Pull Back the Curtain on PBS and NPR Salaries

[JoeB131]

Now you are just being an insulting asshole! Typical libtard!

It's hard NOT to insult you people in Jesusland. I mean, seriously, the fact that ANY of you still vote Republican after 2008, when they were proven wrong about, well, everything.... is telling.

You're like a battered housewife who keeps going back to the same abusive husband.

 

[WillowTree]

Now you are just being an insulting asshole! Typical libtard!

It's hard NOT to insult you people in Jesusland. I mean, seriously, the fact that ANY of you still vote Republican after 2008, when they were proven wrong about, well, everything.... is telling.

You're like a battered housewife who keeps going back to the same abusive husband.

Simple and pure projection on your part. You sound miserable! I hope you find snowflake therapy!

 

[JoeB131]

Simple and pure projection on your part. You sound miserable! I hope you find snowflake therapy!

Naw, you see, up until 2008, I did vote Republican.

And after your boy Dubya gave me a busted 401K and an underwater mortgage... I actually rethought that.

That and the realization that a party with witchhunters, magic underwear and exorcisms was run by religious loons.

So after Obama created a situation where we all managed to recover from Bush's fuckups, you dumbasses vote for Trump, who makes Bush look almost competent by comparison.

 

[Picaro]

How about no spin? What is wrong with no spin?

I seriously doubt many young people even know what real objective journalism is; they've probably never seen it or were told it was 'hate speech' or something.

 

[Disir]

How about no spin? What is wrong with no spin?

I seriously doubt many young people even know what real objective journalism is; they've probably never seen it or were told it was 'hate speech' or something.

Probably not. NPR has forgotten it.

 

[Desperado]

If PBS and NPR are so popular then they should be commercially viable. If not there is no reason that the taxpayer has to pay for it.
Just because it is only $1.50 per taxpayer does not make it right. Another question is if these networks are government funded then they should be free of politics in their programming.

 

[BoSoxGal]

If PBS and NPR are so popular then they should be commercially viable. If not there is no reason that the taxpayer has to pay for it.
Just because it is only $1.50 per taxpayer does not make it right. Another question is if these networks are government funded then they should be free of politics in their programming.

Are you really such a fucking moron?!

The whole point is that they're NOT COMMERCIAL, so there is one fucking place you can watch quality programming for all ages and not be recruited as a consumer.

One fucking place where your kids aren't brainwashed to want crappy food and crappy plastic toys or subject to erectile dysfunction adverts or adverts that objectify women and create body image issues, etc.

One fucking place where a solid percentage of the programming must be educational - instead of mindless drivel, violence and gratuitous sex, mean and low-IQ 'reality TV' crap, empty headed talks shows where uninformed celebrities pat each other on the back as they exchange misinformation.

There is so much truly excellent programming on PBS and the cost to the federal budget is miniscule by comparison to value delivered.

I would have no problem with the top executive salaries being reined in a little - those seem pretty high by comparison to other nonprofits. At the same time, to get very good quality managers salary has to remain competitive. Still, I'm sure there are good people who would do those jobs for less than $600k or $900k.

But honestly, those of you who don't see the value in PBS or why it's an important PUBLIC investment are just dumb. You should've watched more PBS growing up and less commercial TV crap.

 

[Picaro]

lol PBS and NPR run commercials constantly, more commercial selling time than the major networks.

 

[Picaro]

If PBS and NPR are so popular then they should be commercially viable. If not there is no reason that the taxpayer has to pay for it.
Just because it is only $1.50 per taxpayer does not make it right. Another question is if these networks are government funded then they should be free of politics in their programming.

I agree, taxpayers shouldn't be paying for Democratic Party and 'globalist' propaganda. If they were truly neutral and objective, I wouldn't be against a subsidy for a national network; not as large as the one they're getting now, but a decent one. As it is they offer nothing one can't get from the MSM's flunkies.

 

[Desperado]

lol PBS and NPR run commercials constantly, more commercial selling time than the major networks.

Not to mention their constant begging for contributions.

 

[JoeB131]

Not to mention their constant begging for contributions.

Which is the main reason I don't watch it.

