http://www.snopes.com/politics/arts/pbs.asp
Although a long-outdated piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again.

In June 2005 a House subcommittee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting (including funds for shows such as "Sesame Street") If this budgetary plan were approved, it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which currently makes up 15% of the funding for PBS. As the Washington Post reported:
A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."
Broadcasting — which passes federal funds to public broadcasters — starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format.
Although this legislation, if approved, would not (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue.

Although most efforts to protect public broadcasting from these proposed budget cuts urge supporters to affix their names to some type of petition, we believe the most effective course of action is to contact one's congressional representative(s) directly, by U.S. mail, telephone, fax, or e-mail.

The government should NOT pay for Sesame Street. It should pay for Blue's Clues.

Not one penny should go to the bitter bastard on Blue's Clues!

Big Bird could use some new implants, so yes.

That's terrible if they pull the funding.

This may be overturned if it passes the house and senate. It's not perfect, but it's better. You can listen to a piece from this mornings NPR broadcast:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4707441

What the hell? I always thought Sesame Street was brought to me by the letter W.

That's terrible if they pull the funding.

I agree. If anything they should get more funding, not less.

Sesame Street is worth every penny. Barney and Telletubbies(sp?) on the other hand... Barney teaches what, singing songs and maybe things like manners? God knows what Telletubbies teaches. Sesame Street has helped teach generations of children things like numbers, letters, and various other skills that can help prepare kids for early schooling.

I was up early Saturday morning a few weeks ago and saw the spanish language version of Sesame Street on KET(Kentucky's PBS). That was quite a weird trip. The Spanish songs were catchy, and Spanish big bird look like an even fruiter version of Big Bird who crashed into a stack of opened paint cans.

I mean what then, CSI - Kindergarden Edition?

What the hell? I always thought Sesame Street was brought to me by the letter W.

Brilliant!

Yes, but W doesn't have the deep pockets of the number 8. They lost that deal when Oscar made derogatory comments about cubed prime numbers.

Actually, I don't think Sesame street is going to be in any danger if funding is pulled from PBS. Sesame Street Picks up a lot of other money from videos, toys etc. It is the other shows, like that Joy of Painting show, or reading rainbow or whatever that is going to feal the pinch from losing 15% of thier funding.

If something is worth supporting and having around, then the means will always be found to do so. This applies to any non-core entities fully or partially subsidized by the Federal Govt. This helps weed out those things that are not worthy of support and to provide a boon to those underwriting support for the popular programs.

Buc: Huh? By this logic we can just stop funding the federal goverment and let the chips fall where they may. Pulling funding isn't really a fair way to "weed out those things that are not worthy of support"

You can argue that we don't need Sesame Street, but saying that federal funding has no effect is ridiculous.

the federal funding is what makes it good. I really don't want Sesame Street presented by Wal-Mart.

Buc: Huh? By this logic we can just stop funding the federal goverment and let the chips fall where they may. Pulling funding isn't really a fair way to "weed out those things that are not worthy of support"

Sure it is. With the popularity of something like Sesame Street and NPR, you wouldn't think that corporate and foundation underwriters would love to sponsor such those? We are forced to partially support programming on PBS regardless if it's good or if anyone is watching it. The Federal Govt does not hold themselves to accountable in spending our money. By taking it out of their hands, we (as consumers) get to decide. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than a political tool to be decided by backroom deals and arm-twistings.

the federal funding is what makes it good. I really don't want Sesame Street presented by Wal-Mart.
I disagree. Your local symphony derives support solely from your local lovers of the arts and they strive to present the product possible within their support to present to their customers. Those that chose to contribute should have a direct say in the quality of products (as PBS does for the most part). The more you take it out of our hands in and give it the powers in Wash DC, we lose more direct control.

the federal funding is what makes it good. I really don't want Sesame Street presented by Wal-Mart.

Have you watched sesame street latly It alread has a comercial just before and after the show saying that Sesame Street is presented by Danimals (I think that it was Danimals last time I watched with my son).

well greater minds than me can hash it out but it's worked fine to this point.

Have you watched sesame street latly It alread has a comercial just before and after the show saying that Sesame Street is presented by Danimals (I think that it was Danimals last time I watched with my son).

Add Beaches Resorts and McDonald's to the list of Sesame Street's corporate sponsors.

I'd just as soon not have my son be advertised to at all when watching an educational program.

Your local symphony derives support solely from your local lovers of the arts and they strive to present the product possible within their support to present to their customers.

