Conference back40::soapbox

    
    I must be dense this morning, Mr. Bill, but I'm not certain what
    the subject of your note is.  I'm guessing this CPB is Corporation
    for Public Broadcasting ?
    
      If so, why a new topic ?  This has been discussed in here already.
    Some say, "save the money", others "it's worth it even when cash is
    short".  There will be a lot posturing on the subject (both sides) on
    C-Span, but hardly more than on all the other budget cuts that need
    to be proposed, debated, voted up/down.  Nothing new.
    
      bb

  Well no there is something new. According to the Boston Globe, opponents of
Public Broadcasting are now complaining about the fact that PBS is running ads
on their stations asking people to write their Congressmen in support of PBS.

  Although I have to agree I'm confused by the topic, just what does this have
to do with a trial?

  George

    
    Well, there isn't any way to keep them from squealing anyway, so what's
    the point ?  Get used to it - all 1200+ agencies, commissions,
    departments, and corporations are going to go through this, one-by-one.
    Every single one will squeal, as is their right.  Every one will get
    a vote somewhere.  I'm surprised at Mr. Bill, who labels all the BBA's
    as a hoax.  How do you suppose real budget cutting is ever going to
    get done ?  Just like this - appropriation by bloody appropriation,
    with the advocates given full opportunity to read out their final
    defenses before the guillotine is dropped.  The only purpose of the BBA
    is to toughen the nerve of the executioners, in the face of the
    ingenious defenses the heads of the spending agencies will put up.
    
      bb

    so it doesn't matter that privatizing cpb will cause it to have to
    compete with the existing commercial providers and thereby force it to
    stoop to their low level of programming quality and density of
    commercial time.
    
    bye bye national geographic.  hello wild kingdom reruns.
    
    bye bye nova.  hello watch mister wizard reruns.
    
    bye bye mystery.  hello murder she wrote.
    
    bye bye masterpiece theatre.  hello the gambler xvii
    
    bye bye live at the met.  hello grammy awards.
    
    bye bye new yankee workshop.  hello home improvement.
    
    bye bye julia child.  hello the formerly galloping gourmet.
    
    bye bye, bye bye, bye bye...

     NBC has already picked up National Geographic.

    And Julia child has been nipping at the Chardonine alittle too long. 
    She's a lush!

    
    RE: .4
    
      If you want to keep these shows, then all you have to do is increase
      your contribution. You do contribute, don't you?
    
      Paul
    

    
    Why does it not surprise me that Binder's remote is stuck on the
    snob channel ?
    
    As to "Mystery" vs. "Murder, She Wrote", my wife (a whodunnit nutcase)
    says Lansbury's vehicle is the best in class, including the imports.
    It's not my area, so I defer to her.  She also has watched Mystery.
    
      bb

Mr Bill is right. It looked like a setup to me. Maybe they will use the 
same process for all theri other budget ax-jobs. It's certainly more 
efficient. But is it in the interest of our nation?

My daughter's class at school put on a medieval (sp?) banquet/show last 
night, with all the little kippers having boths displaying various trades 
of that era. During one part of the evening, they put on a couple of skits; 
one of which demonstrated the legal process at the time. The king or 
magestrate or whatever would call up a case; the complaintant gave his view, 
the accused gave his side; then the king pronounced "Guilty! Cut out his 
tongue!" Got a lot of laughs. Also reminded me of yesterday's hearings. No 
give and take. No questioning.

Is it a coincidence that CPB was one of the first budget line items to go 
through this review?

PBS/NPR is the ONLY intelligent programming available to the majority of 
Americans, because a mojority don't have cable. Not that cable is a bastion 
of brilliance. Newt and company call it elitist. I say its elitist to say 
that if you want educational programming (in the liberal arts  sense of the 
word) you gotta pay for it.

    .8
    
    screw you and the snob channel, bob.  :-)
    
    i watch what i like, not what looks like snob stuff.  my choices prolly
    have a lot to do with the way i was raised, i.e., in a home with a good
    library instead of lots of barcaloungers around the idjit box.
    
    as for murder she wrote, yes, i agree that it is the best of its genre
    on commercial teevee.  (i've actually watched it a couple of times.) 
    but i don't think it holds a candle to the quality of plotting and the
    production values of such mystery greats as the jeremy brett sherlock
    holmes episodes or the current series on the 12th-century monk cadfael.
    for one thing msw has to be written to provide three intermediate
    climaxes leading up to a denouement in the final act.  this doesn't
    happen in real life, and it doesn't happen in mystery, which has no
    commercial breaks to consider.  (fwiw, my wife is also a whodunnit
    nutcase, and she sez the msw is okay.)

re: .4

Nope.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  I don't watch any of it, PBS, commercial,
etc.  I don't have cable.  I do miss a few things on cable, but not enough
to pay outrageous sums for obsolete technology provided by a monopoly.

Bob

>PBS/NPR is the ONLY intelligent programming available to the majority of 

I don't believe that PBS would die if federal funding were eliminated...
What is the % of federal funding, something like 15%??? Are you telling
me that state or private (people and companies) funding could not pickup
the slack??? Also, look at how much money for example, Sessame Street 
brings in via all the toys/dolls/etc.??? Are you telling me that people
are NOT gettign rich off PBS/NPR? There is more then enough money to go
around... and when it comes down to it, it is not NEEDED money to be
spent by the feds... it can be a savings of over $200,000,000...

/scott

Oh... one more thing... unless we cut down the fed government A LOT,
then it won't matter if Mystery, SS, Barney, et. al., are on TV or not,
because this country will be destroyed by the debt.

/scott

	richard, kinda sad how we live in a society where so many
	seemingly intelligent people view having an appreciation for the
	finer things as "snobbery", ain't it?  sigh.

	anyways, i agree with you about "murder, she wrote" vs. "mystery".
	 
	

I'm also surprised at the choice of CPB as the first to go under the ax. 
After all,  it's a small amount of dollars going to a well run organization
supported by a substantial majority of voters.

It seems like an ideal choice of battleground if the Democratic party was
doing the choosing.  Why didn't they start with the subsidies paid to grow
tobacco?  Or something obscure and worthless?  Or one of the big money 
wasters like Medicare/Medicaid?


Phil

    dick:
    
    you so in love with CPB why don't you contribute to it and call for
    other viewers to do the same?  why stand in line next to the family
    that really may need welfare and food stamps to prevent from going
    homeless and take some of the food right out of the little kiddies
    mouthes?  i support my local church, we have excellent programs for
    children, teens, singles and adults AND WE DO IT WITHOUT ONE PENNY OF
    YOUR LIBERAL GUVT'S TEATSUCKIN'! 

    re .16
    
    FWIW,
    
    I do donate to both the local radio station and to our local PBS
    station as well.  I don't have cable, and the few times I have been
    stuck in a hotel that had it, the channel surfing took me right back to
    CPB programming.  I pay for it, but some of us don't live in the densely
    populated areas with enough base to keep the translators for remote
    areas running.  
    
    I don't want to see PBS pander down to the lows I see on commercial tv. 
    Nor do I want to lose the NPR programming that I wake up to each
    morning.  
    
    meg

>    I don't want to see PBS pander down to the lows I see on commercial tv. 
>    Nor do I want to lose the NPR programming that I wake up to each
>    morning.  

I again state that if federal funding were taken away from the CPB, that
neither of these 2 things above would happen...

/scott

    You pay for PBS via a (very, very small) tax and if you feel inclined
    you contribute directly - in return you get some control over
    content and IMHO a good product.  
    
    You pay for all the commercial networks via a "tax" on the goods you
    buy.  The companies producing those goods take that tax and give it to
    the broadcasters in the form of advertising money.  You get no control,
    the advertiser effectively controls programming and you get to watch
    all those lovely ads that have been produced using your money.
    
    I guess it's your choice.
    
    I'll keep contributing to NPR etc. and in Boston I'm pretty sure the
    service will continue no matter what happens to CPB.  The people to suffer
    will be those in areas where population density and income levels are
    low. 
    
    Axel
     

    .19
    like the poor ignorant slobs in backwood 'murica will never see some of
    the trash on PBS...yell, they're real poor slobs afterall...

    .16
    
    > you so in love with CPB why don't you contribute to it
    
    i do, to the tune of several hundred dollars a year.
    
    as for taking food right out of the little kiddies' mouth, don't make
    me laugh, wafflefartz.  i also find several thousand dollars a year to
    give to various charitable causes, and i have worked in my church's
    programs to educate illiterate legal immigrants.

    I am one of them po' slobs in the backwoods, at least as far as anyone
    in your area would understand.  
    
    I like my PBS and NPR.  When I was traveling last year it had the best
    programing all the way across Iowa and Nebraska.  Definitely nicer to
    listen to classical and folk than the C&W pap and top 40 crap that
    faded in and out across.
    
    meg

    Hard to imagine a better  bang for the buck than federal $ for CPB. An
    astonishing range and quality of programming, getting better all the
    time.  
    
