Do you support Pat Robertson?

[cosmik debris]

I can’t find a cable TV provider in my part of the country that doesn't require me to pay for Trinity Broadcasting Network and Eternal Word Television Network. Dish Network and Direct TV have the same problem. So I don’t subscribe to cable TV because I don’t want my money going to Pat Robertson or the Catholic Church.

I am curious about how my fellow DU’ers handle this problem. Does your cable TV provider offer a package without religious programming or do you subscribe to TBN and EWTN? Do you support Pat Robertson?

[gator_in_Ontario]

1. Probably...but on the other hand,

I wonder how many fundies are supporting LOGO? Kinda gives me a chuckle to think about that...

[cosmik debris]

3. That's OK with me for other people

but to me it is not a fair trade off. I will not support Pat Robertson even if I have to sacrifice Jon Stewart.

[musette_sf]

2. I look at TBN

as "recreational Christianity" :evilgrin:

And as a former Roman Catholic, I find EWTN to be funny and nostalgic by turns. Sometimes I just leave the Rosary program on to listen to them drone away with that oh-so-familiar "holymarymotherofgod" rap.

Hey, I even get "Word" network, which has Peter Popoff. He's worth DVRing for later consumption for sheer hilarity.

[chaplainM]

23. Peter Popoff!

My favorite among broadcast preachers! It boggles the mind to think that he can still find enough marks to get on the air. The debunking that CSICOP did in 1987 should have buried him once and for all, but I shouldn't be surprised. There's no lower limit to intelligence.

Link to the 1987 Popoff exposure:

http://www.skeptictank.org/popoff2.htm

[niallmac]

4. That is an excellent question even though I don't

watch the tube anymore.
Why with all this technology can't you
purchase only the programs you want
to watch?

[hobbit709]

5. If I refused everything that offended me

on my DirecTV, there wouldn't be any deal that I could sign up for. I just blocked out all the crap I don't want to watch and leave the rest. Come on, you get Faux, CNN and several other equally offensive channels in every package deal offered. No I don't support Pat (GOD says kill) robertson, but sometimes you have to make a compromise to get what you want or get nothing at all.

[cosmik debris]

9. If you PAY for a package that includes TBN

Then you support Pat Robertson financially. It is not a matter of what offends me, it is a matter of what I will support financially.

[hobbit709]

13. If you refuse to support financially

everything you're against, you will find that what you can eat, drink, wear, read and watch to be severely limited. My horizons are a little broader than that-even PBS offends me occasionally with some of their shows-that doesn't mean I'm going to stop supporting them.

[cosmik debris]

43. You have to draw the line somewhere n/t

[Xeric]

6. I do the same

And I've let the cable companies know that if they want my money they can give me the choice on whether to buy theocrat crap and repuke fox propaganda or not. Their loss.

[hobbit709]

10. Yeah but

then what would I do without the History channels, Discovery, Cartoon channels, Science channels and especially "Mythbusters", "Duck Dodgers" and "What was I thinking" to watch.

[cosmik debris]

11. I take that to mean

That you believe that it is a fair trade off to get your favorites in exchange for a small contribution to Pat Robertson. I don't believe that it is fair, but you can think for yourself.

[david_vincent]

7. Hey cosmik,

I'm working on my TV situation at the moment. My approach with cable was to block those channels on my TV, so they wouldn't appear even if I was surfing up or down. I did this to Fox Lies and several religious and shopping channels.

Now I'm looking into FTA (free to air) satellite TV. I scrounged up a dish for free and bought a state of the art receiver on Ebay. You can get satellite feeds for free and never have to pay anyone again. There are lots of European and South American channels too, depending on your location. Check it out! When I put the dish up this weekend, it's good riddance forever to cable.


www.lyngsat.com is the bible for current info on satellites, but I found the site pretty confusing to use. There are newsgroups and web forums out there too.

[Donnachaidh]

12. oooohh -- can you do this with a scrounged dishnetwork dish?

Or do you have to find another version?

I'd love to do this. Even if I don't get cable, we still get all that xtian crap on regular stations. It's revolting.

[Turbineguy]

8. I support his right

to jump out of a 22nd storey window. Although any high place will do.

