Buster--

You're *sort-of* correct about PBS providing rules about local programming. We have the least strict guidelines of all the networks as to when to air the national feeds, but that's tightened up over the years, too.

We're contractually bound to air X number of hours of primetime PBS programming as it is fed nationally (it usually amounts to something like 5 or 6 out of 7 days per week), with the option of airing the other 2 nights. For example-- we air our own programming picks Thursday nights & Saturday nights. For the most part, every other night is right off the bird.

Thursdays we air local programming. That tends to be the big money maker for us, and for many other stations. That is, in my opinion, the reason that PBS affiliates tend to be steeped in local/regional documentaries. It serves a public good, certainly... but it also helps keep us afloat.

And for whoever was ragging on PBS for shooting HD-- for the record, we shoot HDCam. It's not so much about gov't funding... it's the fact that the other networks have got their heads so far up their butts in regards to HD, it's embarassing. We're pretty much the only 'network' (again, we're all decidedly loosely affiliated with each other) that's putting together anything with any shelf life in HD. The local ABC station just upgraded their cameras... and they went XDCam, not HD.

Nobody is expecting the necessary market penetration w/ HD & Digital for another 10 years. Mark my words... the conversion deadline is going to get pushed back at least twice more.

David M. Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30

.............And for whoever was ragging on PBS for shooting HD--

Not ragging about what they shoot with, ragging about them taking business from me, doing local commercials and renting equipment, hired for editing thats my rag, with a bit of an unfair advantage.

I brought this up in the Media Fairness thread. Read my post regarding the frightening likelihood that Tomlinson's choice for CPB head is former Republican National Committee (RNC) co-chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison who oversees the Bush international propaganda effort -- with Tomlinson.

John

For the record, CPB does NOT provide the largest share of money for us, although that was true years ago (I think it's in the 35% range at the moment, but don't quote me on that). CPB encouraged everyone to break away from that model & for each station to be truly independent.
=========
How much do they have to say about program content, particularly news content? It seems that pressure has driven PBS many times in the past.

John

How much do they have to say about program content, particularly news content? It seems that pressure has driven PBS many times in the past.

---------

re: CPB.

They don't pressure us whatsoever.

Just went to Yahoo News and saw this story on PBS

Sure sounds like pressure about content to me.

Sure sounds like pressure about content to me
==========
That's why I asked the question. This whole thing with Tomlinson and Patricia de Stacy Harrison who is the "leading candidate" to be the next president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
has a lot of people at PBS very upset. I phoned Channel 13 yesterday to discuss it with them and got a real earfull. Apparently Bill Moyers is really alarmed because he has a thorough understanding of how the government has been systematically trying to control the flow of information to the public and their successes with the major network news broadcasts. (See the rather lengthy Media Fairness thread for some specific examples).

PBS remains the only information leak for them to seal unless you count C-Span where the public can listen unedited to discussions on the House floor then later tune in to any major network news and wonder if they are talking about the same thing you heard with your own ears. The media merger relaxation effors (started by media hero Ronald Reagan who they transformed into our greatest president in one short week) have now resulted in roughly 5 major corporations that own and control most of what we see and hear.
According to Center for Public Integrity, their "investigation of campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures (topping $222 million) and other spending shows that the communications industry has spent $1.1 billion since 1998 to affect election outcomes and influence legislation before Congress and the White House. "
And a subsequent article found "In addition, television and radio companies contributed more than $26.5 million to federal candidates and lawmakers during the same period. The companies and their principal representative organization—the National Association of Broadcasters—also sponsored 84 trips for lawmakers and regulators at a cost of $165,474, bringing total spending to affect policy and elections by the industry to $248.9 million." The article which appeared in October 2004 showed the Bush camp receiving $523,000 and the Kerry camp receiving $386,000. $46,000,000 was spent by Time Warner alone (parent company to CNN and Time magazine).

Efforts (largely by Democrats) to reverse FCC media merger relaxation rules are soundly defeated by our party (The Republicans) many of whom falsely label the media as "liberal" (a term that has become so abused, no one can define ot anymore). Those efforts alone tell the truth when it comes to who is benefiting from the current modus operandi of the media in the United States.

The CPB is an agency created by Congress in 1967 expressly to give public broadcasting "maximum protection from extraneous (political) interference and control." The pundits have already started swaying the easily duped by mainstream media public into believing that PBS is in need of a change. Rep Jim Ryun has already started sending out e-mails of misinformation. Here is his e-mail:
=========================
Thank you for contacting me with your views. I appreciate hearing from you.