    The arts have always been supported by governments. This is a perfectly
    appropriate use of tax dollars, and far more egalitarian than
    traditional government support of the arts.
    
    Public funding varies from around 5$ to over 50%. Those that will be
    hurt are the small stations in rural areas and small cities who depend
    more on the federal $. Big stations will survive, with less imaginative
    stuff, and without the nationwide network that exists now. 
    
    That is, if the demoagogic yahoos in Washington win.
    
    Kit

    .21
    
    You proved my point, blindus.  It's those people who want something for
    nothing, a free handout from sugar Daddy Uncle Sam that make me so upset
    when any group DEMANDS Federal Funding.
    
    I personally agree with you and I support MPT here in MD.   WSW,
    New Country Video, M/L NewsHour and Norm Abrams are my fave shows. 
    Sarah loves Shiny Time, Barney and some Math show.  Lori's hooked on
    all the cooking and craft shows.
    
    But my point is, that if you want something, support it and get others
    to support it also.  Living off Uncle Sam can be dangerous these days. 
    That's why I have a 401K and tax-deferred annuities...SS prolly won't
    be viable when I finally am able to collect.

	Dick, how about Mystery vs. say...... Matlock!!?? :-)

	I guess this means Dr. Who will be going away if they lose any
money..... sniff....

    re: Warrenfeltzer
    
|   Living off Uncle Sam can be dangerous these days.  That's why I have a
|   401K and tax-deferred annuities...
    
    The amazing thing, you don't even have a clue how funny you are. 
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Public television isn't free. It's funded by your tax dollar and
    by various individual and corporate contributions (some good part of
    which support tax credits). As a citizen, the question to ask is do you
    want your tax dollar to go to this outlet?
    
    About 85% of tax dollars that go for the television end of public 
    broadcasting go to exactly two stations: WGBH in Boston and WNET in New
    York. To me that suggests that CPB has wandered pretty far from its
    original charter.
    
    Question: Isn't there a cheaper way to get high quality British imports
    onto our cable television systems?
    
     

|   About 85% of tax dollars that go for the television end of public 
|   broadcasting go to exactly two stations: WGBH in Boston and WNET in New
|   York.
    
    It is Friday after all.
    
    								-mr. bill

    must be yer pubic dollars at work

    The 85% figure I quoted is taken from an article by David Horowitz
    published in Commentary magazine within the last 2-3 years.
    
    

    
    the real issue in here is not the funding or the size of it, but
    of government involvement in something that it should not be.
    and those who plan to scream about government subsdies to other
    industries, thats wrong too, and two wrongs don't make one right.

    	Perhaps they should compromise and cut CPB by 50%, not 100%.

    
    There is indeed a compromise afoot involving cutting instead of
    zeroing.  Dunno the votes.
    
      bb

    I support public television as well, and NPR, and I 
    would much rather see my tax money go to it than to
    tobacco subsidies, farming subsidies or the defense 
    budget.  But then, I guess I'm just another of these
    intelligent snobs who was raised to prefer a good book
    or quality programming to commercial television drivel.  
    Hey! maybe they can go after the libraries next so we can 
    have a truely ignorant America!
    
    As for "Murder She Wrote" vs. "Mystery!". Please. If I
    can figure it out in the first 15 minutes, it's hardly
    worth my time.  And I can peg "Murder She Wrote" every time.
    Besides, classics like "Sherlock Holmes", "Cadfael" and
    "Lord Peter" are excellent literary examples of their 
    genre as well, and may actually inspire people to read.  
    Wouldn't that be nice!
    
    Mary-Michael

    	And cut out tobacco subsidies TOO (not instead).

    re: .36
    
    Ha, ha, ha, whew, goodness Joe I didn't think you were so funny......
    
    Tobacco subsidies are controlled by rich and powerful lobbies.
    CPB belongs to us.  I have yet to see a Republican take money
    out of a rich man's wallet.  If he's taking a twenty with one hand
    he'll be slippin' him forty with the other. There will be some 
    idiotic reason given why tobacco subsidies should remain.
    
    The little guy loses again.
    
    Mary-Michael

    	So you're saying that we SHOULDN'T be cutting tobacco
    	subsidies?
    
    	Why are you disagreeing with .36?  Is it the "too" part?

    
    There is indeed a move to cut agriculture, both subsidies and the
    department headcount (over 200,000).   Lugar heads that in the Senate,
    because Helms took Foreign.  While Lugar is definitely pro-farmer, he
    is making grim faces.  They have to hurt their own constituencies.
    Very hard for them.  They will deserve credit if they do.
    
    On the tobacco, Helms will fight.  Remains to be seen.
    
      bb

                        <<< Note 260.32 by ICS::VERMA >>>
                      -< If you want it bad, pay for it! >-

>    the real issue in here is not the funding or the size of it, but
>    of government involvement in something that it should not be.
>    and those who plan to scream about government subsdies to other
>    industries, thats wrong too, and two wrongs don't make one right.

The success of democracy depends on an informed, educated populace. That's 
why we fund schooling with tax dollars. Since our society gets the bulk of 
its information over the airwaves these days, it seems like an entirely 
appropriate use of fed $$. What really amazes me is that the conservatives 
are so hell bent on eliminating CPB. Particularly since PBS is the only 
non-cable network to offer conservative programming (Firing Line, 
Maclaughlin Group).

Tobacco subsidies will not be cut by thised Congess.

Helms won't have anything to do with it while 2 tobacco farmers Briley
and Rose will make sure the House won't touch it either.

This is obviously one of the many issues not dealt with by The Contract.

And it's not the onliest contradiction in this plan.

TTom

    
    Whew...for a second there I thought Haag was back!
    

    . What really amazes me is that the conservatives
    .are so hell bent on eliminating CPB. Particularly since PBS is the only
    .non-cable network to offer conservative programming (Firing Line,
    .Maclaughlin Group).
    
     Obviously some people feel the money can be better spent elsewhere,
    despite the fact that they themselves will be impacted. Perhaps such
    altruism is difficult for a gimme gimme liberal to understand. ;-) /2
    
     As an aside, I think that on the whole the CPB funds more liberal things 
    than conservative. NPR seems to be hellishly left wing, for example.
    Sesame Street et al tend to teach liberal principles (not that I
    personally find this entirely to be bad, however.)
    
     I think there are two things at work here. One, that people are
    philosophically opposed to public support of this sort of thing and
    two, that conservatives feel their money is being used to bash them via
    public media. I really think that's what this is about.

| <<< Note 260.42 by TROOA::COLLINS "Have you got two tens for a five?" >>>


| Whew...for a second there I thought Haag was back!

	Gary, do you often get Helms and Haag mixed up??? :-)

.40>The success of democracy depends on an informed, educated populace. That's 
>why we fund schooling with tax dollars. 
    
    	Great.  So let local PBS media get funded by local taxes.  Then
    	New York can have PBS that's funded by (and tailored for) the
    	locality, as can San Fran, and Kansas City.

    
    .45
    
    Quiet, Geln!  :^)
    

    re: .38
    
    No, I think they should go. I think all subsidies should
    go.  This is a capitalistic society, we shouldn't pay people
    to stay out of business.  Sink or swim.
    
    I don't think they will go, though, because the lobbies
    are rich and powerful, and Republicans traditionally don't
    go after the rich or, for that matter, the status quo.
    
    What you will see, most likely, are many little cuts,
    which make big headlines and little difference in the total
    budget.  The problem will be, these little cuts will involve
    the services that most "regular folk" who may fall on 
    hard times use.  And, due to the fact that we have been
    picking away at education all these years, most people
    won't realize this until it's too late.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    

	Ok Jackie

     Note 260.40                                   
     HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS  
                              
>The success of democracy depends on an informed, educated populace. 

I take it you seriously believe that stopping CPB subsidy will cripple
democarcy. When will you grasp that it is only a small portion of the
population that watches PBS and people have been and will continue to
stay informed and educated without PBS. 

FYI, Russian government finance all TV programs in Russia. You imply
that Russians are the most informed and educated people. Right?

>That's why we fund schooling with tax dollars.

Schools are funded locally and I have a voice in the process. Furthermore,
if I don't like it I have a choice to leave town or rent. You are being
offered the same choice. If you like PBS and want it then pay for it.
 
>Since our society gets the bulk of 
>its information over the airwaves these days, it seems like an entirely 
>appropriate use of fed $$. 

Thats your opinion, an elitist one if you ask me, but I disagree.

>What really amazes me is that the conservatives 
>are so hell bent on eliminating CPB. Particularly since PBS is the only 
>non-cable network to offer conservative programming (Firing Line, 
>Maclaughlin Group).

you can't seem to see past the quality of the PBS programming that
you totally miss the point that it is NOT government's business to
subsidise TV. no one is arguing the quality of PBS programming, it is
how it should be funded.

