Jump to content

Should PBS aka Channel 13 in NYC area continue to get government funding?

Shortline Bus

By Shortline Bus,
in Off Topic Lounge

Recommended Posts

Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
Posted

Since this was a huge issue in the 1st debate of the 2012 general Presidential election, the decision on what to do with PBS funding has become a huge issue. Mitt Romney has proposed dramatically reducing PBS (Public Broadcasting Service)which is Channel 13 and 21 in the NYC area.

 

Should the Feds continue paying for PBS? Sidenote! The GOP in past decade or two, has accused PBS particuarly in their "NewsHour" newscasts of being too liberal. So what you guys think? Keep in mind not everyone could afford to watch cultural programming i.e opera, kids programming, etc. on digital cable. And shows like "Sesame Street" which was first proposed for ABC, NBC, CBS was rejected. What you guys think? And Mitt We all love Big Bird as well lol.

 

 

PBS_logo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

No, not for the whole station. Now for individual programing, maybe. But History channel survives and they have educational shows. PBS should do the same. Spending as a whole needs to be cut across the board.

As for the local PBS stations 13 and 21 should merge and be one channel. There's no need for 2 in the same market. 3 if you count the NJ station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RTS CNG Command

RTS CNG Command

Posted
Posted

Yes, it should. Unlike the History Channel (which is exclusively cable-based), PBS is a public television network full of very popular shows during the morning, afternoon, and evening; and private funding can only go so far. In the late-1970s and early-1980s, funding for public television was so horrendous that TCAF was founded, and commercials for specific public television stations were allowed. While it allowed shows such as "The Joy of Painting" to become very popular around the world, situations such as TCAF is something PBS doesn't want to happen ever again. Exclusively privatizing the funding will result in another desperate TCAF-like situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No, not for the whole station. Now for individual programing, maybe. But History channel survives and they have educational shows. PBS should do the same. Spending as a whole needs to be cut across the board.

As for the local PBS stations 13 and 21 should merge and be one channel. There's no need for 2 in the same market. 3 if you count the NJ station.

 

 

I agree Concourse. Even selling a UHF station (i know we in digital age but channels between 2-13 are still worth more money) in NYC/Long Island area like Channel 21 could be worth as much as $250 Million. That sets up Channel 13 for several years as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Via Garibaldi 8

Via Garibaldi 8

Posted
Posted

I think some public funding would be okay, but at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, priorities must prevail. We need to be using every dollar from taxpayers right now to pay back debt and to create jobs. Public TV is a luxury not a necessity, especially when folks can't even find jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
User

User

Posted
Posted

Well I grew up with PBS Kids and I definitely think that should be funded. However, I remember always seeing ads that the daytime kids programming was funded mostly by the Helena Rubinstein Foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R32 3838

R32 3838

Posted
Posted

it should stay, but only have channel 13, the rest can go, I wacthed PBS when i was young, and it should stay, its good for kids who want to learn thing, eventhough parents let their kids wacth whatever the hell they see on TV but to me it should all be merged into 1 channel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B35 via Church

B35 via Church

Posted
Posted

Hate to say it, but Nah - that channel has ran its course.... I pretty much agree w/ GC.... Kids don't watch those type of shows anymore (the sesame street's, etc.); they're too involved with video games & the opposite sex..... and the ratings for the all the other programming that comes on PBS I'd have to think has waned quite a bit - they were never really high to begin with.... and now with the percentage of households that have some form of cable/satellite TV, channels like 13 & 21 are hardly thought of anymore.....

 

lol.... UHF & VHF bands... I'd like to personally shake the hand of the guy that created the remote control.... that click click click click click shit was not the business; having to get up to turn the knob & what not....

 

 

One last thing for now (somewhat related in all this), I wish they get rid of BCAT (brooklyn community access television) already !

Total waste of programming.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Concourse

Grand Concourse

Posted
Posted

21 more or less reairs 13's stuff either a few days or a week later. They could do what all the cable channels do: reair the same primetime shows after 11pm or 12am.

 

@B35, totally agreed. I skipped thru the Bcat channels and there's nothing of interest there. Is there a need for 4 of them? Verizon there's like 20 'dead' channels reserved for something community or education. After NYC 25, the next channel is 50 or USA network.