Some have expressed concern over Kenneth Tomlinson, the current President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). President Clinton appointed Mr. Tomlinson to the CPB board in 2000, and he was elected chairman of the board in 2003. Since his election to the chair, Mr. Tomlinson has expressed concern that programming on the Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) is not balanced. This is a problem since by law PBS is required to balance its programming. Mr. Tomlinson hired two ombudsmen - a conservative and a liberal - to investigate the content of PBS programming to ensure its compliance with the law. Some are concerned that this was an attempt by Mr. Tomlinson to ensure PBS programming reflects only the conservative ideology because he is a Republican.

PBS should not be held hostage to a single ideology. It receives public money, which cannot be used to endorse political positions. Therefore Mr. Tomlinson's actions were appropriate. There are plenty of private outlets for liberalism and conservatism, but the American taxpayer should not be forced to endorse a particular point of view in public broadcasting. If the chairman of CBP feels that tax money is being used in an inappropriate way on PBS, he has a duty to investigate it.

Be assured that I will continue to work towards balance in public broadcasting. Please feel free to contact me again with comments or concerns on matters that are important to you.

God Bless You,

Jim Ryun

===================
The "liberal" [there's that catch word again] ombudsman to monitor the content of public broadcasting Ryun is referring to is Ken Bode.
Ken Bode is an adjunct fellow at the conservative think tank The Hudson Institute. Bode endorsed Indiana Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels last year. Bode was also a former senior political analyst for CNN.

John

The pressure about content would be more likely at the source of that content, wouldn't it? By the time David's station buys the content, whatever pressure existed has already run it's course.

Rob Mack

How any independent artist, be he or she a filmmaker, painter, dancer etc--can stand these phillistines, or even attempt to defend them shocks me. I'm a student of American history, and I guarantee you that when the history of this administration is written, it will make U.Grant's seem like a crowing moment in the presidency. These are extremely corrupt individuals--who saw the White House doors open and really believe that the American people support this kind of nonsense. What the American people supported, through the use of fear of propoganda, was a president who was supposidely waging a war on terrorism. Now we know that this is even questionable. I'm not a red stater, and trust me, the Goebbelian machine has little support here. For those of you who do live in red states, do let your congressperson know how pissed off you are---enough of this crap already.

I think you're exactly right, Rob. PBS (or one of its sponsored shows, like P.O.V.) purchases the material and then offers it to all of its local affiliates across the nation. It's true that the local affiliates have a lot of discretion (MUCH more than commercial network affiliates do) about which shows they buy, when they run them, etc. However, it's also true that most local public television stations depend very heavily on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting/PBS for content. As I understand it (and this may have changed in recent years) there's really only a handful of PBS stations (New York, Boston, San Francisco, D.C.) that produce a lot of their own original content. Those few stations are also responsible for most of the PBS national programming.

It's not a matter of PBS "leaning" on the local station, it's just that PBS won't offer anything but vanilla, non-controversial fare.

I have not yet been fortunate enough to sell one of my pieces either to PBS national or the local affiliates. One of my colleagues has done both, and he tells me it's extraordinarily difficult to negotiate individually with hundreds of local public television stations -- far easier and productive to work through the national PBS channels.

If CPB goes down, public television will likely become a luxury that only big-market cities with a big philanthropic base will afford. That means fewer outlets for independent producers, and fewer options for the viewing public.

*sigh* The president of our board just finished taping a call to action/ write your state rep. spot. Like I said, things are in panic mode lately!

Whoever said it was correct-- we get our programs prepackaged, so there's no real leaning on us one way or another. I'm sure that CPB is reasonably unaware of the content of our local stuff. I'd put plenty of money on it, actually.

But as for the CPB issue, it was widely thought (internally and externally, I imagine) that the newest head was sent in to crack PBS in half. Pat Mitchell (the head of PBS) has already announced her retirement; things are getting bad!

So, if this will influence anything, it will indeed move (as someone here so aptly put it) most of the primetime stuff closer to "plain vanilla." The reason that pulling the money from CPB is simple-- they distribute $$ to the local stations; that will in turn crush local station's prodution capabilities.

It strikes me as funny, for the record, that Republicans think we're too liberal, and Democrats see us as the last great hope. I'm not sure that we're either, to be honest.

David M. Kuznicki
Production Manager, WGTE-TV30

"it will make U.Grant's seem like a crowing moment in the presidency."

A couple of quotes from Ambrose Bierce's (1842-1914?) "Devil's Dictionary" (published in 1911!)

