Pull Back the Curtain on PBS and NPR Salaries

[JoeB131]

When cable exploded and we got so many new networks, I asked ....who needs PBS now?

There were networks like A&E. History Channel, Discovery Channel all providing content as good or better than PBS

What happened? They all sold out to reality TV shows, garbage filler, trash documentaries

It is what the free market gives you

Maybe it is. But that educational material didn't vanish, it just moved further down into basic cable. So now you have a slew of new networks who don't care that much about ratings broadcasting the same thing, like

The Smithsonian Channel
Ovation
Destination
HGTV

Here's the thing. We just plain old can't fund everything. I think it's fair to ask the Pentagon to give up overpriced planes that can't fly in the rain, but we should also ask the CPB to do without it's government meal ticket as well.

 

[JoeB131]

lol what a load of gibberish. Tricky Dick bent over backwards to take back the black vote from democrats, you tard. Who do you think turned Affirmative ACtion into a quota system, just weeks after the real Liberals had shot it down? Who do you think pandered to the Charlie Rangel and the Black Caucus constantly, including their demand for a 'War On Drugs' in the Hoods?

You really don't know squat, and prove it constantly.

Tricky Dick wasn't trying for the black vote. He went for the Bubba Redneck vote that wouldn't go for the Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and admitted he lost the south for a generation.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not a fucking bailout you idiot; it's less that 20% of total funding against which local funds are leveraged. This is how many public programs work, like meals on wheels. I suppose you're 'really pretty progressive' but okay with taking meals away from aging veterans and other seniors, too? Go fuck yourself.

Well, no, MOW you can show me a cost benefit in that keeping elderly folks in their homes saves us money in Medicare and Medicaid. So you can show me a return on investment on that one.

PBS getting a bailout from the federal government because they are too proud to hawk for commercials like everyone else has to... not so much.

Here's something I bet you and your buddy don't know becsuse you've never managed anything: it is entirely common in both public and private enterprise to invest funds into replacement equipment not yet needed when funds must be expended at the end of a fiscal year. This happens at PBS stations and at fucking Google too.

Actually, my day job is Purchasing and Inventory Control. If I went to my boss and said, "Hey, Boss, we need to buy a bunch of stock and equipment we don't need because it's the end of the year", he'd look at me funny.

the whole, "We have to spend it" is the kind of thinking you get with wasteful government programs. It's why we are 20 Trillion in debt.

 

[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.

I get what you're saying, FA_Q2, and I get BoSoxGal's points. You're both right, but your response doesn't address the substance of the point she was making. She remarked upon the quality of the PBS/NPR content, as she saw it, and you responded about whether the quality of the content on PBS/NPR, presumably, might be such that it obviates the need for advertizing the network and its programming. There's plenty of high quality stuff that exists -- Robert Loomes, Goyard, and Gurkha (Gurkha did in the '80s, but I haven't seen any ads from them in the past decade.) -- come to mind -- and that isn't advertised and there's lots that is.

Sure it does. Her remarks are not just on the quality as she sees it at NPR. They also indicate that she thinks that not only the funding is justified but also that the very fact they are partially government funded keeps those programs quality. That is false as I stated. She makes the assertion that the other stations have 'sold out' to commercial interests to draw commercials on their programming. As I pointed out, the viability of programming does NOT rely on commercials - that is but one avenue that they can use to fund programs. Grater donations or even directly selling the content to the consumer without any commercial interests involved other than the producers themselves are 2 such methods. Methods that, I should point out, would be rather easy for them to utilize should that quality be as high as Box has claimed. I would reiterate that public funding for these programs is simply unnecessary and frankly wrong.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

I get what you're saying, FA_Q2, and I get BoSoxGal's points. You're both right, but your response doesn't address the substance of the point she was making. She remarked upon the quality of the PBS/NPR content, as she saw it, and you responded about whether the quality of the content on PBS/NPR, presumably, might be such that it obviates the need for advertizing the network and its programming. There's plenty of high quality stuff that exists -- Robert Loomes, Goyard, and Gurkha (Gurkha did in the '80s, but I haven't seen any ads from them in the past decade.) -- come to mind -- and that isn't advertised and there's lots that is.

Sure it does. Her remarks are not just on the quality as she sees it at NPR. They also indicate that she thinks that not only the funding is justified but also that the very fact they are partially government funded keeps those programs quality. That is false as I stated. She makes the assertion that the other stations have 'sold out' to commercial interests to draw commercials on their programming. As I pointed out, the viability of programming does NOT rely on commercials - that is but one avenue that they can use to fund programs. Grater donations or even directly selling the content to the consumer without any commercial interests involved other than the producers themselves are 2 such methods. Methods that, I should point out, would be rather easy for them to utilize should that quality be as high as Box has claimed. I would reiterate that public funding for these programs is simply unnecessary and frankly wrong.

she thinks that not only the funding is justified but also that the very fact they are partially government funded keeps those programs quality. That is false as I stated.