LOL

 

 

I never said the whole channel. They have Modern marvels and other shows 'states', 'presidents'. Point is, they don't need to be kept on life support. There's also the Discovery networks like animal planet, science channel and military channel. So unless people have the main networks (which seems doubtful as everything is digital), there's no reason why they have to stick around for PBS for the educational content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark1447

mark1447

Posted
Posted

Idk what to say... I grew up in my childhood watching PBS... Nowadays dont care for it..It would be sad for PBS to be cut or further reduced... But then again, They are under competition with other networks... Such as Discovery, History, Viacom's NickJR.. Even Disney.... These days people already have cable, which offers alyernatives...Some still don't, which means PBS is the only alternative for educational programming for children's... But then again, as someone mentioned, most children's are stuck watching cartoons or even video gaming, then focusing on education. If PBS is a need, then let the states handle it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Q10 Airport

Q10 Airport

Posted
Posted

I think some public funding would be okay, but at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, priorities must prevail. We need to be using every dollar from taxpayers right now to pay back debt and to create jobs. Public TV is a luxury not a necessity, especially when folks can't even find jobs.

 

So let's cut so that more people can't find jobs?

 

And as for the "liberal slant," numerous political scientists find News Hour to be the most centrist news program on television and the closest to a truly objective stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B35 via Church

B35 via Church

Posted
Posted
I used to watch shows like Reading Rainbow and Nova. Now, I rarely watch it, except for the occasional opera.
Reading Rainbow was awesome.I still remember the Pizza episode :)

 

"Butterfly in the skyyyyyy, I can get go twice as hiiiiiiigh...

Take a look, it's in a book - a-reading-a-rainbowwwww"

 

I remember that show... along with mister rogers, lamb chop's play along, newton's apple, carmen sandiego, squaaaaare one, shining tiiiiiime station, all that stuff....

 

I'm not gonna front though, I couldn't stand reading rainbow.... My mom would make me watch it as punishment (and then I had to write a paragraph of what the episode was about)..... Otherwise, I would just listen to the theme song, laugh, and turn it to whatever cartoon was on fox kids club (channel 5).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Via Garibaldi 8

Via Garibaldi 8

Posted
Posted

So let's cut so that more people can't find jobs?

 

And as for the "liberal slant," numerous political scientists find News Hour to be the most centrist news program on television and the closest to a truly objective stance.

 

 

I don't know why you're quoting me for because if they can find the money privately then why should taxpayers prop them up when that money could be used to put more Americans back to work??? In sum all I'm saying is that we should not be borrowing money from China that we don't have and going further into debt to support public television if a station like PBS can raise the difference by simply marketing to folks with money. In fact there was a guy on Good Day New York this morning that works with PBS that said just that. Sure that makes their job harder, but like I said, they already campaign for funding, so they'd just be doing more of that should some of that funding be cut. If more Americans were working obviously that would be good for them, as that would mean more tax dollars available to support their public programs.

 

It comes down to priorities and public TV is far less important when you have 23 million Americans unemployed. Would you rather your parents be working or would you rather your parents be unemployed but you being able to watch public television??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shortline Bus

Shortline Bus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I don't know why you're quoting me for because if they can find the money privately then why should taxpayers prop them up when that money could be used to put more Americans back to work??? In sum all I'm saying is that we should not be borrowing money from China that we don't have and going further into debt to support public television if a station like PBS can raise the difference by simply marketing to folks with money. In fact there was a guy on Good Day New York this morning that works with PBS that said just that. Sure that makes their job harder, but like I said, they already campaign for funding, so they'd just be doing more of that should some of that funding be cut. If more Americans were working obviously that would be good for them, as that would mean more tax dollars available to support their public programs.

 

It comes down to priorities and public TV is far less important when you have 23 million Americans unemployed. Would you rather your parents be working or would you rather your parents be unemployed but you being able to watch public television??

 

 

Being fair VG8 playing devils adovcate. What about fact that in Canada (CBC) and Britian(BBC) their federal governments owns those channels and charges taxpayers alot for those networks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept