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

[Tommy Ceez]

I started the trolling? Actually others mentioned that a better way was to raise the taxes on everyone in order to fund PBS in order to end the pledge drives. I responded that this was not the way to do it (For the record I do enjoy the arts, museums, theatre, concerts...I just expect to pay for my enjoyment myself and not depend on others to do it)
My point is that I think PBS should depend MORE on pledge drives and less on my unwilling donations.
If I came to your house and demanded $20 to take my girlfriend to the movies you would tell me to shove off. For the same reason money shouldnt be taken out of my paycheck so you can watch NOVA.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

My understanding is that PBS only gets about 10% of their funds from the government now. They could probably survive without it, though they'd certainly feel the blow.

I'd say just keep up with what they're doing and if people don't like pledge drives, they can watch normal channels.

 

[Ralph Summa]

Connecticut Public Television pulled off a coup a few years back by securing the rights to all the UCONN Huskies Women's basketball games that aren't televised nationally. It works out to about 24 games in a little over three months. The pledge drive starts up before gametime, picks up at the half and then finishes up after the game. During all time outs they go to the studio. You get to the point where you would kill for a stupid Doritos commercial.

You can argue all you want about Indiana Basketball, but UCONN is THE hot bed of hoops. The Women's team has a more passionate fan following than the men's team. CPTV will post a $20,000 pledge goal for the game and a sponsor will frequently offer to add $10,000 if they reach the goal, and more often than not, THEY MAKE IT!

$20,000 in 3 hrs plus the sponsor match!

Where's my HD feed? These games better be shot in HD next year!

 

[Phil Florian]

Okay, I am no math whiz. Let me get that out of the way right now. The proposed 2004 budget for PBS from the Fed as far as I could find (tompaine.com was my last source) was $380 Million. That sounds like a lot if you ask ME to pay for it all, but if let's say 200 Million American's pay taxes (how many do? 300 million folks, 40 of it kids, 60 lets say just out of the loop...again, see first sentence). If everyone was asked to pay around a buck fifty a year, we can keep base funding for PBS nationwide. Again, not a math whiz, but divided over 26 pay periods that is...er...about .06 per paycheck or so. That is everyone gave evenly! True, some folks that make a gazillion pay more and others don't pay but on average, if we all coughed up $1.50 a year, PBS wouldn't have to change. NEA, as a side note, was granted a budget of $117 million in 2003-2004(for comparisons sake, admin!! ) which is, again not good with math, less per year. I think folks are paying a bit more for their local football stadiums than this nationally funded program. This isn't political, this goes directly to the first question...if we are going to be taxed for tanks, schools, roads, airlines (I think the 2001 bailout of the privately owned airlines was about $5 Billion and more...a good number of years of NEA or PBS or NPR funding...like, oh, forever) then I think a small portion can go to guarantee some quality television and radio news, entertainment and educational programming. I do agree that PBS needs to re-invent itself (I think NPR has done a better job of keeping up with changing needs) from time to time but just cutting it in favor of a few mega-corporations deciding what good television and radio is locally (anyone care to compare local news coverage today to even 10 or 15 years ago? Sheesh...) sounds like a bad compromise to me.

Keep the funding system for PBS and NPR the same...some federal funding along with locally supported fund drives and make sure that it stays fresh and innovative and high quality.


Thanks for reading this far!


Phil

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

But we want our $1.50, Phil.

It's funny you bring up NPR; I absolutely support them as they fufill a need in a medium where there is no privately-funded alternative. There is still a compelling reason for it's continued existence. Far less so, IMO, for PBS in a country where there is damn near 100% cable saturation. (Which isn't to imply that anywhere near everyone has cable; simply that the option is availiable to them.)

 

[Phil Florian]

..and I want my money back from the local sports stadiums (my local football stadium costs almost as much as one year of PBS funding and it is for one little city! With equally debatable impact). The fact is there is compromise in such a system and a bit of equity isn't a bad thing. We live in a country that collects taxes. If one doesn't like it, move to a country that doesn't...hmmm...and that would be...? Since they do collect money, then we are going to like some of it and dislike a lot of it. That is the nature of this beast. If we fund one, we fund others. The lobby for the airlines is obviously a lot more influential than the lobby for the arts as the numbers show. If we wanted, we could say "Take my money from the PBS funds and put it into something I would like more of, like tanks" and then I could say "I think we have enough tanks, spend my tank money on some arts" and we could all be happy and go completely crazy. Won't work. So we have a system where money is distributed in what is perceived as level of importance, the first being the tanks, the next the old and disabled, and so on down the line until we get down to the Smithsonian (one large museum, sure, but nearly twice the annual budget than the entire PBS program).