                                                                    

    
    Is it nice? Yes.  Is it thought-provoking?  Yes.  Is it necessary? No.
    Is it absolutely necessary?  Absolutely not.
    
    jeff

>Schools are funded locally and I have a voice in the process. Furthermore,
>if I don't like it I have a choice to leave town or rent. You are being
>offered the same choice. If you like PBS and want it then pay for it.
    
    Beg to gently differ; leave town, yes.  Rent, no.  I'd venture to say 
    that the landlord considers his/her property taxes as part of calculating 
    how much rent to charge, so you end up paying for the schools even as a
    renter, albeit indirectly.
    
    Off the topic, tho.  Sorry.

    .51
    
    is it nice?  no.  is it thought-provoking?  quite the contrary, just
    ask any of its victims.  is it necessary?  maybe.  is it absolutely
    necessary?  not in its present bloated form.
    
    so explain why the contract with america wants to GROW the military
    budget in a time when the military is a) acknowledged to be riddled
    with waste and b) unnecessarily large.  could it have something to do
    with the fact that the suppliers of military hardware are big
    businesses that contribute large sums to repub campaign coffers?  let's
    make some really painful decisions and cut the military.

    
    I agree.  The military budget does need looking at, particularly
    the weapons deployment, and the necessity of keeping troops in
    Europe.
    
    Where I part company is that I cannot stomach opposing a military pay
    raise.  The uniformed pay rate is such a disgrace.
    
    Another thing is this :  a surprising chunk of the Defense budget is
    not even trying to look like defense - it's other stuff.  ALL of this
    should go.  Armies are very expensive, and their only mission should
    be to fight, not (for example) interdict drugs.  Put that in Law
    Enforcement.
    
      bb

    	And we should cut the military too.  (Not instead.)

    
    
      Some very good British mysteries are on A&E.
    
      Paul
    

    re: .56
    
    Absolutely.  "Lovejoy Mysteries" is one the few things
    I try not to miss.  But I pay for my cable tv every month,
    don't you?  
    
    Public Broadcasting takes input from the viewers, especially
    during fund raising.  I like having programming on a station 
    that *I* can affect.  That's what they mean by "public". 
    
    I WANT my tax dollars to go to CPB.  I WANT my tax dollars
    to fund the arts.  I WANT my tax dollars to fund social
    programs, workfare programs, adult education programs.
    I don't WANT my tax dollars to fund defense or 
    argicultural subsidies.  My voice is no different
    than yours, and no less important.  I've just got
    to be louder I guess.....
    
    Mary-Michael

    
     RE: -1
    
     Of course I pay for my cable. I don't expect others to pay for my
     wants. 
    
     Paul
    

    .56
    
    > Some very good British mysteries are on A&E.
    
    at the risk of beginning to sound like one of the grooves in a broken
    record...
    
    some of us don't have cable.  moreover, some of us don't want it.	

Without question the CPB provides the BEST programming available for children
(whether they or their parents can afford it) plus a wide variety of educational
programming for all ages. It is the one channel your children can watch without
having to monitor the content (commercials, newsbreaks of the most recent violence,
etc ..). I do not wish to see it negatively impacted.

With that said: We have a $4+trillion debt.

I would hope that the congress would put CPB on notice that their funding will
be curtailed over a period of a few years such that they have the time to find
new sources of revenue. I also hope that the government passes incentives for
the continued existence of CPB as part of this cost cutting.

$300m a year is not pocket change.

Doug.

	But Dick, does it all compare with MATLOCK!!!???

    But is a a dollar a year I am quite happy to pay.  (along with the
    other more dollars I pay to my local stations).
    
    Maybe we need to have 5% of our tax dollars go to a multiple choice
    list.  A couple of extra pages in the 1040 should do it.  helms can
    donate his to the tobacco farmers, newt to Cspan, and I will donate to
    cpb and a few other pet projects of mine, like wilderness maintenance,
    job training programs, and healthcare for women, children and men.
    
    meg

    
    RE: .59   ...some of us don't want it.
    
      If you don't want cable, that's fine. Its your choice. But then don't
      force others to pay for what you do want. 
    
      Paul
    

    
     RE: .62
    
     Meg, you can freely do that now. Why do you need 'Big Brother' as a
     middle man?
    
     Paul
    

    Gotta love it. The comments regarding the amount spent "it's ONLY $200
    million" fit right in with the congressional big spenders viewpoint.
    Sound like the Mass. Democraps representing the PRM. Clinton falls
    right in line with that thinking i.e. his proposal to send $3 billion
    in aid to Japan. Someone slap this boy upside the head and show him the
    balance of payment sheets for the last 10 years. All of you who believe
    "ONLY $200 million" is nothing, can show your commitment to such
    belief, by each of you sending me "ONLY twenty bucks". And I promise
    that none of it will be wasted on needless bureaucracy but will be
    poured directly into the economy to help generate demand and more jobs.
    And none of it will be spent on Japanese cars, etc. to help put more
    Americans out of work. 

           <<< Note 260.43 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>    than conservative. NPR seems to be hellishly left wing, for example.

"Hellishly left wing"???? Yo, Doc, are you kidding?

Here's one for the TTWA: Can any conserv name ANY straight news 
organization (not a conservative commentary-on-news show) that is NOT 
liberal? If not, why not? 

Seems to me, you've got two choices: Either there's a conspiracy between 
competing businesses (which makes no sense, unless you're talking about 
price-fixing); or conservative idealogies don't hold up well in the face of 
day-to-day reality.

      <<< Note 260.46 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


>    	Great.  So let local PBS media get funded by local taxes.  Then
>    	New York can have PBS that's funded by (and tailored for) the
>    	locality, as can San Fran, and Kansas City.

That's exactly how it works. The bulk of $ come from local business and 
individual contributions. And the programming is determined locally, too.

I agree, $300 million is a LOT of money. Not much by US budget standards, 
but a lot nonetheless. It irks me to subsidize large argibusiness with 
comparable amounts.

Is CPB worth the money? Is it worth giving our nation and the world's arts 
and letters a venue that is above dynamics market forces? I think so. You 
obviously don't. Is it elitest? I challenge you to find programing 
that is more eclectic. Sure, it tends to field a lot of its comedy and 
serial dramas from the BBC, but why create another american sitcom or 
another Matlock? Get a broader, more international view. Seems to me there 
are an awful lot of Monty Python fans among the 'box's right wingers. Where 
do you think you got it?

If Mozart and Michealagelo had to "survive in the market" there would be a 
huge hole in literature of our species. Maybe you'd rather the students of 
the 21st century to be studying Mr Ed reruns instead of The Merchant of 
Venice.

    I do like a lot of the quality programming that PBS airs, and the
    relative freedom from crass commercial messages. But. all whining and
    gnashing of teeth aside, they can make up any "small" losses caused
    by being weaned off the federal teat by more commercial sponsorship and 
    fundraising. 
    
    I do not like that tax $$$ are supporting things like Bill Moyers'
    multi-megabuck salary. Something about someone who makes over 70 times
    my salary by being a tax parasite really curdles my cup of milk...
    
    My sister used to work for WGBH way back in the '60s, and yes, she
    confirms about Julia Childs' being a dedicated afficiando of the grape.
    Also that Julia is very tall, and that the studio kitchen was scaled
    to make her look "normal". Also that her cooking was beyond excellent, the
    results of these shows were often enjoyed by the employees.
                                                                          

    
    
    Maybe CPB can hold an annual "Bake Sale"...
    

                <<< Note 260.68 by CSSREG::BROWN "KB1MZ FN42" >>>
                              -< they'll get by >-
    
>    I do not like that tax $$$ are supporting things like Bill Moyers'
>    multi-megabuck salary. Something about someone who makes over 70 times
>    my salary by being a tax parasite really curdles my cup of milk...

Is that so? You mean Bill's getting 100th of the total CPB appropriation?
Wow.

    The fashion of late to divide America into Us and Them worries me.
    The poor, unemployed, welfare and social security recipients are
    "leaching" our economy.  The "snobs" who watch PBS are soaking
    the main stream of American taxpayers.
    
    This is very slippery slope and we should avoid being driving down it
    by politicians looking for free publicity to help their (as yet)
    unconfirmed presidential campaigns. 
    
    The real leaches in our economy, and the ones who should be confronted,
    are the tobacco industry who receive subsidies far and away larger than
    PBS receive, the military who waste more money each year in lost and
    discarded good equipment than welfare pays out, the government itself
    could cut back and not feel one degree of the chill wind of thrift on
    it's bloated rear end.
    
    I am not a snob, and I am not rich, and I pay taxes.  Apart
    from a four of the better quality programs on Network TV, I watch
    PBS all the way.  That is where I want my tax dollars to go.
    
    If the republicians want to institute a fashion of withdrawing financial 
    support for what ever we do not agree with, then I know what I won't be 
    sending money to Washington for--however, it will make my tax return very 
    interesting.
    
