Help Save PBS and NPR

The House of Representatives just released their budget proposal, and it zeroes out funding for both NPR and PBS—the worst proposal in more than a decade.

These two media organizations offer programming for everyone. They help to not only educate us but to entertain us with intelligent programming—and that includes numerous travel oriented programs.

Help to tell the current House of Representative leadership that cutting off funding was unacceptable the last time they were in charge, and it’s unacceptable now.

I signed a petition to save NPR and PBS. Can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/nprpbs/?r_by=-18656263-6fwS2Vx&rc=confemail

(Frank II)

Update on February 13, 2011 by Frank@OBOW

I posted this because I’m a believer in the free flow of information from all sides and want to preserve it.

Sadly, the comments took a turn toward argumentative, of which I will take some of the blame.

So, I”ve decided to turn off all comments.

If you are in agreement with the petition, please feel free to sign it. If this infuriates you, I apologize.

Comments

[Edward]

What does this have to do with one bag travel? Anyway, their funding NEEDS to be zeroed. What don't you get about the fact that WE'RE BROKE? Would you rather Sesame Street get it's funding pulled or Medicare?

[Paula S]

They run a lot of Rick Steves travel shows. He is a one bagger.
They run some beautiful travel programs, we travel don't we?
I am a big fan of PBS and donate money to keep them going and I am in Canada. I hate watching commerical channels, they annoy me beyond belief.
I'll sign if it accepts me.
If this does happen, hopefully they can up the membership drive and get more people on board.

[Paula S]

Nope, can't do it but I posted it on Facebook to all my American friends.

[fanostra]

Nope. While I do enjoy some of the programming quite a bit, if it is truly valued and delivering upon consumer demands it should have no problem standing on its own without taxpayer subsidy.

[Dan]

The way the management of NPR fired Juan Williams for appearing
regularly on Fox network was totally inappropriate.
Maybe the NPR management needs to changed before they receive funding.

[Frank II]

The exec who fired Juan Williams resigned last month.

I know of six different travel series that are broadcast between PBS and NPR. Even the Travel Channel has become more about gluttony than travel.

Do you mean no one here got help planning overseas trips by watching Rick Steves or Rudy Maxa? Or that after watching Ken Burns' National Park documentary series you didn't want to go visit the natural wonders of this country? Or one of the major history specials didn't have you itching to go there yourself? Of perhaps one of the many food programs had you itchin to try the dishes firsthand?

Are we that afraid to spend a few pennies to possibly learn something new or are we destined to see our nation become dumber and dumber?

But, if you are truly against these two media outlets because you think they cost too much keep this in mind.....are you also complaining about the billions we spend building shopping malls in Iraq?

[GvdM]

I donate regularly to PBS as I do enjoy the programming. Now for the "but". It should not be subsidized. People who benefit should foot the bill, not the government.The US government spends too much money and is in a huge hole. At the moment they need to cut out any non-essential spending If they do not do that they are not operating in the best interests of the people and have become a detriment and need to be replaced.

[Monte]

Frank, Thanks for putting this up. I signed. By not having some funding for PBS & NPR our slide to third world status will increase in velocity. We watch some of their programming every day. In our area some of the programming crosses the Canadian border to as far north as Edmonton so it is not only doing some intellectual good in USA, but in Canada as well.

The issue of the country being broke was not brought about by public broadcasting, but by the political administration that is not in the White House now. Their cuts to governmental programs and two wars set this country back fifty years, and we are just beginning to make progress towards getting back on track.

I could go on and on about this but suffice it to say I am glad to support NPR & PBS. Later today we are going to a political rally to protest cuts in Idaho's Medicaid funding by our knuckle dragging governor and his folly following friends.

[David]

If the country weren't broke, and if NPR and PBS were not so blatantly political on many of their shows and actions, it might be different. As it stands, though, the country *is* broke and they *have* departed widely from any concept of "public" approach--too much of an agenda too much of the time. Let them be fully responsible and raise their own money.

As for commercials being "irritating"--so are their endless fund drives. Which is worse depends upon the eye of the beholder, I guess.

[Betsey]

----As for commercials being "irritating"--so are their endless fund drives.---

I started donating to PBS in my early 20s. I remember my station showing a graphic with federal dollars at 2/3 of their dollars and 1/3 from me/us. Today, I see graphics of 1/3 from federal and 2/3 from me/us. If fund drives at 2/3 are annoying, I will really hate the 100% funding from local sources.

If I hadn't had PBS as a child/teen, I'd have no Big Bird, Mr Rogers (the "awww" crew), but also no Tom Baker/Doctor Who, the travel shows, or Julia Child! Neither would I have had NOVA and Nature, things that prompted my curiosity. Would I have realized what a wasteland my TV time was without all that, only have having had it and being able to look back. It truly is too bare a wasteland to consider. When a community is too poor to fully fund an alternative to commercialized mass media, some federal tax dollars really are necessary.

