On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote:
> From what I've read, the impact would be catastrophic. There was a 2012 > report that the CPB themselves commissioned from Booz & Company which > concluded: > > "There is no substitute for federal support of public broadcasting... And > that the loss of federal support would mean the end of public broadcasting." > > And it would hit rural stations disproportionately: > > "The federal investment in public media is vital seed money — especially > for stations located in rural America, and those serving underserved > populations where the appropriation counts for 40-50% of their budget. The > loss of this seed money would have a devastating effect. These stations > would have to raise approximately 200 percent more in private donations to > replace the federal investment." > The paper released by the White House said to privatize PBS, not eliminate it entirely. The fight against PBS goes back to the rise of the moral majority right in the early eighties. That's when the mainstream media were derided for being liberal and the objection was to using taxpayer dollars to fund it. In the nineties I remember Pat Buchanan on Crossfire arguing that educational programming had migrated to commercial cable channels using Discovery Channel as an example. His argument was against using public money to do something private money does just as well. Seeing what happened to Discovery, Buchanan's argument seems quaint. I don't know what it means to privatize PBS today in this multi-platform TV world. The one thing republicans can do is eliminate funding in the 2018 budget which can pass without any democratic votes. A move to change the structure of PBS would need a separate law and that would be subject to filibuster. People who would lose their local stations or object to privatization would have a chance to delay or stop a bad law. PBS President Paula Kerger addressed the TCA a few days before the inauguration (linked below). She said that 15% of PBS funding comes from the federal government and that stations covering most of the country could stay viable. It's the ones in rural areas, and she cites Alaska as an example, that have 50% of their budgets coming from government money. I know those rural areas are the ones least likely to have broadband access, but if PBS shows like American Experience and Frontline were available online, how much damage would the loss of an OTA station be? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/pbs-chief-early-tell-trump-poses-a-threat-government-funding-964432 -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