[Alexodin]

14. Religious broadcasters pay the the cable or satellite company

to carry their crap, the television companies do not pay Robertson or any of their ilk one thin dime. Its a cash cow for the TV industry. Robertson and others solicit donations from their viewers and make tons and tons and tons of money doing so but the TV stations nail them to a wall on rates. If the television ministries cannot squeeze enough lucre out of their "flock" they go off the air.

[cosmik debris]

15. My information is just the opposite.

I'll have to check my sources. I don't suppose you have any authentication of your post?

[Alexodin]

18. I worked in the TV industry so no there isn't any

independent "authentication" I can give as they don't post their rates. I suppose you could call a TV station and ask to see their rate card for 1/2 hour time slots. In the past many TV ownership groups did not like TV ministries, perhaps they felt they were tacky, a TV ministry will kill ratings for a station so the show after it will have to struggle to rebuild viewership. All ownership groups will sell time to TV ministries nowadays. There is a tremendous amount of money in TV religion but no TV station pays them its the other way around.

[tech3149]

16. I haven't payed for cable TV for a few years

I can say that most local cable systems offer one or more channels that carry Robertson and also broadcast stations that carry the 700 Club. I recall a similar discussion a year or so ago regarding Faux Snooze. The central point of the discussion is that the content provider gets paid for providing a signal for distribution. The payment would be based on the number of subscribers receiving the signal. Since I'm not in the bidness, I can't say if that is true or not. I'm no fan of the ala carte cable delivery concept, but that would be a good method for removing support from content providers that were viewed as harmfull or worthless.

[cosmik debris]

17. OK, I'll bite

What is your objection to ala carte?

[Alexodin]

21. The content provider in the case of TV ministries and

home shopping and infomercials is CHARGED based on number of subscribers. For networks that provide entertainment content the cable/sat company may pay the content provider a nominal sum but is generally compensated by way of giving them local breaks that they can sell and keep the money. Most cable/sat companies make their money off the subscription fees but they also sell advertising and carriage to homeshopping, TV ministries and infomercials.



Ed for sp

[cosmik debris]

27. Here is something I found in USA Today

In their defense, the cable and satellite companies make an excellent point: They sell channels in packages because they're forced to buy packages from the content companies. The studios they get programming from — the Viacoms and Time Warners of the world — don't give them an à la carte option.

ESPN realizes that interests in, say, rock climbing and other more exotic sports are limited, but that's exactly the kind of programming on ESPN2. So it packages that with regular ESPN to cable companies, which pass the packaging along to consumers.

As one cable-company spokesman told me, everyone is quick to blame the Cablevisions, Coxes, and Time Warners of the world for forcing these content packages, when it isn't their idea.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-02-17-ala-carte_x.htm

This doesn't necessarily support my point, but it is another point of view.

[cosmik debris]

28. And From Florida

Religious broadcasters fear losing audience with a la carte cable
Last Update: 3/11/2006 7:00:12 PM

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - While cable television customers may applaud the notion of paying for only those channels they want, religious broadcasters say it will diminish their reach.

Pay-per-channel pricing "would have a devastating effect on the inspirational programming we currently provide" and "decimate both the audience and financial support for religious broadcasting," according to the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition.

The group includes Pat Robertson, founder of the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, and Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University in Lynchburg and the defunct Moral Majority.

Last month, the Federal Communications Commission said customers could save as much as 13 percent on their cable bills with per-channel pricing because they no longer would have to buy packages that may include dozens of channels they do not want.

http://www.wpmi.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=DE9774B8-5BC5-40B1-A7FC-0B7878030B6D

[cosmik debris]

29. Part two

"For CBN, the impact of per-channel pricing could be buffered by the network's guaranteed airtime on the ABC Family channel, under the terms of CBN's sale of The Family Channel in 1990. Michael D. Little, CBN's president, said CBN also buys airtime on broadcast networks such as NBC and Fox that probably would be part of most consumers' channel lineup.

Still, much of CBN's revenue is generated by telethons, and that income might suffer if CBN's cable-based audience shrank under per-channel pricing. The network's latest tax return showed that 68 percent of its revenue came from contributions, gifts and grants.

In addition, Robertson's influence as a prominent conservative could be reduced if per-channel pricing caused CBN's viewership to slump."

http://www.wpmi.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=DE9774B8-5BC5-40B1-A7FC-0B7878030B6D

This doesn't prove my point, but it does make it look like I'm right. Especially the part about the tax returns.

