Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner As … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
UPDATE: Toronto Lands World Premiere Of Godfrey … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
CBS Reups Tony Awards Through 2018 
HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s … 
Cannes: Radius-TWC Buys Keanu Reeves’ Helming Debut … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Diane Haithman contributes to Deadline’s TV coverage.
More programming notes to come from PBS president and CEO Paula Kerger’s TCA session today. But the executive had blunt words about an issue that threatens the organization as a whole: This week’s attack in Congress on federal funding for PBS. On Tuesday, House Republicans proposed zeroing out PBS funding by 2015. Kerger called it “disappointing” that federal funding is being challenged “in the same week that PBS received 58 (primetime) Emmy nominations” and warned that there are a number of stations in underserved areas “that will go dark” if federal funding is significantly slashed.
Kerger said the funding proposal, which comes from the House Appropriations Committee and also would affect funding for NPR, is a complicated one. She said it may be debated next week but she does not think the budget issue will be resolved until after the presidential election. However, whether or not PBS is “zeroed out” in the future, Kerger believes that any major budget cuts would lead to the loss of some PBS stations. Federal funding represents 15% of the PBS budget, but given local differences in how some stations are funded, federal funding can represent 50-60% of the budget for some stations, she said.
Related: TCA: PBS Sets Ken Burns’ ‘The Roosevelts’ & Pair Of Cuban Missile Crisis Specials
“The reason we fight so hard is there are a number of stations that will go dark in parts of the country where the services are so critical. That’s really what’s at risk,” she said. “Stations in larger markets will be impacted, but I think the real implications for us as a county is that it would eliminate public broadcasting in areas where I know it’s tremendously used.”
Loading ...
What happen to freedom of the press? People’s rights to hear all kinds of news, information, and entertainment whether it’s from the left or right? The arts keep us informed, fine tune our emotions, expand our awareness, and can actually promote healing. Tell the government to keep there hands off NPR and PBS.
Support PBS, but ask yourself if people already short on money and having to skip meals should have some of their money taken by force of law to fund the system.
Taking money from the working man so you can “fine tune” your emotions might mean you are out of touch with tight budgets and being late on bills– you know, the working class woes.
Right and left views…great. But why must the government and pbs fund and broadcast the news show from al jazeera? That’s going a bit too far.
KEEP their hands off?
They are trying to TAKE the government’s hands off by not borrowing any more money from China to fund PBS and NPR.
When it get its funding from the government, a free press cannot speak truth to power without fear of reprisal.
If you want to exercise your Constitutional right to speak freely, open you mouth and speak… Write or record something and self-publish and distribute it.
The government is not required to facilitate your speech. THAT is YOUR responsibility. The government just shouldn’t get in your way.
Bravo
I couldn’t agree more. Keep the government hands and dollars off of and out of NPR and PBS. Use some of that Lake Woebegone and Sesame Street cash.
Although it would be unwise to alienate PBS from Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, his proposal to cut funding, opens the door for comment from PBS CEO Paula Kerger, and opportunity for free media exposure for PBS.
PBS doesn’t need the funds of the government. Either find your own money or shut it down. It’s as simple as that.
PBS makes millions off licensing for “Sesame Street” alone. Every one of their most popular shows run commercials for their sponsors. When PBS claims they need our tax money to survive, they are lying.
I would rather see my federal tax dollars fund PBS than another senseless war, the likes of which benefit only Haliburton and it’s shareholders.
Let’s finance neither and hopefully pull this country from the threat of bankruptcy.
@American Freedom of the press? The government already does have its hands on PBS and NPR, as this article clearly states. So they currently enable those networks, but now they’re proposing to “keep their hands off” by not funding them.
Let them go dark. PBS has long since become tame,conventional fair. And they are sponsored by big boys like Exon and ADM, please. They know to keep their mouths shut about real controversy.
PBS is not public broadcasting and its not progressive. Its news for yuppies who wish to remain feeling comfortable at all times, god forbid.
Before you worry about politics, try learning how to use an apostrophe correctly. Frontline is for big kids, you need Sesame Street.
And I should remember how to use semi-colons!
Every show I’ve watched on PBS has had a commercial before and/or after it. If it had no commercials, I’d could go along with the argument that it needed to be funded with public dollars but with corporations already sponsoring its shows, it makes no sense to continue funding it.
Ever since those bunch of liberals fired Juan Williams they shoulda been defunded. If I want leftist newscasts and bad English dramas I can just tune in to BBC America.
RJ, well said! I work at a radio station and we have one source of income. Selling ads. The PBS stations get government funding, sells ads and gets donations. The PBS station we have here is one of the most lavish offices with the newest state of the art equipment.
We are running a $1.5 to $2 trillion deficit per year. Anything that isn’t essential needs to be cut. Sorry NPR.
