They probably won't. But they do seem to like talking about killing the arts.
April 12 // March 16, 2017
We've never met a British detective we didn't like, or why we'd miss PBS.
First of all, we owe readers of Two Weeks Ago News an apology. We try to keep our calendars organized enough to hop on news stories promptly, which is generally about two weeks after they first hit the daily outrage-a-thon that masquerades as social media and television talk shows. In this case, we’re behind and again, we offer our apologies.
Second of all, we’re pretty sure every single one of our readers has an attention span that is much longer than that of the average gnat, unlike many out there in outrage land. In other words, even though we’re coming in very late on this topic, we’re positive the astute readers of Two Weeks Ago News will remember these stories. They were – of course - outrages!
Here are a few headlines to get us started:
“Congress Looks to Cut Funding for Public Broadcasting”
“As Budget Debates Begin, Republicans Put NPR, PBS on Chopping Block”
“Should NPR Lose Its Federal Funding?
“House Passes Bill Stripping Federal Funding for NPR”
“Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?”
We’ve all been reading the horror stories and accompanying outrage about bills that would result in federal funds being withdrawn or drastically cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Related cuts would have an impact on the viability – or very existence – of entities like PBS, NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts.
All of this sounds quite dire. You get no argument from us. Well, not an argument, exactly but we do have a one-question quiz for you. Ready?
Q.: When is the news not the news?
A.: When the headlines are from five or ten (or more!) years ago.
“How can that be?” you may ask.
Like this. Here are those headlines again, this time with source and date for each one listed:
“Congress Looks to Cut Funding for Public Broadcasting” NPR June 6, 2005
“As Budget Debates Begin, Republicans Put NPR, PBS on Chopping Block” ABC News, February 15, 2011
“Should NPR Lose Its Federal Funding? CBS News, March 9, 2011
“House Passes Bill Stripping Federal Funding for NPR” ABC News, March 23, 2011
“Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?” ProPublica, October 11, 2012
Okay, sure. Maybe we have been debating the viability of public airwaves and public broadcasting and the federal government’s infrastructure around it for something like fifty years, since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967. One of our favorite quotes from his speech at that time is this: “So today we rededicate a part of the airwaves — which belong to all the people — and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people.” What’s not to love about that?
The question is: does any of this matter? Maybe not but God knows. If you want to take a long, detailed and tedious stroll down the early days of Republican opposition (circa 1972) to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, click here. Just five short years after it was signed into law by President Johnson, President Nixon vowed to defund the whole thing. And that kind of thinking hasn’t stopped ever since, through all sorts of administrations.
According to more recent news, this time from The Washington Post in 2016, Paula Kerger, PBS chief executive, indicated that PBS gets 15% of its annual funding from the federal government. NPR get about 16%. That counts for something, certainly, but it clearly is not the bulk of their annual working capital.
Bottom line: Like so much of what we seem to follow here at Two Weeks Ago News, this is a case of bombast and outrage and bluster that will ultimately be pointless. (We have the decades old outraged headlines to prove it.) Ms. Kerger summed it up well: “But I think that when I talk about public broadcasting, it is that bond with the public and the trust the public places in us that has enabled us to be strong and I think regardless of what happens in Washington will continue to enable us to be a strong organization.”
We agree. Let the politicians squabble about funding and cuts and the budget, mostly to make their own headlines and curry favor with special interest groups. That's business as usual in D.C. In the real world, people seem to find a way to support what they like, whether it’s a coffee shop or a mechanic or a yoga studio or a bar or a television station or a radio broadcast. If it delivers what it promised, it’s worth their money.
We’ll hear about defunding the arts forever. (It already feels like forever!) And people will be outraged. Outraged!
Got it. Next?
We've never met a British detective we didn't like, or why we'd miss PBS.
First of all, we owe readers of Two Weeks Ago News an apology. We try to keep our calendars organized enough to hop on news stories promptly, which is generally about two weeks after they first hit the daily outrage-a-thon that masquerades as social media and television talk shows. In this case, we’re behind and again, we offer our apologies.
Second of all, we’re pretty sure every single one of our readers has an attention span that is much longer than that of the average gnat, unlike many out there in outrage land. In other words, even though we’re coming in very late on this topic, we’re positive the astute readers of Two Weeks Ago News will remember these stories. They were – of course - outrages!
Here are a few headlines to get us started:
“Congress Looks to Cut Funding for Public Broadcasting”
“As Budget Debates Begin, Republicans Put NPR, PBS on Chopping Block”
“Should NPR Lose Its Federal Funding?
“House Passes Bill Stripping Federal Funding for NPR”
“Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?”
We’ve all been reading the horror stories and accompanying outrage about bills that would result in federal funds being withdrawn or drastically cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Related cuts would have an impact on the viability – or very existence – of entities like PBS, NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts.
All of this sounds quite dire. You get no argument from us. Well, not an argument, exactly but we do have a one-question quiz for you. Ready?
Q.: When is the news not the news?
A.: When the headlines are from five or ten (or more!) years ago.
“How can that be?” you may ask.
Like this. Here are those headlines again, this time with source and date for each one listed:
“Congress Looks to Cut Funding for Public Broadcasting” NPR June 6, 2005
“As Budget Debates Begin, Republicans Put NPR, PBS on Chopping Block” ABC News, February 15, 2011
“Should NPR Lose Its Federal Funding? CBS News, March 9, 2011
“House Passes Bill Stripping Federal Funding for NPR” ABC News, March 23, 2011
“Big Bird Debate: How Much Does Federal Funding Matter to Public Broadcasting?” ProPublica, October 11, 2012
Okay, sure. Maybe we have been debating the viability of public airwaves and public broadcasting and the federal government’s infrastructure around it for something like fifty years, since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967. One of our favorite quotes from his speech at that time is this: “So today we rededicate a part of the airwaves — which belong to all the people — and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people.” What’s not to love about that?
The question is: does any of this matter? Maybe not but God knows. If you want to take a long, detailed and tedious stroll down the early days of Republican opposition (circa 1972) to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, click here. Just five short years after it was signed into law by President Johnson, President Nixon vowed to defund the whole thing. And that kind of thinking hasn’t stopped ever since, through all sorts of administrations.
According to more recent news, this time from The Washington Post in 2016, Paula Kerger, PBS chief executive, indicated that PBS gets 15% of its annual funding from the federal government. NPR get about 16%. That counts for something, certainly, but it clearly is not the bulk of their annual working capital.
Bottom line: Like so much of what we seem to follow here at Two Weeks Ago News, this is a case of bombast and outrage and bluster that will ultimately be pointless. (We have the decades old outraged headlines to prove it.) Ms. Kerger summed it up well: “But I think that when I talk about public broadcasting, it is that bond with the public and the trust the public places in us that has enabled us to be strong and I think regardless of what happens in Washington will continue to enable us to be a strong organization.”
We agree. Let the politicians squabble about funding and cuts and the budget, mostly to make their own headlines and curry favor with special interest groups. That's business as usual in D.C. In the real world, people seem to find a way to support what they like, whether it’s a coffee shop or a mechanic or a yoga studio or a bar or a television station or a radio broadcast. If it delivers what it promised, it’s worth their money.
We’ll hear about defunding the arts forever. (It already feels like forever!) And people will be outraged. Outraged!
Got it. Next?