    The real leaches in our economy, and the ones who should be confronted,
    are the tobacco industry who receive subsidies far and away larger than
    PBS receive, the military who waste more money each year in lost and 
    discarded good equipment than welfare pays out, the government itself 
    could cut back and not feel one degree of the chill wind of thrift in 
    it's bloated rear end.
    
    

    leeches. NNTTM.

    Bell Atlantic has agreed to replace the entire amount funded to cpb by
    the feds in exchange for access to certian programming.

RE                   <<< Note 260.66 by HUMANE::USMVS::DAVIS >>>

>Here's one for the TTWA: Can any conserv name ANY straight news 
>organization (not a conservative commentary-on-news show) that is NOT 
>liberal? If not, why not? 

  Well it depends. If we are talking about how conservative talk show's
dominate the radio waves then that's because ratings prove that people only
want to listen to the conservative point of view.

  If we are talking about liberal bias in the media, then ratings mean nothing
and there's some sort of left wing conspiracy to control the press.

  In true conservative form, you change the rules of the debate as necessary to
favor your point of view. 

  George

RE: 260.73 by TOOK::BARRETT

> Bell Atlantic has agreed to replace the entire amount funded to cpb by
> the feds in exchange for access to certian programming.

I'm sure Fox would like to buy cpb as well.  Replace that silly yellow bird
with something profitable,  like Power Rangers! (TM)


Phil  

  <<< Note 260.75 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>


>I'm sure Fox would like to buy cpb as well.  Replace that silly yellow bird
>with something profitable,  like Power Rangers! (TM)

Hey! Maybe THAT'S what Newt and Murdock have been talking about! All this 
stuff about giving RM's communications holding an edge in upcoming 
legislation is all a misdirection. Actually, he wants Newt to close down 
CPB so he can buy up Sesame Street and Barney, and get the marketing rights 
to that stuff. $4 mil would be a drop in the bucket!

    $300 million will get you about nine Hollywood movies.
    
    If you assume an hour-long show has an average budget of $750,000, 
    $300 million will get you 400 hours of programming, enough to fill
    prime time for 19 weeks on a single network.

                     <<< Note 260.74 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Well it depends. If we are talking about how conservative talk show's
>dominate the radio waves then that's because ratings prove that people only
>want to listen to the conservative point of view.

>  If we are talking about liberal bias in the media, then ratings mean nothing
>and there's some sort of left wing conspiracy to control the press.

	When dealing with the electronic media, you need to differentiate
	a bit.

	There is little doubt that the 3 major networks display a strong
	liberal bias, primarily throught their new organizations, but you
	can also see it in some of the entertainment programming as well.

	When talking about conservative talk radio you are NOT talking
	about the 3 major networks. None of these neworks sponsor 
	conservative talk radio shows. For the most part these shows
	are syndicated and sold individually to radio stations throughout
	the US.

	So it IS quite possible to have a liberal bias, while still 
	recognizing the fact that the ratings, at the local level, 
	support conservative talk radio.

>  In true conservative form, you change the rules of the debate as necessary to
>favor your point of view. 

	In true liberal form, you refuse to recognize the facts of the debate
	as neccessary to favor your point of view.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 260.78 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	There is little doubt that the 3 major networks display a strong
>	liberal bias, primarily throught their new organizations, but you
>	can also see it in some of the entertainment programming as well.

  Regardless if you are talking about news or entertainment, TV is extremely
sensitive to ratings. If the media does have a liberal bias it's because that's
what people want to hear. 

  To borrow a conservative phrase from the talk show debate, if conservatives
want to have a conservative media, why don't they start their own network? It's
not that hard, both FOX and Paramount have started networks recently. 

  George

    bear in mind that a liberal bias can mean simply refusing to be
    judgmental about others' lifestyle choices.  this is, of course,
    anathema to reichwyngers, who are into "we know what's best for you"
    philosophies.

    Slow down, binder. Conservatives hardly hold a monopoly on "we know
    what's best for you." Many liberal policies are direct implementations
    of gov't knowing best (which it rarely, if ever, does.)

                     <<< Note 260.79 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Regardless if you are talking about news or entertainment, TV is extremely
>sensitive to ratings. If the media does have a liberal bias it's because that's
>what people want to hear. 

	Again you fail to differentiate. There is a vast difference between
	over 1600 individual radio stations and 3 nightly news programs.

	THe fact that the 3 netowrks divy up the news ratings is certainly
	not an indication of the actual popularity of those shows.

Jim

              <<< Note 260.80 by SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare" >>>

>    bear in mind that a liberal bias can mean simply refusing to be
>    judgmental about others' lifestyle choices. 

	Unless, of course, those lifestyle choices would indicate that
	a person may have a less than liberal point of view.

	Gun owners being the example that comes immediately to mind.

Jim

RE    <<< Note 260.82 by SEAPIG::PERCIVAL "I'm the NRA,USPSA/IPSC,NROI-RO" >>>

>	THe fact that the 3 netowrks divy up the news ratings is certainly
>	not an indication of the actual popularity of those shows.

  Almost everyone I talk to including the most conservative people I know
freely admit and even complain about the fact that network TV is driven 100% by
ratings. There was even a movie about this. 

  Are you saying that you don't believe that to be true? Are you saying that
you believe that the networks would deliberately keep a conservative news show
off the air in spite of the fact that it would make money just because of some
network based liberal conspiracy?

  George

    
    The least "overall" bias is surely in print.  Anybody can get
    published, and there are plenty of conservative and liberal papers
    and magazines.  Many papers offer a range of views from all over
    the spectrum, using syndicated columnists who disagree with the
    paper's own tilt.  It would be outrageous for the government to run
    the equivalent of USA today, and nobody suggests it should.
    
    The original argument for public broadcasting was based on the limits
    in broadcasting frequencies.  But new cable technology is flooding us
    with channels.  Some of these do indeed offer conservative viewpoints,
    and CSPAN/CSPAN2/CNN has altered the news landscape.  So the pressure
    in this time of budget austerity is real.
    
    Think a second about the claims of PBS/NPR.  They say that if they
    become more dependent upon commercial revenue, it would affect the
    quality of programming.  Where have we heard this before ?  Every
    monopoly/public utility claims this.  ATT argued that it had to have
    a monopoly or the phone system would fall apart.  The electric
    companies are another example, so is Amtrak.
    
    Yes, PBS/NPR might have to change some to ensure adequate ratings.
    Well, why shouldn't they ?  If there really is an 'elite' viewership
    that wants to see these things, let them pay for them like any other
    channel.  It's like newspapers.
    
      bb

RE: 260.85 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> The original argument for public broadcasting was based on the limits
> in broadcasting frequencies.  But new cable technology is flooding us
> with channels.  

Sorry,  but I'm not in the flood.  I guess I could buy one of the new DBS 
(direct broadcast satellite) sets,  or one of the older big dishes,  but 
I'll wait for the DBS to get cheap first.


Phil

    A quick question for the "I'm the NRA" crowd.
    
    Did the NRA support or oppose the abolishment of the "Fairness Doctrine"
    in 1986.
    
    								-mr. bill

re: .87

What's that got to do with CPB???

Bob

    
    <-------
    
    
    Don't confuse Mr. Bill with the facts Bob....
    

|I don't understand...
|   
|What's that got to do with CPB???
    
    I don't understand what the NRA has to do with CPB either.
    
    But James Warner (Assistant General Council of the NRA) testified
    at the show trial.
    
    
    If ancient history is a problem, what was the NRA position on attempts
    in the 103rd congress to reinstate the fairness doctrine?
    
    								-mr. bill

                                 TESTIMONY
                                    of
                              James H. Warner
                         Assistant General Counsel
                   National Rifle Association of America
                             January 19, 1995

