I just sent this out to my email list, but I thought I'd share it here as well.

June 14th, 2005

Public broadcasting is under very serious threat -- and this time, it's no email hoax. If you care about public broadcasting, please take a few minutes to learn about the threat and take some action.

Here's a Washington Post article on the current situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/09/AR2005060902283.html

To summarize: a house subcommittee has voted to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting within two years. This funding is vitally important to public radio and television, especially for stations in smaller markets with less listener and underwriter revenue.

You can take action. Contact your congresspeople. Funding for public broadcasting is not a partisan issue -- it's a public interest issue. Tell them how much you value the information and entertainment that public TV and radio give you.

Here's a moveon.org petition on the issue:
http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

Here's a convenient way for you to contact your representatives:
http://www.apts.org/actioninc/LookupYourMember.cfm

Please, take a few minutes to take action, and then take a few minutes to share this message with others who care about quality public media.

Thanks,
Jesse Thorn
The Sound of Young America
http://www.splangy.com/radio/

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

And move on to the broad variety of programming on public radio. Then move over to the Newshour. Among many other things.

Overall, you could simply focus on simply having part of the media landscape reserved for the public interest, not for profit-making.

but today we have TLC, the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The National Geographic Chanel, etc. We have 4 networks that only show news. We have plenty of options for children's programming. None of this is even counting the internet. So my question is, what is PBS providing that we can't get plenty of somewhere else?

As for NPR, hardly any of the crap they produce would exist in a free market situation. So, if people don't want to hear it, why should they have to pay their tax dollars for it?

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

>but today we have TLC, the Discovery Channel, The History
>Channel, The National Geographic Chanel, etc.

None of these replace Sesame Street for young kids along with

Arthur
Barney
Berenstain Bears
Between the Lions
Boohbah
Caillou
Clifford
Cyberchase
Dragon Tales
George Shrinks
Maya & Miguel
Mister Rogers
Postcards from Buster
Reading Rainbow
Sagwa
Sesame Street
Teletubbies
ZOOM

Nickelodeon has given PBS competition but with all the commercials I begin to wonder whether it's kids or $$$ that mean the most to Nick programmers. At least with Sesame Street my mother did not have to worry about me watching ads.

>We have 4
>networks that only show news. We have plenty of options for
>children's programming.

Owned and controlled by whom?

>So my question is, what is PBS providing that we
>can't get plenty of somewhere else?

It's not just NPR that is in jeopardy...so is the NEA and without this fund we would never have had Alvin Ailey or any of the arts programming that is critical to creating a balance in learning and sustaining culture.

What we have now is a "...modern information environment that stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical media." - http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

These entities do not always make decisions in the public's best interest. It's (fill in the blank) for profit but there is value in the voices of those not often represented in mainstream media. In the past, public media has represented these voices.

>>but today we have TLC, the Discovery Channel, The History
>>Channel, The National Geographic Chanel, etc.
>
>None of these replace Sesame Street for young kids along with
>
>Arthur
>Barney
>Berenstain Bears
>Between the Lions
>Boohbah
>Caillou
>Clifford
>Cyberchase
>Dragon Tales
>George Shrinks
>Maya & Miguel
>Mister Rogers
>Postcards from Buster
>Reading Rainbow
>Sagwa
>Sesame Street
>Teletubbies
>ZOOM

what's your point? are these shows somehow better than others? Nickelodeon has Little Bill, Dora the Explorer, and Blues Clues. Cartoon Disney runs young children's programming all morning, which is also has no commercials during the shows like PBS. These shows have talk about all the same things that the shows on PBS talk about. People think that PBS's education programming is superior because of nostaligia. When we were growing up, that was the only educational children's programming out there, today, that's not the case.

>Nickelodeon has given PBS competition but with all the
>commercials I begin to wonder whether it's kids or $$$ that
>mean the most to Nick programmers. At least with Sesame
>Street my mother did not have to worry about me watching ads.

PBS got commercials too, they're just before and after the shows, instead of in the middle.

>>We have 4
>>networks that only show news. We have plenty of options for
>>children's programming.
>
>Owned and controlled by whom?

Evil, corrupt, greedy corporations. Who is PBS controlled by? The Government, who, i'm sure you'll agree, is controlled by evil, corrupt, greed corporations.

>It's not just NPR that is in jeopardy...so is the NEA and
>without this fund we would never have had Alvin Ailey or any
>of the arts programming that is critical to creating a balance
>in learning and sustaining culture.