"Republican: One who takes for granted everything Grant did."

"President: A temporary leader, chosen by a group of bandits, for the purpose of dividing up the spoils."

These seemed appropriate. ;-)

PS:
BTW, the full text of the "Devil's Dictionary" is now in the public domain. There's an online version at:
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/

Great reading!

I wouldn't call myself a "Democrat" (think further left) but I very much want to save PBS and the CPB. Not so much for what it is now, but what it might be able to become.

I think you've nailed the Conservative strategy on the head.

The plot thickens...

CPB Investigators Look Into Lobbyists Role in Public Broadcasting

http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=cpb616.htm"

I hope that PBS stays around, it's important.

(political note: maybe if we weren't spending billions on some things this current administration seems to make a priority, we'd instead have money for things that help our kids here, like PBS).

ken

There's a VERY thoughtful opinion piece on this subject by Peggy Noonan. She is a conservative, to be sure, but you'll find that she very much wants to continue funding PBS. It is a good article, and full of lots of insights and basic truths about the issue. Here's the link; you may have to sign up (for free) to read it (it's the Wall Street Journal site, where she is a columnist):

We need PBS, but we could do without the politics

For those of you who are perhaps on the liberal side of things, don't get too hung up on the first four paragraphs where she asserts that PBS has a liberal bias. Keep reading.

Who didnt see this happening? The current administration which should be labeled as a dictatorship is out to control the country by drastically ripping apart the entire country. They're doing it financially several ways. They're out to kill free speech. If the government could, they would probably go after C-span as well.

It's clear that there is a very harsh movement taking place that is out to dictate to America a single beleif. The first step was villifying people who enjoy freedom (liberals) and placing a negative connotation on the word itself thus spawning ignorance similar to that of which is found in racism.

A political movement out to villify a certain section of society is blatantly remenicent of the Nazi's hating the Jews and spawning a movement to erase them from society.

Which is what we're seeing with steps such as this. If government kills the funding for PBS/NPR then I want the government to tax religious organizations.

But hey you voted for the dictatorship. You voted for it to continue. Please enjoy being told what to think and beleive. Please report to your designated fox news viewing station at your designated time.

Our government showed us the GITMO lunch menu in response to widespread allegations of prisoner abuse/torture. I find it appauling that in the light of Abu Graeb (sp?) where there is proven evidence of prisoner torture that we get teh big "F U" from our government in the form of a lunch menu.

Oh and they'll win my friends. The dictatorship will continue. You will conform because the religious zealotry is growing. The sad part is that all the dictatorship has to do, is give them prayer in school, and ban abortion... OR atleast look like they're going to.... As long as they string them along they will maintain their vote. Their zealotry is power in numbers and they out number the free thinkers.

The "Jews" of this country (and I mean, Liberals and not actual Jews) are being marked for death by the ignorant zealots who claim moral highground in the name of GOD himself.

Oh there is much to fear when those who love freedom itself are being labeled in ignorance and deemed the fault of the nation.

The dictatorship is declaring FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE as the problem with our country.

And i'm not pro Democrat, or Republican. I'm a third party, freedom loving Libertarian/independent. Check out the 3rd party candidate movements. Listen to Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarick, Cobb, etc... Hell most of Ralph declared as major issues back in 2000 has come true!.... the man who predicted the direction of the nation from corperat scandals, loss of freedoms, decline in healthcare, bleeding of the economy, republican/democratic zealotry dictating an ideology through media control.... he addressed these issues in 2000 and we're now deep into this mess now.

"You built it, you live in it."

I just want to add, that I watch PBS regularly. Great programs such as Frontline, NOW, Antiques Roadshow, Charlie Rose, Nova, American Scientific Frontiers, Nature, This old house, Frontier House, and of course the PBS news hour.

They're out to squash the network because of a perceived bias. Which i think is insane. NOVA? AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC FRONTIERS? THIS OLD HOUSE? NATURE? ANTIQUES ROAD SHOW? FRONTIER HOUSE? These are politically biased shows?

Get real.

Charlie Rose, The news hour, NOw, Frontline.... BIASED? Or are they just free thinking shows that ask questions of ourselves... in hopes that we explore ourselves.... JUST like NOVA, NATURE, AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC FRONTIERS, etc ????

IS that a political movement?

Do they listen to NPR?

The bias is free thought.... a different point of view... And that to them is DANGEROUS.

The dictators dont like you asking questions and opening your mind.....

Does FOX news really ask you to open your mind? Or just grab your pom-poms and cheer "rah rah rah" for the party while you angerly sit there and blaim those free thinking hippies for all thats wrong in your poor life....

