Re: Faux News Surges
- From: Mike Pritchard <mrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:25:44 -0500
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:31:23 -0500, Spender <Spender@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
How many millions? If we are talking of $400 million in government
funding, than ten million viewers would need to donate just an extra $10 a
year to replace that. No problem. No government funding necessary.
Oops, I crossed references...
Ten million viewers would pay $40 a year.
Or four million viewers would pay $100 a year.
Fourty million viewers (because it is the most popular network ever...)
would pay just $10 a year.
Or any combination you like. Since PBS is so wildly popular, voluntary
funding will be a walk in the park.
One would think so, eh? The truth is--of all the people who use the
programming provided by pub broadcasters, only ONE in TEN donates money, to
If we could simply convince even ONE MORE, of those ten, to also contribute,
we'd almost solve our money troubles.
The problem is, everyone wants something for free....including fans of public
broadcasting. And, in the current economy, contributions are down
significantly, system wide. Stations are actually going dark....
The thing is--each time there was a threat of eliminating all government
funding, users of public broadcasting protested overwhelmingly!! Congressional
offices were absolutely flooded with calls, letters and e-mails.
Clearly, the majority favors maintaining some level of federal and state
funding of public broadcasting! The stations don't make that up....
Maybe it's time to come up with a subscription type plan, so that people who
don't donate money, can't use the programming. In your eyes, problem
You want to tell John Q Public??
What about lower income folks who can't afford to contribute, however? You
gonna shut them off? Isn't that what the whole thing was partly created for?
(It was....but I don't expect you to know that.)
There was a time when public broadcasting served a very real purpose. (It
still does, but you seem pretty closed minded, so I'm not going to try to
convice you otherwise.) Government funding was WAY higher, than it is now.
While it may be true that it's time for the funding model to evolve....and,
maybe eliminate tax money....the need for the service is actually growing
Not everyone feels as you do....I don't want my kids watching a lot of the crap
on the cable channels. That's just what it is in my opinion--CRAP.
Give me Sesame Street, Nova, American Experience (my kids are older now) any
day. Even though the Discovery Channel has some neat programs, they still
can't touch PBS. No way!
Most countries have some sort of government supported broadcasting...and their
citizens pay a LOT more than $1.35 a year for it! They also know how important
it is to keep it alive.
I'd vote for adding a box to income tax returns. Treat it like the
Presidential Election Fund, or whatever it's called. It could say something
like "Would you like to contribute $1.35 to support Public Broadcasting?"
That way, you can keep your money and the millions of people who like PBS can
help fund it.
I'd still limit the channels to only those who contribute. If you don't
support it, then you can't benefit from the higher quality programming.
Low income folks could get a waiver......
- Prev by Date: Re: Sting on Drug War
- Next by Date: Re: Tube Amp Head 100W with power reducing feature
- Previous by thread: Re: Faux News Surges
- Next by thread: Re: Faux News Surges