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.
Just to re-iterate the OP
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.
Plenty of private weather satellites out there.
http://www.spacenews.com/earth_observation/091120-geooptics-sell-weather-data-noaa.html
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.
So, given all this, what would be the negative side effect of simply having PBS with commercials? Just choose your sponsors carefully.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Learning Channel provides a good illustration of that.
some discussion here
The internet doesn’t come free to your house like the local public television station does.
Isn’t Sesame Street sponsored by the letters C and E and by the number 9?
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?
Occupy Sesame Street!
It’s not the hated the fat-cat bankers, those 1 percenters–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.
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.
**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…
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.
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.
Yeah, but they’re stingy. 
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.
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.
What’s your proposal?
Canada basically implemented the above over the last 2 or 3 decades. Wonder who’s cryin’ now.
Canada implemented “drastic” budget cuts? That’s basically a recipe for shutting down the economy.