[Alexodin]

36. No sorry but you are not correct. television ministries have to

pay the TV stations. That article points out that ala carte would clip Robertson off the air on many TV sets. Who wants it? Not me and the TV stations make their money from selling advertising there are no breaks to sell in Robertson's telecast. Pat never says, "We'll be back after these messages" he may break but he will break to a plea for a donation or buy my magic anointing oil or vitamin pill but you never see a car commercial in there. TV ministries are the equivalent of god infomercials they make their money from the viewing audience. Ala carte would cut that audience down, no more click throughs, no more people tuning in that do not normally watch his telecast so no new converts.

I'm sorry I can't "prove" this to your satisfaction but you are wrong about Robertson being paid by the TV industry he has to pay for carriage he has to pay for air time and he has to pay tons of money for it. TV religion is extremely lucrative. A religious broadcaster may pay anywhere from $500 per half hour on a small local station to tens of thousands for a national sat feed, they then need to generate more than that from the viewers to make it profitable. A previous poster was correct when they mentioned that if more people subscribe it would be more expensive for Robertson to run because the cost of broadcasting his endless pleas for money are based on number of subs just like a magazine or newspaper charges based on their circulation.

I know its kind of complicated but he's a big fat ad for god as far as the TV stations are concerned and the stations charge for ads they do not pay for them. It would be funny to see a preacher say," Back after these messages" and sell some shampoo or something but they don't because no advertiser wants to buy time inside another huge advertisement. They are just like infomercials and infomercials are referred to in the industry as paid programming. As in they pay to run.

[cosmik debris]

38. You are probably right about BROADCAST TV

But Cable is a bundled market. It operates under different rules.

Here is an example from NYC where the content provider gets paid byt\ the cable company:

"I am writing a separate post about ala carte Cable TV pricing which was kicked off by this message from Time Warner Cable of New York City:



To our customers:

Cablevision has forced the removal of MSG, Fox Sports New York, and the Metro channels from your channel lineup.

Cablevision has refused to sign an extension allowing us to continue carrying these channels while we work on a new agreement.

Cablevision has threatened to sue if we continue to carry their networks.

Cablevision has demanded unprecedented fees for programming that continues to diminish in value.

Time Warner Cable will voluntarily rebate its customers $2.00 per month to minimize this inconvenience.

We continue to press Cablevision to return the channels to your lineup but, so far they have refused.

Earth to Time Warner: I DON'T WANT THESE CHANNELS TO RETURN!. And, if I had ala carte pricing, not only would I not subscribe to the channels, but Time Warner would in turn not have to pay whatever the unprecedented fees are for programming diminishing in value."


http://epcostello.net/articles/2004/08/cable_tv_programming_that_continues_to_diminish_in_value.html

[Alexodin]

40. Those are entertainment channels.

MSG is Madison Square Garden Sports, Fox Sports and I don't know what Metro Channels are but the cable companies and the satellite companies charge television ministries for air time they do not pay them. I know you don't believe me or rather you want me to prove my assertion but I can't apparently. I really can't explain it to you any better than I have. I worked in the paid programming TV industry for over ten years and, well, TV Ministries were very desirable because they paid so much to telecast their pitches for donations. I was amazed when I found out how much money they suck out of a community. The amounts are staggering. I'm going to have to leave it at that and encourage you to call a local cable provider or satellite company and ask them. Cheers and I wish you luck in your cable dish system that sounds like a great idea, but it won't hurt Robertson's pocket book, sorry.

[cosmik debris]

42. deleted by me

[cosmik debris]

45. Here is an interesting quote from the Cato institute

"The relationship between regulation of price and programming is illustrated by recent events in Boston, where the cable operator attempted to reconfigure its $2 a month basic service. Popular and costly services such as CNN, ESPN, and the USA Network were to be moved from the $2 tier and replaced by less costly services such as the National Jewish Network, the Eternal Word Network, and the Christian Broadcasting Network. Although the rate would remain the same, the mayor of Boston opposed the change because he saw it as a "reduction in service that would hurt the consumer."

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa040.html

It calls religious programming less costly, not free and not profit centers. What do you make of that?

[Alexodin]

52. Thats a big article and from what I can make out

the "less costly" is referring to the operational cost of delivering the programming to the household not the cost of the programming. Robertson is sattelite delivered so its sort of set it and forget it for the operator to deliver. "Not profit centers" means they don't sell local breaks in that programming but the programming itself is a profit center to the cable company providing the carriage. That is to say the national cable operator not neccesarily the local cable company itself.