I agree that we should have the NEA, but that's seperate from the present issue.

>What we have now is a "...modern information environment that
>stem from government- or corporate-dominated, hierarchical
>media." - http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

That's what's great about the internet, it's an alternative media. Any and every perspective you can imagine is represented on the internet.

>These entities do not always make decisions in the public's
>best interest. It's (fill in the blank) for profit but there
>is value in the voices of those not often represented in
>mainstream media. In the past, public media has represented
>these voices.

But PBS was created when there were only a few options on T.V. Now we have hundreds of options on T.V., many doing what PBS is doing, and countless options on the internet. PBS may have been necessary at one time, but i'm not sure it's necessary anymore.


------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

>>Owned and controlled by whom?
>
>Evil, corrupt, greedy corporations. Who is PBS controlled by?
> The Government, who, i'm sure you'll agree, is controlled by
>evil, corrupt, greed corporations.

PBS is absolutely *not* controlled by the government, which is part of the reason that the right has hated it for so long. It is independently chartered and run.

>But PBS was created when there were only a few options on T.V.
> Now we have hundreds of options on T.V., many doing what PBS
>is doing, and countless options on the internet. PBS may have
>been necessary at one time, but i'm not sure it's necessary
>anymore.

A) *Some* people have many TV options. Those tend to be the most priveleged people.

B) The airwaves remain publically owned, and it is only right that they serve the public interest.

>A) *Some* people have many TV options. Those tend to be the
>most priveleged people.

yeah, the top 86%

>B) The airwaves remain publically owned, and it is only right
>that they serve the public interest.

If PBS is serving the public interest, why would most of the programs not survive if they had to rely on actual viewership.

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

>>A) *Some* people have many TV options. Those tend to be
>the
>>most priveleged people.
>
>yeah, the top 86%

The issue is that it costs less than five dollars per person per year to support public broadcasting, providing options for all of us (I personally don't have cable and frankly can't afford it), especially for that 14%.

>>B) The airwaves remain publically owned, and it is only
>right
>>that they serve the public interest.
>
>If PBS is serving the public interest, why would most of the
>programs not survive if they had to rely on actual
>viewership.

Because "public interest" is about more than just money. Is the Robb Report more in the public interest than another magazine with the same circulation because it's readers are more affluent? It certainly makes more money for that reason. Is People more in the public interest than The Economist because it's readers are more numerous? Is USA Today more in the public interest than the Christian Science Monitor?

Public Broadcasting is a tiny financial commitment for the federal government, but it creates a huge positive difference across the country, with a disproportionate impact for the underpriveledged. That's the bottom line.

according to what the chose to watch/listen to/read, etc.

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

>according to what the chose to watch/listen to/read, etc.

Check out Edward Bernays.

You think that poor people have the same power in the current broadcast media system as rich people? What a joke.

cause cable is $50 a month

>cause cable is $50 a month

...and some people work hard but still can't afford basic cable.

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/141172.html

approximately 86 percent of American homes receive cable, satellite or both


------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

Is it unreasonable for us to have public programming for the 15% who don't?

like poor people are gonna sacrifice food for cable.

Those channels haven't been useful in years.

as Lisa Simpson once said while watching the learning channel, "but i'm not LEARNING anything"

to equate the information provided on NPR with the 'information' provided by the WWII History channel is a m'f'ing joke.

i sure as hell don't. and i don't plan on getting it.

the closest thing to it i *do* have is a station like PBS. and i can almost assure you that if public broadcasting goes, the cost of cable will go thru the roof. think about it: it'd be the only way you can get "other" news sources, outside the internet.

plus, most of the news stations on cable are toeing the line for the most part (cnn, fox, etc.). if you have a satellite dish and can get BBC news or something like that, more power. but that's also more money.

i dunno about your town, but the college/public radio is about the best thing going if you have half a brain.

