Romney's Big Bird Comment During Debate Sets Social Media On Fire

[Bigfatbillsfan]

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=276831

 

Who would have thought this would be an issue coming out of the debate.

[B-Man]

http://www.wtsp.com/...?storyid=276831

 

Who would have thought this would be an issue coming out of the debate.

 

Its not an issue.

 

Its a rather poor attempt at distraction..

Edited October 4, 2012 by B-Man

[UConn James]

This has been an issue for some time. It's all in the picture for belt-tightening for how public $ are spent.

 

Look, I love PBS. I cut the cable 15 years ago and put up an antenna (I've posted in the consumer forum on this and given advice to several posters here about antenna / OTA / digital switch stuff) and PBS provides a lot of great viewing as networks have mostly churned out crap. I love FRONTLINE, Masterpiece, NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, cooking shows... even Bob Ross as a way to zone out every now and then. My niece loves Curious George and Cat in the Hat and I'll encourage her to watch Cyberchase as she grows up. In other words, they're the go-to stations (I get Boston, Providence and Hartford markets in this overlapping Venn diagram of a location.)

 

But do I think PBS ought to get public tax money? No.

 

And there's some at PBS who feel the same way and are taking the steps with sponsorships to phase out this small part of their budget. IIRC, it's ~ 5% of the PBS budget. There's a woman named Linda Merrilll who just posted on the WGBH (Boston, the flagship PBS station) Facebook page that she used to work at WGBH and loves NPR... but still believes that everything in the federal budget should be up for a haircut, that there's a lot of merch sales (Elmo dolls, anyone?) and corporate and private funding (CPB, Children's Television Workshop, etc.), that it would create more of an incentive for people to pledge when they know it's fully on them the viewers to support what they want to watch and that "Big Bird isn't going to be in the figurative bread line anytime soon." The idea that defunding would break the back of PBS and NPR is coming from someone who doesn't know jack stevestojan.

 

This may have been a great idea back when there were four channels, as a means of encouraging variety and educational shows. But we have the Internet now, we have New Media, we're moving into a different age. Masterpiece just recently partnered with Ralph Lauren. They can do more of this. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set up to handle defunding or phasing out funding very well. It is, and should be, funded by the people watch it with large donations from major funders, large donations from private people, small donations, donations of old cars where the auction proceeds go to PBS, etc. (I've donated several old cars over the years.)

 

There's actually some cogent arguments that defunding PBS would be the best thing for it : http://www.scribd.com/doc/93529835/If-You-Love-Something-Set-It-Free-A-Case-for-Defunding-Public-Broadcasting-Cato-Policy-Analysis-No-697

 

And, as noted, this doesn't just come from the Right.

 

For a small drop, they can get out of the shadow of government and a vague public impression that tax dollars are enough to keep PBS going (when that's very much not the case) and make viewers more aware that if they don't contribute.... The government shouldn't have to subsidize commercial-free teevee. As said, this is a new age. This is an age of iPad subscriptions and the NYT and the Buffalo News and countless other media sources finally phasing in 'we'll give you X amount for free,' but pay-for-full-access.

 

Again, I HEART PBS. It doesn't need training wheels anymore.

Edited October 4, 2012 by UConn James

[B-Man]

Very well put, UConn James

[meazza]

http://www.wtsp.com/...?storyid=276831

 

Who would have thought this would be an issue coming out of the debate.

 

The general public has the attention span of a five year old which is why you have your current president and why he will be re-elected.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

huh

[meazza]

huh

 

I rest my case.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I rest my case.

 

pbs, really?

[/dev/null]

The general public has the attention span of a five year old which is why you have your current president and why he will be re-elected.

 

Sunny Day

Sweepin' the clouds away

On my way to where the air is sweet

 

Can you tell me how to get,

How to get to Pennsylvania Avenue

[Wacka]

Sesame Street makes somuch momey, they can pay for the rest of PBS.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

here is the fundamental question of the debate, is big bird a liberal, or conservative?

 

 

we have gone from william f. buckley/noam chomsky, to ...... big bird

Edited October 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Chef Jim]

This has been an issue for some time. It's all in the picture for belt-tightening for how public $ are spent.

 

Look, I love PBS. I cut the cable 15 years ago and put up an antenna (I've posted in the consumer forum on this and given advice to several posters here about antenna / OTA / digital switch stuff) and PBS provides a lot of great viewing as networks have mostly churned out crap. I love FRONTLINE, Masterpiece, NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, cooking shows... even Bob Ross as a way to zone out every now and then. My niece loves Curious George and Cat in the Hat and I'll encourage her to watch Cyberchase as she grows up. In other words, they're the go-to stations (I get Boston, Providence and Hartford markets in this overlapping Venn diagram of a location.)

 

But do I think PBS ought to get public tax money? No.

