Constitution Revolution: 2012

[thegreekdog]

I agree with Andy that there are more important items to tackle, but I'm abundantly confused by the weird back and forth.

I believe PBS should be cut and the shows should have to survive on their own. That does not mean I'm against education or teaching moral values or any of the other things those shows stand for. My son watches Sesame Street almost every day; so did I when I was a young child. It's patently ludicrous to equate cutting PBS from the budget with not wanting children to learn.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree with Andy that there are more important items to tackle, but I'm abundantly confused by the weird back and forth.

I believe PBS should be cut and the shows should have to survive on their own. That does not mean I'm against education or teaching moral values or any of the other things those shows stand for. My son watches Sesame Street almost every day; so did I when I was a young child. It's patently ludicrous to equate cutting PBS from the budget with not wanting children to learn.

That is true, but it still serves as effective rhetoric.

[PLAYER57832]

What mystery? The only thing Nickeolodeon has succeed in doing is sucking massively compared to the 90s.

To answer Woodruff's question: sharing is SOCIALISM!!!!

Forced sharing is Socialism. Voluntary sharing is Freedom

I believe most parents actually have to force their 2-3 year olds to share.
Big Bird very much supports that agenda of convincing kids sharing is good.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with Andy that there are more important items to tackle, but I'm abundantly confused by the weird back and forth.

I believe PBS should be cut and the shows should have to survive on their own. That does not mean I'm against education or teaching moral values or any of the other things those shows stand for. My son watches Sesame Street almost every day; so did I when I was a young child. It's patently ludicrous to equate cutting PBS from the budget with not wanting children to learn.

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, many of the reasons stated above are not legitimate, so this thread go rather off track a bit.

The problem is that commercial support is inherently biased. They HAVE to be. Sure, you will see companies leaping over themselves to provide funding for Big Bird... as long as Big Bird is not controversial or at all confrontational. It might seem that's not all that difficult for a young children's show. However, what about issues like homosexuality and other issues that are now controversial? You may not recognize the fact, but race, gender equality, single parenthood... all of these were very controversial when introduced on Sesame Street, back in the day.

You have said, in other cases, that "voting with money" is just fine. The reason it is not fine to most people is that this means effectively ONLY people with money have any say. It is the exact opposite of Democracy. Big Bird is a very good example of how that can work. Sesame Street was quite literally the first place many young kids even say anyone of another race. It was the first place they saw that women could be "handy".... and one of the first places they could see that sometimes real people even get divorced. Those things don't seem controversial to you because they are things with which you have grown up. They are values that have permeated our society. What you fail to give credit is that Sesame Street was a big part of how that happened. Not alone, absolutely not, but a big part.

Did you know that the southern Baptists boycotted Disney? (maybe still are???) Why? Because Disney offered benefits to same sex partners and therefore was "subverting family values". I liked their response quite well "since when is denying people health care a Christian value". Well... just look at some of the rhetoric in the "socialized medicine" thread to see that is apparently has become a Christian value!

Either we have entities that are free of that, that are able to operate independently, without being beholded to particular corporations and the motive of profit, or we wind up supporting he who can pluck down the most money.

"He who can pluck down the most money" is no more a qualification of being fit to rule than "he whom God selected".

[tzor]

You never did answer my question...

I thought I did. Never the less, I don't see why I have to "object so fervently." Can't I simply object?

The Corporation that runs Sesame Street earns $130M
The person who plays Big Bird gets a sallary of $300K

I know the president wants to present this as Romney vs the "little guy" but this sounds more like a one percenter to me. This ain't no Mickey Mouse organization. Or rather it is.

[tzor]

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question.

My question is simple. Why can't PBS be like NPR? Technically speaking the federal government support for NPR is mostly for stations that simply cannot survive as anything given the demographics of the location. For the most part, the station is member supported and commercial people give generously because the believe in the product. While it receives some government support, it is not a major percentage and in fact there may be people who are not supporting local stations because they falsely believe that the government provides the bulk of the funds.