     Some time ago, when a spokesman for NRA called National
Public Radio to complain about a news report in which we believed
that NPR had deliberately misrepresented our views, NPR series
editor Larry Abramson responded, contemptuously, "your p.r. is
your problem."  So be it.  If NPR's misrepresentations of the
views of NRA are  indeed "our problem," our members will endeavor
to fix it.   On behalf of our 3.5 million members, their families
and friends, I am here to ask you to stop using our money to pay
for propaganda which is thinly disguised as news -- news which is
biased, one sided, subjective, and unreliable; news which, when
it comes to reporting on both the NRA and the issue of the
criminal misuse of firearms, is frequently false and unfailingly
flavored with unmasked hostility to law abiding firearms owners.  
     First let me clarify one point.  The NRA has not come here
to speak in favor of censorship.  In fact, I was the recipient of
the 1990 H.L. Mencken Award for the best editorial in the nation
in the previous year in defense of the First Amendment.  I had
written an op-ed piece which was published in the Washington Post
on July 17, 1989, opposing the attempt to amend the Constitution
in order to punish flag burners.  I supported the right of people
to burn our flag, even though I earned two Purple Hearts
defending it.  
     I defended flag burners because I resolutely believe in the
right of every American to speak his mind.  However, this right
has a corollary, which is every bit as sacred: no American should
be compelled to support a creed, or belief, or partisan doctrine
with which he disagrees.  You cannot have one without the other.  
     In 1967 Congress passed the Public Broadcasting Act. 
Taxpayers were told that public broadcasting was needed in order
to provide quality programming that would serve an "unserved or
underserved" market.  By design, the elites gained  control of
this creature from the start, then, once inside the castle, using
the ruse of "insulation from political interference," they pulled
up the drawbridge and left the rest of America outside.  We are
still out here, and they are still inside.  Congress funded it
with our money, but they explicitly protected the recipients from
any need for accountability to us.  
     This lack of accountability leaves several questions
unanswered.  First: why is  public broadcasting  not subject to
the Freedom of  Information Act (FOIA)?  Second: why is there no
public bidding on public broadcasting contracts?  Third: Congress
sets the salaries of those who work for the taxpayers in the
government, but who sets the salaries of those who work for the
public in public broadcasting?  Fourth: why aren't members of
public broadcasting stations, like the members of the NRA,
permitted to vote on the management of their station?  Fifth: why
aren't public broadcasters, like commercial broadcasters,
required to maintain a correspondence file for public inspection? 
Sixth: when a show makes money, like the Civil War series, and
"Sesame Street," where does the money go?  We can't answer any of
these questions because there is no accountability.  In fact,
Ervin Duggan, CEO of the Public Broadcasting System, was openly
contemptuous of accountability when he recently urged that we
take steps to insulate the management of public broadcasting from
". . . the political vagaries and ideological whims of the
appropriations process."
     Public broadcasting represents the political, cultural, and
spiritual values of a tiny minority who think of themselves as
elite and sophisticated.  They think that they are divinely
appointed to enlighten the rest of us.  As they strive to carry
out this mission, on its airways one can see, or hear,  a vast
array of colorful characters: dyspeptic misanthropes telling us
what they don't like about normal Americans; disgruntled victims;
peevish purveyors of assorted reforms, and every other species of
hectoring crank that can possibly be found fighting in the
trenches of the culture war.  Their message is propaganda.  Let
me give you some examples.  
     As a Viet-Nam veteran, I remember the thirteen part series
on the Viet-Nam war.  This series won an award: it was named
"Film of the Year" by the newspaper Quan Doi Nhan Dan.  This is
the newspaper of the enemy North Viet-Namese Army, in case you
wonder  whether the series was biased.  When Accuracy in Media
produced a series to set the record straight, they were resisted
at every turn by public broadcasting.  Many news organizations,
which cherish their reputations for honest reporting,  would
hesitate to be so one sided.   But public broadcasting is unique. 
It is funded, and protected, by the government.  It serves a
peculiar audience which does not seem to place a high premium on
literal accuracy in news reporting. 
     The NRA has experienced this first hand.  In December of
1989 NPR conducted an editorial essay, masked as a "news
feature,"  in support of gun control.  In one broadcast NPR
reporter Nina Totenberg said "(t)here may be a lively debate
about whether the Constitution confers on individuals the right
to bear arms, but that debate is not going on in America's
courts, its law schools, or its scholarly legal journals. 
Indeed, even the National Rifle Association could not recommend
for this broadcast a single constitutional law professor who
would defend the Second Amendment as conferring on individuals
the right to bear arms."
     No debate in America's scholarly legal  journals? An
informal survey of the literature suggests that no less than 28
law journal articles supporting the thesis that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right appeared between 1960 and
1989; this includes the American Bar Association Journal.  No
Constitutional law professors who support this view?  Hardly.  
In December 1989, the very  month in which Miss Totenberg made
this broadcast, University of Texas Professor Sanford Levinson, a
distinguished constitutional scholar,  had published an article
in the Yale Law Review entitled "The Embarrassing Second
Amendment."  In the article, Professor Levinson says that the
right protected (not "conferred", as she would have it), is an
individual right.  So on these counts, at least, she was
demonstrably, flat out, wrong.  Give her the benefit of the
doubt.  Maybe America's premier legal reporter just hadn't
visited a reasonably well equipped law library to review the
Periodical Guide to Legal Literature, or had not seen the Yale
Law Review  when she made the broadcast.
     What about the National Rifle Association and the names of
the legal scholars?  This is a different story.  When asked for
the names of scholars, NRA spokeswoman Debbie Nauser gave Miss
Totenberg the names of three (3) -- count them -- scholars. 
There is no room for doubt here.  In the words of Josiah Royce,
the reporter had "willfully misplaced her ontological
predicates." 
     More recently, the CrimeStrike Division of NRA, following
the murders of several Korean-American merchants in the District
of Columbia, met with a group of these merchants to discuss some
legislation which we had proposed for D.C.  Following this
meeting, during an NPR news magazine and documentary broadcast,
an NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, gave a harangue against
the NRA for having attended the meeting.  She said that we had
gone there to tell Korean merchants that blacks are criminals. 
She said that our initials should stand for the "Negro Removal
Association."  She said that we wanted sixteen year old boys to
carry Uzis because the gun would probably be used to kill a black
person.  
     This is not responsible editorializing, let alone news; it
is vicious libel.  The NRA had been formed in 1871 by former
officers in the Union Army, men who had fought to end slavery. 
The first signature on our charter, and the first president of
NRA,  was Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who had been forced to stand by
and watch the men of  his division slaughtered during the battle
of Sharpsburg, the battle which induced Lincoln to issue the
Emancipation Proclamation.  Gen. Ulysses Grant and Gen. Phil
Sheridan also served as presidents of the NRA.   Unlike any other
social organization in the country in 1871, African Americans
were never excluded from membership in the NRA.  An African
American member of our Board of Directors, after this broadcast,
came to me and told me that as a young boy growing up in the
District of Columbia, the only place he could go, where he was
always welcomed regardless of his race, was a rifle club run by
the NRA.  Civil rights leader Roy Innis is also on our Board of
Directors. In fact, the meeting with Korean American merchants
had been arranged by black NRA members in the District of
Columbia, and one black NRA member participated in the
presentation.  
     We have asked every one of the hundreds of NPR member
stations for an opportunity to give an adequate response to this
scurrilous attack. One, and only one, gave us this right.  This
is an abuse of the public trust.  However, it does serve to help
prove our point.  Public Broadcasting is designed, by those who
run it, to serve as the ever flowing fountain of venom, serving
the insatiable desire of the cultural elites to have someone to
hate.  As America was the arsenal of democracy during two world
wars, public broadcasting serves as the arsenal of dyspepsia in
the culture war.  It is wrong to ask us to pay so that others may
tell the world how much they hate us.
     The original act required balance and fairness, but this was
ignored until 1992.  The congress, fed up with the lack of 
balance and fairness, tried to strengthen this requirement. 
This, too, was ignored.   The message should be clear: public
broadcasting is broken and cannot be fixed.  
     For many years the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
enforced a "Fairness Doctrine" which required broadcasters to
provide balance and fairness on controversial issues.  The FCC
abolished the doctrine in 1986.  It took this step after it had
conducted an extensive study in which it determined that there
were so many broadcast outlets that the variety alone would
assure that diverse points of view would be presented to the
public.
     If the FCC is correct, then the market is no longer
"unserved or underserved."  If that is true, then there is no
longer any need, if there ever was, for public broadcasting.  It
may be that commercial stations won't produce the sort of
programs that public broadcasting produces.  If so, the cultural
elites should  have to dig down a little deeper to support the
culture war,  although they should no longer expect us to
subsidize them from the Federal Treasury, or let them deduct it
from their income taxes. 
     It would be unfair for me to close without noting a
broadcast which I heard last night.  NPR reported on a vote by
the Fresno, California, City Council, on whether to require the
issuance of concealed weapons carry permits to any citizen who is
not disqualified.  The report was straight forward.  There were
no sarcastic intonations by the reporter.  There were no selected
quotes predicting terror in the streets.  In fact, the story was
reported as objectively as one might hope.  There was one minor 
inaccuracy: the reporter said that the passage of the proposal
would have made Fresno the most liberal jurisdiction in the
country in issuing concealed weapons permits.  The fact is, at
least eighteen states are more liberal, and there is one state
that does not restrict the concealed carry  of weapons.  However,
given the tone of the report, I recognize that inadvertent
inaccuracy is not dishonesty.  Frankly, if public broadcasting
had made this change in the manner in which it treats the issue
years ago, if it had started reporting on us without the
hostility and barely masked hatred, we might not be here today. 
There is, after all, nothing more fundamental to our common
American culture than a belief in a second chance, a new
beginning.
     But I am afraid that is now past.  Before the vicious attack
by the NPR commentator, Bebe Moore Campbell, our members asked
why this institution was hostile toward us.  After that incident,
they began asking whether there is room for such a thing in a
constitutional republic.  Information is power.  Congress
recognized this when it created a public institution, then
attempted to insulated it from the influence of elected
officials.  But information is still power, and if that power, in
a public institution, be placed beyond the control of the public,
then this power can be wielded by those who are not accountable
to the public from whom they derive that power.  Power which can
be abused will be abused.  The abuse of this power, by an
institution whose access to public funds makes it unaccountable
in the marketplace, and whose insulation from elected officials
makes it unaccountable in the voting booth, cannot be avoided.  
     A public institution which has no warrant in the
Constitution, and which cannot be prevented from abusing public
power, is an institution which ought not to exist.  If ever there
were a time for public broadcasting, it is past.  On behalf of
3.5 million members of the National Rifle Association, their
families and friends, I ask you to pull the plug.  