 

And there's some at PBS who feel the same way and are taking the steps with sponsorships to phase out this small part of their budget. IIRC, it's ~ 5% of the PBS budget. There's a woman named Linda Merrilll who just posted on the WGBH (Boston, the flagship PBS station) Facebook page that she used to work at WGBH and loves NPR... but still believes that everything in the federal budget should be up for a haircut, that there's a lot of merch sales (Elmo dolls, anyone?) and corporate and private funding (CPB, Children's Television Workshop, etc.), that it would create more of an incentive for people to pledge when they know it's fully on them the viewers to support what they want to watch and that "Big Bird isn't going to be in the figurative bread line anytime soon." The idea that defunding would break the back of PBS and NPR is coming from someone who doesn't know jack stevestojan.

 

This may have been a great idea back when there were four channels, as a means of encouraging variety and educational shows. But we have the Internet now, we have New Media, we're moving into a different age. Masterpiece just recently partnered with Ralph Lauren. They can do more of this. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set up to handle defunding or phasing out funding very well. It is, and should be, funded by the people watch it with large donations from major funders, large donations from private people, small donations, donations of old cars where the auction proceeds go to PBS, etc. (I've donated several old cars over the years.)

 

There's actually some cogent arguments that defunding PBS would be the best thing for it : http://www.scribd.co...Analysis-No-697

 

And, as noted, this doesn't just come from the Right.

 

For a small drop, they can get out of the shadow of government and a vague public impression that tax dollars are enough to keep PBS going (when that's very much not the case) and make viewers more aware that if they don't contribute.... The government shouldn't have to subsidize commercial-free teevee. As said, this is a new age. This is an age of iPad subscriptions and the NYT and the Buffalo News and countless other media sources finally phasing in 'we'll give you X amount for free,' but pay-for-full-access.

 

Again, I HEART PBS. It doesn't need training wheels anymore.

 

We're looking at dumping cable can you give me some advice on.............oh !@#$ wait...never mind.

[Juror#8]

This has been an issue for some time. It's all in the picture for belt-tightening for how public $ are spent.

 

Look, I love PBS. I cut the cable 15 years ago and put up an antenna (I've posted in the consumer forum on this and given advice to several posters here about antenna / OTA / digital switch stuff) and PBS provides a lot of great viewing as networks have mostly churned out crap. I love FRONTLINE, Masterpiece, NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, cooking shows... even Bob Ross as a way to zone out every now and then. My niece loves Curious George and Cat in the Hat and I'll encourage her to watch Cyberchase as she grows up. In other words, they're the go-to stations (I get Boston, Providence and Hartford markets in this overlapping Venn diagram of a location.)

 

But do I think PBS ought to get public tax money? No.

 

And there's some at PBS who feel the same way and are taking the steps with sponsorships to phase out this small part of their budget. IIRC, it's ~ 5% of the PBS budget. There's a woman named Linda Merrilll who just posted on the WGBH (Boston, the flagship PBS station) Facebook page that she used to work at WGBH and loves NPR... but still believes that everything in the federal budget should be up for a haircut, that there's a lot of merch sales (Elmo dolls, anyone?) and corporate and private funding (CPB, Children's Television Workshop, etc.), that it would create more of an incentive for people to pledge when they know it's fully on them the viewers to support what they want to watch and that "Big Bird isn't going to be in the figurative bread line anytime soon." The idea that defunding would break the back of PBS and NPR is coming from someone who doesn't know jack stevestojan.

 

This may have been a great idea back when there were four channels, as a means of encouraging variety and educational shows. But we have the Internet now, we have New Media, we're moving into a different age. Masterpiece just recently partnered with Ralph Lauren. They can do more of this. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set up to handle defunding or phasing out funding very well. It is, and should be, funded by the people watch it with large donations from major funders, large donations from private people, small donations, donations of old cars where the auction proceeds go to PBS, etc. (I've donated several old cars over the years.)

 

There's actually some cogent arguments that defunding PBS would be the best thing for it : http://www.scribd.co...Analysis-No-697

 

And, as noted, this doesn't just come from the Right.

 

For a small drop, they can get out of the shadow of government and a vague public impression that tax dollars are enough to keep PBS going (when that's very much not the case) and make viewers more aware that if they don't contribute.... The government shouldn't have to subsidize commercial-free teevee. As said, this is a new age. This is an age of iPad subscriptions and the NYT and the Buffalo News and countless other media sources finally phasing in 'we'll give you X amount for free,' but pay-for-full-access.

 

Again, I HEART PBS. It doesn't need training wheels anymore.

 

So how do you watch Skinemax?

 

Are you able to view Spice channel partially through the tv signal interruption? I've heard.....that if you stare at the interruption waves you can begin to make out figures and shapes.

[Koko78]

This has been an issue for some time. It's all in the picture for belt-tightening for how public $ are spent.