It's time to turn to the "public" in PBS and not the "federal government."

[PLAYER57832]

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question.

My question is simple. Why can't PBS be like NPR?

They are. I have no idea why you think they are not the same.

Technically speaking the federal government support for NPR is mostly for stations that simply cannot survive as anything given the demographics of the location. For the most part, the station is member supported and commercial people give generously because the believe in the product. While it receives some government support, it is not a major percentage and in fact there may be people who are not supporting local stations because they falsely believe that the government provides the bulk of the funds.

I have no idea where you get your information or why you think this applies to NPR and not PBS or vice-versa. The facts are they are funded very similarly. Also, what both organizations do goes well beyond just what you see on TV.

It's time to turn to the "public" in PBS and not the "federal government."

The federal government IS the public.. it is the people. One of the greatest and most harmful snow jobs put forward by Republicans and pretend Liberaterians in the past couple of decades is this idea that somehow the government is not us.... when people believe it is not, it is not. So, stop acting like its not us.. and it will be us again.

[Woodruff]

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question.

My question is simple. Why can't PBS be like NPR? Technically speaking the federal government support for NPR is mostly for stations that simply cannot survive as anything given the demographics of the location. For the most part, the station is member supported and commercial people give generously because the believe in the product. While it receives some government support, it is not a major percentage and in fact there may be people who are not supporting local stations because they falsely believe that the government provides the bulk of the funds.

Uh...that's exactly how PBS works. I donate to them every year.

[thegreekdog]

I agree with Andy that there are more important items to tackle, but I'm abundantly confused by the weird back and forth.

I believe PBS should be cut and the shows should have to survive on their own. That does not mean I'm against education or teaching moral values or any of the other things those shows stand for. My son watches Sesame Street almost every day; so did I when I was a young child. It's patently ludicrous to equate cutting PBS from the budget with not wanting children to learn.

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, many of the reasons stated above are not legitimate, so this thread go rather off track a bit.

The problem is that commercial support is inherently biased. They HAVE to be. Sure, you will see companies leaping over themselves to provide funding for Big Bird... as long as Big Bird is not controversial or at all confrontational. It might seem that's not all that difficult for a young children's show. However, what about issues like homosexuality and other issues that are now controversial? You may not recognize the fact, but race, gender equality, single parenthood... all of these were very controversial when introduced on Sesame Street, back in the day.

You have said, in other cases, that "voting with money" is just fine. The reason it is not fine to most people is that this means effectively ONLY people with money have any say. It is the exact opposite of Democracy. Big Bird is a very good example of how that can work. Sesame Street was quite literally the first place many young kids even say anyone of another race. It was the first place they saw that women could be "handy".... and one of the first places they could see that sometimes real people even get divorced. Those things don't seem controversial to you because they are things with which you have grown up. They are values that have permeated our society. What you fail to give credit is that Sesame Street was a big part of how that happened. Not alone, absolutely not, but a big part.

Did you know that the southern Baptists boycotted Disney? (maybe still are???) Why? Because Disney offered benefits to same sex partners and therefore was "subverting family values". I liked their response quite well "since when is denying people health care a Christian value". Well... just look at some of the rhetoric in the "socialized medicine" thread to see that is apparently has become a Christian value!

Either we have entities that are free of that, that are able to operate independently, without being beholded to particular corporations and the motive of profit, or we wind up supporting he who can pluck down the most money.

"He who can pluck down the most money" is no more a qualification of being fit to rule than "he whom God selected".

If I understand your argument, you're saying that Sesame Street can provide the content it provides because it receives funds from the government, which makes it independent and at least more independent than it would be if it was held to market standards.

First, who says Sesame Street isn't held to market standards? Has PBS ever cancelled a show because it was unpopular? Sure.

Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that a company supported by the government operates more independently than a company subject to market forces. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Phatscotty]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

[thegreekdog]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

No one is making that argument. When Republicans point to PBS as the thing to cut, while at the same time proposing obscene levels of defense spending increases (INCREASES!), there's a problem. Mitt is a problem.