Not any symphony I know. They all get money from the NEA, from state art agencies and many from locality agencies. Almost every symphony in the country will fold without government funding.

I kow that you would cut a ton of federal spending and that's fine, but your contention that federal funding has no effect is crazy. I'm certain education funding for special ed students can't exist without federal spending, but you seem to think that the market will support it if its worthwhile. There are some things that can't function within the constructs of the free market and need government money to survive.

That probably doesn't apply to Sesame Street and if you want to argue that the government shouldn't fund Sesame Street, fine, but you can't just say everything good will still exist without government funding.

the government funds sesame street? That means Bert and Ernie can't be gay! Conspiracy solved.

JPhillips: I am speaking generally as a libertarian. If one is very concerned about the growing power of the Federal Govt, the ever expanding budgets and deficits, and the continued erosion of local control and say, how does one begin to turn that around? I certainly don't advocate that this is the first place to start but the general mindset that I argue against is that one can say that anything the govt funds must be worthwhile. It is - to at least one person - and then you multiply that by millions of endeavors and special interests. Pretty soon, we have $2+ trillion budgets, reduced accountability and a bureaucracy that has to take in too much money to meet their obligations.

How do we (as the public) learn to accept less in order to gain more control?

Public broadcasting is one of the things that makes our country great.

dola...

And as an applicant for an NEA grant next year, I certainly wouldn't support efforts to carve it down. :)

Big Bird could use some new implants, so yes.
As a side note, Big Bird is a good friend of mine.

It's strange. I went to a well-respected acting school and the biggest star out of any of my classmates wears a bird suit.

Well, not "strange" so much as "sad."

I think PBS' funding should be cut until they bring back Wishbone. Man I loved that show.

That's a rational argument and to a certain extent I agree.

What you seemed to be saying above though was that anything not funded privately must not be worthwhile. I disagree with that strongly. There are some things that can't exist solely through private funding.

At the end of the day this is probably another argument where we see different roles for the government and that won't be bridged. But, I certainly am with you on the growing deficit.

What the hell? I always thought Sesame Street was brought to me by the letter W.
Apparently the President thought the same thing.

SI

As a side note, Big Bird is a good friend of mine.

It's strange. I went to a well-respected acting school and the biggest star out of any of my classmates wears a bird suit.

Well, not "strange" so much as "sad."

You know Carroll Spinney? Or Matt Vogel? I assume the latter, since Spinney's now 72 years old. Either way - that's very cool.

I've always thought working on Sesame Street would be a fun gig - does your friend like it?

What ever happened to the Electric Company? Wasn't that on PBS as well?

As a side note, Big Bird is a good friend of mine.

It's strange. I went to a well-respected acting school and the biggest star out of any of my classmates wears a bird suit.

Well, not "strange" so much as "sad."
From the "glass as half full", you could look at it as being one more useful and productive member of society than usually comes out of an acting class ;)

SI

Sesame Street taught me a lot when I was a kid. I really believe it helps education, and that's an area that should receive more funding, not less. Yeah, I'm in Canada, but that doesn't mean I don't want Sesame Street to be around anymore or anything... it's still shown here.

On that note, has anyone else watched the Canadian "skits" of Sesame street? At least I think it was Sesame Street... there was some old woman puppet, some big grey bear, and some small animal thing named Louie who had a French accent? I hated when the skits came on, and I believe it was in Canada only...

I caught an episode last week and they had "Grouch Eye for the Happy Guy" or something to that effect. You guessed it, 5 puppets that looked like Oscar were trying to make a 'happy' guy grouchy. . .

zoo

errr....zoom

I caught an episode last week and they had "Grouch Eye for the Happy Guy" or something to that effect. You guessed it, 5 puppets that looked like Oscar were trying to make a 'happy' guy grouchy. . .

It was Bob they were accosting - and he described his makeover into a grouch as being "kind of freeing."

The Chappelle riff on Oscar is hilarious.

"Bitch, I live in a trash can!"

I think PBS' funding should be cut until they bring back Wishbone. Man I loved that show.

Who wants to play with the cute little dog?

My kid had a thing for Wishbone. I got her a talking Wishbone. I find stuffed animals that speak in the 3rd person somewhat disturbing...

-----------------

Sesame Street & Electric Compay need to have deluxe DVD seasonal sets released. I would love to watch the old Shows from the 70's again! Ever since Satan... I mean Elmo took over the show sucks more than was ever thought possible back in 1977...

