Washington Post opinion column on the same subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62107-2005Feb3.html

LT -

Great Washington Post column - thanks for the link.

• Bob R.

Jeff -

I've been OPB's friend for years, and put up with it all, including them cutting back on my beloved Bill Moyers.

My letter offers them the chance to do the right thing. At what point do I stop spending my resources on the wishy-washy? All they have to do is grow a spine, and my money will flow back to them.

• Bob R.

I know the letter of the law when it comes to ads v. underwriting. But when corporate interests can, for all practical purposes, buy PR time on public stations, I'm not going to be calling the pledge line anytime soon. Anyone who listens to KOPB knows how much money Wal-Mart is throwing to NPR and OPB. If it quacks like a duck..."Noncommerical voice", my raised-on-Sesame Street ass.

I rarely listen to KBOO, but I'm a KBOO member. At least my $25 a year is going to a true public radio station.

And there's less and less Oregon in Oregon Public Broadcasting. When I lived in Bend, I could listen to either KOPB and KLCC, the NPR affiliate in Eugene. I estimate KLCC aired four to five times as much local shows as KOPB.

Bob, for now, marriage in Oregon is only between a man and woman. The misstatement of the law at the beginning of your entry undermines your credibility. You might want to reconsider it.

Mac -

I wasn't sure if those people in other threads who were calling you mean-spirited were correct. Now I know they were.

• Bob R.

Jeff -

Mac's comments would be funny if they weren't so sad.

They are also inadvertantly illustrative of the topic: In a comment on a post opposing efforts to render gay couples invisible, Mac chimes in and complains about my daring to use the word "marriage".

• Bob R.

Visible yes. Married no. When discussing any topic, lying, particularly telling obvious lies, undermines one's credibility. You would do yourself a favor to take good advice when it is offered free, Bob.

Oh wait did I miss the news? Did the Oregon Supreme Court just make a ruling in "Li and Kennedy v. State of Oregon" that Measure 36 applied retroactively, and invalidate the same-sex marriages that occurred last year in Multnomah County?

Or, does someone's misstatement of the law undermine their credibility?

Mac -

I often take good advice when it is offered free.

To what "good advice" are you referring?

To what "lie" are you referring?

Perhaps some day we will meet in person and then you can tell me face to face that I'm not "married." Why don't you go to the place where we had our ceremony and tell them we aren't "married". Do you pretend to assume that Measure 36 outlaws churches from practicing marriage ceremonies? Sounds pretty damned unconstitutional to me.

• Bob R.

I am appalled, yes, shocked and appalled the American public should should be exposed to such a blatant propaganda on behalf of maple syrup!

First an uncritical view of Mormonism, now maple syrup. Clearly this series must be stopped!

It's really sad how someone like Mac can take a discussion about censorship and turn it into a tirade against gay marriage - Republican style. These pathetic and desperate attempts at discrediting someone, regardless of the truth of the original statements made, seem to be the modus-operandi these days.

Kari, make Mac reveal her identity or take her off the front page. This is ridiculous. "Isaac" is an alias but I have never seen him act like this. I want to know if this person is someone I know or might even possibly run into, so I can actively avoid her in real life as well as online.

LynnS, my friends in real life are intelligent people. I'm sure we don't associate.

Jason, feel free to point out a 'tirade against gay marriage,' I've posted. Take all the space you need. The way you and yours lie at the drop of a hat is another reason you lack credibility.

I have made a factual statement that I have no intention of retracting. Currently, only men and women can marry in Oregon. Though I voted in favor of gay marriage, I am a realist. I'm not going to support lying about the outcome.

"I know you are, but what am I?" sheesh. A relief to know our paths will never cross.

Officially following my (legally, civilly married right here in river city ten years ago) husband on this one and ignoring you from this moment on, Mac. You are not worth the time.

Mac, your very representation of yourself on this forum is a lie. Nothing you say can be taken seriously. You are not a realist. You hide behind a facade and I have nothing to justify to you at all. You are a hypocrite. When you "out" yourself to everyone here, perhaps then you can be taken seriously. Until such time, you are simply a fictional character.

Semi-OT: Help out a lesbian of color--Maya Keyes, daughter of wingnut Alan Keyes, has finally been kicked out of her father's apartment and fired from her job as her dad's assistant because she finally came all the way out of the closet. Her friends have set up a donation site.

I read the OPB press release and discovered (surprise!) time, place and manner regulations being applied. No censorship whatsoever. I will be blogging the topic on my civil rights blog. I welcome the opportunity to explain why broadcasters and other branches of government sometimes regulate when, where and how speech can take place. Such regulation is, of course, completely legal. The OPB's position seems reasonable to me. It has left the decision of whether to show the disputed episode up to parents.