We're in a very messed up country right now... and its being socially engineered from the top down. THAT is not what this country is about.

I'll end with this... I caught an episode of Mr Rogers today on TV. Just flipping the channels and there he was... the man that raised an entire nation, generations over and over. A great man who was kind, who opened peoples minds and let them use the magic that is imagination. A man who taught us that all of us are special, and we all should be happy and kind with one another.

There isnt a soul on this planet that Mr Fred Rogers hasnt touched.

Is Fred Rogers the evil biased liberal they would have us beleive? Or is he a decent man promoting free thought, kindness, happiness, and good will towards man?

Robert Novak, a TRAITOR... has publically said Seasme street is worthless and shouldnt be paid for. (BTW Robert Novak was neither Hung or expatriated.. hell didnt even get a slap on the wrist. Why? Cause he was doing the dictators dirty work)

Seasame Street worthless? UNBELEIVABLE. A show that has gone on for how many years now? That has taught racial harmony, acceptance, basic math and reading skills, and has entertained young children in so many intelleigent and thoughtful ways .... WORTHLESS?

The bone these guys really have to pick is with Bill Moyers (A GREAT MAN BTW) Jim Lear, Gwen Ifle, and frontline.

They're such a small part of PBS in the big picture, and yet the republican dictatorship backed by zealotry are willing to DESTROY the network that brought us NATURE, NOVA, MR ROGERS NEIGHBORHOOD, SEASAME STREET, ANTIQUES ROADSHOW, BALLET, AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC FRONTIERS, FRONTIER HOUSE, and so many wonderfully intelligent programs through the years.

They are willing to RIP appart an entire network over 3 political shows. 2 of which only air once a week.

Fred Rogers would be sad if he were alive today. The nation of children that he raised grew up to be animals. It would break his heart to see this country as it stands.

Didn't Pat Robertson say that one of the Teletubbies was visibly homosexual?

That's proof of PBS' liberal bias right there!

And didn't Nova teach evolution to our children?

:O)

Something to chew on: I personally don't believe in evolution as an accurate description of the cause of the different species.

I think it is patently clear that evolution's timeline is correct though, the evidence for that is just overwhelming.

The pluralism I think was there from the beginning though, analogously to the way an oak seed evolves into a really big tree as it grows up.

Unfortunately I can't prove that, so it will have to remain just a hypothesis.

You saw it here first though! :O) :O)

Pat Robertson also said, Michael Moore is a fat slob and that surely if a man cant take care of his body, how can we take him seriously.

Saw it, heard it... with my own eyes.

It blew my mind. A so called man of god, on tv... outright assaulting a man's political views, by simply calling him a fat slob.

Jesus must be so proud of Pat Roberts.

Roberts is a multi millionaire Republican mouth peice.

There's a VERY thoughtful opinion piece on this subject by Peggy Noonan. She is a conservative, to be sure, but you'll find that she very much wants to continue funding PBS. It is a good article, and full of lots of insights and basic truths about the issue. Here's the link; you may have to sign up (for free) to read it (it's the Wall Street Journal site, where she is a columnist):

"We need PBS, but we could do without the politics"

For those of you who are perhaps on the liberal side of things, don't get too hung up on the first four paragraphs where she asserts that PBS has a liberal bias. Keep reading.

=======
Noonan, who obviously doesn't care any more about the 2003 poll CourseDesign cited [a survey commissioned by the Center for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in 2003 that found that a plurality of Americans find no political bias in PBS or National Public Radio.] any more than Tomlinson does [He consistently dodges questions about it], as she continues to spew garbage with her statements:
"arguing over whether PBS [the Public Broadcasting Service] is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it."

That ignorant statement aside she further misrepresents the purpose of PBS by stating:

"PBS should be refunded, because it does not and will not exist elsewhere if it is not. But it should be funded with Rules and Conditions, and it should remember its reason for being: to do what the networks cannot do or will not do, and that somebody should do."

It still amazes me that so many people don't question what they hear and read.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private, not-for-profit corporation created by Congress to protect public broadcasting outlets from political interference. Even on it's website it states that one of ot's three purposes is to "support of programming which reflects a diversity of views".
Counting upon the public mentality that is helping the current majority (particularly those in the White House) dumb down our society to it's own self-destruction along with the rest of us who know better, people like Noonan advocate removing politics from PBS for the sole purpose of plug the few ramaining leaks of information under the guise of trying to come across as an "advocate". Incredible.

John