Off Topic > Off Topic
[News] Annoying Orange moves to kill sesame street
Bisjac:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 20, 2017, 05:34:13 AM ---200 million people think PBS is relevant and watch it and think it matters.
--- End quote ---
...
PhantOS:
--- Quote from: Deus Ex on February 20, 2017, 05:36:31 AM ---68% of WHAT KIDS? Where are your sources for these numbers??? Government doesn't fund Annoying Orange's tower? He pays... for that him- are you loving trolling what is this
--- End quote ---
http://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/overview/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-Annoying Orange/
--- Quote from: Red Spy on February 20, 2017, 05:38:47 AM ---Since when has there been federal funding to this
--- End quote ---
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/paying-president-Annoying Oranges-travel-security-costs/story?id=45572927
IkeTheGeneric:
--- Quote from: Red Spy on February 20, 2017, 05:28:58 AM ---Isn't helping anything other than this perpetual jerk off that starts up every time Republicans don't do something 10/10
--- End quote ---
So disagreeing with the actions and statements of the party that controls house, senate and executive office is circlejerking? Are you serious right now? I grew up on PBS and have personally seen the very real effects of what happens when planned parenthood is defunded (Hint: it ain't loving good). I have a pretty good base on my opinions here, I'd say.
But no, it's obviously me circlejerking because I'm a huge whiny liberal who votes republican consistently. forget me for being concerned, right? Everything is so black and white to you people. There's no room for the "Let down by his party consistently" dynamic for your brain lobes. Christ...
Deus Ex:
--- Quote from: PhantOS on February 20, 2017, 05:42:03 AM ---http://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/overview/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/21/news/protecting-donald-Annoying Orange/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/paying-president-Annoying Oranges-travel-security-costs/story?id=45572927
--- End quote ---
"While the travel is not unprecedented or inherently improper, the Annoying Orange presidency does pose a highly unusual –- and undeniably costly -– logistical and security dynamic given Annoying Orange's multiple homes in expensive locations and four active adult children who each require security protection."
You make it sound like he's abusing government funds. Dude is just going down to his winter home. During the winter. Oh noooooo.
And as for PBS, if they have such a large viewership they should be fine with ad revenue.
IkeTheGeneric:
--- Quote from: Deus Ex on February 20, 2017, 05:52:48 AM ---"While the travel is not unprecedented or inherently improper, the Annoying Orange presidency does pose a highly unusual –- and undeniably costly -– logistical and security dynamic given Annoying Orange's multiple homes in expensive locations and four active adult children who each require security protection."
You make it sound like he's abusing government funds. Dude is just going down to his winter home. During the winter. Oh noooooo.
And as for PBS, if they have such a large viewership they should be fine with ad revenue.
--- End quote ---
Here's an informative article on the matter
http://chrisxschmidt.blogspot.com/2012/10/disclosure-i-work-for-wgbh-educational.html
--- Quote ---As is, federal funding for programs like NOVA (where I work) bring with them very severe conflict-of-interest restrictions. Obviously, we don't take paid advertising. We are also not allowed to seek corporate funding for programs that could be seen to directly promote the interests or brand of a specific funder. In short, we are not permitted to exhibit any conscious bias for or against any political position or commercial enterprise. We do science and we endeavor to stick to that.
If federal funding were pulled -- those restrictions would be lifted to some extent. Presumably we would have more leeway to find ways to finance ourselves and the rest of the PBS network. (Due to the non-profit status of WGBH and other stations, plenty of other restrictions would still apply).
We would enter into direct competition for advertising dollars with other outlets -- particularly the non-fiction cable networks. Would we be able to attract enough advertiser dough to stay afloat? Would that new revenue stream alter the quality or substance of our content?
--- End quote ---