Mac Diva knows that as federally regulated entities, broadcasters are free to impose time, space and manner regulations, without violating the First Amendment. Common carriers, such as broadcasters, are considered quasi-governmental and regulated accordingly.

Kari, I'm simply doing what I do on any thread -- correct a factual error if I see one. Though I find the little troupe of know-nothings who try to shut down any rational discussion of any topic that remotely touches on homosexuality pathetic, I don't believe my response is shrill. Indeed, the word would be more accurately applied to them.

As for your question about what Bob can call himself, you're a right, but wrong. Bob can call himself a horse, omniscient or married. But, regardless of how firmly he believes he is those descriptions, none of them are factual. They would be delusions.

Instead of viewing blueoregon a few times a day, as was my habit for the last 4 or 5 months, I've reduced it too a few times a week. Mac Diva has made reading the comments a very unpleasant experience. I don't object to divergent points of view but her columns and comments are so mean spirited and self congratulatory that it feels like taking a long car ride with a smug 7th grader who knows it all. If were all too vapid to understand your diatribes Mac Diva -please feel free to post elsewhere..

Ironic.

Gay marriage proponents are (finally) coming around to the realization that a "marriage" doesn't have to be recognized by the government in order to be real.

Leave it to Mac to try to convince everyone that the government's definition is the only one that ever matters.

I guess Mac must also believe that American slaves really were only 3/5's of a person prior to the 13th Amendment.

Actually, slaves were not citizens until the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The language cited was meant to give Southern states more weight in federal affairs under the practice of apportionment. It conferred no rights on slaves whatsoever. They did not "count."

One of the amusing things about really ignorant people is that they parade their ignorance, as demonstrated on this thread. X doesn't know that he isn't married. Y is blissfully ignorant of the fact that broadcasters are quasi-governmental entities. Z hasn't a clue what legal language he cites actually means. Perhaps someone somewhere is impressed, but I'm laughing.

In other words, the people you are referring to would like to get married. Continue contorting yourself in semantic confusion if you like. The distinction between 'saying' one is married without an objective basis and being married is recognition by government and society. In order for marriage to have functional meaning, that recognition is necessary -- which is why homosexual activists with good sense are trying to obtain it. If your friends were already married they would not need to -- even you guessed it -- obtain the right to marry.

I read the OPB press release and discovered (surprise!) time, place and manner regulations being applied. No censorship whatsoever [...]

Gee, Mac, that was made pretty clear in my original post. You know, the message at the VERY TOP OF THIS THREAD. The posting that sets the topic and tone of the discussion... You know, the one you clearly DID NOT READ.

What an idiot.

Keeping hanging out behind that anonymous identity, just like all the other pedophiles and adulterers, you will continue to earn the respect you deserve.

<h1></h1>

Bob R., I doubt your pledge boycott of OPB even registers with them. That is supposed to speak to how thick like thieves TV finance is, and is supposed not to say anything about your pledge wherewithal.

Largely, there is the Kroc two billion dollar kerplop; and now PBS and OPB, like Lily Tomlin's 'Ernestine, operator for the telephone company,' can say: "We don't care, we don't have to."

The public money which Congress controls appropriating to PBS is relatively ridiculously insignificant. The wisest response to Newtie's 1995 checkbook threats against PBS would have been to say 'go ahead, make us free of you politicos, we cast our lot with our audience and free discourse.' But, no-o-o, PBS didn't say that. Didn't say that they are beholden to their audience and pledge drives and freedom of subscription press. Because they didn't see it that way, and didn't want it that way, and now don't have it. Loyal and longstanding audience, that is.

Besides the 'corporate commercials underwriting selected PBS words,' the other mainstay funds for PBS is -- because it is as regular as a paycheck -- again, their slice of the cable TV subscriber's dollar. PBS is on cable because of the 'must carry' clause, so the local affiliate gets a slice of every cable subscriber every month. That's where they are beholden.

Bob, you want to get the attention of OPB? Join and promote BOYCOTT Cable TV bundled. The day the cable TV cartel is cracked open, and people can buy channels a la carte and only reward the ones they watch, is the day the FOXzis disintegrate and the day OPB becomes responsive to air whatever gets you to pledge a donation.

By the way, KBOO 90.7 FM is coming up on their spring pledge drive. Their news and entertainment kicks KOPB (radio or TV) off my dial, and KPOJ 620 AM consistently loses the battle for my attention when placed side-by-side with KBOO -- that's right, two radios on at the same time, and see which one says something worth hearing more often. That guy at KPOJ who is looking for some local connection to add to his air lineup? No duh.

