Please Support Public Broadcasting...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

HanArt

Washing Up
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
272
Location
Louisiana
"A proposal is now moving through Congress that would cut $220 million in federal funding for public broadcasting in the coming year. This is 45% of the federal financial support for public television stations and could jeopardize the future of public broadcasting. Not only would this be devastating to public television stations around the country, it would also reduce the funding for great PBS series such as NOVA, FRONTLINE, American Experience, American Masters, Washington Week and many others. Part of the reduction would be the elimination of Ready to Learn funding and award-winning educational children's programming such as Sesame Street, Arthur, Clifford the Big Red Dog and ZOOM!



If you believe that public television and radio stations are a vital educational and cultural resource and must be preserved, let your Congressman and Senators know that you want to see your tax dollars used to continue supporting both. Please be polite but firm in your support for public broadcasting. The full House of Representatives could take action on these cuts as soon as Wednesday, June 22."
 
I will always say that a company should go and buy out PBS and let them run it. It will the best thing ever for that network.

It my area every year they do more and more on air stuff to get money from the public. It trully stinks.
 
kleenex said:
I will always say that a company should go and buy out PBS and let them run it. It will the best thing ever for that network.

It my area every year they do more and more on air stuff to get money from the public. It trully stinks.

omg, kleenex, hopefully that will never happen. as soon as they have to support a stock price from a parent company, you will start seeing top heavy weather girls and local interest stories (aka "fluff") on the newshour with jim lehrer; "great performances" will show a kid rock concert; and there would be an adult version of sesame street. all in the search for ratings...

seriuosly tho, please support pbs. if you are into watching cooking shows on tv, check out the ones on pbs. they are far superior to food tv's shows. check out:

jacques pepin: fast food my way
http://www.kqed.org/w/jpfastfood/home.html

julia child: lessons with master chefs -
http://www.pbs.org/juliachild/

cooking under fire -
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cookingunderfire/

cucina sicilia -
http://www.pbs.org/cucinasicilia/

culinary travels with dave eckert -
http://www.pbs.org/culinarytravels/

daisy cooks with daisy martinez -
http://www.daisycooks.com/

everyday food - (one of my faves)
http://www.pbs.org/everydayfood/

food for the ancestors - (lugaru, check this out!)
http://www.pbs.org/foodancestors/main.html

great food -
http://www.pbs.org/greatfood/

how to cook everything, bittman takes on america's chefs -
(no link)

jewish cooking in america - (gb :chef: )
http://www.pbs.org/mpt/jewishcooking/

lidia's family table - (another fave)
http://www.lidiasitaly.com

the meaning of food -
http://www.pbs.org/opb/meaningoffood/

a taste of louisiana - ( for you 'bug :chef: )
http://www.pbs.org/tasteofla/
 
Last edited:
buckytom, I am not the only person that has thrown out this idea.

I do not think the programming is going to change at all if a company bought it out.
 
Does anyone know if educational programming is actually effective? I was always bored with shows like Sesame Street because my parents worked really hard to teach me education basics (the alphabet, how to add, etc.)... and I did REALLY well in elementary / middle school. I dunno, I guess my feeling is that there's no substitute for parental involvement in a kid's education. PBS has some OK shows... and yeah their cooking shows are very good... but so much of that programming just doesn't appeal to audiences... I know that this whole country is crazy for reality TV, and American Idol ( why, I'll never know ), or sitcoms. I'm a rabid Friends fanatic myself, and if I sit down to relax in front of the TV and Friends is on, it's a no-brainer for me... even though I've seen all of them. I also turn on other sitcoms like Will and Grace, Dharma and Greg, and *** and the City. It just seems like there's so much out there that people would RATHER watch, even though some PBS stuff is enjoyable.
 
kleenex said:
buckytom, I am not the only person that has thrown out this idea.

I do not think the programming is going to change at all if a company bought it out.

ok, ya got me. :) then how would it be better? no pledge drives? i think it's a small albeit annoying thing to deal with for great shows, imho. not much worse than dumb commercials. the gov't. funds so many things that are at best questionable, why not public broadcasting??? pbs is the very last bastion of decent programming on free tv. it may not be entertaining on a jejune, slap-stick kinda level (btw, nuttin wrong with that once in a while), but the rest of tv and cable is rife with that. pbs does a great job providing a little education and culture to a mass audience, for the price of having to listen to them beg for a few bucks. don't forget, your deduction is tax deductible, and you get to become a member. :)
besides, for nothing else, why fix something that ain't broke?

when ratings get involved, you can be sure the network will play to the lowest common denominator. it's the most common, therefore the higher ratings... (and sheep mentality)
philosophers, like eagles fly alone. not in flocks like starlings...

