# Does Sesame Street Actually \*Need\* Government Funding **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 5, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859 "2012-10-05T23:01:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/61 "2012-10-07T19:28:17Z")
> [@Mangosteen](#): > > Weather forecasts??? Are you kidding? How many PRIVATE forecasting companies are making these that are just as accurate as the Federal government’s? Shut the whole Fed weather service down 100%! Look into it a bit more. There are many private companies selling the forecasts, but they are all based on what comes out of the national weather service… The private companies don’t have their own weather networks and satellites. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/62 "2012-10-07T19:28:39Z")
Just to re-iterate the OP > [@HeyHomie](#): > > NOTE: I’d rather not see this thread devolve into a debate about Romney’s proposed PBS cuts, thanks. If ya want to argue/debate about gov spending, take it to the Great Debates forum, please. This Forum is about factual knowledge, and we all know how well facts and politics mix. ---
**Author:** ![Mangosteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mangosteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangosteen)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/63 "2012-10-07T23:34:01Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Look into it a bit more. There are many private companies selling the forecasts, but they are all based on what comes out of the national weather service… The private companies don’t have their own weather networks and satellites. Plenty of private weather satellites out there. [http://www.spacenews.com/earth\_observation/091120-geooptics-sell-weather-data-noaa.html](http://www.spacenews.com/earth_observation/091120-geooptics-sell-weather-data-noaa.html) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/64 "2012-10-08T02:24:41Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Could you or anyone give me one program as an example? Give me one show that the History Channel, A&E, TLC, Discovery, or the Science Channel wouldn’t pick up because nobody would watch it, yet it is still worthwhile to be broadcast through deficit funding by the federal government. Nova. Commercial channels will report on science. But they will do so badly. Newshour might be another example. Although actually, PBS would continue to exist in the cities even if funding were cut off, albeit at a more modest scale. Same for museums in New York, LA, and Washington DC. And if the government wasn’t involved with the internet, we could have made do with AOL and CompuServe, though they would not have been linked together. And we don’t really need a space program or public parks. Damming up the Grand Canyon would create a lot of hydropower. And it’s not that big a deal that Cleveland’s river caught fire during the 1970s: it was manageable. Such attitudes provide a poor foundation for national greatness. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/65 "2012-10-10T12:49:05Z")
So, given all this, what would be the negative side effect of simply having PBS with commercials? Just choose your sponsors carefully. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/66 "2012-10-10T13:54:25Z")
I wish _Sesame Street_ were less merchandised. Right now (in principle) _Sesame Street_ has one mission. If it had to sustain itself through merchandising, that would be another mission; if it had to be attractive to advertisers and carry advertising, that would be yet another. And the three are not always in tandem. There was a _Forbes_ piece last week [on the role of government](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/10/05/government-vs-business/) that said the government is needed for things that are socially valuable but not profitable. Along those lines, PBS is a good source for programming that is of high quality and culturally importqnt, or important for an informed populace, but perhaps difficult to monetize in the standard commercial television model. > [@adaher](#): > > That sounds like pure sentimentality to me. There are many cable channels these days that are educational and run ads to support themselves: Discovery, History, and HGTV being the most popular. Putting those stations on the public dole so they can get rid of commercials would not enhance those stations significantly enough to justify the expense. Have you watched any of these channels lately? You say you deliberately omitted The Learning Channel. I’m guessing that’s because, having been started by NASA and then privatized, it undermines your point. Thing is, the History channel – and, to a lesser extent, Discovery, though I disagree with Measure’s implication that Shark Week programming isn’t educational – does too. That’s not to say those shows aren’t entertaining, but the claim is that educational programming can easily be self-supporting. > [@jtgain](#): > > Could you provide an example of these great local shows that would be eliminated? If they are so great, couldn’t advertising pay for a station to air them? That’s not actually how television works. Advertisers are a little interested in sheer numbers, but more interested in particular demographics. Lotsa people watch _Downton Abbey_, but not necessarily people advertisers think are receptive to ads. > [@Mangosteen](#): > > “However, the situation is NOT that dire.” ??? > > The USA is spending OVER ONE TRILLION DOLLARS more than it is taking in in revenue EVERY year! > > Tell me again that this is not a “dire” situation. That’s not actually how government spending