She may think that, but I didn't see anything in her remarks that implies or states she does. I just re-read them to be sure. I don't see that. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point to the one, or note the pattern among a few, that gives verity or validity to your claim about what she thinks.

I agree with you that it is irrational to conclude that a funding source, in and of itself, makes content better or worse in a causal way. I think that at best, there may be a correlation; however, causation, not at all.

the viability of programming does NOT rely on commercials - that is but one avenue that they can use to fund programs. Grater donations or even directly selling the content to the consumer without any commercial interests involved other than the producers themselves are 2 such methods.

Greater donations PBS/NPR already and almost constantly solicit. PBS is in the midst of a donation drive right now. They've temporarily cut the length/quantity of content delivery right now to insert about a three or four minute "donation drive" segment between their second to last and last information delivery segment of the PBS Newshour. (The final information segment is always a minute or two minute "puff" piece that's just interesting in some way, but that isn't about a major issue of the day.")

As for selling content directly to viewers, that happens too in two forms: the subscription model used by HBO and Showtime, and the pay-per-view model applicable to all sorts of specific movie programming, be it on television or in the movie theaters.

Now for however good I think be PBS Newshour, NOVA, CSPAN, Nature, Washington Week. Nightly Business Report, Motorweek, Charlie Rose, BBC America, and Frontline, and various NPR news programs, the fact of the matter is that I'd no sooner pay for them than I would for any other news programming. Public television also has some entertainment shows that enjoy, but like those on pretty much all networks I have in my "cable" package, I wouldn't pay for them. For instance, though I liked various series on Showtime and HBO, I wouldn't pay to receive that content; I watch them because I'm paying for the movies those networks deliver.

Television network content is sort of like politics, school or work: there will be some stuff you like and some stuff you don't, but you have to bear it all regardless of whether you want to.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I admit to having no ability whatsoever to understand people who will gladly pay anywhere from $50 - $250 every month for a cable package that inundates them (and their children) with consumption-promoting advertising, but are too small-minded to be willing to pay $1.50/year for public broadcasting.

SMH

 

[Picaro]

lol what a load of gibberish. Tricky Dick bent over backwards to take back the black vote from democrats, you tard. Who do you think turned Affirmative ACtion into a quota system, just weeks after the real Liberals had shot it down? Who do you think pandered to the Charlie Rangel and the Black Caucus constantly, including their demand for a 'War On Drugs' in the Hoods?

You really don't know squat, and prove it constantly.

Tricky Dick wasn't trying for the black vote. He went for the Bubba Redneck vote that wouldn't go for the Democrats after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and admitted he lost the south for a generation.

It doesn't become true just because you repeat it over and over. Nixon and the GOP were desperate to get back the black vote, especially so after the Voting Right Act. It's all there for the literates to find for themselves; you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

I admit to having no ability whatsoever to understand people who will gladly pay anywhere from $50 - $250 every month for a cable package that inundates them (and their children) with consumption-promoting advertising, but are too small-minded to be willing to pay $1.50/year for public broadcasting.

I think it's a matter of choice. We CHOOSE to pay for cable. In fact, I'd love it if the government got the fuck out and stopped granting monopolies to cable companies and offered real competition.

We much don't like the fact the government picks our pocket for $1.50 a year for a network none of us ever watch, which wastes money like a sailor in a whorehouse.

I don't think the conservatives are right about much, but they got a valid complaint here. It's not their money, it's our money. Money our kids are going to be paying off with interest for decades.

 

[JoeB131]

It doesn't become true just because you repeat it over and over. Nixon and the GOP were desperate to get back the black vote, especially so after the Voting Right Act. It's all there for the literates to find for themselves; you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, you need to look up "Nixon and the Southern Strategy".

Birth of the Southern Strategy

 

[Desperado]

I admit to having no ability whatsoever to understand people who will gladly pay anywhere from $50 - $250 every month for a cable package that inundates them (and their children) with consumption-promoting advertising, but are too small-minded to be willing to pay $1.50/year for public broadcasting.