I am sending e-mails to my state's two senators and my House rep.

[Jobo]

If you want PBS/NPR funded, YOU pay for it! They're too agenda based and socialist/Green/Progressive. Everything is slanted in those directions. Just because they have a couple of travel programs is no excuse for the millions they receive. If the programs are good enough and popular enough, they'll get picked up by other channels and sponsors.

the government has it's own media channels already: it's called the Emergency Broadcast System.

[Frank]

I signed. We support our local stations as well.

The so called commercial cultural channels like Bravo and A&E have mostly degenerated to the normal commercial crapola. Also, I have found no other source for reasoned in depth news programming that, contrary to claims of some, does present all sides of the issues.

Funding for NPR, PBS and the arts amounts to chump change in the total Federal budget.

[Betsey]

Well, they don't make it easy .. had to fill out forms to send an e-mail, but if one is truly interested, you take the time.

Hmm, guess this goes if you do or do Not favor the slashing. Coming back to update, it's easy to see the spread in interest/disinterest.

It also sounds silly to defend TV time, and I forgot to mention in my e-mails that I truly am also an inveterate reader, so I'm not a total TV couch potato. I just hate the thought of not having the chance to share my favorite PBS shows with my son and possibly future grandchildren. Actually, my son never really liked Sesame Street, but he did enjoy all the animal shows, Kratt's Creatures, and Are You Being Served (risque commentary going over his head at that time .. he laughs even more now as an adult :-)

I refuse to pay for local programming or ever a cable subscription (some company's fat bottom line, pah!). I do help pay for PBS .. Twice! .. I send much more from personal funds than ever in taxes, though. It's a good thing, and it's worth keeping.

[Ed]

Sorry can not support this one. It is time for the USA to learn to live on a budget; zero them out if that is what it takes.

Ed

[stevenshytle]

We all agreed to live by the rules. If we do not like the rules we peacefully act to get the rules changed. The biding agreement from which all other rules must flow is the Constitution. Where does the federal government get the authority to fund anything like PBS? Support the cut, not because PBS is bad, but because it is simply not Constitutional.

[Frank II]

Unconstitutional? Would you please show me where in the Constitution it says what the government can't legally spend money on?

The whole idea behind public television and radio is to bring programming free of commercialism. Programming that may not be as popular at what's found on commercial TV but that's the point--it offers alternatives.

The same goes for its news coverage. I agree that some of it leans quite a bit to the left. But shouldn't a free, intelligent society be able to hear all sides and in fact insist on it?

Do people really believe that Big Bird is some pinko brainwashing our children? Or that the Science and Nature programming is out to corrupt our minds? Or informational programs that might get to the truth, even if it makes one political group look bad, is destroying our Constitution?

If we limit the flow of news and information to only those controlled by corporate America, as all is except for PBS/NPR, then we face the possibility of propaganda becoming news--as some of it already has? Isn't nice to have one non-commercial radio and TV network that isn't really concerned with ratings and only wants to put out quality programming? I may not like everything that's on, but I'm glad it's there.

I'm more willing to pay some of my tax money towards that than to pad the pockets of dictators around the world.

[GvdM]

I agree, don't pad dictators or anyones pockets either. The feds should only be involved in transportation, interstate commerce and national defense. Everything else should be state level as the needs of states differ. Most of the problems have come about from the federal government sticking their nose in areas it doesn't belong. And it isn't the republicans or the democrats... it is both.

[Sshsearching]

I signed.
The only agenda I've heard on NPR or PBS is common decency.

[stevenshytle]

Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution enumerates what the Congress is to provide for. Since funding a NPR is not within the scope of that then we must refer to the 10th Amendment. The 10th amendment says anything not listed in the Constitution and subsequent Amendments is specifically NOT a Federal power, but a state one. It is a pesky little amendment the we have ignored for convenience sake, but has left in the shape we are in. I have no problem if a state or states want a TV station, just not the Federal government.

[Frank II]

Well, you need to go back to Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general WELFARE of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Welfare has been interpreted as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being." (Contributing to the arts can be seen as providing for general welfare.) Since the Constitution was written there have been many additions to federal power--aviation, broadcasting, environmental, to name a few.

So, your use of he 10th Amendment in this case is irrelevant. .

With the Constitution you have to look at the entire document as well as Supreme Court interpretations. If any law or bill is passed that anyone feels is unconstitutional, they can challenge that law in court.. That's why we have a checks and balances system.

State's rights has more to do with prohibiting the federal government from preventing the states from having certain rights.

[Frank II]

I'm shutting this posting to future comments. It's turning nasty, of which I take some of the blame, and that's not what we are here for.

To those who support what I did, thank you. To those I infuriated, my apologies.