 

Look, I love PBS. I cut the cable 15 years ago and put up an antenna (I've posted in the consumer forum on this and given advice to several posters here about antenna / OTA / digital switch stuff) and PBS provides a lot of great viewing as networks have mostly churned out crap. I love FRONTLINE, Masterpiece, NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, cooking shows... even Bob Ross as a way to zone out every now and then. My niece loves Curious George and Cat in the Hat and I'll encourage her to watch Cyberchase as she grows up. In other words, they're the go-to stations (I get Boston, Providence and Hartford markets in this overlapping Venn diagram of a location.)

 

But do I think PBS ought to get public tax money? No.

 

And there's some at PBS who feel the same way and are taking the steps with sponsorships to phase out this small part of their budget. IIRC, it's ~ 5% of the PBS budget. There's a woman named Linda Merrilll who just posted on the WGBH (Boston, the flagship PBS station) Facebook page that she used to work at WGBH and loves NPR... but still believes that everything in the federal budget should be up for a haircut, that there's a lot of merch sales (Elmo dolls, anyone?) and corporate and private funding (CPB, Children's Television Workshop, etc.), that it would create more of an incentive for people to pledge when they know it's fully on them the viewers to support what they want to watch and that "Big Bird isn't going to be in the figurative bread line anytime soon." The idea that defunding would break the back of PBS and NPR is coming from someone who doesn't know jack stevestojan.

 

This may have been a great idea back when there were four channels, as a means of encouraging variety and educational shows. But we have the Internet now, we have New Media, we're moving into a different age. Masterpiece just recently partnered with Ralph Lauren. They can do more of this. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is set up to handle defunding or phasing out funding very well. It is, and should be, funded by the people watch it with large donations from major funders, large donations from private people, small donations, donations of old cars where the auction proceeds go to PBS, etc. (I've donated several old cars over the years.)

 

There's actually some cogent arguments that defunding PBS would be the best thing for it : http://www.scribd.co...Analysis-No-697

 

And, as noted, this doesn't just come from the Right.

 

For a small drop, they can get out of the shadow of government and a vague public impression that tax dollars are enough to keep PBS going (when that's very much not the case) and make viewers more aware that if they don't contribute.... The government shouldn't have to subsidize commercial-free teevee. As said, this is a new age. This is an age of iPad subscriptions and the NYT and the Buffalo News and countless other media sources finally phasing in 'we'll give you X amount for free,' but pay-for-full-access.

 

Again, I HEART PBS. It doesn't need training wheels anymore.

 

On a Buffalo radio show this morning (Shredd and Ragan), they were talking a little bit about the PBS comment. One of the DJ's, Shredd I believe, mentioned that he had been in a few PBS radio studios. He said they all had state-of-the-art facilities and equipment.

 

It doesn't seem that PBS is exactly hurting for funding, especially if only 5% of it comes from taxpayers.

[UConn James]

So how do you watch Skinemax?

 

Are you able to view Spice channel partially through the tv signal interruption? I've heard.....that if you stare at the interruption waves you can begin to make out figures and shapes.

 

 

Digital over-the-air signal quality is better than cable/satellite because it's uncompressed.

 

ON EDIT: Oh. You're a moron. It's not that I physically cut the cable. "Cutting the cable/cord" is standard lingo for canceling pay-teevee, especially given the subject matter around it in that graf. How do you not know this? I don't really need anything pay-teevee offers.

Edited October 4, 2012 by UConn James

[B-Large]

 

Digital over-the-air signal quality is better than cable/satellite because it's uncompressed.

 

ON EDIT: Oh. You're a moron. It's not that I physically cut the cable. "Cutting the cable/cord" is standard lingo for canceling pay-teevee, especially given the subject matter around it in that graf. How do you not know this? I don't really need anything pay-teevee offers.

 

Been on Antenna for a long time now, ever since the Digital Conversion the picture is amazing. To think I used to pay $200/mo. for 300 channels of garbage..... lol

[Chef Jim]

Been on Antenna for a long time now, ever since the Digital Conversion the picture is amazing. To think I used to pay $200/mo. for 300 channels of garbage..... lol

 

 

So how many channels of garbage are you picking up with that antenna?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Chef Jim

[B-Large]

 

So how many channels of garbage are you picking up with that antenna?

 

Including the Spanish Language channels?

 

 

I get probably 20-30 channels, some I watch some I don't- Create has some woodworking shows I like, other than that I watch football and not too much more.

[Chef Jim]

Including the Spanish Language channels?

 

 

I get probably 20-30 channels, some I watch some I don't- Create has some woodworking shows I like, other than that I watch football and not too much more.

 

We got Roku earlier this year and love it. We got a full cable package for cheap when we moved as an introductory period. We'll dump cable again when the 6 months are up.

[fjl2nd]

Mitt Romney really told the moderator he was going to fire him. And then said he'd fire Big Bird. LOL

 

By the way, PBS makes up .0012% of the federal budget.