No More PBS?
Do folks in "rural America" think that the folks who live in CO-OP City in the Bronx are part of the "urban elites"? They probably don't know about or think about them at all.
Who are these "urban elites"? They are a few people on the Upper East Side and Upper West Side and Beverly Hills and Pacific Heights, and a few similar neighborhoods.
The greater portion of the people in the Cities and near suburbs who voted for Clinton are waitresses, secretaries, bus drivers, school teachers and the like.
There is snobbery and there is snobbery.
It is not what I meant, and I will own my poorly worded post. The words "ignorant" and "hillbilly" used to describe people like me is something that I feel needs to change.
I mentioned your education system because I felt the act of anyone posting those words to describe people living in rural settings was in itself ignorant. Other posters thankfully have made that case better than I did.
Another story share; when I first moved to this area, my partner and I landed some amazing seats to a Yankees game. We had a great time, enjoyed hors d'oeuvres, had air conditioning when we wanted it (and New Yorkers were wonderful to us). We had taken the train and arrived back in town late in the evening after our wonderful day of fun. We walked towards home and came upon a well dressed man and woman standing at a crosswalk waiting for the light to change. We were wearing sports gear which is the norm for a Yankees game. I'll never forget what happened next. That couple turned and looked at us top to bottom to top again and the man said, "Oh...this is clearly due to the downturn of the economy". One of the best baseball experiences of my life only to arrive home and be mocked for what we were wearing. I was tempted myself to stereotype that man based on a religious item he was wearing and fill his ears with my special reserve language, but I chose a wiser path and simply crossed when the light changed.
My point is that negative stereotyping is a powerful thing. I have done it myself and have had to rewind my words. When we keep blaming a section of society for ruining the country and saying untrue things about them, eventually those people are going to become fed up and simply live up to those very words for spite.
Red_Barchetta said:
I'm not sure what you mean about education. Perhaps you're saying the voters I am referencing can't read? That sounds stereotypical and elitist. It wasn't necessary to make an in-depth study of these two candidates to understand which of them would be better for working class people.
CompassRose said:
? Well perhaps you should thank your own education system then? I just love it when folks both tell everyone how "others" voted and evidently change said person's votes for online discussions too.
Red_Barchetta said:
CompassRose said:
This comment made me both grin and grimace. I was raised in a rural area in another state and the main TV channel I watched growing up was PBS. So much so, that to this day, people have made comments on my "British" accent!
I think you might be surprised how many people like myself contribute to public broadcasting and to society and to philanthropy in your very own communities, and in ways that perhaps others don't see as contributory, because we have no need or want to be on the front page of the newspaper. I have seen a lot of "rural" and "hillbilly" comments on MOL that are FLAT OUT misguided. I think you will agree, that rural folks are the most likely to have toxic water, toxic soil, and so on, yet they are continually discriminated against by the majority of society. Does not this very discrimination feed into what we are now experiencing politically?
apple44 said:
Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?
I have no sympathy for anyone who votes against their own best interest.
The choice was a helluva lot more elemental (and obvious) than who would be better for working class people.
That's what's so frightening about their choice.
Red_Barchetta said:
I'm not sure what you mean about education. Perhaps you're saying the voters I am referencing can't read? That sounds stereotypical and elitist. It wasn't necessary to make an in-depth study of these two candidates to understand which of them would be better for working class people.
Certainly that man is worthy of all kinds of scorn; I don't want to insert myself into that sad experience you suffered. I understand the hurt that is caused by the words you cite. But let me ask you this: what am I to think of these voters who look at a man like DJT and think 'yeah, he's my guy'. Whose vote has forced this man upon the rest of this nation, the world, and themselves. These voters who, based on where I live, think I am elitist and have no concern for their well being. People who furthermore are unwilling to engage in rational conversation about this with any of us.
Again, it would not have taken a lot of research to properly discern which of the two candidates would best serve the needs of working people. The differences between the candidates were as plain as night and day. It appears to me that these voters didn't take 15 minutes to understand the consequences even THEY would suffer in voting as they did. In your opinion, what exactly am I supposed to think of people like this?