Now, here's the thing. Back in the 1990's, you could argue that the fact that the History Channel, TLC, Discovery, A&E, etc. proved you can do educational and informative programming commercially, so you didn't need a government subsidy for PBS.

today all of those channels are platforms for some kind of cheap Reality TV programming, bringing us a collection of hillbillies, exterminators, child beauty queens, midgets and the rest of the circus... because that shit gets ratings.

 

[Picaro]

lol PBS and NPR run commercials constantly, more commercial selling time than the major networks.

Not to mention their constant begging for contributions.

Yes on top of selling their hours long 'musical specials', some of which are pretty good, others not so good. I own a few of those music offers and used to be a frequent donor myself. No more after this last election cycle. I lost all respect for every single one of their news readers; nobody who lies as blatantly as they all did deserves respect.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes on top of selling their hours long 'musical specials', some of which are pretty good, others not so good. I own a few of those music offers and used to be a frequent donor myself. No more after this last election cycle. I lost all respect for every single one of their news readers; nobody who lies as blatantly as they all did deserves respect.

Yes, you need to live in a world where voting for Trump was a good idea.

Even as things crash and burn around you.

 

[Picaro]

Yes on top of selling their hours long 'musical specials', some of which are pretty good, others not so good. I own a few of those music offers and used to be a frequent donor myself. No more after this last election cycle. I lost all respect for every single one of their news readers; nobody who lies as blatantly as they all did deserves respect.

Yes, you need to live in a world where voting for Trump was a good idea.

Even as things crash and burn around you.

Good. You gimps want to learn the hard way the results of your degeneracy and ridiculous political fantasies. You're too stupid to see what's wrong with your weirdness and bigotry so bring on the crash and the burn. We're going to go back to the libertoon world of neo-paganism, laiisez-faire, mass poverty, dictatorship, and more, just because you utterly clueless Burb Brats have some bizarre fantasies about 'Da '60's, Man!' and think sloganeering and ideological nonsense really accomplishes something.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Nice Polite Republicans. NPR, that is. Of course the execs will make out like bandits.

What? ~$650K or ~$950K is your idea of "making out like bandits?" Really? Yes, it's very livable salary, but "making out like a bandit" it ain't. Perhaps it's grossly skewed perspectives such as that which have led to people having the extreme POVs that we so often see expressed on USMB?

I don't know what it is in the U.S. these days, but it seems to me that there is a palpable degree of resentment toward rich people. Furthermore, that disdain strangely extends to folks who live a reasonably nice lifestyle, but who aren't rich, who can't and don't live like it, and who, other than by comparison to people who are indeed poor, wouldn't consider themselves rich, yet they're aware, obviously, that they aren't poor or barely making ends meet. But that's the thing. Comfortable folks understand that that's all they are, comfortable, yet remarks don't reflect a similar degree of perspective, of understanding. And one doesn't need to earn those sums to understand it; just doing the math as depicted below is enough to get it.

There are some ~6.5M Americans who earn $500K or more. Yes, for the most part, such workers are part of the 1%; however, the fact of the matter is that most people in that earnings bracket go to work and rely primarily on their wages just like people who earn less than that.




The same is true for people earning between $500K and $1M per year. People in that range are well aware they aren't struggling, per se, but they are just as aware that they need to go to work everyday just like everyone else does. People in this bracket aren't living like anyone who "makes out like a bandit."

Quite simply, earning $500K to a million dollars per year are technically 1%-ers means little other than that one shouldn't have to worry about how to make ends meet and one can enjoy a nice upper middle class lifestyle comparable to that of the "Warrens." Nonetheless, one is profoundly aware one isn't remotely in the same league as people earning $5M+ per year. It's nothing more than a comfortable lifestyle that provides a few more trinkets and the discretion to buy higher dollar, but not appreciably different (other than the price), indulgences and necessities. For instance,

• A BMW 5 Series isn't materially nicer or better than a fully loaded Honda Accord, but it costs quite a lot more.
• For a family of four, a 3K square foot home isn't notable less comfortable than is a 5K square foot one.
• One's vacation isn't more fun because one takes it on St. Barts instead of Key West.
• The first, business class and coach sections of the plane all land at the same time.

