cost. I am a documentary junkie and although PBS does have a lot available on it’s app and website, after a period of time some shows disappear into oblivion unless someone has uploaded a version on Youtube.

As for the opera, I am an avid listener and PBS is probably the only higher quality option for visual performances, although I have to agree with some previous posters that some of these newer stage productions are downright strange. I recall a performance of Verdi’s “Rigoletto” from the Royal Opera House Covent Garden years ago that had topless women running about the stage. The singing was above average though. Thankfully, the local radio affiliate was carrying the same broadcast so I shut off the TV and turned on the radio. The Met still broadcasts Saturday matinees on the radio though I have found the singing is hit or miss. I forget what performance I tuned into months back (Wagner, I think) where the one contralto had such a horrible wobbly vibrato that she made me want Dramamine.

 

[SuperLuigi]

One thing I wish PBS would do is make available more of its archive of programming. Perhaps this is a way for them to offset the government subsidy. Create a “PBS Archive” and have a viable subscription cost. I am a documentary junkie and although PBS does have a lot available on it’s app and website, after a period of time some shows disappear into oblivion unless someone has uploaded a version on Youtube.

As for the opera, I am an avid listener and PBS is probably the only higher quality option for visual performances, although I have to agree with some previous posters that some of these newer stage productions are downright strange. I recall a performance of Verdi’s “Rigoletto” from the Royal Opera House Covent Garden years ago that had topless women running about the stage. The singing was above average though. Thankfully, the local radio affiliate was carrying the same broadcast so I shut off the TV and turned on the radio. The Met still broadcasts Saturday matinees on the radio though I have found the singing is hit or miss. I forget what performance I tuned into months back (Wagner, I think) where the one contralto had such a horrible wobbly vibrato that she made me want Dramamine.

That could work, as long as the government doesn’t try to run it as a business. Believe me, they just can’t do it.

So it would need to be an ***archive ***and not managed by 500 overpaid bureaucrats.

 

[stinkcat_14]

The general government has sn obligation to protect the president. It does not have an enumerated power to pay for radio and tv networks.
On the other hand, I too would like to see a balanced budget. Maybe in year two?

If you want a balance budget, we are going to need steep cuts to programs like Medicare. That is not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government either. Anyone who talks a balanced budget without bringing up either defense, entitlements or higher taxes is not really serious.

 

[randomuser]

The general government has sn obligation to protect the president. It does not have an enumerated power to pay for radio and tv networks.
On the other hand, I too would like to see a balanced budget. Maybe in year two?

It would be easier for the federal government to protect the president (and the still-MIA First Lady) if they would BOTH stay in the White House, no? I just think it’s odd they’re trying to balance a budget when Trump seems to find the (taxpayer) money to fly to Mar-a-Lago virtually every week. So, no, the supposed necessity of cutting funds to CPB and PBS rings a little hollow for me.

 

[JonNC]

It would be easier for the federal government to protect the president (and the still-MIA First Lady) if they would BOTH stay in the White House, no? I just think it’s odd they’re trying to balance a budget when Trump seems to find the (taxpayer) money to fly to Mar-a-Lago virtually every week. So, no, the supposed necessity of cutting funds to CPB and PBS rings a little hollow for me.

It is amusing how, when a Democrat is in the WH, Republicans complain about travel, and when a Republican is in the WH, Democrats complain about travel.

As for the First Lady, it is really none of our business where she chooses to raise her child.

As for the funding of the CPB and PBS, there is no enumerated power for government to be involved in media, and there certainly is no need for it today.

 

[JonNC]

If you want a balance budget, we are going to need steep cuts to programs like Medicare. That is not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government either. Anyone who talks a balanced budget without bringing up either defense, entitlements or higher taxes is not really serious.

Correct

 

[Ridgerunner]

It would be easier for the federal government to protect the president (and the still-MIA First Lady) if they would BOTH stay in the White House, no? I just think it’s odd they’re trying to balance a budget when Trump seems to find the (taxpayer) money to fly to Mar-a-Lago virtually every week. So, no, the supposed necessity of cutting funds to CPB and PBS rings a little hollow for me.

Maybe he thinks there are fewer listening devices on the Mar a Lago golf course than there are in the walls and furniture of the White House?

 

[PJH_74]

If this is becoming a larger debate about the spending deficit in general, we have two issues. Democrats are generally looking to maintain or expand social services, sometimes through tax increases. Republicans generally try to reduce taxation, however they know quite well that reducing social services such as Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, and Social Security are a third rail for them. Rarely do they put forward a plan to reduce military spending. The skinny budget put forward by the White House does nothing to reduce the public debt; it just cuts fairly inconsequential budget items such as PBS and Amtrak to claim to the base that they are cleaning up Washington spending.

Look, I’d like nothing more than to pay less taxes, but to claim tax cuts trickle down to the worker is a bit of BS. Sure, it may help some job creation; but employers also act in their own interest. It’s about the bottom line. The less expenses (people) they need to make their operation run, the better profit they make. In other word they are not going to share the benefits of tax breaks out of love in their hearts.

You can’t maintain our current spending through massive tax cuts while not reducing spending. If cutting taxes is your driver for growth, at some point or federal debt service will crush any attempt to do so. The service is already over 20%…we are just kicking the can down the road.