People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Earth To Roanoke Times:

I think I understand why you people are so wrong so often.  You haven't the first clue as to what you're talking - or writing - about.

The following, a glaring example of your cluelessness, having to do with Governor Bob McDonnell's call for ending state support for public television, is beyond boneheaded:
Again, the governor has PBS in his sights

[Governor McDonnell] proposes cutting $2 million in each of the next two fiscal years to phase out state support. With so many "content providers" in today's media marketplace, he argues, it just doesn't make sense to use taxpayer dollars to give one a competitive edge.

This is a tired argument that conservatives have accepted unquestioningly for many years, but it simply is not true.

Public television and radio stations do not compete with private broadcasters for advertisers. They do compete for viewers, with content driven not by its commercial appeal, but its value to education and public service.

With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than advertiser expectations, public broadcasting has carved out a unique niche to become, as McDonnell himself acknowledged, "a wonderful resource, providing quality programming." [link]
Where to start?

1)  "This is a tired argument that conservatives have accepted unquestioningly for many years."  Wrong on both counts.  The argument is not tired (see below) and conservatives, by their nature, question everything.  See the six year history of "From on High."

2) "Public television and radio stations do not compete with private broadcasters for advertisers. They do compete for viewers, with content ..."  What?!  I've got news for you woefully uninformed twits: While it's true that public television station managers don't "compete" for advertisers (they compete with Medicaid for taxpayer funding), private stations, in fact, "do compete for viewers" too.  You see, the number of viewers - here's a shock! - determine whether or not advertisers flock to a particular station.  So, in reality, private owners aren't really competing for advertising either.  It's all about body count.

I've been a purchaser of advertising on a pretty large scale.  The first things I wanted to know, when I sat down with advertising managers for a station, are reach, penetration, and demographics (and then cost).  It was my job to deliver open wallets to my employer.  And lots of them.  Viewers/listeners are what we are all about.  Did stations profit from any ad buy that I made?  Certainly.  Did my company profit from the size of the station's listening audience?  See how this works?

3) "With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than ..." Really?  Public television has a mission?  What incentive do public stations have to produce anything?  "Public needs"?  If public television or radio were working successfully to satisfy public needs, wouldn't those stations have an audience?  And if they have an audience, why couldn't Virginia's taxpayers ask (demand) that they stand on their own and stop robbing us of our children's college education fund?  Could it be that PBS really has no audience beyond the small set of effete snobs who occasionally tune in? What does the lack of viewership say about their ability to satisfy that public need?

4) "With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than advertiser expectations ..."  I've got a news flash for you people, from Marketing 101: All "advertiser expectations" involve meeting "public needs."

Remember "Air America"?  Neither does anyone else.  Had it not had to compete for listeners, like PBS doesn't, it too would still be around serving no real purpose and meeting the needs of ... well, except for the same handful of PBS loving people who want us to believe that it's vital to our national interests, no one.  Where were the Democrats and our tax money when that jewel was going under?

5) In truth, every provider of news, information, and entertainment on this planet has a mission "to meet identifiable public needs."  Or they go out of business.  But not PBS.  It's on the public dole.  It just needs a good lobbyist.  And a few effete snobs who write duncish editorials about the virtues of a worthless segment of a medium that is, on the whole, resplendent in its offerings and hugely successful at "meeting public needs."

Reality Slowly Sinks In

While New Yorkers were devoting their every waking moment to saving the environment, opening their doors to illegals, and helping those who couldn't - or wouldn't - help themselves, a funny thing was going on.  A whole lot of other New Yorkers - those who were more focused on income and family - packed their bags and left the state.

Reality bites:
Wake Up, NY
By John Faso, New York Post

The news that the Empire State will lose two more seats in the US House of Representatives should be an urgent wakeup call to all New Yorkers, particularly our elected officials.

We'll drop to just 27 House seats after 2012, the lowest number in 200 years -- because the latest Census reveals that our state's population grew at about half the national rate over the last decade.

Many New Yorkers have no choice but to flee our confiscatory taxes and dismal job climate. Can our policymakers turn things around?

The immediate future is going to be difficult. [link]
The op/ed is a plea for tax and regulation reform, as well as a call for New Yorkers to take a more wholesome (and self-preservative) attitude toward business.

It won't happen, of course.

Not anytime soon, anyway.

And New York will continue its inexorable decline.

Meanwhile, with regard to the real problems that face New Yorkers, like salt in restaurant food ...

'God Bless America'

Maybe they do have reason to fear us since we own all the guns. And we ain't talkin' just Grandad's old pea shooter:

Oh, and we got all the babes too.

Why is it I feel this overpowering need to shoot the crap out of my Chevy truck this morning?

What Christmas Is Really All About

Read "Saved by Christmas."


And So Our Military Becomes Stronger & More Effective

Just Asking

Why can't Obama do what most of us do when we go on vacation, mow the lawn and fix the porch swing?

But no.

I work - sometimes exhaustingly - so that he and his family can party in breathtakingly expensive places around the globe.  There is something wrong with that equation.

Why The Internet Must Be Free

So that the millions of voices out there of those who yearn to express themselves can be heard and the words of those participating can be printed without fear of government retribution. And so that the wondrous creativity that abounds will never be stifled.

Speaking of which:

You won't be reading that in the mainstream media.

Quote of the Day

From Instapundit:

"[Arlen] Specter is a rare creature. Most Senators only disgrace one party, but he’s managed to embarrass both."


Maybe Someday

Matt Drudge sees a pattern developing (click on the image to enlarge it):

Yeah, 17 million are unemployed.  But look at the bright side.  Gays can serve in the military.

ONE YEAR FROM NOW: Obama to focus his entire being on ...

- - -

It's interesting that Glenn Reynolds had the same cut-and-paste idea at almost the same moment.