If you can propose a system of financial support for public institutions that doesn't include getting money from its citizens, I am all ears. As it is, taxation is the route that happens and of that giant pie that is the Federal Budget, a sliver (not even, some crumbs) can go to support a positive institution like PBS. Hey, next time we meet, I will buy you a cup a coffee and a donut and make up the difference of your PBS funding (and with the price of coffee, it will also support your contribution to the NEA, NEH, and some minor agricultural project)!


Phil

 

[RobertR]

The proposed 2004 budget for PBS from the Fed as far as I could find (tompaine.com was my last source) was $380 Million. That sounds like a lot if you ask ME to pay for it all

But it doesn't sound like a lot if you ask all those who are interested in PBS programming to pay for it. If, say, 10 million people are interested, that's $38 per person. That's not so much to ask from people who really care, is it?

I don't understand why PBS doesn't simply become a nonprofit subscription service and be done with it. No more begging, no more pledges. Thos who want it pay for it, those who don't, don't. Everyone's happy.

It seems very simple to me.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Adam Lenhardt wrote (post #36):

There is NO such constitutionally established "right". Try suing the banks, landlords, and credit bureaus for listing your name and keeping and disseminating your---[ahem!]---"information", and doing damned well what they please with it (accurate or not), and see where that gets you.

 

[Brian Kidd]

Whether or not you personally enjoy the programming on PBS, isn't important. Taxes should be spent on the greater good. That's why we pay them. It's a well-established fact that a society with exposure to the Arts is a society that prospers. Arts and education fuel the imagination, which in turn, fuels innovation, which in turn, fuels the economy. Personal taste doesn't come into play when you are talking about the greater good.

I'm with Phil, in that I'd prefer my tax dollars not go to build stadiums where overgrown cavemen hit each other for fun. I'd also rather my tax dollars didn't go to fund a bloated military. However, I know that in the end, we need a military (just not as large or expensive of one)and that sports teams bring in revenue, so I just move on to more important things. PBS is necessary for the greater good of America. It is the only place where political views can be voiced without taking corporate interests into consideration. As much as Fox News insists that it is "Fair and Balanced," (if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale) PBS and NPR have done more to present ALL sides than any corporately-owned news department.

Back to the topic at hand, I honestly do think that the only thing that can be done to shorten pledge drives is to adjust the budget to funnel more money toward PBS and NPR. There is plenty of unnecessary spending that comes out of congress every year. What we need to do to save the country is to hold our congressmen accountable for the decisions they make. Too many Americans gripe and moan and then don't go to the polls on election day. I hate to tell you folks, but our vote is the only source of power that the average person has.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

As far as the tax calculations above...roughly 50% of Americans dont pay any income tax.

If you can propose a system of financial support for public institutions that doesn't include getting money from its citizens, I am all ears.

Yes, Its called PRIVATE DOLLARS. If you want to see an Opera, pay for a ticket. The opera company will then have to survive on public demand.
Why is everyone so afraid of the market bringing arts into balance. If you cannot find enough private support to continue operate, why are we so hell bent keeping it afloat. The arts existed for the first century plus in America, a century with absolutly no income tax, mind you.

 

[Brian Kidd]

True, Opera, Theatre, Ballet, etc. Would most likely live on, to a limited extent. However, as we've seen in the last twenty years, only the wealthy will have access to them. To deny the Arts to the lower classes because they can't afford $75 seats is downright immoral.

I'm stopping here, because I don't want the thread to degenerate into a shouting match. I respect that everyone has a right to an opinion, however I stand by mine as the right one and will continue to fight for what I believe.