CompassRose said:
It is not what I meant, and I will own my poorly worded post. The words "ignorant" and "hillbilly" used to describe people like me is something that I feel needs to change.
(section here deleted to shrink this down)
One of the best baseball experiences of my life only to arrive home and be mocked for what we were wearing. I was tempted myself to stereotype that man based on a religious item he was wearing and fill his ears with my special reserve language, but I chose a wiser path and simply crossed when the light changed.
My point is that negative stereotyping is a powerful thing. I have done it myself and have had to rewind my words. When we keep blaming a section of society for ruining the country and saying untrue things about them, eventually those people are going to become fed up and simply live up to those very words for spite.
not sure why you can't make assumptions about viewership based on the proportion of people in an area who donate.
Yes, it's possible that they don't correlate, but I'd say it's highly unlikely.
I mean, do you think the opposite holds true? That audiences for PBS are higher in areas where contribution levels are lower?
Not quite sure of your point.
ebr95 said:
drummerboy said:
......
Here's some data. Look at where the light blue areas are - those are the areas with the highest likelihood that people will contribute to PBS. Every one of those light blue areas is in an urban area. Every one.
www.pamallison.com http://www.pamallison.com/2012/10/31/pbs/
PBS voters on average are wealthier, more liberal and more educated than average. Again - these are characteristics of urban areas, not rural ones.
Not sure why people want to pretend that these differences do not exist. They exist and are palpable.
I'm not sure one can make assumptions about viewership based upon who supports PBS financially. I suspect there are some of us here in Maplewood and elsewhere that watch PBS but cannot afford to support the station financially.There's a very effective request for support that features Lin-Manuel Miranda and he speaks of how PBS influenced him as a child. Countless children (and even those new to our country and learning English) watch "Sesame Street" and other children's programming. Also, PBS broadcasts performing arts programs that many of us simply can't afford these days (concerts, Broadway plays, opera, etc.) but have access to because of PBS. Also, PBS can be viewed without access to cable (which again some cannot afford). I think it says something positive about a government supporting programming like this. Also, compared to other budget items, the amount of support is small, but the impact is great.
If funding for PBS is eliminated, I suspect that the largest Northeast Corridor stations (WGBH, WNET, WETA) could survive on private and other sources of funding, at least to some extent (some programming might have to be cut) but it is likely that the more rural stations (where, ironically, the Trump voters might live) would have to shut down.
I really do not understand what your Yankees story has to do with anything.
Anyway, it is absolutely fair to characterize regions based on who they voted for.
It doesn't mean they're hillbillies and and that they sleep with their sisters.
It means that those regions are inordinately filled with people who apparently are incapable of discerning a blatant con man from a dedicated lifelong public servant.
To me, this is a serious concern.
The destructive behavior on their part is something that needs to be understood, commented on and criticized. People should not gain our respect by making horrendous decisions.
To be sure, it's also not fair to generalize about other behaviors of these voters based on their voting behavior - which I don't think happens much at MOL, despite the protestations of you and others - except in the context of trying to understand the decision making process.
CompassRose said:
It is not what I meant, and I will own my poorly worded post. The words "ignorant" and "hillbilly" used to describe people like me is something that I feel needs to change.
I mentioned your education system because I felt the act of anyone posting those words to describe people living in rural settings was in itself ignorant. Other posters thankfully have made that case better than I did.
Another story share; when I first moved to this area, my partner and I landed some amazing seats to a Yankees game. We had a great time, enjoyed hors d'oeuvres, had air conditioning when we wanted it (and New Yorkers were wonderful to us). We had taken the train and arrived back in town late in the evening after our wonderful day of fun. We walked towards home and came upon a well dressed man and woman standing at a crosswalk waiting for the light to change. We were wearing sports gear which is the norm for a Yankees game. I'll never forget what happened next. That couple turned and looked at us top to bottom to top again and the man said, "Oh...this is clearly due to the downturn of the economy". One of the best baseball experiences of my life only to arrive home and be mocked for what we were wearing. I was tempted myself to stereotype that man based on a religious item he was wearing and fill his ears with my special reserve language, but I chose a wiser path and simply crossed when the light changed.
