Should the US gov't continue to fund public broadcasting?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:57 am

The argument for funding public media

What do you think? Without thinking too deeply into it, my first reaction is to let it go.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:25 am

I've yet to see the commercial stations come up with anything nearly as equivalent, have you? On the rare occasion I've had of viewing The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel or any so called educational stations, I can't say any of them match PBS. As for the News, PBS and NPR are so much more civilized and in depth it's not even close. It's a pleasure to listen to commentary from guests be more than one-line-zingers, which is what commercial news is like the majority of the time.

I say keep them funded.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:13 am

I don't see any of that as relevant. According to Wiki PBS came into being in '70. Why? Were the Big 3 too biased back then? If they're unmatched by the big cable giants then they should have no problem getting funding.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:23 am

Accountable;1352749 wrote: I don't see any of that as relevant. According to Wiki PBS came into being in '70. Why? Were the Big 3 too biased back then? If they're unmatched by the big cable giants then they should have no problem getting funding.
Perhaps the cultural quality of a nation has significance even when it has no quantifiable profit attached. PBS would be lessened, culturally, if it were sponsored through on-air advertising. Providing medical treatment to retired paupers has an equivalent basis - it's good for society in non-financial terms. Or are you in the camp which, when it hears the word "culture", releases the safety on its Browning?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:24 am

In my opinion, the "for profit" model is not that great for news because it's geared towards exageration and creating the most attention-grabbing headlines. The purpose of a business isn't to make widgets, but to make money. Having both public and private news sources helps balance out each other's motives.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:30 am

spot;1352754 wrote: Perhaps the cultural quality of a nation has significance even when it has no quantifiable profit attached. PBS would be lessened, culturally, if it were sponsored through on-air advertising. Providing medical treatment to retired paupers has an equivalent basis - it's good for society in non-financial terms. Or are you in the camp which, when it hears the word "culture", releases the safety on its Browning?

yaaarrrgg;1352755 wrote: In my opinion, the "for profit" model is not that great for news because it's geared towards exageration and creating the most attention-grabbing headlines. The purpose of a business isn't to make widgets, but to make money. Having both public and private news sources helps balance out each other's motives.
PBS has corporate sponsors, and nothing requires a company to make a profit simply because they don't receive gov't funding. Why aren't you calling for gov't funds to pay for public domain software?

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:45 am

Accountable;1352757 wrote: PBS has corporate sponsors, and nothing requires a company to make a profit simply because they don't receive gov't funding. Why aren't you calling for gov't funds to pay for public domain software?

Merely as a correction, there's practically no public domain software. Free open source software (which isn't public domain at all, it's necessarily licensed) takes time but no funding. Access to network distribution channels, studios, film unit equipment, that all costs quite a bit and a portion of that cost is government imposed. You have to buy bandwidth off the government, airtime's not like air, it's parcelled out at auction.

In England we maintain museums and libraries and parks, for example, with public funding. We do that because it improves the national quality of life. We regard the state of the nation's quality of life as a legitimate field in which government involves itself. There is, obviously, no compulsion for America to follow suit. A country needs a self-generated philosophy. Maximizing private profit while minimizing public expenditure could well be exactly what Americans deserve, it's definitely the driving force of the two established political parties.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 9:52 am

Thanks for the correction. Again, I mentioned nothing about profit. There is no logical connection that if an organization stops receiving gov't subsidies that it must necessarily start making a profit. That is your own invention.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:32 am

Accountable;1352762 wrote: Thanks for the correction. Again, I mentioned nothing about profit. There is no logical connection that if an organization stops receiving gov't subsidies that it must necessarily start making a profit. That is your own invention.

PBS cannot be run without an income stream. Whether it distributes profits or not it utterly immaterial, what matters is that income is needed in order to commission programs, create programs, buy programs and distribute programs.

Some of the income currently is from public donation. Some is from sponsorship. Some is by way of government grant.