                      <<< Note 260.85 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                              -< Times change... >-

>    Think a second about the claims of PBS/NPR.  They say that if they
>    become more dependent upon commercial revenue, it would affect the
>    quality of programming.  Where have we heard this before ?  Every
>    monopoly/public utility claims this.  ATT argued that it had to have
>    a monopoly or the phone system would fall apart.  The electric
>    companies are another example, so is Amtrak.

First you introduce the "flood." Then you stock it with red herrings.
The warnings of doom of telephone companies and utilities are nothing like 
the warnings of advocates of CPB. 

One, clearly protecting its business interest, used the fear of the unknown
(multiple economic interests vying over an integrated system of wires and
cables) to make its case. On the other hand CPB's battles are being fought 
by the public as well as CPB itself, and the threat is proven out by the 
world around us. No unknowns here.

>    Yes, PBS/NPR might have to change some to ensure adequate ratings.

That's what we're afraid of.

>    Well, why shouldn't they ?  If there really is an 'elite' viewership

There isn't. It's another conservative bogieman.

>    that wants to see these things, let them pay for them like any other
>    channel.  It's like newspapers.

And the poor? Those of us without cable?    Who's the elitest?

Tom

    
    RE: .91
    
    And of course Mr. Bill.... there won't be any of the sort of "remarks"
    coming from the "other" side now.. will there?
    
     No scare tactics of any kind? 
    
     No "chilling" evidence of conservative neanderthals coming down on
    your rights?
    

    Who is "the tiny minority who think of themselves as
    elite and sophisticated?"
    
    Number of members - NRA - 3.5 Million (current?)�
    Number of members - PBS - 5.4 Million (FY93)�
        
    								-mr. bill
    -----
    
    � - From TESTIMONY of James h. Warner before the House of
    	Representatives, from the NRA
    	ftp://ftp.nra.org/95-01-21-testimony-re-npr
    � - From the Association of America's
    	Public Television Stations (APTS):
    	http://www.universe.digex.net/~apts/public_in_ptv.html,
    	"Who is the *public* in Public TV?"
    
        							-mr. bill

    
    How many of those 5.4 million members would bail out knowing some of
    those "facts" about how their money is being spent (in part)???
    
    
    If the truth/facts are so blatant, what harm would it do to air what
    the NRA has to say? PBS, CPB, NPR has nothing to be afraid of... right?
    

    
    Actually, I'm one of the 5.4 million.  And I'd zero them out.
    
      bb

                      <<< Note 260.96 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>
                               -< No unanimity. >-

I imagine there's not much unanimity in the NRA on this one either. Not 
every gun owner gets so hot and bothered they want to kill CPB because of
one report and one commentary. 

    
    RE: .97
    
    >one report and one commentary.
    
    
     Shirley you jest!!!
    

	Stop calling me shirley!

	Shirley you knew I'd get this snarf!

     With PBS only getting 13% of their funding from the gummint, isn't all
    this chicken-littlesque "no more Sesame Street and Barney and
    Masterpiece theater, etc" just a little overwrought? 

    
    It sure is.  But you ain't seen nothing yet.  Wait till they get to
    the farmers !  And the military !  We're already seeing it on Welfare.
    
    The sky will fall if we save any money anywhere.  We're for a balanced
    budget in principle.  But we have to keep writing checks...
    
      bb

It's not chicken little to warn against withdrawing all funding for CPB. 
Yeah, fed $ represent a small protion of the total CPB outlay, but it 
provides a crucial guarantee of viability upon which CPB can go out to find 
corporate and foundation underwriters. 

Sure, let CPB feel the pinch, like everyone else. BUt don't kill it.

    
    Is CPB, PBS really as unaccountable as the article suggested??
    
    
    If so, why?
    

 <<< Note 260.104 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>

    
>    Is CPB, PBS really as unaccountable as the article suggested??

No.

    
    
    Then why was it suggested and/or even brought up??
    

    politics.  the usual method of defaming your opponent if you haven't
    got real dirt is to manufacture it.

    
    So I'll ask again....
    
    What has PBS... NPR... CPB... to fear by allowing the opposing views of
    organizations like the NRA?
    
      For that matter, what has CBS, NBC, ABC to fear??
    

    
     Actually, there have recently been signs they are hearing their
    critics.  I suspect they never cared so long as their appropriation
    was safe with the Democratic House of Reps forever.  If they get any
    money, expect a shift in programming.  They can't afford to be a
    political football.  Simple survival will dictate the change.
    
      bb

    .Yeah, fed $ represent a small protion of the total CPB outlay, but it
    .provides a crucial guarantee of viability upon which CPB can go out to
    .find corporate and foundation underwriters.
    
     It seems more likely that they will be able to attract corporate
    sponsors if they are more able to show need... I am quite confident
    that PBS would not suffer substantially were the gov't to defund it.
    Not only would they retain 87% of their funding, but they might a) find
    opportunities to reduce costs and b) find alternative funding sources
    and c) spend what money they have more wisely. If there's a will,
    there's a way. 
    
     It's like Braucher said, everybody's theoretically in favor of
    balancing the budget, but just don't let MY gravy train stop.

    
    PBS and NPR broadcast the NRA testimony.  So, I would presume that they
    have nothing to fear.
    
    In fact, in the December 1994 CPB Today, there is a FRONT PAGE article
    by Berke Breathed (yes, the no more Bloom County soon no more Outland
    guy) where his position is that CPB should be zeroed out.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    > -< re: .108  Are you going to listen this time? >-
    
     As opposed to you not listening????
    
     I'm not talking about that specific instance of "testimony", but the
    allegations contained IN that testimony???

    If they aren't willing to zero out the famers, the tobacco
    industry and areas of the defense department when necessary,
    if they aren't willing to take a salary freeze and lay off
    unnecessary government workers, then all zeroing out CPB
    would be is a waving of the arms which they think will
    fool the American people.  I, for one, am not buying.
    Cut the funding if you must, don't zero it out.  Or better
    yet, cut some real money first, and work your way down.
    This is a Republican vendetta from all appearances, and
    I'm not real impressed with what I've seen so far out
    of this "new majority".
    
    Mary-Michael

          <<< Note 260.110 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     It seems more likely that they will be able to attract corporate
>    sponsors if they are more able to show need... I am quite confident
>    that PBS would not suffer substantially were the gov't to defund it.

If someone approached you for half a million bucks to fund a two-year 
project like "Civil War" would you be more or less likely to shell out the 
money if the future of the enterprise was uncertain? And if you pull out 
and another company pulls out, how comfortable will that make other 
potential underwriters?

>    Not only would they retain 87% of their funding, but they might a) find
>    opportunities to reduce costs and b) find alternative funding sources
>    and c) spend what money they have more wisely. If there's a will,
>    there's a way. 

If you look at the numbers, CPB does more with a whole lot less than the 
for-profit networks. Regardless, all those things ou suggest could be
accomplished, perhaps, if spending is trimmed. But cut them off altogether,
and a whole new dynamic comes into play. 

    .I'm not real impressed with what I've seen so far out
    .of this "new majority".
    
     Well, as they aren't democrats, it's unlikely you'll ever like them.

    RE: .114
    
    So you're saying that it's the governments job to fund any/all
    "uncertain enterprises"?

The loss of 15% of the CPB budget that comes from the Feds will not be
a fatal wound no matter how you cut it. The CPB can easily come up with
creative ways to recoup their loss, including national fundraisers with
something better to offer than the local auctions. (Come to think of it,
most PBS stations are off the air from around 1AM to 5AM daily - they
could start running SiKick Friends Network crap in the idle time . . . )

"Scaring off" the corporate sponsors is possible, but unlikely, given the
fact that they (the   "       "     ) can (and will) be replaced with others.
This can turn out to be a valuable growth lesson for the CPB if they play
it right, especially insofar as it can allow them to detach themselves from
the Feds.

It's not a matter of it being a piddling savings. It's not a matter of
it being a damage to a worthy cause. It's a matter of starting someplace
and continuing to keep moving.

I'll be happy to up my annual donations to both Channels 2 and 11 by
another $50 per year or so if the Feds zero this out. That should be
enough to shut up about ninety of you whiners.

    I agree with the base noter, that the Corporation for Public
    Broadcasting has been singled out for a show-trial dismemberment.
    
