Neil Cavuto used his Common Sense segment yesterday to cheerlead Mitt Romney’s plan to get rid of government spending for public broadcasting and support for Sesame Street.
Big Bird, you gotta calm down, and quit getting your beak out of joint. Because Mitt Romney wants to close the spigot on your joint… Just because he wants to stop paying for you, doesn’t mean he doesn’t still love you… We just think it’s time you flew the coop.
You’re not the problem, my feathered friend. The taxpayer dollars that helped feather your cozy Washington nest are. You don’t need them. And in this promising free market, I suspect you’ll thrive even more without them.
…Think about what they’re saying Big Bird, that you’re cheap to keep… And that the millions we spend on you and public broadcasting is little more than bird feed, that we get a whole lot bang for that beak, I mean buck.
... I don’t think it flies. Here’s why. By that argument, we would never cut anything ever. Taxpayer funding for public television is chump change, so why bother?
…You don’t need to be The Count on Sesame Street to realize that’s a dead end street. One unnecessary program, two unnecessary programs, three unnecessary programs… Add em up, the savings pile up. So start counting, and start cutting. And if you argue going after you doesn’t fly, then what pray tell does fly? Charging more for you? Having folks pay higher taxes to sustain you? That is for the birds, Big Bird, and you know it.
Can you imagine all the corporations… that would be tripping over themselves to happily attach their sponsorship names to you? Just for the payback in good will. You’re worth a small fortune in good PR.
Of course, public broadcasting is much more than Big Bird and the whole point is to do programming that commercial sponsors would not support this is nonetheless in the public interest. It was an aspect of Romney's proposed budget that Cavuto conveniently overlooked. Also, while griping over taxpayer dollars going to PBS, he forgot to mention that Romney’s corporate tax cuts cost 238 times more than combined public broadcasting funding.
Why do you ask for the impossible ? Now, if you had asked for a list of unintentionally unfunny right-wingersâ¦
… I donât think it flies. Hereâs why. By that argument, we would never cut anything ever. Taxpayer funding for public television is chump change, so why bother?
â¦You donât need to be The Count on Sesame Street to realize thatâs a dead end street. One unnecessary program, two unnecessary programs, three unnecessary programsâ¦ Add em up, the savings pile up.
PBS Statement Regarding October 3 Presidential Debate (excerpt)
We are very disappointed that PBS became a political target in the Presidential debate last night. Governor Romney does not understand the value the American people place on public broadcasting and the outstanding return on investment the system delivers to our nation. We think it is important to set the record straight and let the facts speak for themselves.
The federal investment in public broadcasting equals about one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. Elimination of funding would have virtually no impact on the nationâs debt. Yet the loss to the American public would be devastating.
Craputo: *"Can you imagine all the corporationsâ¦ that would be tripping over themselves to happily attach their sponsorship names to you?"
Kneel, can you imagine what all those corporations will want DONE to that programming in exchange for attaching their sponsorship.
Yes, Aria, you’re correct; a corporate whore such as Kneel Craputo only views success in terms of how well others serve as corporate whores . . .
If that’s the case, how about he serve us a big bowl of shut the fuck up. And he should know that people who Big Bird was their fav are the mellow ones. Attack Grover and see what happens.
Same goes for the Romney’s of this world.
Networks like TLC (The “Learning” Channel), National Geographic Channel, even the various Discovery networks and the History channels, which all aired quality documentaries that focused on science and scientific theories and principles, have turned into havens for “reality” shows and too many incredibly trite fluff pieces.
And then there’s the tragedy of A&E and Bravo, networks which began as havens for “highbrow” entertainment—where you often saw truly classic films with only the rare post-1970 film (anything after 1970 had to be a true classic, either in terms of Oscar wins or being breakthrough films) or stage productions of operas or Broadway/West End musicals and stageplays (like “Oklahoma” starring Hugh Jackman or “Cats”); entertainment that, at one time, was almost completely relegated to PBS. Now, of course, this “highbrow” programming has been pushed aside because it doesn’t pull in the “big numbers” to pay for the quality.
We’ve seen how the Murdoch Empire is willing to screw over its right-wing news network by allowing some rather “left-wing” programming on the basic Fox network since THAT is where the Empire rakes in the big money (that, in turn, finances the obscene salaries of the FoxNoise folks). Fox ignored the “moralists” by airing “Married…With Children” for a decade and just look at the continuing success of shows like “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy,” and “The Cleveland Show” which routinely skewer the right-wing’s most favorite topics. (Even “American Dad,” which is essentially “Family Guy” turned on its head, tends to be more in line with “The Colbert Report” in its “conservative” tack—posing as being conservative while satirizing conservative principles.)
Big Bird: educational, teaches children things like sharing and caring
Cavuto: Welp i’m stumped.