No More PBS?

http://www.businessinsider.com/cpb-npr-pbs-federal-budget-funding-2017-3

Affects NPR as well. I think it emboldens Trump's idea that the media and now culture should be run by billionaires and not by the government.

"Who Wins and Loses in Trump’s Proposed Budget"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal.html

"The proposal would also eliminate funding for nearly 20 smaller independent agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation, which finances legal aid groups."

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

Yes, they do.

http://wskg.org/

http://www.prairiepublic.org/

http://www.sdpb.org/home/

http://www.mpbonline.org/

etc.

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

Agree, Rose. When we go to West Virginia, everyone has a "cute" comment on people with no teeth and having sex with a cousin.

have you ever, for a second, wondered or cared, that the pre-eminent broadcast network in the world is government funded/hands-off BBC?

For a second. Did it ever cross your mind?

Ever?

Gilgul said:

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

? Well perhaps you should thank your own education system then? I just love it when folks both tell everyone how "others" voted and evidently change said person's votes for online discussions too.

Red_Barchetta said:

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/CompassRose">CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent! maplewood.worldwebs.com="" assets="" images="" smileys="" 21.gif"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/assets/images/smileys/21.gif" width="" height="" alt="oh oh">

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" apple44"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/apple44">apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.

Thank you CompassRose for highlighting, yet again, the foul elitism exhibited by some members of our community. Sadly, I don't think you will reach these elitists, but you have to keep trying.

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

Here's a clever turn from a childhood bud who spent his career in TV Criticism: http://likethedew.com/2017/03/17/the-pbs-armed-services-telethon/#.WM0ssVUrIgB

We can pretend that states like West Virginia are populated by people similar to us, but their recent voting behavior begs to say otherwise. It is a different place. And a somewhat sad one.

They went for Trump by almost 70%. Imagine living in a place where 3 out of every 4 people was a Trump voter. Sounds like a damn hellhole to me.

They are voting themselves into the 19th century, in a myriad of ways. This is not something to be admired. You can admire individuals anyway you want, but as a group they're a problem.

As for PBS, yes, there is some viewership in rural areas, but again, let's not pretend that rural support for PBS is anything like the support one finds in urban areas.

PBS viewership happens to be the "elite", for want of a better term. The elite do not live in rural America, by definition.

Here's some data. Look at where the light blue areas are - those are the areas with the highest likelihood that people will contribute to PBS. Every one of those light blue areas is in an urban area. Every one.

http://www.pamallison.com/2012/10/31/pbs/

PBS voters on average are wealthier, more liberal and more educated than average. Again - these are characteristics of urban areas, not rural ones.

I'd respond to CompassRose, except I don't have a clue what their point is here.

What should we thank our education system for? What does the next sentence mean?

CompassRose said:

? Well perhaps you should thank your own education system then? I just love it when folks both tell everyone how "others" voted and evidently change said person's votes for online discussions too.

Red_Barchetta said:

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.

the whole conversation is absurd. Rural America is the reason PBS is on the chopping block. They're the ones who vote in the clowns who want to get rid of it. It's they who have declared war on us, not the other way around.

So stop defending them. As a voting group, they SUCK. Deal with it.

not everyone in the affected areas voted for Trump. Even in places like Idaho or Alabama, about a third of the voters chose Clinton. Even more didn't vote at all. It's probably easier to feel sympathy for the people who are being effectively screwed over by their neighbors.

Red_Barchetta said:

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.

not sure of the point of telling us that "not everyone" voted for Trump. No one is claiming otherwise.

But there is a huge difference between an area that went 3 to 1 for Trump, and a place that went 1 for 3 for Trump. I would not want to live in the former area, at all.

ml1 said:

not everyone in the affected areas voted for Trump. Even in places like Idaho or Alabama, about a third of the voters chose Clinton. Even more didn't vote at all. It's probably easier to feel sympathy for the people who are being effectively screwed over by their neighbors.

Red_Barchetta said:

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.

The longer urban elites insist on characterizing rural and small-town Americans as a bunch of ignorant racists, the longer it will take to regain political power.