Your OP says you're minded to "let it go" rather than continue "funding public media". I wasn't in the slightest implying that "if an organization stops receiving gov't subsidies that it must necessarily start making a profit", I was commenting on your implication that if PBS stops receiving government subsidies it must necessarily be let go of. PBS has nothing to do with private profit, it has everything to do with public expenditure. If your country aspires to minimize public expenditure at the cost of cultural richness then of couse, go ahead, by all means, pull the switch and kill it.

We don't have this problem in England, we have a law which obliges all TV users to pay a license fee which completely covers the cost of public service broadcasting. It's an opt-in tax, people can choose whether to pay it or not. If they don't pay it they can't legally give house room to a TV, it's wonderfully simple. I've spent most of my life without a TV and paying nothing toward public service broadcasting.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:10 am

spot;1352768 wrote: PBS cannot be run without an income stream. Whether it distributes profits or not it utterly immaterial, what matters is that income is needed in order to commission programs, create programs, buy programs and distribute programs.

Some of the income currently is from public donation. Some is from sponsorship. Some is by way of government grant.

Your OP says you're minded to "let it go" rather than continue "funding public media". I wasn't in the slightest implying that "if an organization stops receiving gov't subsidies that it must necessarily start making a profit", I was commenting on your implication that if PBS stops receiving government subsidies it must necessarily be let go of. PBS has nothing to do with private profit, it has everything to do with public expenditure. If your country aspires to minimize public expenditure at the cost of cultural richness then of couse, go ahead, by all means, pull the switch and kill it.Your phrase 'let go of' is apparently different from mine. How letting go of public funding equates to shutting down a business is beyond me. And how "Maximizing private profit while minimizing public expenditure" fails to imply making a profit is also beyond me.

Please don't explain.

spot wrote: We don't have this problem in England, we have a law which obliges all TV users to pay a license fee which completely covers the cost of public service broadcasting. It's an opt-in tax, people can choose whether to pay it or not. If they don't pay it they can't legally give house room to a TV, it's wonderfully simple. I've spent most of my life without a TV and paying nothing toward public service broadcasting.Your country's TV tax sucks. It requires all or nothing. If you want to watch a commercial program, you must donate to the public one. If you want to avoid the tax, you must give up TV entertainment altogether.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:11 am

Cut the funding.

PBS, and more correctly the CPB, are grossly over exposed in the market. I have 3, maybe 4, PBS stations in my area. PBS has made begging for $ a career. What the CPB could do is to sell off duplicated market stations and put the $ in a trust. If done smartly, work off of the trust and they might not even need pledge drives ever again. They certainly wouldn't need tax money.

Funny you should bring this up considering what the FCC has demanded of Comcast re: their acqusition of NBC.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:23 am

BaghdadBob;1352778 wrote: Cut the funding.

PBS, and more correctly the CPB, are grossly over exposed in the market. I have 3, maybe 4, PBS stations in my area. PBS has made begging for $ a career. What the CPB could do is to sell off duplicated market stations and put the $ in a trust. If done smartly, work off of the trust and they might not even need pledge drives ever again. They certainly wouldn't need tax money.

Funny you should bring this up considering what the FCC has demanded of Comcast re: their acqusition of NBC.You subscribe to cable or satellite television? There may be a case for decreasing market coverage, though local PBS stations are usually spread out pretty well. When I subscribed to Comcast I received PBS from Harrisburg (local) and also from Philadelphia, but I also received multiple ABC NBC CBS and FOX stations as well. The redundancy is due to these television providers marketing this way to create the illusion of lots of 'different' channels to 'choose' from.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:36 am

Accountable;1352777 wrote: And how "Maximizing private profit while minimizing public expenditure" fails to imply making a profit is also beyond me.

Please don't explain.

You quoted it entirely out of context and pretended it applied to PBS, of course.

What I said was "A country needs a self-generated philosophy. Maximizing private profit while minimizing public expenditure could well be exactly what Americans deserve". You'd maximize private profit in the broadcast sector by eliminating the public sector competition. You'd eliminate the public sector competition by removing government funding. None of this involves PBS ever distributing profits. All it takes is for PBS to close down through an inability to commission programs, create programs, buy programs and distribute programs.