In this case much of the article refers leased access, that is the right of a programmer to lease carriage from the local cable operator under public access provisions of the telecommunications act. The article deals with whether the municipality can step on a cable operator to prevent them from providing leased access to a programmer they don't like such as a soft porn channel.

The mayor objected because the cable company wanted to take entertainment/news programming off a basic tier and place it on a higher pay tier and replace it with junk like Robertson and other pay to run services. Basically shafting the people on the lower tier. I am not familiar with the National Jewish Network I just have no idea who they are so I can't comment on their programming but I suspect it was not considered entertainment/news like ESPN and CNN.

[cosmik debris]

55. Now I know you are making up stuff

It doesn't say anything about the cost of delivery. And even so, the cost of delivery doesn't change from channel to channel. They pick it up off the satellite and put it on the cable. That costs the same whether it is ESPN or CBN.

And the phrase "not profit centers" was my phrase, not theirs. Meaning that the cable companies do not consider the religious broadcasters "profit centers" because they do not make money selling time to them. If they were selling time to the religious broadcasters, they would never refer to them as less expensive, but rather "less profitable".

Your arguments are getting pretty weak. Perhaps it is bed time?

[Alexodin]

56. Ask a religious broadcaster/telecaster then.

Seriously, ask them if they have to buy TV time. The TV stations do not pay Robertson or any television ministry for their church services to run. The idea is laughable to anyone that works in the business. I don't mean to ridicule you but you could not be more wrong.

[cosmik debris]

58. You keep changing back to TV

You are aware, I hope, that there is a difference between cable and broadcast television?

And as I said, I got my information from an employee of Time Warner Cable.

He wasn't laughing, but when he reads this thread, he might!

[cosmik debris]

59. And I don't mean to ridicule you but you could not

Have less evidence!

[Alexodin]

62. Its not the kind of thing that is out there on the net to evidence.

I am glad you have a friend in the cable industry to ask. There was a time when anything the TV industry did was held very close to the vest. They don't post rate cards on the web outside of secure forums. Yes Time Warner buys and sells programming but not religious programming. No I have no evidence other than to say I have sold time to religious broadcasters and have never once seen a station pay for it and I have done this on a national level. Seriously most stations do not like paid programming and only run it for the money they make. You are not paying Robertson unless he owns your local cable company which I suppose is possible. Please direct your friend to this thread I'm sure he will tell you the same thing I've been saying.

[cosmik debris]

63. You keep changing the subject

I am not talking about TV stations, I am talking about cable companies, the people who provide cable TV to my home. Do you understand the difference. If so, please stop referring to TV stations. We all know they operate under different rules.

Cable TV providers buy packages of programming and re-sell it at a profit. Among the components of the packages they buy are CBN, TBN etc.

"Yes Time Warner buys and sells programming but not religious programming."

You say that with authority, but you have no way of substantiating it. Even after I told you it is not true, you still proclaim your authority. I have to assume that you are just blowing smoke.

[cosmik debris]

46. And a History lesson from BlueOregon

"Of course, the televangelizers came into every cable home asking for charity donations, and getting it, and all of that is what I call the 'above board' money which could be fairly well accounted and, incidentally, sponsored some rather colorful or lurid examples of reverend purchases .... But under the table is where the big bucks moved. Each channel provider got an equal share from each cable subscriber's payment, whether the subscriber watched that channel, every channel, any channel, or not. Go on vacation for a month and not watch any cable channels at home -- the same monthly cable fee was still owed and each channel got its pay, when no one watched."


By 1980, with 10 million cable subscribers, say, at $10 a month, for 10 channels, the church service broadcaster in Virginia is getting a $10 million check every month from cable subscribers. What did the collection plate bring in a month, $1 million? Anyway, the cable revenues financed Robertson's campaign for president and a lot of other campaigns he selected to bankroll.

