Guilt Trip

[Terry Yager]

It's "Begging Week" on PBS again. Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's wrong for them to ask viewers to "support" them when:

A). They are subsidized by the government and,

B). They sell advertizing just like any other network and,

C). The best programs are aired only during thier Beg-Fests?

We don't have to put up with FOX, et.al. laying a Guilt Trip on us if we don't contribute cash directly to them (we support them indirectly, by buying the products they advertize).

--T

[Unknown_K]

PBS gets some money from the government but not all of it, they do not have the same amount of commercials that normal broadcasting channels do and they also do not have the ratings to charge a decent amount for advertising to begin with.

I don't see it as a guilt trip, to me it is like college where the government sends a decent amount of money to the universities and users pay the rest of the costs. If you do not go to college then you do not have to pay any more.

PBS has some shows that would never make it to a normal channel, if you like seeing them then support them.

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> It's "Begging Week" on PBS again. Is it just me, or does anyone else
> think it's wrong for them to ask viewers to "support" them when:

It's funny that cause Seinfeld was making out for the "PBS pledge" in one of his episodes - but I can't for the life of me figure out to whom the funding goes to. I thought it was something to do with the sick - or at least that was what the Seinfeld episode goes to.

Do they Beg for the Environment?

CP/M User.

[Terry Yager]

And what about spin-off products? How much money d'ya think (f'rinstance) SesameStreet toys knock down every year? And, they have thier own private hour-and-a-half-long info-mercial every day. Then there's TeleTubbies, CliffordTheBigRedDog, B* (the purple dinosaur), etc. etc. etc... They're making a killing, for a non-profit entity (I'm sure that any "surplus" funds they encounter go toward larger salaries & bonuses for the principal players in the organization).

--T

[Terry Yager]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> It's "Begging Week" on PBS again. Is it just me, or does anyone else
> think it's wrong for them to ask viewers to "support" them when:

It's funny that cause Seinfeld was making out for the "PBS pledge" in one of his episodes - but I can't for the life of me figure out to whom the funding goes to. I thought it was something to do with the sick - or at least that was what the Seinfeld episode goes to.

Do they Beg for the Environment?

CP/M User.

In America, we have a Federal Law that certain portions of the broadcast spectrum are reserved as "public property" and that these freqs be utilized by "publicly-owned" (government) organizations, which are non-profit. We have PBS, the PublicBroadcastingSystem (TV), NPR, or NationalPublicRadio, etc. Since it is the law that these entities exist, it is the government's responsibility to insure that they continue to exist (our tax dollars at work), although the government is only required to provide the minimum in operating costs, which would only cover the cheapest kind of programming, not the kind of quality programming that "the public" wants to see. Therefore, they have other funding streams too, including substantial contributions and grants from many large, wealthy corporations, income from advertizing, spun-off products, and other sources, such as returns from investments, etc. The contributions from individual viewers is just a drop in the bucket, which they could easily get by without, but for some reason, they insist on bugging us for contributions, and hipocritically imply that they could not continue to operate if not for viewer contributions, which is bullsh!t!.

--T

[CP/M User]

"Terry Yager" wrote:

> In America, we have a Federal Law that certain portions of the
> broadcast spectrum are reserved as "public property" and that these
> freqs be utilized by "publicly-owned" (government) organizations, which
> are non-profit. We have PBS, the PublicBroadcastingSystem (TV), NPR,
> or NationalPublicRadio, etc. Since it is the law that these entities exist, it
> is the government's responsibility to insure that they continue to exist
> (our tax dollars at work), although the government is only required to
> provide the minimum in operating costs, which would only cover the
> cheapest kind of programming, not the kind of quality programming
> that "the public" wants to see.

Sounds kinda like our ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) -
funding from the Government goes into it - which merely comes from the
Tax Payers. But what we get is commercial Free programming. But they
usually have a lot of stuff from the BBC, some American (Sesame
Street), lots of good ol' movies durning night (well some are! ;-) and
some Australian stuff (Kath & Kim).

But I think a certain amount must be funded in order to keep up the
presentation quality - which can be quite good.

CP/M User.

[Mad-Mike]

PBS, are they still playing Brit-Com's? I've always been big into "Are You Being Served" and "Red Dwarf". I may get cable once I get my own place....

[Terry Yager]

PBS, are they still playing Brit-Com's? I've always been big into "Are You Being Served" and "Red Dwarf".

I dunno, I think I saw an episode of Fawlty Towers recently.

--T

[Terry Yager]

I'm a big fan of Red Green too, but they quit showing him around here, except for a "special" during Beg-Week, of course.

--T

[carlsson]

Four state controlled channels on Swedish television are paid with license money. Every household is expected to pay the license if you own a TV. In theory you can get fined (or even get a sentence?) if you refuse, but many households don't care and the people that are out to check if you own a TV are said to not be allowed to intrude into someone's home to confirm.

The rest of the channels are private, commercial. Some run from within Sweden, and some broadcasted from London (!) to further escape Swedish regulations on commercials. The public service channels are not allowed to have commercials, but more and more shows and in particular sports programs are "sponsored" by companies who get their logotype in the screen before and after the program. Something like a commercial but without a selling message.

The state owned channels sometimes have events like the Eurovision Song Contest and other shows, where you can call or SMS to vote on your favourite entry. After the phone company have taken their share, the rest of the money goes to the state. Of course it is not more than maybe $100,000 every time, but everything counts. The private channels do the same, so no difference really.