My point is that negative stereotyping is a powerful thing. I have done it myself and have had to rewind my words. When we keep blaming a section of society for ruining the country and saying untrue things about them, eventually those people are going to become fed up and simply live up to those very words for spite.
Red_Barchetta
also, just to be clear - yes, derogatory stereotypes are bad things.
However, don't confuse stereotyping with attempts at understanding group behavior. When you talk about group behavior, you necessarily have to generalize. This is not stereotyping. This is using data to try to explain something.
Con men exist and succeed because people are gullible.
" A sucker is born every minute"
"You can full some of the people all of the time"
drummerboy said:
have you ever, for a second, wondered or cared, that the pre-eminent broadcast network in the world is government funded/hands-off BBC?
For a second. Did it ever cross your mind?
Ever?
Gilgul said:
These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.
Drummer boy: actually the BBC is entirely funded by the British public. One has to purchase a TV license annually to watch real time transmissions (not 'catch up' shows). However the government decides the fee payable. If you don't have a license the investigators keep turning up on your doorstep to check whether you have a TV or not, although they can't come in unless invited to without a search warrant (which they never bother to get). Most people would love the license to be abolished, although love that there are no annoying adverts every few minutes as is the case on all the other commercial channels.
The BBC also earns about 25% of income through selling shows worldwide eg. Top Gear (although Clarkson/Hammond/May have gone to Amazon and the replacements are not very good so far), Planet Earth etc.
I shared the Yankees story because I could have just as easily stereotyped and entire local religious sect based on the behavior and words of one of it's adherents. I was trying to relay what it is like being at the receiving end of the ignorant hillbilly stereotype. I wanted to share the story because like it or not, I am a part of the community.
I know my words tend to be less easy to understand when I get a bit miffed about something so I apologize for any confusion.
drummerboy said:
I really do not understand what your Yankees story has to do with anything.
Anyway, it is absolutely fair to characterize regions based on who they voted for.
It doesn't mean they're hillbillies and and that they sleep with their sisters.
It means that those regions are inordinately filled with people who apparently are incapable of discerning a blatant con man from a dedicated lifelong public servant.
To me, this is a serious concern.
The destructive behavior on their part is something that needs to be understood, commented on and criticized. People should not gain our respect by making horrendous decisions.
To be sure, it's also not fair to generalize about other behaviors of these voters based on their voting behavior - which I don't think happens much at MOL, despite the protestations of you and others - except in the context of trying to understand the decision making process.
CompassRose said:
It is not what I meant, and I will own my poorly worded post. The words "ignorant" and "hillbilly" used to describe people like me is something that I feel needs to change.
I mentioned your education system because I felt the act of anyone posting those words to describe people living in rural settings was in itself ignorant. Other posters thankfully have made that case better than I did.
Another story share; when I first moved to this area, my partner and I landed some amazing seats to a Yankees game. We had a great time, enjoyed hors d'oeuvres, had air conditioning when we wanted it (and New Yorkers were wonderful to us). We had taken the train and arrived back in town late in the evening after our wonderful day of fun. We walked towards home and came upon a well dressed man and woman standing at a crosswalk waiting for the light to change. We were wearing sports gear which is the norm for a Yankees game. I'll never forget what happened next. That couple turned and looked at us top to bottom to top again and the man said, "Oh...this is clearly due to the downturn of the economy". One of the best baseball experiences of my life only to arrive home and be mocked for what we were wearing. I was tempted myself to stereotype that man based on a religious item he was wearing and fill his ears with my special reserve language, but I chose a wiser path and simply crossed when the light changed.
My point is that negative stereotyping is a powerful thing. I have done it myself and have had to rewind my words. When we keep blaming a section of society for ruining the country and saying untrue things about them, eventually those people are going to become fed up and simply live up to those very words for spite.
Red_Barchetta
drummerboy, yes, that is my point--there are likely far more viewers (PBS makes this point itself based upon ratings, I believe) than financial contributors. Many folks do not have the level of discretionary income to support the stations financially. And of course the children who benefit from PBS programming can't donate!
drummerboy said:
not sure why you can't make assumptions about viewership based on the proportion of people in an area who donate.