Be careful with phrases like "these people". That is stereotyping, the same as "these people" referring to black people or Jews, etc. Some rural people would enjoy the more informative shows of public broadcasting. There is also the possibility of dropping in on a program that might pique some interest. I know for me personally, I do not always intend on watching a PBS show, but find the show compelling, and learn something despite myself.

Gilgul said:

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

You're such a mean-spirited, black-hearted person, I don't know where to start. In 2012, public television and radio stations like PBS and NPR got just $445 million from the government in 2012—or about 0.014 percent of the federal budget. Cutting these programs will have no effect on the federal budget but will make life a little less interesting for a lot of people.

And the longer you keep on claiming that elites are calling them "ignorant racists", when they're not ...

tjohn said:

The longer urban elites insist on characterizing rural and small-town Americans as a bunch of ignorant racists, the longer it will take to regain political power.

Yes, I actually thought of that as I was typing it. My point was it would be surprising to me if PBS viewership is high in rural areas, but I'd love to be wrong on that. I just don't see how someone watches Frontline, Great Performances and Charlie Rose all week, and then decides that Trump would be a good choice for president. I suppose it's possible.

gerryl said:

Be careful with phrases like "these people".

Somebody unfamiliar with the red state-blue state discussion might think that 100% of red state voters voted for Trump and 100% of blue state voters voted for HRC. Many states were in the 60%-40% range.

apple44 said:

Yes, I actually thought of that as I was typing it. My point was it would be surprising to me if PBS viewership is high in rural areas, but I'd love to be wrong on that. I just don't see how someone watches Frontline, Great Performances and Charlie Rose all week, and then decides that Trump would be a good choice for president. I suppose it's possible.

gerryl said:

Be careful with phrases like "these people".

Gilgul said:

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

Spoken like a relatively well-off person living in a comfortable suburb in a major metropolitan area.

There are other people who don't share all those characteristics. They might not have all the toys one needs to enjoy "unlimited streaming options". Their public broadcasting outlets might not have the fundraising capability that those in the NYC area have. Their cultural organizations won't get the additional notice that the relatively small NEH and NEA grants give them, which in turn generates more private funding.

It's not admirable to write in the abstract, with little reference to actual facts, in dismissing these programs with the contempt exhibited in the quoted post.

tjohn said:

Gilgul said:

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

You're such a mean-spirited, black-hearted person, I don't know where to start. In 2012, public television and radio stations like PBS and NPR got just $445 million from the government in 2012—or about 0.014 percent of the federal budget. Cutting these programs will have no effect on the federal budget but will make life a little less interesting for a lot of people.

A penny saved is a penny earned. Cuts to meals on wheels or student lunches are wrong. But eliminating CPB and arts funding is eliminating things government should not be involved in.

It is making an issue of things people do not care about that has caused the left to be marginalized.

er, in fact it's people like you who are making issues of things people don't care about. Funding these things was never an issue until the right started using it as an anti-intellectual wedge.

Gilgul said:

tjohn said:

Gilgul said:

These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.

You're such a mean-spirited, black-hearted person, I don't know where to start. In 2012, public television and radio stations like PBS and NPR got just $445 million from the government in 2012—or about 0.014 percent of the federal budget. Cutting these programs will have no effect on the federal budget but will make life a little less interesting for a lot of people.

A penny saved is a penny earned. Cuts to meals on wheels or student lunches are wrong. But eliminating CPB and arts funding is eliminating things government should not be involved in.

It is making an issue of things people do not care about that has caused the left to be marginalized.

I'm not sure what you mean about education. Perhaps you're saying the voters I am referencing can't read? That sounds stereotypical and elitist. It wasn't necessary to make an in-depth study of these two candidates to understand which of them would be better for working class people.

CompassRose said:

? Well perhaps you should thank your own education system then? I just love it when folks both tell everyone how "others" voted and evidently change said person's votes for online discussions too.

Red_Barchetta said:

CompassRose said:

This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!

I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?

apple44 said:

Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?

I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.

gilgul,

I could see from your point of view how these cuts would be good, but only if they were a part of real cuts. Since massive corporate welfare and oil subsidies won't be touched, and taxes on the wealthy will be cut, these are just cheap politically motivated cuts. It is not part of a real effort to either reduce spending or the reach of the federal government.