Here we go again

The PBS Annual Meeting is underway in Austin and it is not without controversy.

Following last year's decision to revise Common Carriage rules to force stations to carry unwanted repeats and weak PBS fare, this year PBS wants to intrude on local stations' revenue.

According to a session on the first day of the meeting, PBS new svp for Development, Brian Reddington, unveiled a scheme to allow visitors to PBS.org to pledge for their favorite program or just a general pledge.  This means that revenue that would go to a local station will now got to PBS.

During the contentious presentation, PBS staffers claimed that a portion of the online revenue would go to the local stations and that the email address provided by the donor would be shared with the station.


As I have mentioned many times in the past, there is a network mentality at PBS.  PBS would like nothing more than to be a network with all the trappings and power that cones with it.  PBS forgets several things.  As a network it would have to pay affiliates.  PBS current receives membership dues from stations.

As with other upcoming plans, PBS also forgets that its purpose is to distribute programming not create, plan, or produce programs.  his along with the fact that programs distributed by PBS and funded by taxpayers are "required" to be balanced.  One only has to look at the recently retired Bill Moyers and Now to know PBS forgets its purpose.

Under the new scheme in markets where there is more than one station carrying PBS fare, PBS has not yet decided how it would decide which station receives the revenue for the online pledges.  In last year's controversy over Common Carriage, these stations were forced to follow even more rules than before making PBS membership less attractive.  To those stations, I say, "leave now before it is too late!"

PBS staffers were asked, What of a station says no to allowing PBS to pledge online in their territory?  PBS' only answer is, "We would want to know why?"  The "why" is obvious, stations need all the money they can garner.  Any "leftovers": provided by PBS will always be less than what can be earned locally.

If PBS wants to be a network . . .fine.  I will discontinue my membership and you can pay me.  However, I know that there is more, and often better, content available.  Can you survive without my dues?

Full article.

New direction

Check This Out! is taking a slight but important new way of posting.

For mots of its life, Check Me Out has strived to post something interesting or at least not boring each day. While there is certainly enough fodder to choose from and the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders make it so easy, there are only a finite number of hours in the day.

So, Check This Out1 will be a weekly column on various activities in media and politics and where they may merge.

The first column will appear before Wednesday, January 20th and be posted weekly after that.

The first column will be, "Can public television survive PBS?"

It will be fun.

Thanks.

Sometimes You Just Have to Laugh

Sometimes you just have to laugh.  Because there are some things that are too unbelievable to believe.  If you don't laugh at them, they instantly become serious.

While everyone is abuzz about the Harry Reid comment made some months ago, there is no reason to think that he will give up his Majority Leader position.  Should he? Yes, but he should have done it when the comment first came to light.  By the way Senator Reid, nothing is off the record.  Is there a double standard?  Yes, there has been for many years.  It is nothing new.  If Reid did step down, it is likely that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) would become the Majority Leader.  No one wants that, especially members of the Senate.

I believe that Sen. Reid should step down, but that will happen soon enough in the 2010 election.  If the citizens of Nevada give Reid another term, they deserve the nuclear waste that has been planned for the state for decades.

All this stuff is believable.  There is a double standard.  Harry Reid may very well be a racist or, at least, make racist comments.  Did Trent Lott move to fast and was he unwilling to fight the s__storm?  Yes, but he is a southern gentleman.

Again, all this is believable.  What appears to be unbelievable and a cause of laughter are the recent remarks of former governor, Rod Blagojevich.  Blago is at it again.

In an interview for Esquire, the former governor revaled he was "blacker than Baracj Obama."  Those are his words.  You can't make this stuff up.

Trying to explain himself, Blago talked about his family and his dad;'s business, and the neighborhood he lived near, etc., etc.  It was on that basis that he made the comparison.

Now as the politician he remains, he is back-tracking on the comment.  In an interview with Chicago's Channel 2, the governor had this to say.  "It was a very stupid thing to say. Obviously, I'm not blacker than President Obama."

Really?  You never know what this guy is going to say or do.  The trial will be amazing.
 

Cash for Cloture

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) may be backing off his initial comments on how the Nebraska Senator received a windfall of tax dollars for become a major player in cash for cloture.

Sen. Nelson now says, "I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy."   Really, Ben?


Maybe you should have thought of that before taking the bribe.

Just in case you forgot

Just in case you forgot, here are the numerous times President Obama promised transparency for health care reform.

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007
"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008
"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008
"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008
"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008
"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008
"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

So, when Joe Wilson said "you lie", he was telling the truth.

Plus, how can Speaker Nancy Pelosi relayy say that this process has been the most "open" in her experience?

Again, Madam Speaker, you lie. 

Can the Dems pass healthecare?

Can the Dems pass healthcare without any help or votes from Republicans?  The simple answer is, "yes."  They have a majority ion both houses and campaign lies from the White House about transparency during the current negotiations.  But as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, lot of things are said during campaigns.  So true.  Then again, how many time has the Speaker back-tracked on her own statements.

During the summer, the Speaker waffled on whether the bill would have a strong public option, spending for abortion, and coverage for illegal aliens.  There is still no telling what the speaker may say or do next.  The one sure thing is the Speaker will push for a bill that is so widely unpopular that her seat may be in jeopardy.  At least, we can only hope that San Franciscans will waje up to the lunacy that is the reign of Speaker Pelosi.

Let's get back to the subject at hand.  That is the backroom negotiations, far from the public and the cameras of C-SPAN.  Whatever comes out of these secret negotiations is . . . it.  There will be no amendments, not sweetheart deals for members of Congress and no chance to protect the American people from a quagmire of un-readable and not understandable law.  Of course, no one will read it.

Whatever bill comes from the smoke-filled room (or do they allow smoking in the Capitol?), it will need all the Dems who voted the first time to vote again.  The Republicans and clear-thinking Democrats only need three more votes to defeat this unpopular legislation.  Three votes should not be so bad.  Three Democrats who believe that there is something better could help the American people find it.  Three Democrats could put an end to hurry up and pass it legislation, massive future spending, and, perhaps, save their seats.

No matter what other pundits say, I believe that no seat is safe for any Republican or Democrat who support this legislation and any additional spending to support it.

"Buyer (or legislator) beware."  This bill could put your career and the American People at risk.

Congress And Its Members
Congress Reconsidered

Hard Drive Crahs

We had a hard drive crash on Monday and are still awaiting the installation of the new one.

So in the interim, enjoy these interesting articles from CNS News.