Without government funding it could do none of those things. Public donation and corporate sponsorship are inadequate and if PBS accepted an advertising revenue it wouldn't be PBS any more, would it - it'd be banal advert-revenue-driven crud like all the other ad-revenue-driven channels are.

How letting go of public funding equates to shutting down a business is beyond me.Where I come from, to "let go of" is a euphemism for putting down an old pet. A bit like removing government funding from PBS.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:39 am

Accountable;1352777 wrote: If you want to avoid the tax, you must give up TV entertainment altogether.

I'm amazed anyone can use the words "TV" and "entertainment" in the same breath and not expect hysterical disbelieving laughter as a response.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:03 pm

Ahso!;1352781 wrote: You subscribe to cable or satellite television? There may be a case for decreasing market coverage, though local PBS stations are usually spread out pretty well. When I subscribed to Comcast I received PBS from Harrisburg (local) and also from Philadelphia, but I also received multiple ABC NBC CBS and FOX stations as well. The redundancy is due to these television providers marketing this way to create the illusion of lots of 'different' channels to 'choose' from.

About 120 more PBS stations than any of the big 4 broadcast networks. They could raise billions for a trust if that excess were sold off.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:23 pm

BaghdadBob;1352798 wrote: About 120 more PBS stations than any of the big 4 broadcast networks. They could raise billions for a trust if that excess were sold off.

PBS stations are commonly operated by non-profit organizations, state agencies, local authorities (e.g., municipal boards of education), or universities in their community of license. In some states, PBS stations throughout the entire state may be organized into a single regional "subnetwork" (e.g., Alabama Public Television). Unlike public broadcasters in most other countries, PBS does not own any of the stations that broadcast its programming. (i.e., there are no PBS O&Os anywhere in the country) This is partly due to the origins of the PBS stations themselves, and partly due to historical license issues.

In the modern broadcast marketplace, this organizational structure is considered outmoded by some media critics.[citation needed] A common restructuring proposal is to reorganize the network so that each state would have one PBS member which would broadcast state-wide. However, this proposal is controversial, as it would reduce local community input into PBS programming, especially considering how PBS stations are significantly more community-oriented, according to the argument, than their commercial counterparts.

Public Broadcasting Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:07 pm

Ahso!;1352808 wrote: Public Broadcasting Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They or CPB have a substantial equity in the stations. It may be the licenses. In any event, they could raise a boatload of $.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:21 pm

BaghdadBob;1352819 wrote: They or CPB have a substantial equity in the stations. It may be the licenses. In any event, they could raise a boatload of $.PBS is run pretty doggone well, take a look at their financial statement from 2010.

Financial Highlights : Annual Reports : PBS

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:26 pm

Then they don't need the federal funds.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:33 pm

Accountable;1352826 wrote: Then they don't need the federal funds.I meant they don't appear to be wasteful with their funding. Poor money management, waste fraud and abuse is usually the accusation levied against anything with government funding, isn't it?

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:33 pm

BaghdadBob;1352819 wrote: They or CPB have a substantial equity in the stations. It may be the licenses. In any event, they could raise a boatload of $.
The total assets amount to about 7 months' operating revenue. Completely liquidating them would buy a half year, it's scarcely long term planning.

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cm ... rWebv8.pdf

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 5:47 pm

Ahso!;1352828 wrote: I meant they don't appear to be wasteful with their funding. Poor money management, waste fraud and abuse is usually the accusation levied against anything with government funding, isn't it?Generally, yes, but I've never heard anybody justify gov't subsidy solely because of fiscal responsibility. Washington's looking for ways to cut spending ... okay, they're giving lip service to looking for ways to cut spending. Looks like PBS can survive without the subsidy.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:10 pm