public broadcasting's important.

~~~~
~fear is the mind-killer~

"downpresser man...yuh caan run/yuh caan bribe jah jah..." (c) peter tosh

yeah i'm here...http://www.myspace.com/omidele

>I sure as hell don't. and i don't plan on getting it.

most people do

>the closest thing to it i *do* have is a station like PBS. and
>i can almost assure you that if public broadcasting goes, the
>cost of cable will go thru the roof. think about it: it'd be
>the only way you can get "other" news sources, outside the
>internet.

I doubt that PBS is what's holding people back from getting cable.

>i dunno about your town, but the college/public radio is about
>the best thing going if you have half a brain.

A few NPR shows are ok, but I doubt any of the shows would exist if they had to rely on advertising dollars. People just don't want to hear them. And if people don't want to hear it, why should they have to pay for it?

------------------------------

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

>A few NPR shows are ok, but I doubt any of the shows would
>exist if they had to rely on advertising dollars. People just
>don't want to hear them. And if people don't want to hear it,
>why should they have to pay for it?

Your argument is silly.

Most people do have cable -- but tens of millions don't. Do those people not deserve quality programming?

Perhaps you're just a market absolutist, but part of the purpose of the CPB is to provide broadcast programming that isn't supported by the market. American Indians are a small percentage of the people in this country -- too small to support commercial broadcast programming. But CPB supports programming for people like them whose demographic power doesn't buy them programming from commercial sources.

Someone here wondered whether Nickelodeon cares about kids or profits. The fact of the matter is that Nickelodeon cares about profits from kids.

Maybe we should privatize water services... or roads.

WTF!?!? you people are on here arguing about the haves and have nots by who does and who doesnt have cable television!!!

>Your argument is silly.
>
>Most people do have cable -- but tens of millions don't. Do
>those people not deserve quality programming?

no they dont. people dont DESERVE anything. especially television programs.
>
>Perhaps you're just a market absolutist, but part of the
>purpose of the CPB is to provide broadcast programming that
>isn't supported by the market. American Indians are a small
>percentage of the people in this country -- too small to
>support commercial broadcast programming. But CPB supports
>programming for people like them whose demographic power
>doesn't buy them programming from commercial sources.

so?
>
>Someone here wondered whether Nickelodeon cares about kids or
>profits. The fact of the matter is that Nickelodeon cares
>about profits from kids.

as they should.
>
>Maybe we should privatize water services... or roads.

actually we should. roadways and water were at one time provided by the private sector and they were as effective then as now. not to mention with the rate of inflation adjusted, cheaper...

>no they dont. people dont DESERVE anything. especially
>television programs.

I guess we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. You seem not to believe in the public sector at all... so there's really no use arguing over it. Have fun in your citizens' militia.

Have fun in your citizens'
>militia.


only if you have fun in your corrupt govt official gang

>>I sure as hell don't. and i don't plan on getting it.
>
>most people do

"most people" have computers, too. does that mean internet access shouldn't be more affordable? or that public libraries shouldn't be better funded to bring state-of-the-art technology to folks?


>>the closest thing to it i *do* have is a station like PBS.
>and
>>i can almost assure you that if public broadcasting goes,
>the
>>cost of cable will go thru the roof. think about it: it'd be
>>the only way you can get "other" news sources, outside the
>>internet.
>
>I doubt that PBS is what's holding people back from getting
>cable.

you missed my point.

i'm just saying public airwaves are important. hell, i wouldn't want the public access channels to disappear from cable, either.


>>i dunno about your town, but the college/public radio is
>about
>>the best thing going if you have half a brain.
>
>A few NPR shows are ok, but I doubt any of the shows would
>exist if they had to rely on advertising dollars. People just
>don't want to hear them. And if people don't want to hear it,
>why should they have to pay for it?

i'm not really a big fan of npr myself, although they can be a good resource. i'm not arguing for npr, but you keep bringing them up.

i'm talking about locally run/produced stations. like college radio. like pacifica radio. what happens to those kinds of networks if we lose public broadcasting dollars?


~~~~
~fear is the mind-killer~

"downpresser man...yuh caan run/yuh caan bribe jah jah..." (c) peter tosh

yeah i'm here...http://www.myspace.com/omidele

>i'm not really a big fan of npr myself, although they can be a
>good resource. i'm not arguing for npr, but you keep bringing
>them up.
>
>i'm talking about locally run/produced stations. like college
>radio. like pacifica radio. what happens to those kinds of
>networks if we lose public broadcasting dollars?

As you can read in this article:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/April/21/style/stories/01style.htm

I'm ambivalent about NPR myself. But I'm sure NPR will be OK. It may cause some cutbacks in some of their more vulnerable programs, but they'll ultimately be OK.

The real threat is to small stations, which depend much more on the federal funding, because they're serving smaller, often poorer communities. That includes community stations without any network programming (like my home station, KZSC), college stations, Pacifica stations... all the stations you identify. Not to mention the potential for low-power FM stations to serve immigrant groups in cities, etc etc.