works. See the _Forbes_ piece I linked above [QUOTE=ibid.] Cut ALL Federal salaries by 25% and you’ll still find plenty of well qualified people to fill the positions if the present employees don’t want to work for $75, 000 a year instead of their present $100,000 a year salary. Then cut the payroll by 25% and that will leave plenty of people to do the work. [/QUOTE] Government employees already make less than the equivalent positions in the private sector. > [@Leaffan](#): > > No. 100% of the above would do with 25% less. I think it’s a good starting point. Oh, and introduce a federal sales tax while you’re at it. Wow, no. Sales taxes hit the poor proportionately way harder than the rich, unless it’s only on things over $500 or something like that. > [@ekedolphin](#): > > So, given all this, what would be the negative side effect of simply having PBS with commercials? Just choose your sponsors carefully. The Learning Channel provides a good illustration of that. ---
**Author:** ![johnpost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@johnpost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnpost)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/67 "2012-10-10T13:57:34Z")
> [@ekedolphin](#): > > So, given all this, what would be the negative side effect of simply having PBS with commercials? Just choose your sponsors carefully. some discussion here > **[I Pit PBS](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=668198)** > > I know they they have to raise money. I contribute every year. But when they run shows and spend more time asking for money than they do actually running the show it REALLY pisses me off. Case in point - they aired a Simon and Garfunkel documentary... ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/68 "2012-10-10T14:07:59Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > I’m starting to think that broadcast television is an obsolete medium anyways. The way towards the future for some of these shows might just end up being internet shows. Starting to see more than a few of those as it is, shows that would never happen on traditional TV, but which just work on the internet. The internet doesn’t come free to your house like the local public television station does. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/69 "2012-10-10T17:35:04Z")
Isn’t Sesame Street sponsored by the letters C and E and by the number 9? ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/70 "2012-10-10T17:38:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The internet doesn’t come free to your house like the local public television station does. Bingo. We dropped out cable and bought rabbit ears. We get the major networks, a weather channel (not “the” WC) and PBS. Another random note; Sesame Street is a full 60 minutes. If you went commercial you would have to pick about 18 minutes to cut. Also, I wonder if it being on a major network would affect guest appearances. If famous person X had a show on channel 42, would they be allowed to be on _Sesame Stree_, which is on channel 24? ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/71 "2012-10-10T18:34:59Z")
Occupy Sesame Street! It’s not the hated the fat-cat bankers, those [1 percenters](http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm)–anyone with a total income of $343,927 or more as of 2009, based on their salaries. **At Corporation for Public Broadcasting, according to the CPB’s 2011 tax forms:** Patricia De Stacy Harrison, president and CEO $361,895 **At PBS, according to 2011 tax forms:** Paula Kerger, president and CEO $669,260 Michael Jones, chief operating officer $477,296 Barbara Landes, chief financial officer, treasurer, and senior vice president $402,355 Katherine Lauderdale, senior vice president and general counsel, $381,855. **At Sesame Workshop, according to 2011 tax forms:** Gary Knell, president and CEO of Sesame Workshop until October 2011, $988,456 H. Melvin Ming, current president and CEO, $584,572 Lewis Bernstein $406,387 Terry Fitzpatrick $439,741 Myung Kang-Huneke $389,005 Sherrie Westin $463,892 Susan Kolar $401,425 Miranda Barry $397,175 Maura Regan $379,733 Joseph Mazzarino $556,165 Caralynn Sandorf $354,476 Anita Stewart $455,369 Carrol Spinney, the actor who plays Big Bird, is a 1.06 percenter, at $314,072. The federal government gave the CPB a grant of $444.1 million in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![Curious\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Curious\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Curious_Mike)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/72 "2012-10-10T19:21:57Z")
I didn’t have time to read the entire thread so forgive me if this has been discussed upthread. Seems that many of the arguments for not cutting federal funding for PBS is because it would be inconseqential for the overall budget. Some stated that we need to start with bigger programs that will make an immediate difference. Lets take military spending for an example. So we decide to cut military spending. Now we have to decide what portions of military spending we will cut. (I know that there are certainly cuts that are needed and programs that are not needed here, but opinions will vary.) Aren’t we back in the same situation. Lets cut military spending on upkeep of facilities that are no longer in use (sell them). But that is an inconsequential portion of the overall budget so forget it its not worth the hassle. The point was made earlier that the cuts have to start somewhere. I think that they need to be far reaching and they may hurt some but the US will be stronger for it in the long run. I think that Romney’s “is it worth it to borrow money to fund it” test is a good one that should be applied accross the board. Personally, the reason I get testy with calls for more taxes is that I think the the government does a poor job with the money that it gets now. If they were to handle the tax revenues that they already take more prudently I wouldn’t mind nearly as much. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/73 "2012-10-10T19:31:55Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > Bingo. > > We dropped out cable and bought rabbit ears. We get the major networks, a weather channel (not “the” WC) and PBS. > > Another random note; Sesame Street is a full 60 minutes. If you went commercial you would have to pick about 18 minutes to cut. > > Also, I wonder if it being on a major network would affect guest appearances. If famous person X had a show on channel 42, would they be allowed to be on _Sesame Stree_, which is on channel 24? \*\*Yes! The main thing is that _Sesame Street_–and all those other PBS shows–are available to anybody with a TV set. No high-speed internet access or cable required. And they are also on basic cable. \*\* In Houston, we’ve got 3 broadcast PBS stations–1 in Spanish. During the day, they play mostly educational stuff. I don’t “remember” _Sesame Street_–I remember _Howdy Doody_. (And they wonder why our generation turned out weird.) No kids in my house, but I’d prefer that future Americans get as much education as possible. PBS does run “commercials”–those sponsor spots between shows. That’s why _Sherlock_ has up to 8 minutes cut from each episode for PBS. But it’s better than nothing. And a good number of the shows I like to stream on Netflix got some funding from PBS… I remember the excitement of the early cable days. Who needs PBS when you’ve got Bravo and Arts & Entertainment? Besides those SF shows, SciFi also had Science Fact… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/74 "2012-10-10T20:12:19Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Could you or anyone give me one program as an example? Give me one show that the History Channel, A&E, TLC, Discovery, or the Science Channel wouldn’t pick up because nobody would watch it, yet it is still worthwhile to be broadcast through deficit funding by the federal government. There are a lot of channels that were launched in the 1990s or so based on ideas that were first implemented on public television – historical documentaries, cooking, British programming, sciences, fine arts, instructional television, children’s programming, music performances. These channels were very good for a decade or two, but now most of these channels – Discovery, The Learning Channel, History, Arts and Entertainment, Bravo – in fact almost every network that was addressing specialized segments in the 1990s has eroded so that they all show the same old reality show garbage. On the one hand, public broadcasting was a crucial incubator for new ideas, and on the other hand, basic cable proved that some great ideas don’t last on the commercial side when the purpose changes from serving underserved needs to chasing the broadest possible audiences. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/75 "2012-10-10T20:25:54Z")
> [@Curious\_Mike](#): > > The point was made earlier that the cuts have to start somewhere. I think that they need to be far reaching and they may hurt some but the US will be stronger for it in the long run. Cutting the entire discretionary budget is not even starting. It will still continue to grow the deficit but at a smaller rate. “Far reaching” cuts that touch the big programs are rarely considered. Instead, people suggest feel-good cuts to “wasteful” programs, ironically because they are more tangible than a few percentages off of Medicare or SS. ---
**Author:** ![ekedolphin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ekedolphin/32/10003_2.png) [@ekedolphin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ekedolphin)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/76 "2012-10-11T20:45:48Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Isn’t Sesame Street sponsored by the letters C and E and by the number 9? Yeah, but they’re stingy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/77 "2012-10-11T22:05:42Z")
The US needs drastic budget cuts, full spectrum. Then you need to increase fuel taxes, introduce a federal sales tax, and start seriously taxing the rich. You guys are in trouble and need to agree to take action. The above would be a good start. I’m serious and I don’t know how anyone could disagree with the strategy. In 30 years you could be a very destitute country unless you act now. Perhaps a second term Obama could manage to push some reform through? Otherwise I don’t know how you can continue down the same path of ruin forever. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/78 "2012-10-11T22:16:38Z")
Gee, thanks for saving our poor dumb asses. We’re so stupid that we can’t see this for ourselves. It takes an outsider with clear vision, no prejudices, and a startling and total ignorance of economics to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/79 "2012-10-11T22:35:05Z")
What’s your proposal? Canada basically implemented the above over the last 2 or 3 decades. Wonder who’s cryin’ now. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859/80 "2012-10-11T22:49:14Z")
Canada implemented “drastic” budget cuts? That’s basically a recipe for shutting down the economy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-sesame-street-actually-need-government-funding/636859.md?page=5)