Accountable;1352831 wrote: Generally, yes, but I've never heard anybody justify gov't subsidy solely because of fiscal responsibility. Washington's looking for ways to cut spending ... okay, they're giving lip service to looking for ways to cut spending. Looks like PBS can survive without the subsidy.They probably could survive but chances are they'd end up looking like another commercial station, as Spot pointed out earlier. We have to consider the impact PBS now has on our culture and would have if left to rely on more commercial type revenue practices. It's a smart investment in our education. There is no other station on television that I can think of that offers anything remotely close to the quality of programming offered on PBS. PBS is a beacon in a dark and dreary industry, I think we should cherish it. We should say 'hands off, mofos'.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:15 pm

Accountable;1352749 wrote: I don't see any of that as relevant. According to Wiki PBS came into being in '70. Why? Were the Big 3 too biased back then? If they're unmatched by the big cable giants then they should have no problem getting funding.That's because television, along with anything else, gets funded on the sole premise they'll get more viewership...

What's that mean? It means the majority of people doesn't want to hear intellectual monologue...It's entirely the reason glenn beck is still running his idiotic clap trap

In retrospect I not only know Ahso!'s assertion to be true but it's one of the few observations that leaves myself with a slight glimmering hope for human kind as I know it...The only downside is to get those very same people out of this foggy haze of dissolution

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:12 am

Money isn't the true reason the right wants to shut down PBS, they've been attacking the stations for years. Their real reason is to prevent science and art from being presented honestly to the American public. The right has successfully stifled the schools ability to offer true science and art to our children by causing it all to be watered down with confusing rhetoric.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:30 am

Uh, yeh, that's it. That's the ticket. :yh_eyerol

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:33 am

Accountable;1352845 wrote: Uh, yeh, that's it. That's the ticket. :yh_eyerol

Just humor him.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:38 am

spot;1352829 wrote: The total assets amount to about 7 months' operating revenue. Completely liquidating them would buy a half year, it's scarcely long term planning.

http://www.pbs.org/about/media/about/cm ... rWebv8.pdf

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Abundant cable and satellite television has greatly weakened the original case for taxpayer support of public broadcasting. Cultural and educational programming, once considered commercially inviable, is now available on competing commercial channels. And tentative offers from private firms indicate that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting System have developed programming with real market value. Privatizing the CPB would depoliticize it, thereby ending once and for all the controversies between liberals and conservatives over program content. If Congress judged none of the bids for the CPB acceptable, an alternative would be to earmark several billion dollars of the proceeds from the sale of broadcast frequencies as an endowment fund for the CPB, sufficient to end its dependence on annual appropriations. The CPB could then become an independent, nonprofit corporation, deriving its annual budget from earnings on its endowment fund, fundraising and sponsorship, and revenues from licensing and commercial spinoffs (e.g., Barney).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:50 am

PBS has some outstanding TV shows. NOVA Science Now is da bomb! When I see them begging for money I can't help but think 'I gave at the office' and tune out. If my tax dollar were not going to them, I would write a check. That check would likely be larger than the portion of my taxes that they receive now. Assuming I'm not unique, separating them from the Washington teat might actually increase their funding.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:01 am

Accountable;1352845 wrote: Uh, yeh, that's it. That's the ticket. :yh_eyerolYour naivety amazes me at times.

These standoffs never end with public broadcasting getting defunded. Its budget is hardly ever even reduced: Since the CPB was born more than four decades ago, there have been just seven years in which its federal allocation was lower than in the preceding year. The point of these exercises isn't to cut the broadcasters loose. It's to use the threat of cutting them loose to whip them into shape.

The system was still standing after Nixon made his threats, but all save one of the programs he found objectionable went off the air. After the Gingrich-era battle ended, the Republican pundits Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, and Ben Wattenberg all landed gigs at PBS--and following an initial cut, the CPB's budget crept back upward. The funding fight under George W. Bush took place against the backdrop of a conservative CPB chief crusading for a more right-friendly PBS and NPR.