[Phatscotty]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

No one is making that argument. When Republicans point to PBS as the thing to cut, while at the same time proposing obscene levels of defense spending increases (INCREASES!), there's a problem. Mitt is a problem.

Greece was.

I agree with your assessment of hypocrisy, however, I think there is also a problem though if we view "PBS" and "the military" as equal "spending programs"

My view is that we need to cut EVERYTHING! Across the board reductions. The government side needs to adjust to the new economic output. Everyone else has had to adjust, but the government continues to spend like 2008 never happened.

[Phatscotty]

What mystery? The only thing Nickeolodeon has succeed in doing is sucking massively compared to the 90s.

To answer Woodruff's question: sharing is SOCIALISM!!!!

Forced sharing is Socialism. Voluntary sharing is Freedom

I believe most parents actually have to force their 2-3 year olds to share.
Big Bird very much supports that agenda of convincing kids sharing is good.

so much for education and encouragement...

The Matrix has you

[Nobunaga]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

No one is making that argument. When Republicans point to PBS as the thing to cut, while at the same time proposing obscene levels of defense spending increases (INCREASES!), there's a problem. Mitt is a problem.

Greece was.

I agree with your assessment of hypocrisy, however, I think there is also a problem though if we view "PBS" and "the military" as equal "spending programs"

My view is that we need to cut EVERYTHING! Across the board reductions. The government side needs to adjust to the new economic output. Everyone else has had to adjust, but the government continues to spend like 2008 never happened.

... I liked Romney's idea that all spending, actual and proposed, should be tested. Is this worth borrowing more money from China and driving our kids further in debt?

... I'm no expert on military spending and don't know if increases / reductions are called for, yet I can say with some confidence that spending tax dollars and borrowed money on television programming does not pass that test.

...

[thegreekdog]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

No one is making that argument. When Republicans point to PBS as the thing to cut, while at the same time proposing obscene levels of defense spending increases (INCREASES!), there's a problem. Mitt is a problem.

Greece was.

I agree with your assessment of hypocrisy, however, I think there is also a problem though if we view "PBS" and "the military" as equal "spending programs"

My view is that we need to cut EVERYTHING! Across the board reductions. The government side needs to adjust to the new economic output. Everyone else has had to adjust, but the government continues to spend like 2008 never happened.

... I liked Romney's idea that all spending, actual and proposed, should be tested. Is this worth borrowing more money from China and driving our kids further in debt?

... I'm no expert on military spending and don't know if increases / reductions are called for, yet I can say with some confidence that spending tax dollars and borrowed money on television programming does not pass that test.

...

You can quite easily become enough of an expert of military spending to know that we're spending too much. You can start with the number of military bases, the preposterous contracts for new military equipment, the cost of foreign conflicts which are not necessary or ethical. And soon enough, you'll have cut many billions from the budget, which is a lot more money we borrow from China than what we borrow for television programming.

I will not trust Republicans or Mitt Romney when they say they want to cut spending until there are significant cuts made to military spending. One cannot be in favor of across the board spending cuts when one has no interest in cutting the budgets of programs that they agree with. That makes Republicans no different than Democrats.

[PLAYER57832]

I love the argument against cutting spending that uses the obscene amount that we spend as a reason why cuts in spending are a waste of time... because they seem small compared to all the other spending.

No one is making that argument. When Republicans point to PBS as the thing to cut, while at the same time proposing obscene levels of defense spending increases (INCREASES!), there's a problem. Mitt is a problem.

Greece was.

I agree with your assessment of hypocrisy, however, I think there is also a problem though if we view "PBS" and "the military" as equal "spending programs"

My view is that we need to cut EVERYTHING! Across the board reductions. The government side needs to adjust to the new economic output. Everyone else has had to adjust, but the government continues to spend like 2008 never happened.

... I liked Romney's idea that all spending, actual and proposed, should be tested. Is this worth borrowing more money from China and driving our kids further in debt?