You mean like, I dunno, a war in Afghanistan?
“American”–if you want the government to have their hands “off” PBS, then government shouldn’t fund them. I like many of their programs, but it’s absurd to claim parts of the country “will go dark” without govt funding–they could post content online for those areas or perhaps make a deal to offer programming on some other station. In any case, government can’t fund everything, and claiming a tv station is vital to the Republic seems a great stretch to me.
This isn’t like the old days when there were only four channels. Everyone has access to hundreds of channels for a low cost. Why should the Federal government have to subsidize these over the air stations? Again, 85 percent of the funding is not coming from the Federal government, it’s just that they insist that they pay for broadcast stations in areas no one is properly supporting with local donations. Could it be no one in that area wants what they’re selling?
Really it’s 2012 it doesn’t seem that efficient to use all this tax payer money on over the air broadcast channels. Maybe PBS should be a cable channel only.
They can donate the spectrum of their rural stations to something more useful like for mobile broadband.
So? What’s the downside? Nada. As for those programs everybody (meaning a few) just can not live with out, let the market decide. All it means is BBC America will be showing Downton Abbey and such. Meanwhile, I will cry for a bunch of leftwingers who find themselves without jobs at PBS. Maybe they can go to work at MSNBC. Oh, wait, they just lost one it’s namesakes. Too bad.
Why should taxpayers foot the bill for any TV channel or radio station? There’s a thing called the free market. If a company can’t make a profit because they can’t be bothered airing something that generates viewers and advertizers then deserves to die. Just like any other business. If I opened a store selling something nobody wanted, the taxpayers wouldn’t bail me out. I’d be told “tough luck.” NPR needs to be defunded as well.
Looks like Kerger and her team better get the sales team out there going strong. Make that ad money, people.
Guys, just got back from reading the Constitution… the founding fathers never mentioned PBS in it… How are we (meaning you and I through taxpayer money) still funding it? If I were in Congress I’d propose a bill to cut every penny permanently from PBS starting the next day. 2015 is too long.
Here’s the dirty little secret PBS doesn’t like to admit: The vast majority of their viewers are rich, white liberals. Rich, white liberals who want poorer people to pay for their viewing. And the majority of those viewers contribute nil to PBS during their beg-a-thons. Their own viewers are perfectly capable of completely funding PBS, but they are too cheap to do so.
And, American, there’s an old chestnut you should take to heart: It’s better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. The First Amendment has nothing to do with funding, you moron. If PBS would put on shows that people wanted to watch, they’d have no trouble getting donations.
“Tell the government to keep there hands off NPR and PBS.”
I agree – the government should have nothing to do with NPR and PBS. Naturally, that separation of state and media includes refraining from giving PBS and NPR taxpayer cash.
Notice how the ones screaming for the end of public funding for independent stations like PBS are from right wingers?…What they want is all information to come from Fox News or Limbaugh.
I’m not a right winger and I support the end of funding for PBS. The government should not be in the TV or radio business. Let’s call this what it is: Corporate Welfare. As mentioned earlier, PBS’s best shows like Downtown Abbey will easily find a home elsewhere.
Notice how people ALWAYS screaming for your money are LIBERALS??
Also the lie that PBS is independent is a farce so you keep telling yourself that roilindian.
The simple solution to the PBS funding is that stations lease some of their sub-channel space to commercial broadcasters.
WHY do we need 4 different PBS sub-channels? – World-Create-Kids can be all merged into a PBS2. That would leave the average PBS station at least 2 sub-channels to lease off to commercials interests, if not 3!
THAT solves the problem. Not SELL OFF as that is just a short term solution,but leasing.
I am a supporter of public broadcasting and believe it has a necessary place in the network of broadcasting channels. The quality content that it provides is often unlike anything you can find on broadcast and cable channels.
However, I agree with Finn that there are too many channels within the same market. It is hard to be sympathetic when we hear their financial woes when their infrastructure is all over the place — and is wasteful. Here in Los Angeles, before KCET went independent, we had four PBS stations servicing our area. We currently have KLCS (covering the LA Unified School District), KOCE (Orange County) and KVCR (San Bernardino). The same programming can be found at different times and days on the different channels. Which to watch? Wouldn’t it make more sense for their to be ONE PBS station airing content at regular hours every week? There is one NBC for a broadcast area. Same for CBS, ABC, etc. Right now all three stations are begging the same viewership for donations. Most PBS viewers will only give their $50 to one of the three. The amount of money the three stations receive from pledges while not enough to sustain each individual station, combined should be able to support one PBS station. True, some jobs would be lost. But better to lose some manpower than the entire system altogether.
That you cannot currently find the content provided by PBS on any other channel is a red herring.
