State funding of public radio and television

[The Fishing Geek]

I go through phases as far as what I listen to on the radio at work, with my current choice being OPB. My kids enjoying watching PBS kids in the morning, and I'm also a sucker for shows like "Red Green", "Nightline", and "Oregon Field Guide". In light of this, I do contribute to OPB.

Due to the financial crisis that our state is in, Oregon now has the dubious honor of being the only state in America that will not be partially-funding public radio or television. Should state's contribute to public broadcasting? Or should it be the sole responsibility of those who watch who can afford to donate?

[fisheromen]

Cut it!

[GutshotApe]

I'd be in favor of anything that would eliminate the recurring "Beg-a-thons" on OPB. Right now, OPB radio is in the midst of yet another "pledge drive"...but JPR, southern Oregon's version of NPR, isn't begging...so if there's something on the national feed I want to hear, I can merely change the station. Unfortunately, the local school district that supports the Eugene JPR affiliate will probably cease that funding, too.

Unfortunately, none of this comes as much of a surprise. Oregon has seen its basic job and tax revenue-generating industry (forestry) squeezed, reduced and eliminated in broad fashion and the replacement industry, high tech, has peaked and seems to be fading.

Come on Tourist Economy!...Oregon apparently needs you (and your money) more than ever...but until we get rid of a million or two pesky residents and their associated costs, it seems unlikely that we will attract enough tourists to pick up the fiscal slack. :depressed:

[Radke]

About five years back I donated to OPB. Soon afterwards (within days) I started getting nightly calls from them asking if I wanted to donate more. Same thing happened when my wife donated three years back. This effectivly cut off any additional donations from my household to that organization. I feel guilty watching as much of it as I do without donating, but I don't much care for the way they do business. I may donate again, but it will be anonymously.

[pdxkevin]

I think that there should be a third option. Seems to me that they are already showing commercials so why not keep going that route?

Both PBS & NPR need to stand on their own. If they want to keep dipping into our pockets through forced contributions (taxes) then they need to broaden thier viewpoint to include that of the blue team, too. Well.... we know that will never happen, so I say if you have a good enough lineup of shows that people actually agree with and want to see ~ let go of the tax-based funding and stand on your own.

Sure there are some shows which I enjoy. The number that I can't stand becasue of thier political leaning far out ways them. I will not contribute even at the risk of losing the shows I truly enjoy.

[ 05-07-2003, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

[lost_sailor]

How absurd for "public" broadcasting to be supported by the "public"! What nonsense! It's a bleeding-heart liberal tree-hugger hysteria anyway!

[GutshotApe]

I'm with ya, pdxkevin. I wouldn't mind a few more commercials on PBS to pay the freight.

I once donated to PBS, a long time ago, but stopped such foolishness after they aired a NOVA show called "A Plague Upon Our Children" which was about the use of herbicides in forestry. The PBS producers used as an example of the "abuse" an old Douglas County couple living on the last place up a little coastal creek valley...and their goats which they claimed miscarried right after the 20 acre hillside across the valley, 1/2 mile away and downstream, was sprayed (by my helicopter crew). "God only knows what else the toxic spray did to the environment. We're afraid to have our grandchildren come to visit anymore." The PBS crew regurgitated these people's incredible claims verbatim...but couldn't be bothered to stop by my office to find out if anything they heard was true...even though they drove right by. And, apparently they didn't talk to any neighbors or townspeople about the reclusive couple...or know of their previous demonstrations of instability and anti-social behavior...or maybe they did but used the footage anyway because it supported NOVA's preconceived "message".

This was one of the first national smear pieces done on forestry and forest mgmt. and carried the cachet and implied credibility of NOVA and National Public Broadcasting...the producers really didn't want the facts...they had propaganda to spread...and did so. :depressed:

No more money from me for PBS.

[ 05-07-2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Thumper]

I listen to OPB (when they are not groveling for money) and I used to send my check every year. But I got tired of being bugged too. Time for them to join the free enterprise system. Life is tough.