... I'm no expert on military spending and don't know if increases / reductions are called for, yet I can say with some confidence that spending tax dollars and borrowed money on television programming does not pass that test.

...

I am not going to say that PBS should be sacrosanct in an intelligent mix of cuts and perhaps increases in some areas. I WILL, however say that your argument is false. Education, ALL education, whether on TV or elsewhere is the most cost-effective spending we can do. Further, EARLIER education gives even more benefits. Given that TV is now pretty universal and that it may well be the one source many poor kids have (as much as I dislike the idea of kids being glued to TVs as education... it is better than no education by far and supplements other education when it is available). So, the REAL truth is that Big Bird might well be one of the best investments this country could make.

PBS has served, similarly, to educate adults in subject not readily taken up elsewhere. In fact, to the extent it is disliked it is that success that is really at the root of a lot of anger, no matter how much it is buried in "we just need to cut everything" rhetoric... and a look at the many things NOT cut, shows this to be true.

Maybe Big Bird does need to lose some funding.. but not at the same time as we are funding huge oil companies, investing in drilling for natural gas, etc.

[tzor]

They are. I have no idea why you think they are not the same.

They are not. I've looked into the numbers. If you pull government funding from PBS you cut a significant amount of their programming revenue. If you pull government finding from NPR you give them pain but the amount of government funds that go into programming is more in the 10% range than in the 30% range.

It's time to turn to the "public" in PBS and not the "federal government."

The federal government IS the public.. it is the people. One of the greatest and most harmful snow jobs put forward by Republicans and pretend Liberaterians in the past couple of decades is this idea that somehow the government is not us.... when people believe it is not, it is not. So, stop acting like its not us.. and it will be us again.[/quote]

The federal government is not the "public." The federal government is the breaucracy. We the people are the public.

If you want the federal broadcasting system, then do what they do in the UK, assign a tax on every television set and pay for it that way. (Or you could tax the cable companies ala C-SPAN) But cut the crap about having "membership" drives and being "Member Supported" when you have to rely on the Federal Sugar Daddy for your survival. The membership system is working; it's time to cut the cord from the government.

[PLAYER57832]

I agree with Andy that there are more important items to tackle, but I'm abundantly confused by the weird back and forth.

I believe PBS should be cut and the shows should have to survive on their own. That does not mean I'm against education or teaching moral values or any of the other things those shows stand for. My son watches Sesame Street almost every day; so did I when I was a young child. It's patently ludicrous to equate cutting PBS from the budget with not wanting children to learn.

Whether PBS should be funded by the government or not is a legitimate question. Unfortunately, many of the reasons stated above are not legitimate, so this thread go rather off track a bit.

The problem is that commercial support is inherently biased. They HAVE to be. Sure, you will see companies leaping over themselves to provide funding for Big Bird... as long as Big Bird is not controversial or at all confrontational. It might seem that's not all that difficult for a young children's show. However, what about issues like homosexuality and other issues that are now controversial? You may not recognize the fact, but race, gender equality, single parenthood... all of these were very controversial when introduced on Sesame Street, back in the day.

You have said, in other cases, that "voting with money" is just fine. The reason it is not fine to most people is that this means effectively ONLY people with money have any say. It is the exact opposite of Democracy. Big Bird is a very good example of how that can work. Sesame Street was quite literally the first place many young kids even say anyone of another race. It was the first place they saw that women could be "handy".... and one of the first places they could see that sometimes real people even get divorced. Those things don't seem controversial to you because they are things with which you have grown up. They are values that have permeated our society. What you fail to give credit is that Sesame Street was a big part of how that happened. Not alone, absolutely not, but a big part.

Did you know that the southern Baptists boycotted Disney? (maybe still are???) Why? Because Disney offered benefits to same sex partners and therefore was "subverting family values". I liked their response quite well "since when is denying people health care a Christian value". Well... just look at some of the rhetoric in the "socialized medicine" thread to see that is apparently has become a Christian value!

Either we have entities that are free of that, that are able to operate independently, without being beholded to particular corporations and the motive of profit, or we wind up supporting he who can pluck down the most money.