Radio theater: some prominent Republicans say they want to defund National Public Radio. We've heard that line before | Reason | Find Articles at BNET

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:33 am

So officials are using the funding to dictate to PBS what is acceptable broadcasting and what is not,based on political aims. Isn't that the opposite of the justification you were using before? I see this as the primary reason why the funding should stop.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:39 am

Accountable;1352855 wrote: So officials are using the funding to dictate to PBS what is acceptable broadcasting and what is not,based on political aims. Isn't that the opposite of the justification you were using before? I see this as the primary reason why the funding should stop.Defund, compromise it's content....same thing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:33 am

Ahso!;1352857 wrote: Defund, compromise it's content....same thing.Funding compromises it's content. If it's the same thing as defunding, then let's defund & save the money.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:07 am

Looking at the figures, I reckon the funding can be at least nominally apportioned to enable the broadcasting side of PBS rather than the program-making side. I also claim that the costs of broadcasting in the US are a consequence of the government claiming ownership of airspace and charging for bandwidth - I assume you still have a lot of people reliant on terrestrial signal? - and that consequently it's not unreasonable for a charity to effect exemption from those government-imposed broadcast costs by claiming a subsidy.

Beyond that, I also claim a country can legitimately choose to improve the average quality of life of its citizens through financial inducement. That's why cigarettes and alcohol are health-taxed, for example. And it's why PBS is given the odd lorry-load of greenbacks.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:25 am

Accountable;1352867 wrote: Funding compromises it's content. If it's the same thing as defunding, then let's defund & save the money.Well then what's your excuse for the drivel on commercial television?

Even with all the compromises made, PBS is still the best option out there. Why don't you consider the value we're getting for the investment? Some people simply want to achieve a goal (saving a few buck - cutting government spending) and pay no attention to consequences to others and the country they claim to love so much.

Do you really think in dept quality programming such as Dogs Decoded would be available without the format PBS provides because of it's financial structure?

I've noticed that PBS is now allowing some commercials, though they only air before and after the programs, but I'd suspect even that is causing more editing than we might care to live with if we were to know the differences.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:21 am

Ahso!;1352882 wrote: Well then what's your excuse for the drivel on commercial television?No need to get pissy just because you're arguments don't support your opinion. You might consider that your opinion is wrong, goes against your own ideology, and that you hold it only because it is what you think society expects you to hold to fit your self-applied label of "Liberal." There's nothing wrong with not going in lockstep. Give it a shot.

Ahso! wrote: Even with all the compromises made, PBS is still the best option out there. Why don't you consider the value we're getting for the investment? Some people simply want to achieve a goal (saving a few buck - cutting government spending) and pay no attention to consequences to others and the country they claim to love so much.I prefer to decide for myself where my investments should go, and have my tax dollars pay for operating the government.

Ahso! wrote: Do you really think in dept quality programming such as Dogs Decoded would be available without the format PBS provides because of it's financial structure?Absolutely. Similar programming is on cable all the time. Unless I'm mistaken, PBS programs are often re-aired on cable stations.

Ahso! wrote: I've noticed that PBS is now allowing some commercials, though they only air before and after the programs, but I'd suspect even that is causing more editing than we might care to live with if we were to know the differences.I like that format. I wish other stations would do the same.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:09 am

Accountable;1352891 wrote: No need to get pissy just because you're arguments don't support your opinion. You might consider that your opinion is wrong, goes against your own ideology, and that you hold it only because it is what you think society expects you to hold to fit your self-applied label of "Liberal." There's nothing wrong with not going in lockstep. Give it a shot.Do you do this intentionally - you know, misinterpret what others say? You and I have been conversing now for what 3 or 4 years, and you don't know me any better than this? It's a good thing I love you.

Accountable;1352891 wrote: I prefer to decide for myself where my investments should go, and have my tax dollars pay for operating the government.I know, it's a common theme among conservatives and lacks empathy.

Accountable;1352891 wrote: Absolutely. Similar programming is on cable all the time. Unless I'm mistaken, PBS programs are often re-aired on cable stations.I never noticed that when I had service. If it's true there must be a lot of the content sacrificed for advertisements, no?