With reference to the chart above, about all that happens in the transition from the $300K to $500 bracket to the $750 to $1M one is that one buys slightly more expensive stuff -- occasionally, one can enjoy some of the indulgences that rich people daily do -- and sending one's kids to elite boarding schools, camps and colleges become a matter of whether one's kids get admitted, not whether one can afford it. Make of that what you want, but it's not the live of a modern day "Robber Baron." It's not "making out like a bandit."

A dimension that differs in the transition just mentioned that of the impact on one's kids. Kids from comfortable families tend to be successful themselves. No surprise, really, as any kid will strive at least to the point of being able to enjoy the lifestyle to which their parents made them accustomed.

The dimension that shifts as one makes it to the "$1M+ club" and that I can discern is that of network -- it's basically a "birds of a feather..." thing. People who are well insinuated into a network of economically successful others have a much better chance of encountering opportunities that can catapult them to the realms of the rich. Think about Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and the other folks who were in their circle of friends. If you think for a minute that Bill and Steve's friends didn't get rich too as a result of knowing Bill and Steve, my theory of the impact of lacking perspective may be spot on.

 

[BoSoxGal]

lol PBS and NPR run commercials constantly, more commercial selling time than the major networks.

Not to mention their constant begging for contributions.

Total bullshit lie; I watch PBS all the time, they show a few announcements for sponsors at the beginning and end of programs, when the viewer can easily avoid them entirely whether they have a DVR or not.

Soliciting contributions from 'viewers like you' is how PBS remains less than 20% taxpayer funded. If anything that's something to laud, not criticize.

What is painfully obvious is that you two don't even watch PBS, you just regurgitate CONservative talking points from your deities Limbaugh, Jones, FOX News, etc.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives complaining about executive pay?

 

[usmbguest5318]

lol PBS and NPR run commercials constantly, more commercial selling time than the major networks.

Not to mention their constant begging for contributions.

Total bullshit lie; I watch PBS all the time, they show a few announcements for sponsors at the beginning and end of programs, when the viewer can easily avoid them entirely whether they have a DVR or not.

Soliciting contributions from 'viewers like you' is how PBS remains less than 20% taxpayer funded. If anything that's something to laud, not criticize.

What is painfully obvious is that you two don't even watch PBS, you just regurgitate CONservative talking points from your deities Limbaugh, Jones, FOX News, etc.

painfully obvious is that you two don't even watch PBS

This ^^

 

[usmbguest5318]

Conservatives complaining about executive pay?

Well, there is that too. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

If PBS and NPR are so popular then they should be commercially viable. If not there is no reason that the taxpayer has to pay for it.
Just because it is only $1.50 per taxpayer does not make it right. Another question is if these networks are government funded then they should be free of politics in their programming.

Are you really such a fucking moron?!

The whole point is that they're NOT COMMERCIAL, so there is one fucking place you can watch quality programming for all ages and not be recruited as a consumer.

One fucking place where your kids aren't brainwashed to want crappy food and crappy plastic toys or subject to erectile dysfunction adverts or adverts that objectify women and create body image issues, etc.

One fucking place where a solid percentage of the programming must be educational - instead of mindless drivel, violence and gratuitous sex, mean and low-IQ 'reality TV' crap, empty headed talks shows where uninformed celebrities pat each other on the back as they exchange misinformation.

There is so much truly excellent programming on PBS and the cost to the federal budget is miniscule by comparison to value delivered.

I would have no problem with the top executive salaries being reined in a little - those seem pretty high by comparison to other nonprofits. At the same time, to get very good quality managers salary has to remain competitive. Still, I'm sure there are good people who would do those jobs for less than $600k or $900k.

But honestly, those of you who don't see the value in PBS or why it's an important PUBLIC investment are just dumb. You should've watched more PBS growing up and less commercial TV crap.

That is assuming that to be commercially viable you must have commercials for products and that is blatantly incorrect. If they are of a quality that you state they can sell the product directly or continue to get donations to fund 100 percent of their programming. They are not all that far off now. There is no need for the government to fund them at all.


YOU think they are worth it. Many do not. The government is not there to force everyone to support programs that you like. There is no governmental purpose served by PBS or NPR that justifies channeling money to them. There is actually the exact opposite - the government should not be in the media business.