$400 million in tax money annually for PBS

[Zat0pek]

I realize in the grand scheme of things, this may not seem like much, but this figure (contained in a recent NYTimes article) just seems nuts to me for what we're getting for that money.

$400 MILLION A YEAR in federal dollars for PBS? Are they kidding? They even run commercials now! My daughters watch DragonTales or Berenstein Bears (when they're not taking in SpongeBob) some mornings and there are tons of commercials before and after each each episode.

PBS served a purpose back when there were only three broadcast channels but it is now to television what your appendix is to your intestines; just this little appendage that has long outlived its usefulness. The explosion of cable and satellite channels has obliterated any justification for that kind of public funding.

Time to cut off the federal tap, I say. I just found some more money for social security, rebuilding Iraq or (yeah, I know, this one is a pipe dream) reducing some red ink. I realize half a billion or so isn't huge in the scheme of a federal budget, but there is simply no valid argument that can be made to sustain them at that cost. Their content just isn't that unique from what is available elsewhere anymore.

Their programming could EASILY be shifted over to commercial cable networks. I'm sure CNN would jump at buying FrontLine. History, Discovery, Bravo and the cable news channels could and probably would pick up a lot of their programming. Kids programming would have no problem finding a home as it has a huge commercial following.

To the extent its not picked up, well, then it certainly wasn't worth $400 million every year, was it?

[Jwaksman]

I oppose any money for any arts. I don't think anyone should have to pay for something that they disagree with. Take PBS for example, a lot of Republicans are upset that their tax money is going to pay for a very liberally slanted channel. So, Bush has appointed someone to basically force PBS to move towards the left. That is very wrong, in my opinion.


Our government should not be in the business of supporting one type of art over another. I remember when Giuliani was mayor of New York and wanted to create a Good Art Commission that would determine what art was appropriate for public exhibition.


Unless you idolize Plato's Republic, that's a scary, scary idea. The solution is take taxpayer money out of art. Let people make whatever art they want on their own, and let them be supported by whichever private individuals would like to support them.

[nordicrunner]

I oppose any money for any arts. I don't think anyone should have to pay for something that they disagree with. Take PBS for example, a lot of Republicans are upset that their tax money is going to pay for a very liberally slanted channel. So, Bush has appointed someone to basically force PBS to move towards the left. That is very wrong, in my opinion.


umm, bush moving someone to the left? i think you mean right.

[Jwaksman]

umm, bush moving someone to the left? i think you mean right.



Oh, oops. Yeah, that's what I meant. The Bush appointee is trying to make PBS more balanced by moving it to the right.

Clearly, it's a problem when the government is trying to change the politics of a channel. But it's also a problem in the first place when you have a government-funded channel that has a clear political stance. The solution is to remove government funding from the channel, and then let it be free to have any opinions that it wants in the private market.

[jersey_guy]

What's PBS?

[KenA55]

What's cable & satellite?


There are an awful lot of people out there, some of whom would never consider paying a monthly bill for television, either out of principle or out of financial necessity. I pay to have my garbage removed, and can't see myself paying someone to shovel more back in through the tv. Of course we're talking about a dinosaur with an old b&w set still- in the bedroom- I'm a ways out on the edge of our metro area and it pulls the stations in with so much better reception than the big new color tv.

Now whether taxpayers should be paying for a portion of PBS is certainly a debatable issue regardless, but I think that debate needs to stay away from the idea that pay television makes it unnecessary.

Think I'll go pop an 8-track in the stereo, got one of them too. Amazing how some of that older stuff has held up across the decades, I don't think I'd bet too heavily on most of today's electronics to do the same.

[exjersey1]

I don't think anyone should have to pay for something that they disagree with.




That's a pretty bold statement.

If I don't believe in the war in Iraq, do I get a tax rebate? If you disagree with medicare, do you get to decide not to support it?

[Jwaksman]

I was talking about art, which has no real practical purpose. Art is just something nice to have around, and whoever wants art should pay for it. Whoever doesn't want art can ignore it.