Truthfully Sesame Street "Jumped The Shark" when Mr. Hooper died.

What the hell do they need funding for? Big Bird Suit dry-cleaning?

Who wants to play with the cute little dog?

My kid had a thing for Wishbone. I got her a talking Wishbone. I find stuffed animals that speak in the 3rd person somewhat disturbing...
Arlie bought me a stuffed Wishbone for Valentine's Day one year. The one where Wishbone was dressed up as Romeo from Romeo and Juliet. It was sweet. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

I didn't talk thought - talking stuffed toys give me nightmares (Teddy Ruxpin gives me the willies).

What the hell do they need funding for? Big Bird Suit dry-cleaning?
I'm pretty sure tv stations and antennas and cameras and the like cost money.

SI

I just read about a bill that seemed good to me, but I wanted to hear what some of the conservative/liberterians around here thought of it. At some point in the not too distant future, currently 2008 but I suspect later than that, PBS, like all broadcast stations, will have to convert to digital broadcasting. This will free up broadcasting spectrum, which the government is going to sell. The legaslation would propose that 20% of that sale would be set aside into a sort of trust fund. This fund would give grants to colleges and universities, but more importantly it would give the Corporation for Public Broadcasting an endowment of about 400 million dollars.

A friend of mine did PR for Sesame Street for a while (The Sesame Street Biography was her idea.) She said that after hours the studio is wierd... She looked up and Mr. Snufalufagus was hanging from the rafters.

they should let the government fund it. we could have even better words

L is for Libereal
R is for Right Wing
H is for hooker
p is for pork barrel


Let's really give our kids a leg up.

Saw this over on tv.com (cnet's site that bought out tvtome.com)

http://www.tv.com/story/story.html&story_id=378

House restores $100 million in funds to Public Broadcasting
By Colin Mahan | more stories by this author
June 23, 2005 at 05:18:00 PM

The US House of Representatives votes to restore $100 million to a previously slashed budget.

When Congress voted to cut PBS funding by 25 percent, public television stations and their supporters mobilized to have Congress restore the cuts. Now, Congress has voted to restore $100 million to Public Broadcasting's 2006 budget.

Republican lawmakers said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which runs Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, could make up the rest of the needed money through pledge drives and corporate sponsorships. They also stipulated that the federal funds would not be used for the "Ready to Learn" kids grant or for assisting PBS with digital conversion.

In a related story, Patricia Harrison, former cochair of the Republican National Committee, was appointed chief executive officer of the CPB.

SI

Hell, if the government is paying for Viagra through Medicare, I think it can pay for Sesame Street.

I always thought this was very worthy of funding.

Setting aside the issue of whether the govt should fund PBS, the govt shouldn't have to, except somebody over there isn't too sharp. Walk in your local toy store, or the toy dept. of your neighborhood Wal-Mart. How many things do you see with a Sesame Street character? How many videos on the shelves, and how much potential for more? The licensing from that should fund PBS entirely (and maybe pay off the national debt as well!), except PBS apparently doesn't know much about licensing. If somebody at PBS thought like an evil capitalist, they wouldn't be worried now about the govt telling them how to program. Water under the bridge, maybe, but there are still things that could be done. Some of you who, like me, were children in the 70's, I bet would buy Electric Company, Zoom, or Mr. Rogers videos for their kids. But you can't find them. Somebody isn't thinking.

What I was reading about this was that shows like Sesame Street were pretty much being self-funded, but the cut was going to hurt the smaller, local programs that are on your local PBS station. Yelling about Sesame Street going away is a convenient diversion, but in reality it was all the little shows no one watches that were going to be in trouble.

Once upon a time Sesame Street was a show no one watched, fyi.

Setting aside the issue of whether the govt should fund PBS, the govt shouldn't have to, except somebody over there isn't too sharp. Walk in your local toy store, or the toy dept. of your neighborhood Wal-Mart. How many things do you see with a Sesame Street character? How many videos on the shelves, and how much potential for more? The licensing from that should fund PBS entirely (and maybe pay off the national debt as well!), except PBS apparently doesn't know much about licensing. If somebody at PBS thought like an evil capitalist, they wouldn't be worried now about the govt telling them how to program. Water under the bridge, maybe, but there are still things that could be done. Some of you who, like me, were children in the 70's, I bet would buy Electric Company, Zoom, or Mr. Rogers videos for their kids. But you can't find them. Somebody isn't thinking.
There is something to be said for the lack of moichendaising ("Spaceballs: the flamethrower. The kids love this one!") going on over there. That, said I think a post earlier summed it up nicely, why we don't want them getting too deep into corporate sponsorship or reliant on corporate money. It's supposed to be something purely educational and what happens when they start relying on companies that have too much political leaning one way or another. Is there going to be "Promote Homosexuality Day" or "Gay Marriage is Wrong Day" on Sesame Street?

