Long gone are the days of Belva Davis, Spencer Michaels, Michael Krasny. We get Alex Madrigal sighing and asking lame questions. Pathetic. I remember when the KQED auction was a silly fundraiser where local businesses chipped in and got free advertising. The kids ruined KQED, time to get the adults back in the room to right the ship.
I’d wholeheartedly support an investigation into where the money goes at KQED and why it goes to the places and people it does. I wouldn't be shocked if we learn that there's some cooking of the books going on there.
KQED is in a prime position to get away with financial misconduct for two main reasons:
Trusted Reputation: Over the decades, KQED has developed a very favorable and trusted reputation in the mainstream collective consciousness. Historically, they've been known as the channel of Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and other programs aimed at fostering the cultural and intellectual growth of the audience. They aren't flashy or sensational. They receive no fanfare, aren't targets of hate, and have had no scandals. Generally regarded as apolitical and non-controversial, there is nothing inherently noteworthy about KQED in the public ethos. For all these reasons, KQED is a very trusted name but also one that no one thinks about.
Low-Profile Programming: Their barren local programming makes them even less relevant and less paid attention to. Despite this, their trust factor remains intact.
This combination of being inherently trusted and not paid attention to creates the perfect conditions for corruption.
Well said, 11:03. Why do people even donate to KQED when they have virtually no local programming? What do they think they're even getting? I'd understand if they had robust local programming but they have next to nothing. According to their most recent IRS Form 990, KQED received nearly $89 MILLION in contributions in 2022 alone. What the hell are these donors getting? More Check Please reruns? Sounds like a money laundering operation.
You forgot to mention the third and fourth factors that make it easy for kqed to commit financial misconduct: no one is paying attention and no one questions them.
12:06, I didn't believe it so I had to look it up myself. $88,943,889 in contributions in one year. That's insane. Looking at their programming schedule and they have virtually no locally produced programming except for Check Please and a couple other random, one-off special interest shows. Rich is right, this definitely warrants an investigation.
Everything on PBS these days is gay this and black that. Sick of it. Nothing against gays and blacks, but I don't want non-stop queerness and slavery guilt every time I tune in, especially when blacks refuse to talk about all the chaos they've wreaked on the country and all the problems they have caused on our social structure since we freed them. And while I'm perfectly happy gays now have the same rights as everyone else, that doesn't mean I want to hear about your sexuality every minute of every day, just as you surely don't want to hear about mine. Can we stop talking about our skin color and our genitals in this country for five consecutive minutes?
I agree that the Trans reporting 24-7 on KQED has gotten out of hand. As the old joke goes, “in going to a party, within 5 minutes you will know everyone who is a vegetarian, because they will make sure you know their leanings, without ever being prompted.” I did a small test of KQED whereby I would turn off the radio when someone said “trans”. I did this test at least 3 times though not during Pride Month. It only About 2 minutes each time before only a click was heard I do not care if someone is trans, a pescatarian, a Harvard grad, a convicted murderer or loves dogs - just quit beating me over the head with it. Were I trans, gay, queer, bi, gns, I’d be proud too, but I am not sure I’d like a megaphone blaring about my uniqueness. After all, we are virtually genetically identical. You’d think the billionaire class is erecting more “us vs them” barriers - “here’s someone who is different, blame them because we need a $46 billion annual salary”
Oh, I miss the annual KQED auction. That was grassroots funding! Back in the 1960's my parents bid on Salesian Summer Camp in Watsonville for something like $50 for the week. Right on the beach.
Upon relocating to the Bay Area in 1974 (UCB grad school) I was impressed with KQED's nightly Newsroom. They had thought-provoking reporters like Mel Wax, Linda Schacht, and Rollin Post, among others. Between '89-'92 KQED used viewer donations to purchase ($9.4million) and improve their HQ at 2601 Mariposa St. At the time, tongues were clucking at the apparent extravagance of their building, whose estimated 2019 value had grown to $27.7million. They further raised another $140million from viewers (remember "Campaign 21"?) renovating that building at a cost of $94million by 2021. Little was said about where the excess donations were spent. With such spending, that's exactly why I don't donate to KQED.
It's toxic programming, mostly from PBS that feasts on Gayness, Black politics, and left leaning documentaries. It's a American cheese with mayo on white bread feast. Meanwhile the crooked executives make outrageous salaries. sucking off the blue blood contributor's teet. The radio version is rancid, passive aggressive Left wing swill, a virtual merry go round of LBGT, Queer, Trans nonsense and sparse local content. There should be an investigation into both stations by the IRS.
Talking about how the old days were better... I miss when this blog was a blog I could read in 2 minutes vs. a YouTube channel that takes considerably longer to consume.
Long gone are the days of Belva Davis, Spencer Michaels, Michael Krasny.
ReplyDeleteWe get Alex Madrigal sighing and asking lame questions. Pathetic.
I remember when the KQED auction was a silly fundraiser where local businesses chipped in and got free advertising.
The kids ruined KQED, time to get the adults back in the room to right the ship.
