The PBS Pledge Drive: Might there be a better way? (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

I'll start withholding a portion of my cable bill until they remove the channels I don't like. Wonder how long that'll last before I'm disconnected for not contributing to all the channels, whether I like them or not?

 

[Ken Chan]

Does anyone out there want to pay more in taxes just to keep Big Bird and Elmo alive(At least on PBS)?

If it helps future generations be less stupid, I'm all for it

//Ken

 

[Grant B]

Our local PBS station, KQED begs more than any street person in the city. Some years back, they spent millions on a new palace for themselves that make Saddam's sons palaces look like warehouses. They stopped doing most of their own shows because of the money crunch

There might be a few decent shows but wading through the muck isn't worth it.
I have the History International channel on now and I very rarely stray to the Broadcast channels.
For news TV is the last place I look.
Actually my favorite PBS station is PBSU which Directv broadcasts. Mostly college level courses with great professors. I am totally addicted to Eugen Weber's The Western Tradition.... there are 52 half hour shows and I have seen each at least 3 times

 

[BillyH]

If it helps future generations be less stupid, I'm all for it,

Some of us grew up before SS and turned out all right(Though, judging by my spelling on the first reply, you might wonder about it. Better start using spell check) Yes, SS is great stuff, but so is sitting down with a book and reading to your kid. TV is a convenient babysitter, but is it a good one? Besides, if PBS went to that big broadcasting tower in the sky, don't you think Noggin or something like it would pick it up? Sure there might be Sugar Smacks commercials and the like, but again, if you sit down with your kids you can steer them away from commercial influence. (Do they still make Sugar Smacks? Gosh, I must be getting old! Probably senile, too!)

 

[BillyH]

Mr. Big Mouth piping in one more time. Just had to bring up this thought. Sure commercial operations are self serving, though do you really believe that publicly funded media is non biased? They have their own view of the world, as does everyone else. Who is it to say that their view is the same as a certain taxpayer that is strong armed to support it? Is this any different then public NEA controversies? In America ideas are freely allowed to be expressed and thank God they are, but where is it written that there is a right to express ideas presented by another and you have to pay for them?

 

[Roberto Carlo]

NOVA, after more than thirty years, remains the pinnacle of science programming on television (don't even mention The Discovery Channel in the same breath). And Frontline is the only serious news-documentary program in existence, carrying on a tradition long abandoned by the corporate commercial networks (remember CBS Reports? You ain't gonna see the likes of that on the commercial networks ever again).

Jack, I agree with you about both NOVA and Frontline. (If you will recall, I mentioned it by name.) All I'm saying is that it may not be enough to sustain an audience; people are getting some of what they used to get from PBS from other sources. This results in the need for more frequent and more intrusive pledge drives, which in turn turns more people off, etc.

The fact that Suze Orman and various musical shows are what PBS stations show during beg-a-thons may indicate that this, and not the good stuff, is what their market research tells them sells. Depressing, but perhaps true.

Okay, I must say a word for the Discovery Channel. I love NOVA but I disagree if you're saying that "Blue Seas," "Mammals," and the "Walking With . . ." series aren't worthy of comparison. They, IMO, most certainly are.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jack Briggs wrote (post #16):

Well, I can't dispute that, as I don't look at a lot of science programming, but I used to love to watch NOVA on a semi-regular basis. In those days, they actually did programs on "pure science", interesting theories about the earth and cosmos and what not. The last thing like that I saw on NOVA was a program on the Gaia hypothesis some years ago now. Since then, NOVA has became mostly about topical sociopolitical issues or headline-grabbing "reality" topics, like terrorism, firefighting, hospital emergency rooms, etc. Not to my taste. The broadcast networks and other cable outlets do that anyway (although the quality may vary).

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'll start withholding a portion of my cable bill until they remove the channels I don't like. Wonder how long that'll last before I'm disconnected for not contributing to all the channels, whether I like them or not?

The difference is, if you get pissed off with cable, you cancel your account. Sure it may mean giving up some shows you live because your package makes you pay for a shitload more you don't like. But atleast the choice is there. Taxpayers, who may not even have TVs (if possible in this day and age), still have to contribute to PBS.

That said, an exellent point was raised; I do remember growing up on PBS, with programming like Seasame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, and during the elementary school days Reading Rainbow. I'm not sure we should give programming like that up for our children. In away, I can see justifying PBS as a public service for programming like that and the stuff Jack brought up.

 

[Brian Kidd]

PBS is an island in the sea of mediocrity. You want to know why PBS has been forced to resort to more sensationalist and populist programming in the last few years? Because the government has slowly eroded away the funding that keeps PBS afloat. PBS is forced to have longer and more frequent pledge drives. Why do they show the same programs over and over? These programs cost a ton of money to produce and purchase. You want a greater number of programs? You can do one of two things. Either let congress know that PBS is important and needs public funding, or send them a check yourself. Anyone who believes that PBS or the Arts are unneccessary are fools. Education and the Arts are as important to building well-rounded human beings as food and shelter. If PBS is the only way that the average person can have access to Theatre and Music, then by gosh, the government owes it to us to help support it. We can't all be so lucky as to afford $75 tickets to see a play. Get real! I apologize for my vitriol, but this is a cause celebre for me. When just yesterday, the FCC has paved the way for a very few corporations to control the news we hear and see and read, now, more than ever, we need PBS!!!