I'd just as soon not have my son be advertised to at all when watching an educational program.
SI

Here's an interesting column by Frank Rich of the NYTimes. While his writing style is a bit melodramatic, he provides a slightly different take on this whole situation - one that I find worrisome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/opinion/26rich.html?incamp=article_popular_1&pagewanted=print

June 26, 2005
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_headline> The Armstrong Williams NewsHour

<nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "> </nyt_byline> By FRANK RICH
<nyt_text> </nyt_text> HERE'S the difference between this year's battle over public broadcasting and the one that blew up in Newt Gingrich's face a decade ago: this one isn't really about the survival of public broadcasting. So don't be distracted by any premature obituaries for Big Bird. Far from being an endangered species, he's the ornithological equivalent of a red herring.

Let's not forget that Laura Bush has made a fetish of glomming onto popular "Sesame Street" characters in photo-ops. Polls consistently attest to the popular support for public broadcasting, while Congress is in a race to the bottom with Michael Jackson. Big Bird will once again smite the politicians - as long as he isn't caught consorting with lesbians.

That doesn't mean the right's new assault on public broadcasting is toothless, far from it. But this time the game is far more insidious and ingenious. The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers' expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations - or thrilled to the "journalism" of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies - you'll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.

There's only one obstacle standing in the way of the coup. Like Richard Nixon, another president who tried to subvert public broadcasting in his war to silence critical news media, our current president may be letting hubris get the best of him. His minions are giving any investigative reporters left in Washington a fresh incentive to follow the money.

That money is not the $100 million that the House still threatens to hack out of public broadcasting's various budgets. Like the theoretical demise of Big Bird, this funding tug-of-war is a smoke screen that deflects attention from the real story. Look instead at the seemingly paltry $14,170 that, as Stephen Labaton of The New York Times reported on June 16 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/politics/16broadcast.html), found its way to a mysterious recipient in Indiana named Fred Mann. Mr. Labaton learned that in 2004 Kenneth Tomlinson, the Karl Rove pal who is chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, clandestinely paid this sum to Mr. Mann to monitor his PBS bête noire, Bill Moyers's "Now."

Now, why would Mr. Tomlinson pay for information that any half-sentient viewer could track with TiVo? Why would he hire someone in Indiana? Why would he keep this contract a secret from his own board? Why, when a reporter exposed his secret, would he try to cover it up by falsely maintaining in a letter to an inquiring member of the Senate, Byron Dorgan, that another CPB executive had "approved and signed" the Mann contract when he had signed it himself? If there's a news story that can be likened to the "third-rate burglary," the canary in the coal mine that invited greater scrutiny of the Nixon administration's darkest ambitions, this strange little sideshow could be it.

After Mr. Labaton's first report, Senator Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, called Mr. Tomlinson demanding to see the "product" Mr. Mann had provided for his $14,170 payday. Mr. Tomlinson sent the senator some 50 pages of "raw data." Sifting through those pages when we spoke by phone last week, Mr. Dorgan said it wasn't merely Mr. Moyers's show that was monitored but also the programs of Tavis Smiley and NPR's Diane Rehm.

Their guests were rated either L for liberal or C for conservative, and "anti-administration" was affixed to any segment raising questions about the Bush presidency. Thus was the conservative Republican Senator Chuck Hagel given the same L as Bill Clinton simply because he expressed doubts about Iraq in a discussion mainly devoted to praising Ronald Reagan. Three of The Washington Post's star beat reporters (none of whom covers the White House or politics or writes opinion pieces) were similarly singled out simply for doing their job as journalists by asking questions about administration policies.

"It's pretty scary stuff to judge media, particularly public media, by whether it's pro or anti the president," Senator Dorgan said. "It's unbelievable."

Not from this gang. Mr. Mann was hardly chosen by chance to assemble what smells like the rough draft of a blacklist. He long worked for a right-wing outfit called the National Journalism Center, whose director, M. Stanton Evans, is writing his own Ann Coulteresque book to ameliorate the reputation of Joe McCarthy. What we don't know is whether the 50 pages handed over to Senator Dorgan is all there is to it, or how many other "monitors" may be out there compiling potential blacklists or Nixonian enemies lists on the taxpayers' dime.

