Unintended (dangerous) message - PBS

whitehall

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2010
66,739
28,859
2,300
Western Va.
I saw the commercial on PBS (watching Hometime which is a pretty good show) today so it is current. Apparently it was made after the hoopla about Romney's crack about Big Bird during the campaign. The punch line is "where would PBS be without Big Bird". The problem is that it starts out with a man dressed as a cartoon character (Big Bird) knocking on a door and a little girl answers the door. The character offers his hand and the little girl walks away with him to adventure land. What does it teach little kids? Cartoon characters are your friends and you can trust them without asking your parents. Killer Clown John Gacy would be proud.
 
I saw the commercial on PBS (watching Hometime which is a pretty good show) today so it is current. Apparently it was made after the hoopla about Romney's crack about Big Bird during the campaign. The punch line is "where would PBS be without Big Bird". The problem is that it starts out with a man dressed as a cartoon character (Big Bird) knocking on a door and a little girl answers the door. The character offers his hand and the little girl walks away with him to adventure land. What does it teach little kids? Cartoon characters are your friends and you can trust them without asking your parents. Killer Clown John Gacy would be proud.

Scarey shit .
 
Kind of like Halloween.

You spend all year telling your kids not to take candy from strangers, then, on October 31st every year, people send their kids out into the night to do just that, take candy from strangers...
 
Last edited:
That's a good point, I'm sure the producer hadn't considered that element of the video. Send them an e-mail.

BTW, my wife got me hooked watching Downton Abbey, I recommend it.
 
I'm still amazed that Mitten wanted to kill Big Bird.

Big Bird can take care of himself.

Big Bird's a one-percenter: Inside Sesame Street's tax return - National Republican | Examiner.com

The 2011 IRS 990 form for Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children's Television Workshop), the producers of Sesame Street, revealed that they received $7,968,918 in government grants last year. That sounds like a hefty amount, but the 990 also revealed that Sesame Workshop received $44,984,003 in royalties last year, which includes sales of Sesame Street brand merchandise like "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls. That means Big Bird made five times in merchandise sales than what he received in government grants.

An even closer look at Sesame Workshop's finances shows the government funding Romney wants to cut is only a small part of their budget and may not be necessary at all. In 2011, Sesame Workshop received $31,555,192 in grants and donations last year apart from the U.S. government. They also raised over $2 million in additional funds from various fundraising events. In all, Sesame Workshop raised almost $34 million in private funds for Sesame Street, aside from government grants.

In addition, Sesame Workshop brought in almost $30 million in revenue from content distribution and media production. In total, Sesame Workshop brought in over $122 million in revenue, not including government grants. On their website, Sesame Workshop claims corporate, foundation, and government support make up 35% of their budget. Realistically, however, government funding only accounts for just over 6% of their budget.

Sesame Workshop has faced drops in revenue in recent years and seems to have weathered it. Recent tax returns reveal a drop of 3% to 5% in budgets in recent years, so a loss of government funding would certainly not mean the end of Big Bird. In 2009, they laid off 20% of their workforce in a cost-cutting move, and still survived. However, salaries still make up a large part of their budget. In 2011, they paid out over $54 million in salaries, a high percentage of their budget for a non-profit.​
 
Where would the best place to work be if you were a pedophile? Disney world, the magic kingdom, PBS? The dirty little secret is that according to Fla arrest records Disney World is loaded with pedophiles. The character that plays a Muppet was accused of being a pedophile. Can it be that the person or group of persons who cobbled the commercial together intentionally sent a message to little kids that it's OK to walk away with characters dressed in outlandish costumes and the concept got by the producers who were consumed with political fever? Stranger things have happened.
 
But the fact that a casual observer here immediately picked up on the more sinister element of the Big Bird/little girl scene suggests that it could put ideas in the head of people you would not want showing up on your doorstep too. It is part of the marketing strategy for Sesame Street, Disney, and others to utilize cartoon characters to entertain and bring delight to kids and/or sell their products. Such is harmless and can even be wholesome. But yes, that could be used to advantage by those who would be very dangerous for those same kids.

PBS/Sesame Street should be made aware of that obvious perception. And it is a sorry state of affairs that we live in a world where we even have to worry about things like that.

As for PBS, the USA is blessed with a huge variety of media outlet that do not need taxpayer subsidy, and PBS should also sink or swim on its own. I have no problem with it being a not for profit organization, offering quality programming, and getting by on donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. If it is providing a worthwhile service it should get all those donations it needs. As has already been posted, Sesame Street absolutely needs no government subsidy. It does very well as a commerical entity.

I have a huge problem with taxpayer money being used to subsidze PBS and NPR not only because we cannot afford to keep spending, spending, spending regardless of the worthiness of the beneficiary, but I do not want government to have the power to dictate to any media what it can and cannot broadcast or exact any form of influence by doling out mega millions to subsidize it.
 
PBS doesn't run commercials. That would be illegal.

they call em sponsors but they sure as hell run commercials.

No, they call it "underwriting" and you could say it amounts to a commercial (and I would), but no, they don't run commercials. For an NCE station it's still illegal to receive "consideration" for hawking some third party's product or service.

However none of that applies here; Big Bird is neither a product nor a third party. Therefore it's not a commercial. It might be a cross-promotion for one of the station/network's other programs. That's not a commercial.

If that distinction sounds trivial, it's because a "commercial" involves some kind of quid pro quo. Somebody's getting paid for visibility. That isn't the case here.
 
Last edited:
The "commercial" should be posted so it can be judged. No offense to the OP, but he posts a lot of batshit crazy stuff.
 
But the fact that a casual observer here immediately picked up on the more sinister element of the Big Bird/little girl scene suggests that it could put ideas in the head of people you would not want showing up on your doorstep too.

Actually it suggests that this "casual" observer was looking for molehill material to make a mountain. You may have noticed that's not uncommon in what passes for discourse these daze.

PBS/Sesame Street should be made aware of that obvious perception. And it is a sorry state of affairs that we live in a world where we even have to worry about things like that.

Yup, that's what I'm saying above.

As for PBS, the USA is blessed with a huge variety of media outlet that do not need taxpayer subsidy, and PBS should also sink or swim on its own. I have no problem with it being a not for profit organization, offering quality programming, and getting by on donations from individuals, foundations, and corporations. If it is providing a worthwhile service it should get all those donations it needs. As has already been posted, Sesame Street absolutely needs no government subsidy. It does very well as a commerical entity.

I have a huge problem with taxpayer money being used to subsidze PBS and NPR not only because we cannot afford to keep spending, spending, spending regardless of the worthiness of the beneficiary, but I do not want government to have the power to dictate to any media what it can and cannot broadcast or exact any form of influence by doling out mega millions to subsidize it.

Unfortunately mass media doesn't and cannot work that way. It would be nice, but if our species thought along those lines we wouldn't have swill like fake wrestling and meaningless sitcoms and people being forced to eat bugs on an island festooning our electronic entertainment. Sadly we don't live in such a world. The fact is we already spend far, far less than civilized countries do (e.g. Japan, Germany) on public broadcasting. I don't want to veer off the all-important earth-shattering topic of Bird Big, but we can and should have that wider discussion. Lucky for you I don't have time right now, for this being my career field, I come heavily armed. :D
 

Forum List

Back
Top