    This is incredibly sad. Sometimes America goes too far in her
    bedazzlement with free enterprise and becomes blind to such brilliant
    examples of enlightenment such as the programming available to all,
    whether they can afford to contribute or not, that is available on the
    PBS channels around the country.
    
    The sheer availability of non-commercial programming, such as
    educational children's shows during the day, and culture such as opera
    and the arts, theatre and quality productions such as Cadfael and I,
    Claudius, Rumpole of the Bailey, Sherlock Holmes and many others, is
    never going to be paraelled on commercial TV, or even cable.
    
    Those who have no need or interest in such programming, unfortunately,
    are in the majority and the masses will have their way...
    
                                              ...but it will be a great
    loss that will only become apparent in a few years when entertainment
    becomes more and more crass and advertisers refuse to subscribe to TV
    time during shows that do not draw large ratings.
    
    Thus, we will see a general degeneration in quality and diversity, and
    more Fresh Prince, Roseanne and other sit-com material.
    
    Very, very sad.

    Yes... we certainly can't have those "masses" having their way!
    
    Can we?
    

    Actually, most of what's on PBS is pretty Main Street and middlebrow
    rather than elitist high-brow stuff, which is why it has more than a
    tiny constituency.
    
    Just think about the history stuff, for example -- vast numbers of
    people probably got a pretty good high-school or Freshman college
    survey of the Civil War or FDR or the history of baseball.  
    
    Same with the science shows. And the music tends toward big-name
    concerts of old standards rather than much ahtsty and unusua music.
    
    Which is why the Repubs will probably not succeed in this somewhat
    misplaced battle in their carefully plotted vision of class warfare as
    the ticket to political success (though I think they'll probably win
    the war, at least for the near future).
    
    Kit   

    	There are some good shows on PBS, I'm sure.
    
    	However, I think most if not all the shows that people watch on PBS
    (such as Barney, Sesame Street, Nova) will be picked up by the networks
    because THEY ARE WATCHED.
    
    ME

    Well, I've read all 121 replies here just to see if the wise folks out
    East knew something that us unsophisticad folk here in Minnesota
    don't...  
    
    From here it looks real simple - the "Newt" and his cronies cobbled up
    "the CONTRACT".  On which they carefully picked WHICH "liberal"
    programs to attempt to destroy.  Naturally, since public broadcasting
    doesn't agree with the "Newt" and his cronies, this made a very good
    victim for the initial republican vendetta - as carried out in the
    show-trial in kangaroo court.  
    
    BUT, since the "Newt" and his pals AREN'T doing it as a vendetta -
    "It's just an area that GOVERNMENT has no business in" perhaps there
    are some OTHER areas that are COSTING A HELL OF A LOT MORE that
    GOVERNMENT shouldn't be in?  LETS SAVE SOME REAL MONEY - How much does
    it cost for FARM SUBSIDIES of ALL types - and lets ADD IN THE COST TO
    THE GOVERNMENT FOR ILLNESSES CAUSED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF USING SOME OF
    THOSE SUBSIDISED PRODUCTS...
    
    So, take every reply here that states that we should "JUST ZERO THEM
    OUT" and substitute tobacco, corporate, ag-giant, family, and every
    other farm type for CPB...  Because I'm CERTAIN that all you FINE,
    RIGHT-THINKING, REAL, CONSERVATIVE 'MURICANS who think PBS is elitest
    and worthless AREN'T wanting it zeroed for anything but the MOST
    ALTRUISTIC reasons - "It's just an area that GOVERNMENT has no business
    in", and would be EAGER to jump onto the wagon to zero out all these
    other areas.  To paraphrase some earlier replies "Its a capitalist
    society, if they can't survive without a government teat then perhaps
    they should cease to exist."   I can't believe Jesse Helms WOULDN'T
    TRUMPET THAT TO THE HOUSETOPS!  What a hero - saving the country a
    fortune (A HELL of a lot more than $270M that CPB is costing), and
    those other newly elected conservatives would CERTAINLY want to join
    right in - even those from farm states, and CERTAINLY those from
    tobacco growing states...  Right?  'Cause ITS NOT PERSONAL, "It's just
    an area that GOVERNMENT has no business in."
    
    And while we're at it, perhaps there are OTHER businesses GOVERNMENT
    shouldn't be in...  Of course businesses can do a MUCH more efficient
    job of protecting the environment, right?  So lets get rid of the EPA. 
    And of course, NOONE has any higher interest in a safe workplace than
    corporations, so lets get rid of OSHA.  Private companies will, of
    course, NEVER pollute and destroy more if there's no oversight, and
    they'll CERTAINLY not allow the workplace to become less safe if
    there's noone to make sure they don't.  Right?  Yeah, we'd NEVER return
    to the practices of earlier decades when people were routinely maimed,
    crippled, killed, made ill, or died earlier than necessary because of
    unsafe business practices...  Nah, couldn't happen, 'cause business
    owners (those fine conservatives giving the "Newt" his slush money) are
    all clean-living, right-thinking REAL 'muricans who don't need anybody
    looking over their shoulders to take care of their workers or their
    environment.  Right?
    
    The whole CPB thing is complete and utter crap.  The "Newt" and the
    boys are just going after what they hate as the "most liberal" area of
    the elitest media, and it wouldn't make a damn bit if difference if it
    was $200 M or $200.  Its a pure witchhunt.

    
    <--------
    
    Nice rhetoric...
    
    >witchhunt
    >cronies
    >to attempt to destroy
    >victim
    >republican vendetta
    >kangaroo court.
    >his pals
    
    
      Anymore venom left???
    
      Absolute level headed and logical response there...
    
    
     Welcome.... 

    
    
    And why do you find it necessary to to put quotations around Newt's
    name?  We heard all about you and your ilk up there in minnie soda so
    your posting surprises me none.......
    
    
    Mike

     I guess the moral of the story is that we can't make any cuts at all
    until we all agree to the biggest cuts. And if we can't agree, why,
    then, the hell with our children and grandchildren.

RE: 260.125 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> I guess the moral of the story is that we can't make any cuts at all
> until we all agree to the biggest cuts. And if we can't agree, why,
> then, the hell with our children and grandchildren.

If we don't agree to rationalize Social Security,  Medicare and Medicare, 
all other cuts will be filed under "too little,  too late".


Phil

     Agreed, but rationalizing those programs won't happen in a week.
    Meanwhile we continue to spend money we don't have. There's nothing
    wrong with taking baby steps before we start running.

    re .123:
    
    Yes, the terms were rhetoric.  And EVERY one was selected deliberately
    as having been used in this notesfile or by the bombastice CHAMPION of
    the conservative way to categorize something evil and liberal in some
    context...  I find it astonishing that the very people who have
    screamed hypocrisy for so long have resorted to behavior every bit as
    high-handed, tawdry and hypocritical as those they've decried for so
    long...  Or does anyone REALLY want to defend this choice of CPB as the
    BEST choice of places to start "saving" money by destroying
    "unnecessary" programs.  Or that the places where the REALLY big money
    is going will follow immediately and come under the same scrutiny?  And
    be elevated to the same show-trial status?  
    
    This is the equivalent of Digital telling you you can't buy Post-Its
    while top management continues to get fat raises, and you can't get to
    training while they take multi-million dollar junkets to "meetings". 
    Or do all the folks that think killing CPB is a great idea think
    there's no problem with management tactics here either?
    
    Does anyone REALLY believe the effort to destroy CPB is a RANDOMLY
    SELECTED choice, and simply the first of many?  Or that there will be a
    REAL, CONCERTED effort to do something about the other "businesses
    government just shouldn't be in" when they're lining the pockets of the
    people in charge...  

    
      We're out of money.  I picture you as someone with their remote
     stuck on PBS, having a tantrum over the proposed budget cut.
    
      If you think this is the only proposed budget cut, you are mistaken.
     Contrary to this assertion, agricultural subsidies and defense have
     both taken massive cuts recently, and neither has any more hope of
     balancing the budget (any more than cuts at PBS).  Nevertheless,
     frugality is the only cure for profligacy.  Try paying for what you
     use.  The only item big enough to have effects on the order of our
     debt is your healtchcare and retirement.  It should be cut also.
    
      If you hadn't elected drunken sailors for 40 years to run your
     treasury, you wouldn't be a pauper now.
    
      bb

    >Does anyone REALLY believe the effort to destroy CPB is a RANDOMLY
    >SELECTED choice
    
     Nobody is trying to "destroy" the CPB. The CPB has consistently funded
    programs which have more or less been attacks on the minority party of
    congress, using public money, and have enjoyed a continuing stream of
    funding while their boys held the purse strings. Now that their boys
    have been ousted, they ought to EXPECT that their years of attacks will
    have consequences, and they are fools to think otherwise. So, no, this
    isn't randomly selected. But when you are a festering wound, you can
    expect attention when the surgeon grabs the scalpel. Tough noogies.
    