We do know that it's standard practice for this administration to purge and punish dissenters and opponents - whether it's those in the Pentagon who criticized Donald Rumsfeld's low troop allotments for Iraq or lobbying firms on K Street that don't hire Tom DeLay cronies. We also know that Mr. Mann's highly ideological pedigree is typical of CPB hires during the Tomlinson reign.

Eric Boehlert of Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/26/fulton_lewis_connection) discovered that one of the two public ombudsmen Mr. Tomlinson recruited in April to monitor the news broadcasts at PBS and NPR for objectivity, William Schulz, is a former writer for the radio broadcaster Fulton Lewis Jr., a notorious Joe McCarthy loyalist and slime artist. The Times reported that to provide "insights" into Conrad Burns, a Republican senator who supported public-broadcasting legislation that Mr. Tomlinson opposed, $10,000 was shelled out to Brian Darling, the G.O.P. operative who wrote the memo instructing Republicans to milk Terri Schiavo as "a great political issue."

Then, on Thursday, a Rove dream came true: Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, ascended to the CPB presidency. In her last job, as an assistant secretary of state, Ms. Harrison publicly praised the department's production of faux-news segments - she called them "good news" segments - promoting American success in Afghanistan and Iraq. As The Times reported in March (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html), one of those fake news videos ended up being broadcast as real news on the Fox affiliate in Memphis.

Mr. Tomlinson has maintained that his goal at CPB is to strengthen public broadcasting by restoring "balance" and stamping out "liberal bias." But Mr. Moyers left "Now" six months ago. Mr. Tomlinson's real, not-so-hidden agenda is to enforce a conservative bias or, more specifically, a Bush bias. To this end, he has not only turned CPB into a full-service employment program for apparatchiks but also helped initiate "The Journal Editorial Report," the only public broadcasting show ever devoted to a single newspaper's editorial page, that of the zealously pro-Bush Wall Street Journal. Unlike Mr. Moyers's "Now" - which routinely balanced its host's liberalism with conservative guests like Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Paul Gigot and Cal Thomas - The Journal's program does not include liberals of comparable stature.

THIS is all in keeping with Mr. Tomlinson's long career as a professional propagandist. During the Reagan administration he ran Voice of America. Then he moved on to edit Reader's Digest, where, according to Peter Canning's 1996 history of the magazine, "American Dreamers," he was rumored to be "a kind of 'Manchurian Candidate' " because of the ensuing spike in pro-C.I.A. spin in Digest articles. Today Mr. Tomlinson is chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal body that supervises all nonmilitary international United States propaganda outlets, Voice of America included. That the administration's foremost propagandist would also be chairman of the board of CPB, the very organization meant to shield public broadcasting from government interference, is astonishing. But perhaps no more so than a White House press secretary month after month turning for softball questions to "Jeff Gannon," a fake reporter for a fake news organization ultimately unmasked as a G.O.P. activist's propaganda site.

As the public broadcasting debate plays out, there will be the usual talk about how to wean it from federal subsidy and the usual complaints (which I share) about the redundancy, commerciality and declining quality of some PBS programming in a cable universe. But once Big Bird, like that White House Thanksgiving turkey, is again ritualistically saved from the chopping block and the Senate restores more of the House's budget cuts, the most crucial test of the damage will be what survives of public broadcasting's irreplaceable journalistic offerings.

Will monitors start harassing Jim Lehrer's "NewsHour," which Mr. Tomlinson trashed at a March 2004 State Department conference (http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/34399.htm) as a "tired and slowed down" also-ran to Shepard Smith's rat-a-tat-tat newscast at Fox News? Will "Frontline" still be taking on the tough investigations that network news no longer touches? Will the reportage on NPR be fearless or the victim of a subtle or not-so-subtle chilling effect instilled by Mr. Tomlinson and his powerful allies in high places?

Forget the pledge drive. What's most likely to save the independent voice of public broadcasting from these thugs is a rising chorus of Deep Throats.

Arthur is the best kids' show, hands down. It's entertaining, instructive, not annoying, not preachy, and deals with issues from both a toddler's POV (DW) and an older child's POV (Arthur), all in one show. It is the standard by which all kids' shows should be judged. I actually enjoy watching it.