[mzungu]

i haven't kept up on pbs over the years, but we're talking about a channel that gave us mcneil-lehrer, sesame street, mr. rogers' neighborhood, and some pretty good british stuff. the $400 million is a large cut, adjusting for inflation, from previous years. at a time in which republicans are trying to enforce a particular political view on PBS, as on npr, the worth of the subsidy is in doubt. but about public support for the arts in general, there is no doubt whatsoever that, properly conceived so as to make the decisions on whom to support independent of politicians, it serves a tremendous social function akin to basic research funding for culture, which can be one of the great sources of pride for this country or any country. many cultural ideas, like many scientific and technological ideas, are far ahead of their time or not quite ready for prime time applications for a large or wealthy audience, and thus require years and years of seed money when they cannot be supported by private funds.

[Zat0pek]

Public funding for the arts has a tradition dating back thousands of years. I support (stongly) public funding of TRUE art but alas some people think they can slap the label "art" on bottles of urine, so some common sense is required.

PBS needs to go REGARDLESS of any political position. I would say the same thing regardless of their political tendencies. $400 million dollars for television fare easily moved elsewhere is patently absurd. No harm will befall the country if you now have to get McNeil-Lehrer from CNN, Discovery or Bravo. So a few viewers miss it; it ain't worth $400 million. Not by a long shot.

Classic case of government spending that began legitimately, but once it outlives its usefulness, no one has the political courage to shut it down.

[mzungu]

zat, it is precisely in exploring the limits of acceptable art that there is progress in art, and today serrano's "piss christ," while certainly offensive to many, is canonical work in the same way as duchamp's "fountain" (a urinal signed r.mutt from around 1915) is canonical work in stretching the boundaries of what is art and thus making way for decades of found art and so forth. here "common sense" or the views of non-art enthusiasts concerning what is or ought to be art absolutely cannot be the standard for judging what is art, since that would impose a conservative model for what is art, conservative in the sense of approving only that kind of work already approved through the long period of familiarization that all art undergoes. for instance, today, most americans who like art are going to consider impressionism, a movement from the 1860s-1880s, the epitome of true art, and then many fewer would accept cubism or surrealism (there is a big dali show in philadelphia right now). But pre-1960s work like Duchamp or Beauys or even abstract expressionism would probably be considered outre by most Americans, although abstract expressionism is now so immersed in the culture as to be considered art by a fair number of non-artists. the recent mass success of christo and jeanne-claude's gates in central park illustrates the point, because the idea is from around 1978 and christo's work first entered the public consciousness way back in the 1960s.
My point here is that common cultural sensibilities lag many decades behind cultural movements and therefore these sensibilities cannot be allowed to hold back cultural progress. my advice is just to withhold judgment and fund what the experts in art think is good, regardless of the content.

[KenA55]

True, a buck-fifty per person per year is an awfully expensive ticket.
;)

It's not so much that I don't agree that some PBS content could go commercial without too much loss- I just think of all the negative and counterproductive things we spend waaaay too much money on as a government, sums that really do make this look like chump change- and eliminating PBS funding just doesn't rate much priority in my book. Considering their history of developing positive programming for the very young, and comparing that to all of the crap in the more commercial airwaves (and getting worse each season), it's nice to know there's one network that isn't purely ratings-driven. If it were my decision alone, we'd all keep chipping in the buckfifty per head.

[exjersey1]

If it were my decision alone, we'd all keep chipping in the buckfifty per head.


I'd go for double that if they'd promise to keep crap like 'Simple Life' and 'American Idol' and 'Bachelor' and some of the other total garbage off the air.

There's stuff on now that makes Saturday morning cartoons look like educational television.

[Jwaksman]

Public funding for the arts has a tradition dating back thousands of years. I support (stongly) public funding of TRUE art but alas some people think they can slap the label "art" on bottles of urine, so some common sense is required.



But that's the problem. What is just a stupid bottle of urine to you may be art to someone else. I would agree with you - it's not art. So I would not pay to support such art. But other people would. That's why the easy solution is to take taxpayer money out of art and allow individuals to pay for it. Remember, art has been almost exclusively private over the past 2000 years. Even today, most art is private. If you want to make a painting, get some rich guy to pay you $20,000 to hang it in his house. That's all the support you need.