I yield the soapbox.

 

[ThomasC]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBS is essential. NOW With Bill Moyers is especially needed in this age of media consolidation (and just about the only national program that has been following the FCC media-ownership story, which culminated in today's vote to ease restrictions on media cross-ownership, something the corporate commercial "newscasts" are loathe to cover).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, it's all over MSNBC, CSPAN et al.

You can't get MSNBC and C-SPAN over the antenna.

 

[Phil Florian]

I think the argument that "some people without tv's are paying for PBS! An outrage!" is a bit of a straw man. Some people without cars are paying for streets, people without kids are paying for schools and people without disabilities are paying to help support people with disabilities. That is how a civilized society works. Not every penny you send to the government is going to come back to you directly. Where was that a promise? PBS benefits a lot of people. Arts funding in general supports a lot of people. Sure, folks opposed to it pull out the ol' Maplethorpe exhibit and bang their drum about it, but the fact is, communities that are strong across this nation have a strong arts community. Some thought the strong community brought in supports for the arts but a recent study (don't have the details but will look for it) shows that arts ATTRACT businesses and families to an area, thus creating a strong community, not vice versa. Businesses (which brings jobs, stability, funding, etc. to a community) want to set up where they will have happy employees (and CEOs), not just the cheapest rent.

Supporting the arts (which includes PBS and NPR) is good for everyone, even if you don't have a TV or an appreciation of art or think Elmo is grating (which, on a side note, I did until I had a child but now I "get it" but Barney...feh, still hate the guy).

This is the political environment for this kind of change (conservative congress and white house) so this is a VERY timely and important issue. Good job bringing it up!

Ciao,

Phil



PS As a parent, I don't use TV as a crutch or sitter. Most shows I watch with my daughter to talk about, joke about, etc. TV is great as a shared entertainment, like watching horror movies with a room full of people is most often more fun that watching it alone. And like reading, too. She doesn't read alone very much, either. So this isn't me supporting a PBSitter or anything like that!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Some people without cars are paying for streets, people without kids are paying for schools and people without disabilities are paying to help support people with disabilities.

The first two are essential to a successful economy, and so are neccessary use of resources. The U.S. couldn't remain a superpower without a successful transportation system, and a constantly replenishing source of educated labor. As for the disability funding, it fits right in with the constitutional garentee for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Same type socialist program as Medicaid and Medicare. Taxpayers contribute because they want the services there should they need them. While a case could be made for the importance of public broadcasting in shaping an informed public, in the Information Age it has become less and less of a necessity. Any information availiable on it can readily be obtained through other low cost/no cost means. Still, as I said earlier, one should not under estimate the power of Big Bird.

 

[Ted Lee]

interesting thread - this made me think about something i don't think i realized.

the main reason i'm not watching pbs is because i can find the same programming elsewhere. nova and frontline are the only standouts - my tivo is set to record both shows.

however, just about everything else can be found on any of the other major cable channels.

that's not to say that pbs isn't important, but i think they're losing their audience to the other major players.

i really don't watch it enough anymore, but if i had the extra money i'd certainly be willing to lend a helping hand.

now npr, i listen to quite a bit - i should really donate some money there. :b

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Adam Lenhardt wrote (post #32):

Needless to say, this is not a "guarantee" of anything.

 

[ThomasC]

No, but if you don't want to pay for 24 hour news and government access, read a newspaper.

Or watch PBS...

Or are you imagining a world without PBS?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The latter, Thomas. My point was that anymore, there are several ways to find whatever information you're looking for.

Where is found such a "constitutional garentee"???

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because it isn't stated outright, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The right to privacy is an unwritten right that the supreme court never-the-less upholds time and again. Of course, the disabled having strong lobbying and political action groups doesn't hurt either.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

Supporting the arts (which includes PBS and NPR) is good for everyone

Could you cite me some facts which support the theory that government siesure of property in order to grant funds to arts that I dont enjoy is benificial to society.
If you like the three tenors, buy a CD, just dont ask me to pay for it.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Wow, Tommy. Maybe you just haven't been exposed to Arts to see what their real value is. I think that's the problem with most folks who are ready to dissolve programs like the NEA. Go see some Theatre, Ballet, or a museum exhibition. The Arts are what separate us from computers.

 

[Ted Lee]

...order to grant funds to arts that I dont enjoy is benificial to society.

it may not be beneficial to you....

don't get me wrong...if you're not into arts then that's cool...people look at me crazy when i tell them i don't like sports.

but these programs serve a valuable role. i literally started getting into arts and culture because of these types of programs.

i'm surprised (being a new yorker) with access to some of the best culture in the world, that you're not more into it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Tommy, first off, this thread had a specific purpose in the form of a question: Are there any plausible alternatives to the Pledge Drive that would enable PBS to effectively raise funds and solicit donations? That is, something different from how the Pledge Drives are run as well as the special programming offered during these events.

It was NOT intended as a referendum on the value of PBS, NPR, and the National Endowment for the Arts (which is not even under consideration here). And you are treading well into the realm of personal politics.

Stop trolling this thread. I am serious.