oh, college cook, sorry, didn't mean to ignore your post. i was raised watching tv (before the warnings not to let your kids watch too much tv); it was my babysitter as my mom was busy with all of my older siblings. i have continued to watch tons of tv, and have always loved pbs and educational shows. i think i'm doing alright.
to me, learning from an audio/visual source is far better than just reading and seeing things in 2 dimensions (on paper). A/V education is especially effective with math and sciences. try learning trig or calculus by reading a textbook, then watch a wire frame demonstration with associated formulas in motion. you may just finally get it.
i agree that there is a huge gap in their programming tho, but it might not be their fault. there's very good shows for pre-k children, but then there's not much for young kids and teens. how are ya gonna force your 12 year old to watch frontline or POV? the next level of interest most people show in educational tv is some time after their formal education has stopped, in your 20's or so.

ok, enough of this rant. sorry to be arguementative, but i feel strongly about public broadcasting.
(ha! i got to use the word jejune, too! :) )
 
Last edited:
college_cook said:
Does anyone know if educational programming is actually effective? I was always bored with shows like Sesame Street because my parents worked really hard to teach me education basics (the alphabet, how to add, etc.)... and I did REALLY well in elementary / middle school. I dunno, I guess my feeling is that there's no substitute for parental involvement in a kid's education. PBS has some OK shows... and yeah their cooking shows are very good... but so much of that programming just doesn't appeal to audiences... I know that this whole country is crazy for reality TV, and American Idol ( why, I'll never know ), or sitcoms. I'm a rabid Friends fanatic myself, and if I sit down to relax in front of the TV and Friends is on, it's a no-brainer for me... even though I've seen all of them. I also turn on other sitcoms like Will and Grace, Dharma and Greg, and *** and the City. It just seems like there's so much out there that people would RATHER watch, even though some PBS stuff is enjoyable.


They 100% work. Reading Rainbow has done wonders getting kids to read. Sesame Street and Mister Rodgers Neighborhood are classics.

Well buckytom if a company did buy it out, we would see next to nothing in pledge drives. Plus it will make sure that programming like NOVA, great performances, Boston pops, etc... stay on the air. The programming costs are only going up and only a PBS network like WGBH who creates most of the PBS programming needs little pledge drive time.

I do not think that programming like NOVA would be kicked off the air if it did crappy ratings. PBS is not a UPN or TBS.
 
I'm not sure exactly how American PBS is funded. Here in the UK, the BBC is funded by license fees, paid by everyone who has a TV set. This is currently about a hundred pounds per year (not sure of the exact sum).

Every couple of years we hold our collective breath, waiting to see whether the Government of the day will change the status quo.

I have cable TV as well as what we call our 'terrestrial' channels. The BBC has at least 4 channels, but I only have two (the non-digital ones).

I like the fact that there is no advertising at all on the BBC (I don't county their 'spoilers' for upcoming programmes or events!).

They do great outside broadcast events, eg football matches, horse-racing, athletics, GLASTONBURY.... as well as quality dramas, many of which are purchased by US stations - including PBS I believe.

I would not like to see our BBC become just like any of the commercial stations, even though I am amongst the complainers that believe the standards have dropped in recent years - too much reality TV and too many make-over shows. BUT, they still come out with many innovative programmes, which I do not feel would have seen the light of day if it weren't for their unique Charter.
 
Ishbel,

PBS is paid for by donations from individuals (they have pledge drives a few times a year) and by grants from corporations. There may be more to it than that, but those are the funding sources I know of.

:) Barbara
 
Great news!!!

"Lawmakers were flooded with letters and phone calls."

Just proves that your voice can make a difference!
 
One of the problems here is that there is a huge ... HUGE ... difference in PBS (and for that matter NPR) programming from place to place. Believe me, I know. When I lived in the DC area, we had FOUR public broadcasting stations. One each from MD, DC, VA, and a black-oriented station. This was a dozen years ago, and we loved it. One of the stations did programs for the blind, believe it or not, with an extra narration (Sam is now walking to the door, reaches over and ....). The flip side of that is that in many places, unless you need it for your kids (don't have 'em) you mostly watch fund raisers, and yes, though they don't call them that, commercials (this program is brought to you by ..... and .... and ..... and .... and ..... no matter how you look at it, it is a commercial). If Penzeys, Whole Foods, blablabla are running commercials, the government is helping out .... what is different about it? I love the cooking and travel shows (at least they are not hour long commercials for a resort which many other cooking and travel shows have become), but can't get myself excited about "supporting" public TV when it's obvious that commercial enterprises aren't all that much different than on commercial TV. OK, at least I don't have to listen to those incredibly loud car commercials.
 
claire, most major networks provide about 30 percent of their primetime programming (mostly movies) with second audio programming video description (the "sam is now walking to the door" thing).

boy, everyone really trusts corporations to do the right thing. that's kinda scary.
just because there's a market for higher end programming, doesn't mean that when a corporation needs to drive up it's stock price, it won't resort to lowering it's standards. it's a sad fact of the tv bidness...
 
Back
Top Bottom