I keep seeing jokes and such about Romney threatening Big Bird. When I try to search, I only get more jokes.
Has this been created whole cloth? Or did Romney actually weigh in on a Sesame Street character?
There was a fairly well publicized presidential debate (I’m surprised you didn’t at least see the promos for it) in which he mentioned that while he loved Big Bird, if elected, he would cut funding for PBS.
Well of COURSE I’m aware of the debate. And I was aware that he had threatened to cut PBS - I just didn’t know that he had singled out Big Bird in that way.
Thanks for the information, anyway.
Well, it was a throw-away quip after he mentioned the funding bit – “And, hey, I love Big Bird.”
Sort of like “Hey, I love all you guys, but I’ve sold the company and you’re fired.”
He also said he likes Jim Lehrer (also of PBS). Less warm fuzzies from that one, though.
Oddly, most commentators across the spectrum seem to take it at face value that Big Bird, and PBS more generally, are somehow dependent on the government. They aren’t. Sesame Workshop, which produces the show, is not funded by the government. Merchandising brings in more than enough money to pay some guy to run around dressed as a large, yellow bird. PBS stations that broadcast this stuff get only a small portion of their money from the federal government. Big Bird’s extremely generous salary is safe no matter what any President does.
That is true, but not the whole story, as I understand it.
There is no doubt that Sesame Street will continue to exist. The question is where it will exist - will it be on free over-the-air television in all markets? Local PBS stations in smaller communities are more dependent on public funding than ones in large markets. And obviously there are many other shows on public broadcasting (both TV and radio) that are not as marketable as Sesame Street.
Sesame Workshop (and Children’s Television Workshop) and PBS are separate entities. Saying that Big Bird will still exist ignores the larger issue of how it’s distributed and whether PBS will exist and in what form. Given the career arcs of “for profit” educational programming channels (TLC, History, Discovery, A&E) I think there’s value in funding a bona fide educational programming channel available to everyone and which stays true to its purpose.
Or, hey, maybe someday Big Bird can tell us what the favorite cakes and wedding dresses were of Hitler’s druidic chupacabra army before they took up lobster fishing at the toddler beauty pageant.
At the time Sesame Street was created, it served a useful purpose since the only televised entertainment folks could get was the three networks. In such an environment, I think most folks would agree that it was justifiable for the government to subsidize some alternative. Today, however, we have hundreds of cable channels, even more options on satellite, DVD, online distribution of video, and more. Anything that there’s a market for, even if it’s a very small niche market, will be able to find its audience and do so without federal subsidies.
You’re jumping from PBS to Sesame Street again, ITR Champion.
PBS and Sesame Street represent a liberal entity to many on the right. Yes, Romney singled out Big Bird and said he will cut funding for PBS and it’s an effect form of symbolism to his party. I kind of like the idea of a network that isn’t dependent of funds from advertising to survive. It brings about a sort of bias on it’s own. Also, if PBS is such a horrific subsidy because it can survive without federal funds, the same standard should be placed on all corporations.
Your position is either trivial or false.
It’s trivial if you’re suggesting that PBS or Sesame Street would survive in some form absent federal spending. That’s true, but the whole point is that it would be able to do 23% less (or whatever the proportion is).
It’s false if you’re suggesting the federal money has no effect on what is produced and where it’s shown.
If your argument is that government ought not subsidize that which would exist in some form on its own, you haven’t given any warrant for that argument.
You’re on. Most conservatives would be delighted to can or at least severely curtail corporate subsidies.
No, they wouldn’t.
Yeah, most conservatives. Classic conservatives. The things called “conservatives” that populate the Republican party are NOT those conservatives.
So why, out of all of those hundreds of channels, is PBS still the only educational one?
ka-ching!
Really?? Tell me where this republican party is or what you are reading that makes you believe that about this party. It’s certainly not the impression I get.
Hey, I’m all for public funding, but C-SPAN is pretty good still as far as I’m aware. I can see issues regarding impartiality arising given congressional investigations into their affiliates though.