"He who can pluck down the most money" is no more a qualification of being fit to rule than "he whom God selected".

If I understand your argument, you're saying that Sesame Street can provide the content it provides because it receives funds from the government, which makes it independent and at least more independent than it would be if it was held to market standards.

First, who says Sesame Street isn't held to market standards? Has PBS ever cancelled a show because it was unpopular? Sure.

Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that a company supported by the government operates more independently than a company subject to market forces. Absolutely ridiculous.

First, my argument is that the fact that PBS is bowing more and more to standard market principles is part of a problem, BUT.. here is the thing. Just because a show is made does not mean it is worthwhile. One measure is how popular the show is. The difficulty is that when you add in corporate interests, it becomes distorted. There are shows that both NPR and PBS keep, even if they are not the highest rating earners, because these shows answer a need just not met elsewhere.

I personally don't care much for DEMOCRACY NOW! (emphasis is, I believe their title). However, I recognize that it is important to have such a voice to counter what is being said in mainline media. Similarly, I actually dislike the Purple Rabbit show (name might be a bit off). It is a show that airs specifically gay and lesbian new and music. It tends to air pretty late (10 or 11PM), I am not sure it even still airs. I listened a few times and just did not like it, not so much because it was gay and lesbian, just because it was not that well done. Still.. I recognize that this is something some people really need and want.. or at least did for a while. Now there are actually more mainline sources of such around.

When it comes to Big Bird specifically, along with some other early childhood shows (not going to stand up as strongly for Curious George, I am afraid.. even if it is my son's favorite), the track record of its accomplishments speak for themselves. However, you may not be yet aware how much local PBS stations do to support local area on-site childrens' events --- everything from Clifford reads eevents to trainings for childcare providers (what to do with the Mad in you was an excellent on I attended a few years ago).

Also, I really do think that the real reason PBS is being attacked is that it does engage in controversy, that despite its huge corporate sponsorships, does actually target some big business and other big money interests. It very much does counter much of what the Christian right, in particular comes up with as "fact".

[PLAYER57832]

They are. I have no idea why you think they are not the same.

They are not. I've looked into the numbers. If you pull government funding from PBS you cut a significant amount of their programming revenue. If you pull government finding from NPR you give them pain but the amount of government funds that go into programming is more in the 10% range than in the 30% range.

I don't have time to go over the real numbers right now, but you are just wrong.

Part of the issue is sheer volume and the cost of producing a TV show versus a radio program. Part of it is, as I have noted elsewhere, that PBS in any area does a lot more than just TV shows. In most areas, the radio and TV funding are tied, but some of the bigger ticket items are put under the TV umbrella. Exactly what happens in many areas varies. In our area, both PBS and NPR are very closely tied to the University. That was also the case in Northern California, where I used to live.

[Woodruff]

I agree with your assessment of hypocrisy, however, I think there is also a problem though if we view "PBS" and "the military" as equal "spending programs"

That's true...education is more important than the military, that's true.

My view is that we need to cut EVERYTHING! Across the board reductions. The government side needs to adjust to the new economic output. Everyone else has had to adjust, but the government continues to spend like 2008 never happened.

I don't have a problem with sensible reductions, to include PBS. I do have a problem with eliminating funding for PBS.

[GreecePwns]

His proposal isn't "sensible reductions" its "we are spending 20% more than we should, so we should cut everything by exactly 20%."

That's the definition of "across the board cuts" that was being thrown around a while ago, and it hasn't changed since then.

[Woodruff]

His proposal isn't "sensible reductions" its "we are spending 20% more than we should, so we should cut everything by exactly 20%."

That's the definition of "across the board cuts" that was being thrown around a while ago, and it hasn't changed since then.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't agreeing with his statement regarding across-the-board cuts (the idea of which are frankly stupid and potentially dangerous). I was simply stating, as a separate position but in response to his statement, that I don't have a problem with reducing the funding for PBS if it's done in a sensible manner. I see on re-reading it that I didn't make that necessarily clear.