(And on a passing personal note, because elements are unlikely ever to converge again -- life being reborn every moment as it is; if the head of PBS Pat Mitchell, is a woman, was a news reader at the CBS affiliate in Boston thirty years ago, and was born in August, 1948; then, she and I dated once. I'll save my Tracy Barry trysties for another time ....)

<h1></h1>

Another vote for KBOO here!

Tenskwatawa -

I am inclined to agree with what you say, but are you sure you are correct about the Must Carry provision?

I know it was modified in the late 90's, but at least until recently Must Carry was simply that - local over-the-air network stations must be carried by local cable. Does PBS now also receive compensation from the cable company in addition to being carried?

I could see them doing this under the "retransmission consent" rules, but not under "must carry".

A little searching turned up this link: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/mustcarryru/mustcarryru.htm

• Bob R.

<h1></h1>

Nice link. No, I'm not sure whether it is, (or of the difference between), must carry and retransmission consent.

But I stubbornly claim my point obtains either way: Anywhere a PBS franchise is in a local Cable TV bundle, the cable TV operator cuts a monthly check to the local affiliate content-provider. Regardless what the protocol is that puts them in the bundle.

And I continue to claim -- without documentation for this, either, and no more likely to get the financials of it than find a pea under sleight-handed walnut shell; that the (OPB) check from the cable cartel bundler is the equal of or larger than the check from CPB (taxpayer money), or the check from membership contributions, or the check from endowment trusts, or the check from corporate commercial sponsors. And the money that has the least influence in deciding what is or isn't aired is membership money.

And that the strongest and fastest influence a head-of-household has is through boycotting the cable bundle operator. Fast, because it's direct cash, monthly, and immediately noticed when it is withheld in boycott. And strong, because the cable bundler passes the complaint to the (PBS) station with the added pressure of all the other bundled channels which suffer a loss for being tied to the one the boycotter objects to.

Of course, you can only effectively cancel your cable tv subscription once, but when you do you can name as many reasons in channels you object to as you care to identify.

Once you have your fifty bucks a month instead of the cable bundler, (land-line or satellite, no difference), then you can go on watching the broadcast channels, or picking and choosing programming via the internet, or linking up worldwide with friends on video cell phones, or getting dubs of your must-have-seen you've got to watch. Or just cold turkey tell the pusher to shove it and manage programming your mind's experiences for yourself.

I can attest that the last option is very satisfying and there hasn't been a single video I could enjoy to watch that I've missed. In that regard you may be interested in TV Free America (tvfa.org) and their annual TV-Turnoff Week at the end of April.

Bob, if you know the dollar amounts in OPB's revenue streams I'd rather be corrected than go on misinformed. Whatever they are, they flow without my fifty bucks somewhere in it each month and without my semi-annual pledge$.

As for the dictatorship politics (if that's not an oxymoron) in this PBS idiocy (if that's not redundant), Eric Boehlert had a nice overview in Salon lately. I'm tellin' ya', with the TV off you miss none of the news and all of the pathetic flat boobtuber lives. Speaking of cueing the talent, did I mention Pat Mitchell and I had a date once ....

<h1></h1>

Hi Tenskwatawa -

Just for kicks, I checked the OPB web site today and then also called a customer service representative, who asked around for me.

(It would seem strange that I would cancel my OPB membership, then come to their defense here. But this is a different issue. Mac Diva may accuse me of being a liar and a spreader of inaccuracies, but in reality I do try to follow up on things.)

The OPB representative said that, at least for the Portland metro area for sure, no money is given to OPB by Comcast or any other cable provider. OPB is carried under a "must carry" provision, which benefits OPB by allowing more viewership, but OPB does not receive any extra money for this.

Further, although I couldn't find any decent, hard numbers on the OPB web site, they do have a simple (and virtually useless) percentage breakdown on their web site:

http://www.opb.org/support/ (scroll to the bottom)

"Based on operating revenue, net of production grants and contracts."

Member Support: 63% Corporate Support: 17% Government Grants: 14% Sales, Services, Other: 6%

It should be noted that this is OPB revenue. Actual PBS programs carried by OPB get their own funding, from the CPB, private grants, corporate funding, etc. Those national/network programs are only indirectly responsive to viewership, to the extent that OPB pays PBS to receive those programs...

• Bob R.

<h1></h1>

Good going again, Bob. I stand corrected, from saying the cable operator check is bigger than the membership check, etc.

But...

I haven't changed my mind. That fast. I'm stubborn. It takes dense me awhile for it to sink in. Questions keep shoving it away.

What does the cable operator do with subscribers' monthly payments?

Well, they pay the 'content providers.'