SMH

Then you do not understand the difference between personal choice and being force to buy something you don't want.
Plus I would not give one single cent to a network that is nothing more than a democratic propaganda machine

 

[usmbguest5318]

stopped granting monopolies to cable companies and offered real competition

There is real competition in the industry of television content delivery:

• OATV -- This is the only one that is always free.
• Cable
• Satellite
• Wireless/landline telephone service provider

How many other ways might you want there to be? Whatever be the number, you should invent at least one of them for none of them yet exist.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Even in their news commentary segments, PBS Newshour is very balanced in terms of whom they bring in. For instance, this past week:

• Discussion of SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch -- commentators were from:
  • National Law Journal -- Played the role of subject matter expert and event observer/describer
  • SCOTUSblog - The Supreme Court of the United States blog -- Center
    
  • Stanford Univ. Law professor -- Left
  • Senior Fellow, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute -- Right

The individuals who represented the three ideological positions each presented useful information and strong arguments/explanations without resorting to lines of discussion that, unlike a lot of the editorial commentary on cable news commentary programs, only a simpleton would even attempt to brook, let alone actually do so and expect to be taken seriously in the offing.

If there were going to be any single thing the government could do to improve the quality of cable television, it'd be stipulating that no network may provide more than two hours of political news commentary and editorials per 24 hours. That would give all of them eight 15 minute blocks to thoroughly cover the major issues of the day, and then stop bombarding us with BS all day and all night.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I admit to having no ability whatsoever to understand people who will gladly pay anywhere from $50 - $250 every month for a cable package that inundates them (and their children) with consumption-promoting advertising, but are too small-minded to be willing to pay $1.50/year for public broadcasting.

SMH

Then you do not understand the difference between personal choice and being force to buy something you don't want.
Plus I would not give one single cent to a network that is nothing more than a democratic propaganda machine

This just proves your rabid hatred of PBS is based on nothing but ignorant knee-jerk conservatism; PBS is NOT a 'democratic propaganda machine'. It has consistently, for decades, been rated as the most fair and balanced of news sources and most trusted by the American people.

But beyond that, 95% of the programming on PBS isn't news and couldn't even be alleged as politically biased - it's science stuff, arts stuff, documentaries, dramas, children's educational programming, etc.

You are fucking stupid and should have been made to watch more PBS as a child. Ignore for you!

Damn I love that function on this board!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Damn I love that function on this board!

You and I both. LOL

 

[Desperado]

Damn I love that function on this board!

Just like a liberal, running to their safe space to shut out opposing views

 

[usmbguest5318]

Damn I love that function on this board!

Just like a liberal, running to their safe space to shut out opposing views

The lamentably demented conglomerates of intellectual constipation that have made their way to my ignore list, frankly, just bore me. I don't ignore people merely because I consider them rhetorically sybaritic ruffians. I ignore them because they're just uninteresting, because too often before I ignored them they demonstrated glacially show cognitive faculties. Reading USMB is simply more efficient without being interrupted by their imbecilic caterwauling.

 

[Reasonable]

That’ll Convince You Trump’s Right to Cut, Cut, Cut!

You won’t believe the obscene salaries of PBS and NPR higher ups. PBS pays their president a $632,233 yearly salary. This is shocking but here’s another one: Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513!

How in the hell can this be condoned at taxpayer expense? For the Lefturds, it's okay.

More @ PULL BACK THE CURTAIN ON NPR AND PBS SALARIES! That'll Convince You Trump's Right to Cut, Cut, Cut! » 100percentfedUp.com

PBS is .05% of the budget and cutting it shows you're not even pretending to care about the American people. It serves a purpose 100x greater than Donald Trump does. It's educational and won't lie to you.

 

[Markle]

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

I would have guessed you'd have actually looked into who was responsible instead of following the Progressive lemmings to the sea.

 

[Markle]

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.

In my opinion, that is impossible.

NPR and PBS may have been useful 50-100 years ago but not today. Today we have hundreds of TV stations and millions of sources for news and information online. Were it public, it would have either been gone decades ago or compete in the marketplace. But, with government funding, it just goes on...and on...and on!

 

[Markle]

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 ^^

What a cute post. Convenient how they let off the most watched and trusted cable news outlet, Fox News. I guess that made their point easier to make, leaving out the real winner!

Let us not forget that Politico is a far, far left Progressive website. Even they admit the truth.

Poll: Fox News most trusted network
By NICK GASS

03/09/15 06:25 AM EDT

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Fox News has the most trusted network and cable news coverage in the United States, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released Monday. But network TV is much less trustworthy than it was in the days of Walter Cronkite, American voters say.

In comparison rankings, 29 percent responded that they trust Fox News the most. CNN follows with 22 percent, CBS News and NBC News are at 10 percent, ABC News at 8 percent and MSNBC at 7 percent.

Asked whether they trust the journalistic coverage of each network, 20 percent said they do “a great deal” for Fox, and 35 percent said “somewhat.”

Read more: Poll: Fox News most trusted network