Accountable;1352891 wrote: I like that format. I wish other stations would do the same.They've discussed it through the years but advertisers disapprove because that's when people hit the mute button and run for chips and salsa.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:54 am

Ahso!;1352844 wrote: Money isn't the true reason the right wants to shut down PBS, they've been attacking the stations for years. Their real reason is to prevent science and art from being presented honestly to the American public. The right has successfully stifled the schools ability to offer true science and art to our children by causing it all to be watered down with confusing rhetoric.

And at the end of the day for what if not money? To have bragging rights of being voted in by a majority? Smells like money to me.

It's all money. Public funds come from public money in the exct way private funds comes from the public by virtue of buying in to either an opinion or to sell cheap crap on QVC

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:01 am

K.Snyder;1352898 wrote: And at the end of the day for what if not money? To have bragging rights of being voted in by a majority? Smells like money to me.

It's all money. Public funds come from public money in the exct way private funds comes from the public by virtue of buying in to either an opinion or to sell cheap crap on QVCI agree, though I was referring to the right wing religious fundamentalists organizations pushing the right wing fundamentalists elected officials who then push the less right winged fundamentalists and so on. I think they call it The Network.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:04 am

Ahso!;1352894 wrote: Do you do this intentionally - you know, misinterpret what others say? You and I have been conversing now for what 3 or 4 years, and you don't know me any better than this? You're code for not wanting to face the issue. Okay, I'll stop.

Ahso! wrote: I know, it's a common theme among conservatives and lacks empathy.Exactly the opposite. It takes more empathy to make the decisions than to just shunt some cash off and claim to be sympathetic.

Ahso! wrote: I never noticed that when I had service. If it's true there must be a lot of the content sacrificed for advertisements, no?Maybe a little; I haven't really checked. Don't forget that PBS puts commercials at the front & back instead of scattering them throughout, so it might be pretty close on actual content.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:11 am

Accountable;1352902 wrote: Y

Maybe a little; I haven't really checked. Don't forget that PBS puts commercials at the front & back instead of scattering them throughout, so it might be pretty close on actual content.Commercial television puts at least twice as many adverts before and after and then every 7 minutes or so throughout the programing, and you interpret that as "maybe a little"? :wah: I've worn out a lot of mute buttons in my television watching days and nights and weekends. It's a sickness.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:56 pm

Accountable;1352902 wrote: Don't forget that PBS puts commercials at the front & back instead of scattering them throughout, so it might be pretty close on actual content.I hope the thread will accept my apologies. I had been under the impression that PBS was free of advertising. Were they to broadcast advertising in exchange for revenue they'd be in competition with commercial stations for that advertising revenue, of course they'd not be allowed government grants under such a circumstance since they'd then have an unfair financial advantage.

If I'm now given accurately to understand that "Commercial Sponsorship", as it was quaintly put earlier, in fact involves to a greater or lesser extent the broadcasting of advertisements, then pull the government funding immediately. Compromising the income of commercial non-PBS stations by diluting their advertising revenue, as opposed to merely putting on higher quality competitive material, should be absolutely outside the remit of PBS and I'd thought until now that it was.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:08 pm

spot;1352933 wrote: I hope the thread will accept my apologies. I had been under the impression that PBS was free of advertising. Were they to broadcast advertising in exchange for revenue they'd be in competition with commercial stations for that advertising revenue, of course they'd not be allowed government grants under such a circumstance since they'd then have an unfair financial advantage.

If I'm now given accurately to understand that "Commercial Sponsorship", as it was quaintly put earlier, in fact involves to a greater or lesser extent the broadcasting of advertisements, then pull the government funding immediately. Compromising the income of commercial non-PBS stations by diluting their advertising revenue, as opposed to merely putting on higher quality competitive material, should be absolutely outside the remit of PBS and I'd thought until now that it was.I'm not well versed in the lingo, but they call them underwriters and give them a short amount of time to present themselves in the intro and outro of a program. What I've noticed recently is those presentations are looking more like commercials, though they are more tastefully done than one might find on a broadcast or cable channel.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:21 pm

I had thought commercial sponsorship was done for social reasons. If it fulfils the role of advertising then it has no place on a public broadcast system, no more than product placement would.