>That includes community stations without
>any network programming (like my home station, KZSC)

I wish I got paid for it... I do it out of love.

My station has literally one full-time professional paid employee. The station manager (a UCSC student) gets a stipend, which totals to about six grand or so for the year.

Morning Edition is the most listened to morning show in America. More people listen to Morning Edition than Howard Stern.

In fall 2003, NPR listenership was 23 million.

Over the past four years, NPR listenership has increased over 40%.

I guess no one is listening.

if people actually cared about this station then it wouldnt need govt funding. of course you have a small group of people who insist that it is in the public interest...but if it really were they wouldnt have a funding issue in the first place. this is a true test for folks who believe in the public broadcasting system. put your money where you mouth is!

and dont give me that garbage about people who cant afford the alternative programming on cable. if you depend on any TV station to entertaion your children youve got priorities to examine.

public broadcasting will be out the window in 2 years.

thankyou

>if people actually cared about this station then it wouldnt
>need govt funding.

the same could be said about american farming, big industry, and oil, both those industries receive trillions in subsidies.

i find it hard to believe that public television should be a high priority for cutting govt funding.

$1 per person per year.

sounds different when you actually show the amount, doesn't it?
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

IMO it's worth the investment.

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe.

Now Playing: Dj variable. www.djvariable.net

Brooklynite by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

we aren't talking about the war, and public television has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure I could find a better place to put public television funding as well.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

is it worth a dollar or two a YEAR to have quality, NON-commercial, free programming on the radios and televisions of every person in the US? Including programming for groups that would otherwise be seriously underserved?

If you ask the vast majority of people in this country, the answer is a very clear, resounding yes.

If you can't get behind it that modest an expense for that big of a society-wide benefit, then maybe you should be out on the border with the "minutemen" or something.

>is it worth a dollar or two a YEAR to have quality,
>NON-commercial, free programming on the radios and televisions
>of every person in the US? Including programming for groups
>that would otherwise be seriously underserved?
>
>If you ask the vast majority of people in this country, the
>answer is a very clear, resounding yes.

LMAO!! dude, if it was a resounding yes PBS wouldnt need govt funding in the first place, it would run soley on donations from people like you!!!!! lmao!!!
*falls over and dies*

>we aren't talking about the war, and public television has
>nothing to do with it.

That's what you think.

why dont you pay my dollar. that goes for all your liberal whiners who are so willing to spend my money and not your own. like i said before, put your money where your mouth is bitch!!!!!

... right after you pay my $300 for the war in Iraq. Put your money where your mouth is bitch!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Like, may the Force, like, be with you - ZOINKS!"

- Jedi padawan Sha'a Gi

I am paying my share, yours, and 74 of your cronies. Bitch.

good. only 269,999,928 to go!!!!!

Squelching Public Broadcasting
Published: June 15, 2005

Do little boys and girls out there know how to spell "spite"? For those who don't, the House Republicans who voted last week to gut federal support of public broadcasting - from "Sesame Street" to well beyond - are offering a graphic demonstration as they attack one of the nation's more valued institutions. The Appropriations Committee voted not only to end taxpayers' support for next year's children's shows on public radio and television (yes, "Clifford the Big Red Dog" and "Postcards from Buster," too), but also to close out entirely the $400 million in federal support of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - the aid funnel to local stations - across the next two years.

A decade ago, Newt Gingrich tried a similar stratagem to "zero out" public broadcasting as Republicans claimed there was liberal bias in programming. The attempt failed in the face of cooler legislative heads and the proven indispensability of public broadcasting. This time, the Republicans' campaign is more threatening since it amounts to a second front in the culture war agenda identified with Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican who is now chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Tomlinson is intent on ramming partisan "balance" on the airwaves - read that as dragging public broadcasting over to the right - by stocking the corporation with G.O.P. loyalists. In the next few weeks, the corporation's Republican-dominated board is expected to choose a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee as president of the corporation.

Mr. Tomlinson has said he is concerned about the cuts and will "make the case" for federal support. But he is in an awkward position, with his own objectivity more in question than Big Bird's or Buster's. Federal money amounts to 15 percent of public broadcasting's budget revenues, but it plays a larger and particularly crucial role for smaller rural stations. More than government support, the public's faith and donations could be threatened if audiences sense the Republicans are succeeding with an ideological putsch.