Yes, it's possible that they don't correlate, but I'd say it's highly unlikely.
I mean, do you think the opposite holds true? That audiences for PBS are higher in areas where contribution levels are lower?
Not quite sure of your point.
ebr95 said:
drummerboy said:
......
Here's some data. Look at where the light blue areas are - those are the areas with the highest likelihood that people will contribute to PBS. Every one of those light blue areas is in an urban area. Every one.
www.pamallison.com/2012/10/31/pbs/
PBS voters on average are wealthier, more liberal and more educated than average. Again - these are characteristics of urban areas, not rural ones.
Not sure why people want to pretend that these differences do not exist. They exist and are palpable.
I'm not sure one can make assumptions about viewership based upon who supports PBS financially. I suspect there are some of us here in Maplewood and elsewhere that watch PBS but cannot afford to support the station financially.There's a very effective request for support that features Lin-Manuel Miranda and he speaks of how PBS influenced him as a child. Countless children (and even those new to our country and learning English) watch "Sesame Street" and other children's programming. Also, PBS broadcasts performing arts programs that many of us simply can't afford these days (concerts, Broadway plays, opera, etc.) but have access to because of PBS. Also, PBS can be viewed without access to cable (which again some cannot afford). I think it says something positive about a government supporting programming like this. Also, compared to other budget items, the amount of support is small, but the impact is great.
If funding for PBS is eliminated, I suspect that the largest Northeast Corridor stations (WGBH, WNET, WETA) could survive on private and other sources of funding, at least to some extent (some programming might have to be cut) but it is likely that the more rural stations (where, ironically, the Trump voters might live) would have to shut down.
LOST said:
Do folks in "rural America" think that the folks who live in CO-OP City in the Bronx are part of the "urban elites"? They probably don't know about or think about them at all.
Who are these "urban elites"? They are a few people on the Upper East Side and Upper West Side and Beverly Hills and Pacific Heights, and a few similar neighborhoods.
The greater portion of the people in the Cities and near suburbs who voted for Clinton are waitresses, secretaries, bus drivers, school teachers and the like.
There is snobbery and there is snobbery.
Often they don't look at neighborhoods. They look at and talk about NYC, that ungodly degenerate city of filth.
Thanks Red_Barchetta. I'm not sure DJT voters thought he was their guy so much as I think they felt talked down to or of not being heard. DJT had that loud voice, the press gave it a microphone, and he wooed rural America like he was on a prom date. When people feel like they are not being heard and experience negative comments about their lifestyles, intelligence, and identities, eventually I think they just reach a tipping point. A person desperate to be heard and desperate for change might make a deal with the devil if it came down to it.
It wasn't so long ago when President Clinton won using the same strategy. Hillary Clinton even mentioned it in one of her books. They were in rural Ohio at the time and voters told the Clintons, "if you give us eight minutes, we'll give you eight years". Ohio held to that promise. The same thing in 2016. They voted for the person they felt heard them regardless of party. Sadly, in four years it could happen again.
Red_Barchetta said:
Certainly that man is worthy of all kinds of scorn; I don't want to insert myself into that sad experience you suffered. I understand the hurt that is caused by the words you cite. But let me ask you this: what am I to think of these voters who look at a man like DJT and think 'yeah, he's my guy'. Whose vote has forced this man upon the rest of this nation, the world, and themselves. These voters who, based on where I live, think I am elitist and have no concern for their well being. People who furthermore are unwilling to engage in rational conversation about this with any of us.
Again, it would not have taken a lot of research to properly discern which of the two candidates would best serve the needs of working people. The differences between the candidates were as plain as night and day. It appears to me that these voters didn't take 15 minutes to understand the consequences even THEY would suffer in voting as they did. In your opinion, what exactly am I supposed to think of people like this?
funding through a tax (license fee) is government funding.
The point being that the reason it is exceptional is that it does not have to seek profits like our stations.
ApplePie said:
drummerboy said:
have you ever, for a second, wondered or cared, that the pre-eminent broadcast network in the world is government funded/hands-off BBC?
For a second. Did it ever cross your mind?
Ever?