Right now, PBS doesn't even have a niche that it fills. When it was first created it was intended to provide good healthy shows for children to learn. Things like Sesame Street. But in today's world the private market has provide learning shows for children that are far better and more expansive than anything on PBS. We have the cartoon network, nickelodeon, and a bunch of other channels geared towards children - not to mention channels like the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and A&E, all of which are geared towards learning. All of these things are available on basic cable, which the vast majority of Americans get.


When there is demand for children's entertainment that demand will be met due to natural market forces. There is no need to spend taxpayer money to artificially fill that void.

[Zat0pek]

my advice is just to withhold judgment

Far too many people do that in this society already.

[leighpeas]

I oppose any money for any arts.
And what about funding that would go to support music programs for poor inner city schools? Art is important and should be available for everyone. You're right, it shouldn't be artificially balanced, but I know of NO ONE who has a problem with a liberal slant on PBS. I would guess that these are crazy right-wing extremists coming up with this crap. Bush listens to them? Well, he won't be president for too much longer, anyway-- don't worry about it. $400 million is a bit on the steep side, though, considering all the public donations.

[leighpeas]

That's a pretty bold statement.

If I don't believe in the war in Iraq, do I get a tax rebate? If you disagree with medicare, do you get to decide not to support it?
If I don't want to go to school, should I scrap it and take the money it would have dished out for me?

[Jwaksman]

Giving money to schools is different. That's not giving money to art, that's giving money to a school. Public schools have all sorts of problems, like this one, but it's not really a problem to be dealt with right now.


But giving $10,000 to a guy to paint a painting simply should not happen. Different art is "acceptable" to different people, and government should not be making moral decisions like that. In a sense, it's a free speech issue, as "unacceptable" art should not be censored either.

[exjersey1]

If I don't want to go to school, should I scrap it and take the money it would have dished out for me?


Only if you apply for an NEA grant.

;)

[MoMo]

We spend $400 million every day in Iraq -- before noon.

O.K., maybe not quite that much, but you get the point.

$400 million is chump change in this government.

I do agree with zat that some of PBS's original raisons d'etre have
been taken over by other channels, but I'd hate to see it all flushed
down the toilet.

Art -- of which public-subsidized art is a huge part -- is all that keeps us from being nothing more than a nation of suburban strip malls, McDonald's, and multiplex movie theaters showing the same tired garbage.

One of our nation's jewels is the Smithsonian museum complex along the National Mall here. It was founded with private money -- thanks to Mr. Smithson -- but stays alive now with taxpayer-funded subsidies amounting to roughly 75% of its budget, I believe.

In a jwack-ian world I guess we'd bulldoze the museums, put in some parking lots, and let Wal-Mart, Disney Channel and Wendy's move in. What a loss that would be.

Sure, public funding of urinary art seems dubious. But drawing the line -- allowing only the art approved by, say, a Bush-appointed panel made up of blue-nosed Jerry Falwell types -- goes way too far in the other direction.

We have to err on the side of risk-taking openness and sometimes-brazen creativity; we have to let in the occasional hair-raising blast of cool, fresh air.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, MoMo, I want to bulldoze all the museums and schools. I want to tear down all the trees and pollute all the rivers. I want 10 degrees of global warming because it's too damn cold in winter. Oh, and I eat little children... :rolleyes:




Unfortunately, I don't realize that without government we would never get the things we need. I mean, all humans would surely starve if it wasn't for government providing all of our food. And we would all certainly freeze to death in winter if it wasn't for governmnt providing all of our clothing....


Oh... wait...

[mzungu]

Far too many people do that in this society already.

wouldn't you agree that it is good to withhold judgment concerning things about which you are ignorant? that goes for most of us concerning avant-garde art. i'll let the experts decide, so that the creative flow of ideas is nourished. ultimately, very good for the tourist dollars, said michael bloomberg after "The Gates" was over.

To take a second angle on the issue:
aren't you being pc in saying that any art that offends your sensibilities should not be funded by the public?

[Zat0pek]

wouldn't you agree that it is good to withhold judgment concerning things about which you are ignorant? that goes for most of us concerning avant-garde art. i'll let the experts decide, so that the creative flow of ideas is nourished. ultimately, very good for the tourist dollars, said michael bloomberg after "The Gates" was over.

To take a second angle on the issue:
aren't you being pc in saying that any art that offends your sensibilities should not be funded by the public?

I've got no problem having my sensibilities shaken. Good to be challenged. But that is usually not what we are talking about.

What is usually in play in those situations is actually an on-going desensitization process. We see it culturally all the time. That's where I take great offense at the "withhold judgement" approach to obscenity. By doing so, it allows time for desensitization to occur and the real agenda to be advanced. And public money should NOT be used for that purpose.

[MoMo]

jwack, that wasn't ME who said you wanted to bulldoze the museums, it was
mzungu.












hahahahaha. just playin' wit chu.

[herr]

This complicates the issue (http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/CPBsurveys.html)

[Jwaksman]

That doesn't complicate things at all. First of all, that link is from a very Democratic webpage, so they try to present the poll results in a way that makes the leftist cause look better.



If you actually read what they type, they don't get to the bias until near the end: "Finally, more than half (55 percent) said that PBS programming was “fair and balanced," with strong support for its “high quality programming” and as “a valuable cultural resource.”


That could mean anything. Maybe 45% thought it was too liberal for all you know... Then, trying to hammer down on the bias part they have this to say:

"Most participants, according to the survey results, “could not cite specific examples of bias""


I'm not sure what that means... how many people could cite specific examples of bias on Foxnews or CNN? Doesn't mean that those channels aren't biased. Because, of course, they are. As is PBS.




And, none of this matters, anyway. The point is that some people are always going to disagree with any type of art. Which is why tax money should not be paying for PBS. If some private company wants to take over PBS's shows and thinks that they can make it profitable then they are completely welcome to it. Any channel that can run a profit is fine.

[KenA55]

I'm perfectly happy having one network that can operate a bit more independently of the balance sheet, and frankly am less than impressed with the effects of such profitability on programming decisions.

[mzungu]

but look at what we get when there is no government delimitation of monopolies over media. our country was ranked just 24th in the world in terms of press freedom recently. why? well, it has got to be because of media consolidation. when clear channel and one other conglomerate controls almost every radio station in the country, then there are dramatic content limits imposed by the corporations and you hear only a very limited amount of content. for instance, there were no national 'liberal' radio networks until last year. conservatives claimed that it was just because there was no desire on the part of the american people for that. but air america's ratings have consistently defeated many of the established conservative radio programs, and they are now in most of the major markets in the country, including new york, washington, chicago, and los angeles (56 total--mostly large markets). PBS and NPR, with the republican politicians kept out of interference, could step into the vacuum and provide news unreported by major corporations, but they are unlikely to do that either if they are controlled by republicans or if they are funded by major corporations.

[mzungu]

this is the most relevant element of the suppressed polls:
"Following its initial 2002 survey, CPB ordered Tarrance and Lake back into the field the following year. Their dismay at the results surely explains why this poll was deep-sixed. Conducted between June 29-July 2003 and surveying 1,008 adults, the National Public Opinion Survey #2 showed that public broadcasting had an 80 percent “Favorable” rating; only 10 percent of those polled had an “Unfavorable” opinion of PBS and public radio. PBS "News & Information 'consumers'” were highly supportive of such programs as the "Newshour," "Frontline," "Morning Edition," and "All Things Considered.""

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, what does "we're ranked 24th in the world in free press" mean??? Anytime you EVER see a vague arbitrary stat like that it ALWAYS comes from some group with a political agenda. How would one even mention that?


By most standards, we have the most free press in the world. We have independent channels that say all sorts of things. Right wing tv, left wing tv. Most countries have much smaller assortments of channels and choices. In most countries (even countries like the UK) the biggest channels are government owned.


Did you know that the BBC recently got caught hiring people to heckle Michael Howard at a campaign rally so they could capture it on camera and use it on the news?