I could imagine PBS is set up as some sort of non-profit, and cable operators carrying PBS content work it around like kind of a psa (public service announcement) where the 'broadcaster' gets a tax credit against earnings for the amount of the market value of 'donated' airtime.

Another possible variation, and somewhat similar, is the mechanism that puts C-Span channels in cable bundles, which is that C-Span(s) is declared a 'public service' and, as part of cable operator's agreement, each operator pays operator's fees into a funding pool that pays for C-Span. The umbrella organization is the NCTA (Nat'l Cable TV Assoc., I think), and while each operator has to pay for C-Span, they don't 'must carry' it, or carry it in the Basic Bundle.

I don't see how the money goes from the cable operator round'n'round'n'round she goes (pea under the walnut shell) and winds up in the OPB bank account. But ...

So Bob, if your friend at OPB might answer this, Is OPB down with BOYCOTT Cable TV? Would they help promote that movement? Wouldn't hurt them any, right?, if OPB isn't going to lose any revenue when cable TV loses its. Indeed, it's arguable that without the time-competition from so many cable channel choices, more people would gravitate to watching OPB.

I'll keep an eye out for more info on this -- how cable TV money gets transferred to PBS -- and bring back anything I find. Thanks for your actions.

<hr/>

And today's tidbit, further example PBS (NPR, in this case), is nothing but more rightwing propaganda kool-aid content, was this bit o'blog, (at gadflyer.com, which I found in today's links at MediaMatters.org)

Democracy Promotion Redux, by Jonathan Weiler (8:20AM) This morning on NPR, one of the news item teasers was how high oil prices "would complicate the Bush administration's plans for promoting democracy around the world." I know it's too much to ask, but it would be nice if news outlets would stop taking this administration at its word ...

<h1></h1>

Tenskwatawa -

I majored in Broadcast Media Communications, and used to work for a cable TV advertising company in the early 90's, which is why I sometimes get worked up on these issues, but it has been a long time since I really delved in to the current legalities.

But I think it is correct to say that in most cases your money for "basic cable" does NOT go to the local network affiliates (NBC, PBS, whatever) unless that local affiliate plays games with the "retransmission consent" rule.

The "must carry" rule applies in most cases. This basically requires local cable operators to carry the local affiliates, rather than some large regional affiliate or out-of-state source. It is advantageous for the local station - they get a bigger audience and therefore more advertising revenue. There are wrinkles and loopholes and problems, but this is the general case.

The "retransmission consent" rule gives the local affiliate the right to say "No, cable company, you CAN'T retransmit us". In theory, they can hold out for money, hoping that local cable customers will call the cable company and demand the station be carried. But the cable company can also put up a message on that channel explaining things from their point of view, urging people to call the station, and an impasse results.

If OPB isn't invoking "retransmission consent", then there is no reason for the cable company to pay them.

By invoking "must carry", OPB ensures a wider viewing audience, convenience for those viewers, and therefore the potential to sign up more members.

Note that these rules only apply to traditional over-the-air broadcasts.

The extra cable channels you get in the "premium" packages, such as CNN, ESPN, MTV, Bravo, etc., generally receive a per-subscriber fee from the cable company, and/or allow the cable company to sell and insert local advertising. The deal with each network, or group of networks, can vary.

These networks exist on a mixture of cable company revenue and advertising revenue. Thus a network like MTV is paid both by local cable companies and by advertisers.

There are shopping channels that pay the cable company a commission on sales coming from their local service area. That's why there are so damn many of them - the cable companies are paid to run them. It is arguable that the consumer benefits because this somehow keeps the price of cable down, but the downside is that you can only cram so many channels onto a cable. They are either dropping something that could have been carried, or reducing the quality of the channels that are carried. (With digital channels, you can reduce quality/bandwidth to allow for more channels.)

Finally, there are the pay networks like HBO and Showtime. The bulk of your money goes directly to these networks and the cable company gets to keep a cut. These networks, though the most expensive for the home viewer, are arguably the most responsive to viewer interests, and are generally commercial free. Their main programming, however, is entertainment, not "public interest". It would be interesting to see if left to member revenue alone, would PBS evolve into an entertainment network, or would it keep to an educational mission?

It should be noted that the network Nickelodian, in the early 80's, looked a lot more like PBS's children's lineup than it does today. Little on Nickelodian today could truly be labelled educational in the traditional sense.

Your "basic cable" subscription costs largely go to defray the costs of running the cable network, providing public access channels, etc. "Basic cable" is one of the last aspects of cable TV to be regulated - the municipalities in which cable companies operate often regulated these fees. But any additional packages are unregulated and profit-driven.

• Bob R.

<hr/>