Republican lawmakers insist that the budget cuts are only one of many sacrifices required for fiscal discipline - a truly laughable contention from a Congress that has broken all records for deficit spending and borrowing. The pending highway bill alone has 3,800 pet projects (cue Porky Pig, not Oscar the Grouch). These include $2 billion-plus for two ludicrous "bridges to nowhere" in rural Alaska, where, incidentally, station officials say public broadcasting may fade from the air unless the Senate blocks the House's spiteful cuts.

... so I'm terribly conflicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Like, may the Force, like, be with you - ZOINKS!"

- Jedi padawan Sha'a Gi

"Your current frequencies of understanding outweigh that which has been given for you to understand." Saul Williams

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe.

Now Playing: Dj variable. www.djvariable.net

Brooklynite by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

all those hollywood actors, why dont they chip in and help out!? hell, george clooney just bought an island - cmon now.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22021/

I won't copy the text. It's quite long, and if you follow the link you'll also find video and audio.

The speech was given before these cuts were proposed, so there's no discussion of them. There is, however, a lot of discussion of Ken Tomlinson's recent actions at the CPB, related to the perception of "bias" on PBS. And of course these issues are strongly interrelated.

www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe.

Now Playing: Dj variable. www.djvariable.net

Brooklynite by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

Action Alert Update on Proposed Funding Cuts for Public Broadcasting

Public broadcasting’s viewers and listeners across the country have responded overwhelmingly and made their voices heard in Washington with phone calls, e-mails and even personal visits.

Thirteen has just learned that three members of Congress, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) will be offering a bipartisan amendment on the House floor this week to restore funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The amendment is expected to come to a vote on the House floor this week.

Please contact your Member of Congress as soon as possible and let your voice be heard on the Obey-Lowey-Leach amendment to restore funding for public broadcasting.  For your members’ phone information, visit www.thirteen.org.

Here's what I wrote my list:

Friends --

We did it!

Thanks to your efforts, and those of the many many others who signed petitions, called and emailed their congresspeople, and got friends and relatives to do the same, funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been fully restored. The vote in the House was 284-140, and that vote was the direct result of our outcry.

I urge you to continue to follow this story. While the immediate crisis has passed, public broadcasting remains in the crosshairs of some politicians. The independence and objectivity that Americans value so much in public broadcasting is being directly threatened. Good people like Bill Moyers are speaking up, but they need people like us to stand behind them. So please keep close tabs, and make sure that your representatives know that this issue is important to you even when Big Bird isn't roaming the halls of Congress.

For now, though, let's celebrate. The moveon petition was signed by over a million people... the most signing any petition in this country, ever! Now that's a movement, huh?

Your radio pal,
Jesse Thorn
The Sound of Young America
http://www.splangy.com/radio/

>Here's what I wrote my list:
>
>Friends --
>
>We did it!
>
>Thanks to your efforts, and those of the many many others who
>signed petitions, called and emailed their congresspeople, and
>got friends and relatives to do the same, funding for the
>Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been fully restored.
>The vote in the House was 284-140, and that vote was the
>direct result of our outcry.
>
>I urge you to continue to follow this story. While the
>immediate crisis has passed, public broadcasting remains in
>the crosshairs of some politicians. The independence and
>objectivity that Americans value so much in public
>broadcasting is being directly threatened. Good people like
>Bill Moyers are speaking up, but they need people like us to
>stand behind them. So please keep close tabs, and make sure
>that your representatives know that this issue is important to
>you even when Big Bird isn't roaming the halls of Congress.
>
>For now, though, let's celebrate. The moveon petition was
>signed by over a million people... the most signing any
>petition in this country, ever! Now that's a movement, huh?
>
>Your radio pal,
>Jesse Thorn
>The Sound of Young America
>http://www.splangy.com/radio/

we need our own indy ish.


www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe.

Now Playing: Dj variable. www.djvariable.net

Brooklynite by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

funded, we couldn't think in today's climate with folk not caring about the society at all that they would continue to invest in that shit.

The only reason why we have any of it is the carnegie endowments prolly...

now, we need folk to locally in their communities to step up and get salient info out to the people.

are you ready?


www.northernarc.net
www.myspace.com/egyptianknight

<<<<----Sam Sharpe.

Now Playing: Dj variable. www.djvariable.net

Brooklynite by birth, Southern by the Grace of God.

that is why i support public television. when i grew up my mom would only let me watch PBS. i sincerely thank her for not letting me waste part of my childhood on GI Joe and Miami Vice