And I bet Britain was "ranked" with a more free press than the US....

[mzungu]

the press survey comes from freedom house, which has done surveys since 1980, ranking 194 countries. great britain was 34th, up from 37th.
http://freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

"According to Freedom House's annual survey, "the United States has suffered 'notable setbacks' in press freedom," slipping to 24th of 194 countries. One reason is "a number of legal cases in which prosecutors sought to compel journalists to reveal sources or turn over notes or other material." Another is the paid pundit and video news release controversies. Such fake news "may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues," said communications professor Martin Kaplan. "It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job.""

[mzungu]

this is the kind of freedom of education envisioned by kansas conservatives:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/kansas_evolution

apparently, they believe the scopes monkey trial should be re-staged every few decades.

[Jwaksman]

Okay, let's try this again... Do you have any idea what the methodology of that study was? I've looked and I can't find any real definition of these rankings. And I bet you have no idea either. All you saw was a survey that looks bad for the US so you assumed that it's true.


I can make up a survey right now. Countries with the most free press:

1) Cuba
2) North Korea
3) Italy

Why is my list any less valid? Both seem to be fairly arbitrary.


The biggest reason that you still have all of these illogical beliefs is because you never, ever try to dig deep and learn the facts behind issues. You take vague, arbitrary lists like this to appease your assumption that the US is a horrible country, without ever looking at real numbers.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, you do know that the Governor of Kansas is a Democrat, right? I thought Democrats are smarter than Republicans???

[MoMo]

"According to Freedom House's annual survey, "the United States has suffered 'notable setbacks' in press freedom," slipping to 24th of 194 countries. One reason is "a number of legal cases in which prosecutors sought to compel journalists to reveal sources or turn over notes or other material." Another is the paid pundit and video news release controversies. Such fake news "may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues," said communications professor Martin Kaplan. "It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job.""

wackman, you can disagree with Freedom House's methodology -- even though you have no idea what it is -- but the points they make are all absolutely true. it's just insane that, for example, judith miller of the new york times faces possible jail time for not revealing what she may or may not know about the identity of the administration official who revealed that valerie plame is a cia agent. is this CRAZY? the administration let the secret slip, and a journalist faces jail time???

the fake news video aren't a great thing, either. i suppose, jwack, you'll tell us that the british do that. i don't think so.

[Jwaksman]

Do YOU have any idea what their methodology is either? No, probably not. You just assume that it's accurate because it gives the US a low ranking, and you just believe anything that agrees with your hatred of America and everything it stands for. The fact that the United States has a free press that actually presents more than one point of view and is completely privatized is something that almost no other country in the world has. This is just more of this typical love-everything-the-Europeans do. All the top countries are highly regulated European countries, which doesn't make any sense...



You don't like that those reporters are being forced to testify? Well, that's all because of Democratic politicians who are making it happen. So I guess your Democratic Party isn't the friend of free press that it pretends to be, huh? Well, they did vote for the Patriot Act also...

[jersey_guy]

Another is the paid pundit and video news release controversies. Such fake news "may be even worse than poisoning public debate on specific issues," said communications professor Martin Kaplan. "It corrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job.""

Oh yea I bet Jon Stewart cost the US at least 10 places in that "ranking."

You know what coorrodes the ability of real journalism to do its job? Liars like Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, and others who blatantly make stuff up and erode any trust that Americans have in the media.

But what really corrodes journalism is the ridiculous left wing bias of most newspapers from Boston to LA whose editors would rather eat their own **** than write something positive about Bush and his administration. At the beginning of the year my local paper had a 16-page special business section about robust economic and trade growth and proliferation of business in Northern NJ, and they managed to do it without mentioning "Bush" or "tax cut" even once.

NYT presidential endorsements during the last quarter century:

1972 - George McGovern
1976 - Jimmy Carter
1980 - Jimmy Carter
1984 - Walter Mondale
1988 - Mike Dukakis
1992 - Bill Clinton
1996 - Bill Clinton
2000 - Al Gore
2004 - John Kerry

Yup, objective and nonpartisan media.

[MoMo]

j_g, are you suggesting that those nine candidates were not OBJECTIVELY the best?