"Today, with about 50 million cable homes and 50 million cable-paying businesses, say fifty channels for fifty bucks a month, each channel supplier grosses about $80 million a month which is $1 billion a year. There are complications to this simplified sketch, but the central conclusion is that cable channels are cash cows. Not counting, yet, the revenues from selling ad time, although it's less than subscriber revenues. And it is not only that the FOXzis get paid excessively for propaganda programming which hardly anyone watches. It is that they then apply that money to sponsor rightwing radio hate by buying time for commercials that advertise cable TV programs. Or they buy display ads in favored print periodicals and newspapers and prop them up, as long as they have the 'right' profile. And in many other ways the cable TV cash is the lifeblood of the C. Coalition and religious right organizations which could all dry up and blow away if subscribers ever stop making their cable payments, en mass."


http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/11/fox_news_subsid.html

[Alexodin]

60. I can see how this would be confusing.

It only makes sense to me if the church owned the cable company. It would not surprise me if they do own some cable companies they own quite a few broadcast stations. In the second paragraph I believe they are referring to channels that are not carrying religious broadcasting. INSP is a network owned by religious broadcasters yet they must pay for their carriage. They sell time to other religious broadcasters at a profit. The only way a cable company gives money to religious broadcasters is if it is owned by religious broadcasters. Otherwise the cable company charges them for carriage.

[cosmik debris]

61. I'm not confused

But I am waiting for you to present anything that substantiates your opinion. (yawn)

[cosmik debris]

41. If they are buying their time

Why do they oppose ala carte so fiercely. If they are buying the time they can just switch to another channel to buy time on. Your argument does not make sense to me. CBN, EWTN and TBN are networks NOT infomercials. They provide content around the clock. If they were one-shot deals or part time events I might believe you, but they are full time networks making money off advertising, not paying for advertising.

[Alexodin]

47. They are the equivalent of infomercials. The product is

religion or salvation. CBN EWTN TBN sell no advertising, not any. Watch them if you can stand it and you will see ministry after ministry but no commercials. These networks pay for carriage. They buy cable carriage based on sub count, same with satellite. Seriously I am not lying to you I have no dog in this fight. I can't stand Robertson and his ilk I have no reason to defend him. The TV ministries make their money from soliciting donations or pitching their own products like vitamins and diet shakes and prayer cloths. They don't sell time to regular advertisers mainly because the advertisers don't want any of their time. Once they have the name and address of people that donate they hit them with endless direct mail campaigns and pitches to buy their Bible study series etc. Much like infomercials these are considered "aftermarket" sales. I see that you have put a great deal of effort into finding links to try to support you point of view I'm sorry but the person that told you TV/cable/satellite companies pay for this kind of programming was simply incorrect. A home shopping channel works the same way as CBN EWTN and TBN and The Word Network etc. Its just one big religious advertisement all the time. As I said in another post many TV station's programming execs despise TV religion and infomercials because they nose dive the ratings. They really don't like them but have become addicted to the revenue and they use that money to buy shows people want to see and they sell the spots in those shows. Maybe its difficult to believe that Robertson et al rake in the amount of money they do with their corn ball theatrics but they do, sadly, they really do.

Edit to add Robertson opposes ala carte because nobody would want to see his channel and he picks up converts and channel surfers on the "click through" the same goes for home shopping. Ala carte would kill his netwrok. The only people that would order it are his legion of followers. He would have no growth potential and its also about preaching to the "unsaved" her doesn't want to just preach to the choir.

[cosmik debris]

50. The person who gave me the information is an employee

Of Time Warner Cable. He says Time Warner buys and resells programming. That's what they do.

You say he is wrong, he says he is right. Who am I to believe? What evidence do you have to support your opinion?

Did you have a response to post #45 & #46?

[NMMNG]

64. In other words,

As much as the Fundies claim they are the majority and they speak to the mainstream of America, they know that if stations went a-la-carte hardly anybody would order their crap. :shrug:

[cosmik debris]

34. More evidence

With the exception of channels like HBO, Showtime etc. which are not advertiser supported (commercial free), the majority of all other channels have a business model that derives about half their operating income from the fees per customer per month that are paid by the cable operator and the other half from advertising income from commercials which run on their network. The initially critical piece of this as it relates to this issue is the advertising piece.