I’d wholeheartedly support an investigation into where the money goes at KQED and why it goes to the places and people it does. I wouldn't be shocked if we learn that there's some cooking of the books going on there.
ReplyDeleteKQED is in a prime position to get away with financial misconduct for two main reasons:
Trusted Reputation: Over the decades, KQED has developed a very favorable and trusted reputation in the mainstream collective consciousness. Historically, they've been known as the channel of Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and other programs aimed at fostering the cultural and intellectual growth of the audience. They aren't flashy or sensational. They receive no fanfare, aren't targets of hate, and have had no scandals. Generally regarded as apolitical and non-controversial, there is nothing inherently noteworthy about KQED in the public ethos. For all these reasons, KQED is a very trusted name but also one that no one thinks about.
Low-Profile Programming: Their barren local programming makes them even less relevant and less paid attention to. Despite this, their trust factor remains intact.
This combination of being inherently trusted and not paid attention to creates the perfect conditions for corruption.
Well said, 11:03. Why do people even donate to KQED when they have virtually no local programming? What do they think they're even getting? I'd understand if they had robust local programming but they have next to nothing. According to their most recent IRS Form 990, KQED received nearly $89 MILLION in contributions in 2022 alone. What the hell are these donors getting? More Check Please reruns? Sounds like a money laundering operation.
DeleteYou forgot to mention the third and fourth factors that make it easy for kqed to commit financial misconduct: no one is paying attention and no one questions them.
DeleteKQED is nothing more than a con. A grift.
Delete12:06, I didn't believe it so I had to look it up myself. $88,943,889 in contributions in one year. That's insane. Looking at their programming schedule and they have virtually no locally produced programming except for Check Please and a couple other random, one-off special interest shows. Rich is right, this definitely warrants an investigation.
DeleteEverything on PBS these days is gay this and black that. Sick of it. Nothing against gays and blacks, but I don't want non-stop queerness and slavery guilt every time I tune in, especially when blacks refuse to talk about all the chaos they've wreaked on the country and all the problems they have caused on our social structure since we freed them. And while I'm perfectly happy gays now have the same rights as everyone else, that doesn't mean I want to hear about your sexuality every minute of every day, just as you surely don't want to hear about mine. Can we stop talking about our skin color and our genitals in this country for five consecutive minutes?
ReplyDelete11:18. So don't watch television. It's all garbage and propaganda. Go outside and enjoy life. Do something productive.
DeleteAmen 11:18. It is why viewing is down across the board on quite a few networks.
DeleteNo more donation to KQED & Public Radio
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Trans reporting 24-7 on KQED has gotten out of hand. As the old joke goes, “in going to a party, within 5 minutes you will know everyone who is a vegetarian, because they will make sure you know their leanings, without ever being prompted.”
ReplyDeleteI did a small test of KQED whereby I would turn off the radio when someone said “trans”. I did this test at least 3 times though not during Pride Month. It only About 2 minutes each time before only a click was heard
I do not care if someone is trans, a pescatarian, a Harvard grad, a convicted murderer or loves dogs - just quit beating me over the head with it. Were I trans, gay, queer, bi, gns, I’d be proud too, but I am not sure I’d like a megaphone blaring about my uniqueness. After all, we are virtually genetically identical.
You’d think the billionaire class is erecting more “us vs them” barriers - “here’s someone who is different, blame them because we need a $46 billion annual salary”
Times are tough for local television stations. Kqed is hubbing there master control and laying off engineers. A sign of the times.
ReplyDeleteOh, I miss the annual KQED auction. That was grassroots funding! Back in the 1960's my parents bid on Salesian Summer Camp in Watsonville for something like $50 for the week. Right on the beach.
ReplyDeleteUpon relocating to the Bay Area in 1974 (UCB grad school) I was impressed with KQED's nightly Newsroom. They had thought-provoking reporters like Mel Wax, Linda Schacht, and Rollin Post, among others. Between '89-'92 KQED used viewer donations to purchase ($9.4million) and improve their HQ at 2601 Mariposa St. At the time, tongues were clucking at the apparent extravagance of their building, whose estimated 2019 value had grown to $27.7million. They further raised another $140million from viewers (remember "Campaign 21"?) renovating that building at a cost of $94million by 2021. Little was said about where the excess donations were spent. With such spending, that's exactly why I don't donate to KQED.
ReplyDeleteIt's toxic programming, mostly from PBS that feasts on Gayness, Black politics, and left leaning documentaries. It's a American cheese with mayo on white bread feast. Meanwhile the crooked executives make outrageous salaries. sucking off the blue blood contributor's teet. The radio version is rancid, passive aggressive Left wing swill, a virtual merry go round of LBGT, Queer, Trans nonsense and sparse local content. There should be an investigation into both stations by the IRS.
ReplyDeleteTalking about how the old days were better... I miss when this blog was a blog I could read in 2 minutes vs. a YouTube channel that takes considerably longer to consume.
ReplyDeleteagree with the blog. wish it would come back, YouTube takes too long,.
ReplyDelete