:rolleyes:

[MoMo]

You just assume that it's accurate because it gives the US a low ranking, and you just believe anything that agrees with your hatred of America and everything it stands for. ... This is just more of this typical love-everything-the-Europeans do. All the top countries are highly regulated European countries, which doesn't make any sense...
You don't like that those reporters are being forced to testify? Well, that's all because of Democratic politicians who are making it happen.

jwack, you constantly complain that others are engaging in ad hominem attacks. it seems anymore that your ONLY argument against me is to smear me as an America-hating, Euro-loving leftist. And yet you -- who is always demanding evidence -- cannot provide the slightest scintilla in support of that. I love America, and have often said so. I'm a centrist -- though if you see me as a leftist, I guess that's because of where YOU stand. And yes, I sometimes defend the Europeans against hateful, agenda-driven critics who assume that EVERYTHING European must be worse, poorer, more primitive, more stupid, just as you assume that the West Europeans can't possibly have a free press.
The fact is, those of you who complain about our American press being left-slanted should salivate with envy at the press choices available in many European countries. Many European readers have a big choice of press orientations, from far right to far left. And yes, this includes not just the Brits (with the Telegraph to the right, some of the tabloids even further right, and the Guardian & etc. to the left) but even France, which has the very conservative Le Figaro, which has Communist newspapers like l'Humanite, which has center-left papers like Le Monde, and many, many others. We have NOTHING like that sort of range in the daily press.
Do you know anything about the European press, or do you just assume that the study referenced above has to be wrong because it doesn't bear out your preconceptions?

[MoMo]

jwack, your criticism of the Freedom House press survey is just preposterous.

you think this is some left-leaning group? its board of directors includes such "leftist radicals" as jeane kirkpatrick and kenneth adelman, two prominent reagan administration conservatives. the chairman is james woolsey, the former cia head who had presidential appointments in two republican and two democratic administrations. another radical, eh?

its findings have been widely accepted for years. its latest has the u.s. with greater press freedom (if not significantly greater) than britain, france, japan, spain and italy, though less (but not significantly less) than germany, ireland and the scandinavian countries.

if you read the report on the united states, there's not a single controversial assertion there. it's all entirely fact-based, straightforward, dispassionate.

if you want to smear it, kindly provide some solid evidence of your assumption that it is irresponsibly left-leaning -- beyond the fact that you disagree with the (not so very controversial) suggestion that u.s. press freedom might have backslid a bit since 9/11.

[mzungu]

the arguments here amount to this:
i am freedom-hating.
freedom house is freedom-hating.
we are euro-lovers.
the united states is not ranked #1.
therefore, the press survey has no validity.

jersey_guy, i'm glad that you oppose lying in the press. so, i hope you'll join me in condemning fox news for its continual lying, and I hope you'll join me in condemning the Bush administration for spending $240,000 on Armstrong Williams to promote the administration's education policy, and $20k on Maggie Williams(? i forget her name), and thousands more on another person. I also hope you'll join me in condemning the New York Times for relying on Ahmed Chalabi and administration members for falsely reporting the existence of wmd in Iraq. At least the NYT apologized for its error and changed its reporting policies.

The idea of 'disinterestedness' entails that at the very least, you not BEGIN with the proper conclusion and then interpret the 'evidence' that fits that conclusion and exclude all contrary evidence. International surveys are just not designed to make the United States look bad. Why this paranoia? If this survey was designed to make the U.S. bad and Europe look good, then why do European countries like Great Britain do worse? This a priori notion that the U.S. (if ruled by republicans) is necessarily #1 in the world in everything is just ludicrous.

[Jwaksman]

I'm not criticizing Freedom House as much as i'm criticizing your reflexive America-bashing. I mean, we get it, you hate America and think it's the worst country on the planet. But if you want to convince someone else you need to use facts.



You found a survey and have NO IDEA what the methodology is. It just says that America doesn't have a free press. So you assume it's correct. Unfortunately, "free press" is not something you can just objectively measure, like per-capita GDP. So you'd better explain its methodology or else it's useless.