Gilgul said:
These are cuts I fully support and have long advocated for. In this age of unlimited streaming options there is no need for any government money to go to a broadcaster ond government should not be paying for art. So CPB, National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities bye bye and don't let the door hit your rear on the way out. Be sure to turn out the lights.
Drummer boy: actually the BBC is entirely funded by the British public. One has to purchase a TV license annually to watch real time transmissions (not 'catch up' shows). However the government decides the fee payable. If you don't have a license the investigators keep turning up on your doorstep to check whether you have a TV or not, although they can't come in unless invited to without a search warrant (which they never bother to get). Most people would love the license to be abolished, although love that there are no annoying adverts every few minutes as is the case on all the other commercial channels.
The BBC also earns about 25% of income through selling shows worldwide eg. Top Gear (although Clarkson/Hammond/May have gone to Amazon and the replacements are not very good so far), Planet Earth etc.
apple44, I doubt that the rural people who might watch some PBS would watch all the shows you listed. I am saying that maybe if they watch one or two shows now and again, they could be influenced. As a therapist, I am aware that we cannot bombard people with a lot of info all at once. Change is slow.
yes, as a life long consumer of and occasional contributor to both PBS and NPR, I am well aware that the percentage of donators among their audience is quite low - well under 10% I think.
Again - that's not the point. The point is that both the primary viewership and donator base comes from urban areas, not rural ones.
I've been looking for ratings figures to buttress my point buy I can't find them at that level of detail, so I admit it's still supposition on my part.
ebr95 said:
drummerboy, yes, that is my point--there are likely far more viewers (PBS makes this point itself based upon ratings, I believe) than financial contributors. Many folks do not have the level of discretionary income to support the stations financially. And of course the children who benefit from PBS programming can't donate!
drummerboy said:
not sure why you can't make assumptions about viewership based on the proportion of people in an area who donate.
Yes, it's possible that they don't correlate, but I'd say it's highly unlikely.
I mean, do you think the opposite holds true? That audiences for PBS are higher in areas where contribution levels are lower?
Not quite sure of your point.
ebr95 said:
drummerboy said:
......
Here's some data. Look at where the light blue areas are - those are the areas with the highest likelihood that people will contribute to PBS. Every one of those light blue areas is in an urban area. Every one.
http://www.pamallison.com/2012/10/31/pbs/
PBS voters on average are wealthier, more liberal and more educated than average. Again - these are characteristics of urban areas, not rural ones.
Not sure why people want to pretend that these differences do not exist. They exist and are palpable.
I'm not sure one can make assumptions about viewership based upon who supports PBS financially. I suspect there are some of us here in Maplewood and elsewhere that watch PBS but cannot afford to support the station financially.There's a very effective request for support that features Lin-Manuel Miranda and he speaks of how PBS influenced him as a child. Countless children (and even those new to our country and learning English) watch "Sesame Street" and other children's programming. Also, PBS broadcasts performing arts programs that many of us simply can't afford these days (concerts, Broadway plays, opera, etc.) but have access to because of PBS. Also, PBS can be viewed without access to cable (which again some cannot afford). I think it says something positive about a government supporting programming like this. Also, compared to other budget items, the amount of support is small, but the impact is great.
If funding for PBS is eliminated, I suspect that the largest Northeast Corridor stations (WGBH, WNET, WETA) could survive on private and other sources of funding, at least to some extent (some programming might have to be cut) but it is likely that the more rural stations (where, ironically, the Trump voters might live) would have to shut down.
The areas hit by the defunding will be rural areas.
But the power players in public broadcasting — big-city staples like WNYC in New York City — would be well-equipped to weather any cuts. Major stations typically receive only a sliver of their annual budget from the federal government, thanks to listener contributions and corporate underwriters. Podcasts and other digital offshoots have also become significant sources of revenue.
Rural affiliates, however, rely more heavily on congressional largess, which can make up as much as 35 percent of their budgets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/media/corporation-for-public-broadcasting-cuts.html
apple44 said:
Irony is the large urban markets will make up for the losses through fundraising, while it's unlikely that the smaller and rural markets in Trump Country will. Then again, do those people watch PBS?
Ummmm.....yes.
