Pull Back the Curtain on PBS and NPR Salaries

[Markle]

PBS-commissioned survey

Who commissioned the survey?

 

[Markle]

I support them by voting for representatives who will provide them funding. And we win, year after year.

So agonizingly typical of the far left Progressive! You love something you like being supported. JUST so someone else's money is used to support them.

 

[Markle]

Tricky Dick wasn't trying for the black vote. He went for the Bubba Redneck vote that wouldn't go for the Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and admitted he lost the south for a generation.

 

[Markle]

Even in their news commentary segments, PBS Newshour is very balanced in terms of whom they bring in. For instance, this past week:

• Discussion of SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch -- commentators were from:
  • National Law Journal -- Played the role of subject matter expert and event observer/describer
  • SCOTUSblog - The Supreme Court of the United States blog -- Center
    
  • Stanford Univ. Law professor -- Left
  • Senior Fellow, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute -- Right

The individuals who represented the three ideological positions each presented useful information and strong arguments/explanations without resorting to lines of discussion that, unlike a lot of the editorial commentary on cable news commentary programs, only a simpleton would even attempt to brook, let alone actually do so and expect to be taken seriously in the offing.

If there were going to be any single thing the government could do to improve the quality of cable television, it'd be stipulating that no network may provide more than two hours of political news commentary and editorials per 24 hours. That would give all of them eight 15 minute blocks to thoroughly cover the major issues of the day, and then stop bombarding us with BS all day and all night.

So you believe in Communism and harsh censorship!

Not surprised. You have expressed your hatred of our country in the past.

Ratings and trustworthiness determine the winners and losers and work exceedingly well. Right now, Fox News occupies the top spot and has for quite some time. Obviously, you prefer the anti-American losers. That's fine, watch what you wish and I'll watch Fox and a few others just to see what your kind are up to doing.

 

[JoeB131]

I would have guessed you'd have actually looked into who was responsible instead of following the Progressive lemmings to the sea.

I did.

All the cronies and horse show guys Bush put in charge of watching the banksters when they were ripping us off.

YOu see, the lesson of 2008 should be "Republicans finally got everything they wanted, and it was shit!"

 

[JoeB131]

PBS is .05% of the budget and cutting it shows you're not even pretending to care about the American people. It serves a purpose 100x greater than Donald Trump does. It's educational and won't lie to you.

But does it need a government subsidy? You see, the things is a lot of things are good ideas. I think Planned parenthood is a good idea, but they buy themselves a lot of grief taking the pittance the government gives them.

If the Democrats want to paint themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, then they need to make some choices. "Yes, we like this, but the government shouldn't be funding it."

 

[NYcarbineer]

I support them by voting for representatives who will provide them funding. And we win, year after year.

So agonizingly typical of the far left Progressive! You love something you like being supported. JUST so someone else's money is used to support them.

How do you conclude that I don't pay taxes?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If PBS and NPR are so popular then they should be commercially viable. If not there is no reason that the taxpayer has to pay for it.
Just because it is only $1.50 per taxpayer does not make it right. Another question is if these networks are government funded then they should be free of politics in their programming.

Are you really such a fucking moron?!

The whole point is that they're NOT COMMERCIAL, so there is one fucking place you can watch quality programming for all ages and not be recruited as a consumer.

One fucking place where your kids aren't brainwashed to want crappy food and crappy plastic toys or subject to erectile dysfunction adverts or adverts that objectify women and create body image issues, etc.

One fucking place where a solid percentage of the programming must be educational - instead of mindless drivel, violence and gratuitous sex, mean and low-IQ 'reality TV' crap, empty headed talks shows where uninformed celebrities pat each other on the back as they exchange misinformation.

There is so much truly excellent programming on PBS and the cost to the federal budget is miniscule by comparison to value delivered.

I would have no problem with the top executive salaries being reined in a little - those seem pretty high by comparison to other nonprofits. At the same time, to get very good quality managers salary has to remain competitive. Still, I'm sure there are good people who would do those jobs for less than $600k or $900k.

But honestly, those of you who don't see the value in PBS or why it's an important PUBLIC investment are just dumb. You should've watched more PBS growing up and less commercial TV crap.

That is assuming that to be commercially viable you must have commercials for products and that is blatantly incorrect. If they are of a quality that you state they can sell the product directly or continue to get donations to fund 100 percent of their programming. They are not all that far off now. There is no need for the government to fund them at all.


YOU think they are worth it. Many do not. The government is not there to force everyone to support programs that you like. There is no governmental purpose served by PBS or NPR that justifies channeling money to them. There is actually the exact opposite - the government should not be in the media business.

The justification for funding PBS is that the People want it funded.

Either you change the minds of the People, or you get the funding declared unconstitutional, or tough luck.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The average federal taxpayer pays about $1.50 a year towards public broadcasting.

I hereby volunteer to sponsor ONE Rightwing taxpayer for TEN years, to cover their tax bill to PBS - that's $15.00

on the ONE condition that they promise to shut up about public broadcasting for the duration of that 10 years.

Any takers?

No one wants to take me up on my offer?

lol. You people complain and complain about how much public broadcasting costs you, I offer to pay one of you your share for a DECADE if you'll shut up about it,

and, WTF?

no one is interested?

Conclusion: you people are ONLY interested in bitching. Solutions are the furthest thing from your mind...

 

[NYcarbineer]

As my post above explains, each of us who supports public broadcasting can sponsor one RWnut for 1.50 a year!

lol, this should be a campaign.

 

[Picaro]

I agree, taxpayers shouldn't be paying for Democratic Party and 'globalist' propaganda. If they were truly neutral and objective, I wouldn't be against a subsidy for a national network; not as large as the one they're getting now, but a decent one. As it is they offer nothing one can't get from the MSM's flunkies.

In my opinion, that is impossible.

NPR and PBS may have been useful 50-100 years ago but not today. Today we have hundreds of TV stations and millions of sources for news and information online. Were it public, it would have either been gone decades ago or compete in the marketplace. But, with government funding, it just goes on...and on...and on!

I see a need for a national commercial free channel, just as I see a need for banning private money from election campaigns, and introducing voter qualifications tests. NPR and PBS aren't either of those, and are poor examples of how one should work.

the original funding was indeed flawed, as it was deliberately set up to line the pockets of Bill Moyers and his ilk. His various 'production and marketing' companies were major recipients of the money spent on purchasing 'content', just for one cash funnel into Moyer's pockets.