 

[Jack Briggs]

One last time, before I'm forced to close my own thread: Let's please eschew the political angle and focus on alternatives to the traditional PBS fundraisers. I also posted on the basis that my very favorite source of television programming is, in fact, PBS. I support it with my own donations; that would happen regardless of the Pledge Drives. Also, no more PBS bashing (this reminds me of when members try to post about D-VHS D-Theater, only to be deluged with posts from tape-bad/disc-good villagers threateningly waving their torches). So, perhaps those with an ax to grind and a dislike of PBS and NPR as well as diversity of opinion and discourse had best ignore this thread. No?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

I'd think they could do fine as a basic cable channel. Their budgets are low enough they would quite likely be able to get by on their corporate money and franchise fees.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Dan Rudolph wrote (post #53):

Maybe. Maybe. But they'd have to take the "P" out of the "PBS", and then what would they be left with . . . . .?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Um, just another cable channel.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

The programming isn't about the P. I believe the citicism of them has been that if they didn't exist, all their programming would be available on basic cable. So they essentially are another basic cable channel now, only they get tax money and broacast.

 

[Brian Kidd]

There is a huge difference in the quality and variety of programming on PBS and that of cable channels. Most documentaries on cable channels are made up of fast-edit blurbfests with no time allowed for in-depth analysis. Since PBS doesn't air commercials (they've been forced to add semi-commercials before programs start because of funding cuts) they can take their time and fully explore topics. Occasionally, there will be an informational program on cable that is of as high a standard as PBS, but usually only during sweeps. PBS offers consistently high production values and content. Above all, PBS is SMART! You won't find and TEMPTATION ISLAND or WHO WANTS TO BE A MORON or GIRLS GONE WACKY. If that's your cup of tea, so be it, but don't drag down those of us who prefer more intelligent fare. The dumbing down of America has accelerated at an alarming rate. How many times have we seen the incorrect usage of "their" instead of "they're" or "there" here on this forum, which is comprised of some pretty smart cookies for the most part? PBS and NPR are necessary.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

An alternative to pledge drives: show ads. That would probably mean less of each hour devoted to non-programming.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thought I'd resurrect this thread.

Anyone here from the San Francisco Bay Area? Seems that the recent merging of KQED and KTEH and KCAH, the number of pledge breaks seems to have increased and the length has gotten longer with more and more repeat showings of earlier live broadcasts of programs with pledge sections.

I can understand the massive machine these 3 PBS stations have become and thus would require a larger budgetary need to operate. (Especially KQED!) But is it just me, or has this become intolerable?

As the original poster asked, there must be a better way!

 

[Tony J Case]

Actually - easy peasy: do it like the BBC. Everyone who owns a TV pony up 30 bucks a year, mandatory.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Holy crap, I just read this entire thread without realizing it was 5 years old!

The whole point of PBS is that it shouldn't have to pander to the lowest common denominator to get ratings. Running endless Wayne Dyer and Andrea Bocelli specials during pledge time kinda defeats the purpose.

And as someone who watches the History Channel and Discovery Channel and TLC and all the others, I can say quite confidently that while I enjoy their programming, it is NOT up to the quality of similar fare broadcast on PBS. Compare Ken Burns' doc on the Civil War to one of the History Channel's "extreme closeup on 8 re-enactors" shows.

Yesterday, the Miami station showed an interesting doc on Mario Lanza. They had Lanza's daughter in the studio talking about her father during the pledge breaks. What other station shows that?

They've also been showing that new doc The Jewish Americans, which I found really interesting. Haven't seen any similarly in-depth docs like that on the History Channel or TLC.

The only local radio stations that play classical and jazz music on a regular basis are NPR stations. A Night On The Town, the weekly show on the history of Broadway, is wonderful. It wouldn't exist without NPR stations to show it.

IMO the government should fund PBS and NPR and leave them to select quality arts and education programming. (IMO Bill Moyers and a lot of NPR folk are indeed partisan hacks, but I'm a big boy and can think for myself even when I disagree with some journalist or pundit's angle. ) With all the billions of dollars the government spends on pork-barrel garbage, the relative pennies they supply for arts and education on TV and radio is an easily justified expenditure.

The President's proposed budget for FY 2009 includes $200 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (half of what Congress already approved). This makes up 0.000064% of the 3.1 trillion dollar total.