I just have to say that this thread is tiresome with its regionalism and classist overtones.
Public TV is for everyone, that's the point.
It's watched all over the country by poor and wealthy, by Trumpers and Elites and some of us Libtards as some of my southern "friends" like to refer to me.
Come on people, it PBS! Wide and deep, poor and privileged, young, very young, old and such!
I'm aware of some "poor folks" in WV who loved Downton Abbey!
And some Elites on the Upper West Side who watch Austin City Limits and Mercy Street, along with This Old House. This proves NOTHING except there is a wide variety of quality programs AND AREN'T WE ALL BLESSED BY THAT!
I know I'm no "poll" but just cut out all the presumptions about who and where. Many and Many Places.
I'm aware of one set of stations in Mississippi that have great viewership. Come On, People, it's why it's called Public Television!
Best Regards,
Ron Carter
"Trumpers" are the people who vote for candidates that claim PBS is a liberal wasteland and tremendous waste of money that needs to be stopped.
Why would they be a significant part of their audience?
Makes no sense.
Your egalitarian sensibilities are noble, but misguided.
PBS and the NEA are constantly under attack. The people who do that attacking share characteristics among themselves, but they don't share very much with the PBS audience. They don't actually like us.
Why should we pretend otherwise?
rcarter31 said:
I just have to say that this thread is tiresome with its regionalism and classist overtones.
Public TV is for everyone, that's the point.
It's watched all over the country by poor and wealthy, by Trumpers and Elites and some of us Libtards as some of my southern "friends" like to refer to me.
Come on people, it PBS! Wide and deep, poor and privileged, young, very young, old and such!
I'm aware of some "poor folks" in WV who loved Downton Abbey!
And some Elites on the Upper West Side who watch Austin City Limits and Mercy Street, along with This Old House. This proves NOTHING except there is a wide variety of quality programs AND AREN'T WE ALL BLESSED BY THAT!
I know I'm no "poll" but just cut out all the presumptions about who and where. Many and Many Places.
I'm aware of one set of stations in Mississippi that have great viewership. Come On, People, it's why it's called Public Television!
Best Regards,
Ron Carter
Unfortunately for us, the world, and themselves that's exactly what they did. Unfortunately for them specifically, they will get nothing out of the bargain - less than nothing in that they will lose benefits. At least Robert Johnson made some great music.
CompassRose said:
A person desperate to be heard and desperate for change might make a deal with the devil if it came down to it.
Downton Abby is a production of a commercial network in Britain. It did not need tax dollars to be available to Americans. This Old House is a business juggernaut. Stop the insanity of government subsidies.
I am chastened and overwhelmed at the 2 data points presented. A veritable wealth of data.
I am clearly wrong.
Gilgul said:
Downton Abby is a production of a commercial network in Britain. It did not need tax dollars to be available to Americans. This Old House is a business juggernaut. Stop the insanity of government subsidies.
DA was a co-production of NBC's UK affiliate and Masterpiece Theatre (PBS), which has public funding. The distribution in the US also received public money.
But I am sure Netflix or some other US outlet would have picked up its distribution. CPB was not essential.
We might finally get to meet Mrs Pattmore's twin sister, the soup maker.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I'm not sure one can make assumptions about viewership based upon who supports PBS financially. I suspect there are some of us here in Maplewood and elsewhere that watch PBS but cannot afford to support the station financially.There's a very effective request for support that features Lin-Manuel Miranda and he speaks of how PBS influenced him as a child. Countless children (and even those new to our country and learning English) watch "Sesame Street" and other children's programming. Also, PBS broadcasts performing arts programs that many of us simply can't afford these days (concerts, Broadway plays, opera, etc.) but have access to because of PBS. Also, PBS can be viewed without access to cable (which again some cannot afford). I think it says something positive about a government supporting programming like this. Also, compared to other budget items, the amount of support is small, but the impact is great.
If funding for PBS is eliminated, I suspect that the largest Northeast Corridor stations (WGBH, WNET, WETA) could survive on private and other sources of funding, at least to some extent (some programming might have to be cut) but it is likely that the more rural stations (where, ironically, the Trump voters might live) would have to shut down.