[fisheromen]

For you who want to force me to contribute to this through my taxes - get off my back!

[Cool Texan]

Keep it and cut government heads. Once you have gone through a significant RIF in Salem, and there is still a problem, then cut this. But do nothing until heads roll in Salem.

[snowball]

i saw lets looks at the books and see the pay scale for the upper execs with in OPB-- it's amazing how "little they have".. yea right--

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by snowball:
it's amazing how "little they have".. yea right--

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Do you know something that we don't? Sure, let's look at the books, but let's also not assume that they are wallowing in money before we know for sure.

[fisheromen]

http://www.wweek.com/flatfiles/News3368.lasso

I did a search, but without spending an inordinate amount of time couldn't find much about the OPB budget. This article just talks about one of their spending fiascos.

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
Keep it and cut government heads. Once you have gone through a significant RIF in Salem, and there is still a problem, then cut this. But do nothing until heads roll in Salem.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Can you clarify how the government will be more efficient or effective as a result of "heads rolling"?

[Cool Texan]

Sure. Budgeting 101 is now in session. First lesson:

Hypothetical department has two employees in it, both making $50k a year salaries. Total expenses (burdened) would be approximately $118k per year.

Cut one of those heads out, have remaining person take on the critical processes and possibly just learn to live without some of the non-essential tasks.

Total expenses (burdened) would now be approximately $59k per year.

$59k a year saved.

Repeat throughout the government structure in Oregon. Streamline departments, find efficiencies, reduce overlap, and have folks do more with less (same work, less people).

You'd be amazed how much could be saved.

[Cool Texan]

Lost Sailor,

A little light reading. Fun areas to look at...Administration. Look at the funding dollars compared to 99-01 actuals. HOLY MOLY!! Look at the headcount additions...38 jobs from the same period. What does a state gub'ment job pay? $40k? That would mean increased expenses of $1.8M per year, JUST for them. What other areas are adding jobs? Probably a LOT of them...as well as adding cars, trucks, SUV's, etc.

Lot of waste in the state budget. Especially in a bad economy.

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Cool Texan is absolutely right! I worked for the government for 21 years and have been through many "budget crisis". It has always amazed me how the government can get along with a reduced work force. Recently, my girlfriend took a private sector job after working for the local school district for 18 years. The school district because of its current budgetary problems, did not hire anyone to do her job. Results? Her job was handed out to other workers piece meal and the job is getting done. Savings to the school district? $85,000. Can more jobs be eliminated without causing a problem? You bet! Government agencies are great at asking for more money and people to perform the same function. It's the way government works everywhere. And the job will get done with fewer people. Yes, those people may have to work harder, but I'll tell you this, when I worked for the government, I was bored to death with a lack of something to do 90% of the time. I work a lot harder now that I'm self employed, but I love it! No one working for the government is going to be overworked. :shocked: They only have to put in their eight hours and go home. The world will not come to an end.

[lost_sailor]

Hmmm. This is me not really disagreeing! [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img]

Too bad it's unlikely to happen. The decision makers really don't ever say "cut out manager X and manager Z and have manager Y take up the slack." They say, "So, you need $14 million, well you may have $12 million, now deal with it." So, frontline workers (a.k.a. "services") get cut.

I think there is a lot of "planning" and "analysis" work that goes on just to jump through all the hoops that the law sets up. Heck, there's a whole department just to figure out what the law says!

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Albacore Tuna Captain:
No one working for the government is going to be overworked. :shocked:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Make a little visit to your county health department.

[Cool Texan]

LS,

I agree with you...big cause is that no one wants to lay someone off. Its not fun for anyone.

Regarding the health departments, its a matter of resource redeployment and or transitions. Cut heads, then cut a few extra. Then hire a few extra to work in areas that really are swamped such as health departments.

[snowball]

Geek, tried to find some facts.. couldn't find much of what i really wanted to see, however, from experience, OPB, NPR, whatever tend to find more food before trimming the fat. I think now, they need to trim the fat then find a diet to support it--