     All this is aside from the fact that if the CPB got their fair share
    from Sesame Street and Barney, they'd be in the black as a private
    concern... Sesame Street and licensed products grossed over $1B last
    year. Barney & Barney products, around $800M. But you don't mind thise
    pockets being lined (while the government continues to funnel money to
    the CPB...)

>     Nobody is trying to "destroy" the CPB. The CPB has consistently funded
>    programs which have more or less been attacks on the minority party of
>    congress, using public money, and have enjoyed a continuing stream of
>    funding while their boys held the purse strings. Now that their boys

I don't even think its a retalitory thing. The CPB was started in the 60's 
with the aid of government funding ....

The government invested in a project for the benefit of the public. That 
investment has paid off and the CPB is (has been) strong enough to stand on 
its own and it should. 

These never ending government projects should stop, all projects should have
a time limit placed on them up front.

The CPB will do fine without federal funding ...

RE: 260.127 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

Interest on about 40 days of excess Social Security,  Medicaid and Medicare
would fund CPB forever.  

CPB is a political hit.  Not an attempt to balance the budget.


Phil

     You could say that about any single cut. Taken in aggregate,
    however...

    
    public television's "frontline" profiles rush limbaugh tonight at
    21:00.  
    

RE: 260.133 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice"

> You could say that about any single cut. Taken in aggregate,  however...

it's petty cash.  Post-its and toner for printers at DEC.  It's painting the
Titanic.

It's a way to claim "We were trying to cut the budget".  Without trying to
cut the budget,  which requires cutting Social Security,  Medicare and/or 
Medicaid.


Phil

>it's petty cash.  Post-its and toner for printers at DEC.  It's painting the
>Titanic.

This is the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place !!!

In 4 years that 1.2 BILLION!!!

Doug.

    That Frontline thing was a hoot.
    
    While conservative, I hardly ever listen to Rush. But this attack was
    so transparent, it was a poster-child for everything the conservatives
    say about CPB. Funding a little TIIIIIIIIIGHT people?
    
    -b

    Brian, how was it an attack?  I saw interviews with evyl reicht wyng
    party apparatchiks and pouting left wyng losers.  I thought the portrayal 
    to be more a commnetary on how the balance of power can be shifted by
    skillful mastery of the media rather than an attack on Rush.  
    
    Brian

    It was an attack in that it repeatedly tried to paint the previous
    election results, as you put it, "skillful mastery of the media",
    instead of having anything to do with people. God forbid, anyone
    should have a brain and be able to think for themselves. No, if
    the electorate turned on the liberals it had to be Rush's fault.
    
    -b

    
    I saw the Frontline piece too.  At least one poignant (and true, imo)
    comment the reporter made was that politicians did not make Rush
    Limbaugh, his audience did.  Then politicians followed.  He contrasted
    this fact with the idea that the liberal political establishment
    believe they can counter Limbaugh with a similar voice on the airwaves. 
    In other words, the liberals can't hope to succeed in countering
    Limbaugh's unique influence since no liberal non-politician has
    established anything resembling the national grass roots which vaulted 
    Limbaugh to his position. The phenomenon of Limbaugh's popularity
    cannot be planned or manufactured by a political establishment or
    means.
    
    Another observation was Limbaugh's obvious discomfort at the '94
    election results party (Empower America hosted, I believe).  The
    reporter stated that he did not seem to be comfortable among his most
    thankful fans (the politicians).  He appeared uncomfortable to me in
    the scenes shown of the bash.  I think I understand why and would
    probably share his discomfort.
    
    jeff  

    I guess I did not view it as being Rush's fault per se that the repubs 
    won quite handily.  I do believe he has been dubbed the champion of the
    republican way of life somewhat to even his dismay as Jeff pointed out
    and given the credit for the reults.  It goes both ways now.  If a
    reversal takes place, he may be in a position to be blamed as the
    scapegoat as well.  I found the piece to be remarkable but predictable.
    The conservatives rally around the liberals rail against him.  It will
    be interesting to see whether or not he holds his promise to keep the
    conservatives honest by calling to light the impending improprieties I
    expect to see come to light in the future from both sides.  
    
    Brian

    why was Rush afraid to be interviewed for the piece?  He knows when
    he doesn't have control (like on Letterman last year) he's dead meat.
    
    DougO

>    why was Rush afraid to be interviewed for the piece?  He knows when
>    he doesn't have control (like on Letterman last year) he's dead meat.

Who said he was afraid??? He doesn't do interviews often at all... I can
count on my 1 hand how many interviews he's done in the last few years...
	1) Barbara Walters 10 most interesting people
	2) Letterman
	3) Leno (in which, not only was he not dead meat, he was also a huge
           success on that show)

I can't think of any others...

But of course, in the last fews years, tons of reports/stories have been
done about him... as he said, you get move coverage if you don't make your
self available to everyone. It looks like it works...

/scott

    
    
>    I saw the piece as a hatchet job on Rush. Bagala's comments especially.
    
    I didn't think it was a hatchet job at all.  IMO it gave credit to Rush
    for tapping into the feelings of a large segment of the population and
    the the Republicans (Newt included) for leveraging that position. 
    Frankly Begala came across like my 2-year old after we tell him he
    can't have any more cookies ... he did nothing for liberals with his
    whining IMO.
    
    Greg (the liberal who thinks more of Rush and Newt after this program)
    

    <---- sort of my sentiments also.  I would have been disappointed if
    there wasn't any balance.  Regardless of what the motivation is for his
    posturing, he was quite effective in getting a message out that many
    folks seem to agree with.  I did not come away with a negative feeling
    towards Rush at all.  I am still firmly on the fence :-).  I found the 
    piece to be interesting nad did not view it as an attack on Rush.  I 
    wonder how Rush viewed it?
    
    Brian

    Who's nad?

And where did nad go? 

RE: 260.136 by BRITE::FYFE "Never tell a dragon your real name."

PH> it's petty cash.  Post-its and toner for printers at DEC.  It's painting
PH> the Titanic.

> This is the attitude that got us in this mess in the first place !!!
> 
> In 4 years that 1.2 BILLION!!!

In 4 years,  the total deficit will be about $1 trillion,  mainly due to 
out of control entitlements:  Social Security,  Medicare and Medicaid 
spending.  Failure to address the out of control entitlements will mean
that the Republicans will fail to reduce the deficit.


Phil

>      We're out of money.  I picture you as someone with their remote
>     stuck on PBS, having a tantrum over the proposed budget cut.
    
    You can picture me any way you want, but in this case you're wrong.  It
    isn't the tantrum over the budget cut, its the hypocrisy of INSISTING
    that there's no agenda to deliberately attack something perceived as a
    "liberal" program that I find interesting.  Why not just admit that the
    "contract on America" is nothing more than payback...
    
>      If you think this is the only proposed budget cut, you are mistaken.
>     Contrary to this assertion, agricultural subsidies and defense have
>     both taken massive cuts recently, and neither has any more hope of
>     balancing the budget (any more than cuts at PBS).  
    
    So, there's been the SAME level of ACTIVITY AND INTEREST in ZEROING OUT
    all these subsidies as there's been in the CPB?  WHAT PERCENTAGE of ag
    subsidies has been cut?  If they aren't AT ZERO then come back to the
    CPB when they are...  And when there's adequate oversight so the
    military is down at True Value for their hammers and K-mart for their
    toilet seats like the rest of us...  How did that go -  
    
    		"frugality is the only cure for profligacy."

I'm aware of the scope of the problem. I know where the problems are.
(However, elliminate 199 more items such as this and the deficit for
the fifth year is eliminated)

But the recent notes of CPB being a political target miss the point
entirely. 

Some might argue that the CPB funding should not be cut specifically because
it is a political target. Forget that crap.

Let the funding of CPB be judges on its own merits. Just because the repubs
are the folks that brought this little gem to the chopping block is no reason
why it should not be chopped.

I'd like to know what justification there might be for CONTINUING funding of 
the CPB and start from there.

Doug.

    Heard on the news this morn (WBZ) that Mr. Newt was supoporting the 
    Atlanta PBS station, giving them a $10K donation, and encouraging
    viewers to support their favorite PBS stations. He just wants to wean 
    CPB off the federal teat, not destroy them.

re: .-1

I saw some coverage on that yesterday. The media idiot covering the story
had a line to the effect that Newt was "sending confusing messages" by
privately supporting what he wanted the government to stop funding.

Some people just aren't very bright. It's really too bad when they also
hold positions which allow them to pass on their ignorance to others.

    -.1 and that's the truth.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 260.155 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| -.1 and that's the truth.

	Well actually, you've been asked to answer the question in the Truth
topic, but you so far have refused. I wanna see Jack's last sentence in .154
come true when you reply.

    
    <-- (I'm waiting for the Edith Ann 8^pppPpPPpPPpPpPpppppPPPPpP.)
        

 Geesh, Glen, give it a rest already

| <<< Note 260.158 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Geesh, Glen, give it a rest already

	Well, it has been 42 minutes so far.... is that long enough?