It exists on PBS simply because PBS exists. If PBS never existed, some of those shows would exist elsewhere.
I find it difficult to believe Sesame Street would not be a success if it were moved to Nickelodian or Masterpiece theater moved to A & E. It is a vastly different television world from the 1970′s. If you think PBS is necessary… Get your hand out of everyone else’s pocket. Dip into your own pocket and pay for it.
Your idea of consolidation makes sense. However, it will not help small markets with only one rarely watched channel. it also illustrates that when playing with taxpayer’s money, people are not inclined to tighten their belts until forced by circumstances to do so.
Masterpiece Theater on A&E haha you must be joking. Maybe they can put it between Duck Dynasty and American Hoggers. You may be the one stuck in the 70′s.
Now, with so many PBS-like channels available on cable and satellite, the government really does not need to fund PBS or NPR
They basically show commercials now, anyway.
Most public broadcasting (government owned) around the world now runs ads to bring in revenue.
In Florida, the state pretty much defunded the local PBS TV affiliates….public TV stations either went dark or dropped PBS. Did you know the local affiliates in large markets pay PBS millions per year to show programs? The old PBS affiliate in Daytona Beach dropped PBS and became an independent public TV station…and is doing well. They carry more British TV shows than PBS did
PBS should be funded, less for its news content and more for its educational content. And I personally prefer the higher calibre British shows, like Downton Abbey, New Tricks, Masterpiece Theatre, etc., to what’s on the US Big Four networks. Better writing, better acting, and far less network executive censorship and changes. Certainly MUCH better programming than the formulaic, same-as-the-next-show procedurals and comedies, and the reality drivel that appeals to less-than-average intelligence.
The real debate in Congress is how to silence the voices of people who are more tolerant, more curious, and less narrow-minded than they are. I prefer balanced, civil, and fair discussion of the issues, not the shouting matches currently seen on Fox shows and CNN, where the person with the weakest logic usually rudely interuupts and shouts down the other person trying to present his/her side. I want to hear BOTH sides…the only show that has a civil discussion is Meet the Press…otherwise, you have to look to PBS or NPR. If you define the presentation of all sides of an issue as liberal, and therefore evil, you’ve made up your mind and are not truly interested in an open-minded examination of issues. Most of the rest of us are.
This has led me to conclude that the people wanting to silence PBS and NPR are more intent on forcing everyone else to adopt their beliefs through force, either by cutting the budget of a public forum or shouting down anyone who disagrees with them. Is it any wonder that most Americans are disgusted with the way our government is working and with the choices of candidates who get backing to run for office? With elections focusing on personalities and candidates’ personal lives, the very people we need in office won’t run for office…I certainly wouldn’t.
I certainly would rather have my taxpayer dollars go to PBS, NPR, and social programs than to bail out the largest banks in the world or continue fighting in countries under the guise of another action in the Mideast, which, by the way, cannot be called wars because Congress has not issued a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution. If Congress cuts the budget for PBS and NPR, then, there should be no further bank bailouts. There are alternative financial options there…more so than for PBS.
“I personally prefer the higher calibre British shows, like Downton Abbey, New Tricks, Masterpiece Theatre, etc., to what’s on the US Big Four networks”
That’s wonderful.
So pay for it. Don’t expect others to finance your preferences.
If Republicans want to de-fund PBS, then let’s also de-fund Rush Limbaugh by removing him from taxpayer-funded Armed Forces Radio. And let’s get rid of that taxpayer-funded Army car from Nascar races too. And let’s close those taxpayer-funded corporate tax loopholes, and impose a windfall profit tax on GOP-controlled oil companies that rip off Americans to the tune of $3.50/gallon. And let’s get rid of the tax-exempt status for religious organizations that violate the separation of church and state by engaging in rightwing politicking. How’s that for fair and balanced?
PBS seriously needs to stop with the constant pledge drives and then asking for ridiculous amounts of money in order to get items one can get at a fraction of the cost at many retail outlets across the country. On top of all that, the crap programming they constantly air like Ormon and Yanni and Doo-Wop and these self-help shows that just get so old that is’s nauseating. PBS does have some awesome shows on their airwaves, but some they do have such as the ones above are just reasons enough to just tune out during those pledge drives.
Shows like Nova and Nature are probably shown in every school in America, not Ancient Aliens and Swamp People. The amount we spend on PBS and NPR is a drop in the bucket, we should be spending even more.
Virtually no one is debating the value of PBS. This is not about getting bang for our buck.
It is about not borrowing any more money and spending it on someone’s pet project, regardless of who or how many people it benefits.
Filtering money through the federal government is a horrible waste of capital. Fund it totally through direct donations.
If you truly believe that, then send them your money. Don’t ask me to.