Current contracts from almost all programmers with all cable operators specifically preclude a cable operator from selling their channel/channels on a singular basis. The reason is the advertising component of the programmers business model. That revenue streams success ties directly to the # of households that the programmer has through the cable operator. In fact , most have some type of financial penalty if the tier that this channel exists on, falls below a certain % of overall penetration, usually @ 85%.
http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/history/topic/384417-1.html

[cosmik debris]

35. And more from Florida

"The industry retort also has merit: Without bundled programming, dozens of channels — all watched by someone — would go out of business because they would be denied the monthly subscriber fees. These range from about 25 cents for niche networks to almost $3 for ESPN, cable’s biggest ticket item. Diversity would disappear, since networks that cater to minorities and gay audiences wouldn’t have sufficient support to sustain themselves."

http://www.crocodilecaucus.com/wordpress/2006/04/18/channels-changing-or-i-get-frustrated/

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. I think you have the flow of money in the wrong direction

If your local Comcast or TCI company has TBN and EWTN, it is because TBN and EWTN have paid those carriers to have their channels. And the amount that Robertson or the Catholic Church get charged is based on how big is the potential market: the more homes that subscribe to those channels, the more the producers much pay to have the cable provider carry the channel. So it is in the interest of the cable providers to stick as many "junk" channels together as possible: the more people who subscribe to a package with TBN, the more money it costs TBN to keep themselves in that market.

Any money the producers make is via advertising and outright begging for cash. Boycott the advertisers and ignore the begging, and your support for Robertson and TBN is zero.

So subscribe away! Get your neighbors to subscribe, too! Make it as expensive as possible for TBN and EWTN to contract with your cable provider. :hi:

[cosmik debris]

22. Again, I've been told the opposite

I need to verify my info, but it would be helpful if you could cite some source for your info. thnx

[Alexodin]

26. Ask these people how much to run a TV ministry on DISH

http://www.apexmedia.com/

[cosmik debris]

33. That is a company that sells advertising

What does that have to do with who pays for religious broadcasters?

[Alexodin]

37. They sell time to TV ministries. They sell time to home shopping

and infomercials. The website is pitching TV stations saying they can get you money from religious broadcasters and yes they also sell time to religious broadcasters and infomercials.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. I'm going off basic economics

The vast majority of US cable markets are a sanctioned monopoly. Customers within a given geographic area have one and only one choice for cable provider. What is the benefit for Comcast to pay TBN to carry their channel? Its not like customers will move to a different cable provider if the carrier dropped TBN and other religious programming. Depending on the area, they might actually increase the number of subscribers if they did, or at least offered a more flexible package so customers could pick and choose. The only sensible rationale for carrying a large variety of small niche channels and requiring all subscribers to get them is the one I gave.

Now, with the mega-channels like HBO, Showtime, etc., that might be different. But your question isn't about premium channels.

[cosmik debris]

31. The law of supply and demand does not apply

in a monopoly environment. Youy may be right about the end result, but I am not sure you got there by the right path.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. Yeah, but I also get

20 porn channels, the Naked News, MTV and a lot of other trash I am not fond of. It's a trade off to get Noggin, National Geographic, Democracy Now, Dyke TV (one of my fav's..yeah, I'm straight), etc.

[cboy4]

24. I'd be curious to know if the religious propaganda channels are

actually paid.

It doesn't seem like the satellite and cable companies would need to pay out.

Robertson is anxious to get hate channel on the air, and it would seem he needs them more than vice versa.

But I don't know.

[cosmik debris]

25. Well, I may be wrong,

But I would like to be proved wrong. Let's keep looking for the truth.

[QUALD]

32. Nope--I think he's a nutter.

[demosincebirth]

39. I have Etwn, it comes with the package, but I pick what programs to watch.

My system comes with a remote.

[SPKrazy]

44. We Have A Station That Has ABC Family And Pat Robertson

on it, the only thing I can think of is that he sold that channel to ABC family?

We get other religious programming that I'm not too fond of.

I guess I can complain to the cable company (Cox) about it.

[Alexodin]

48. The portion of programming that is Robertson's he pays for

that time. The station uses that revenue to buy syndicated programming and sells spots in it. They have an ABC Family affiliation but ABC Family does not provide 24-7 programming so the rest they sell to infomercials, Pat Robertson, other TV ministries or they go off the air at night. Many smaller stations struggle to fill time slots that are not programmed by the network. They like fishing shows and hunting shows because those are pretty well watched and the station gets some time in them they can sell but they don't have to pay the content provider for the programming.

[SPKrazy]

49. That Makes Sense

I vote by not watching Pat

[cosmik debris]

51. In case the facts matter

"Aside from contributions, CBN showed as revenue television airtime worth $46 million that it receives for free under a 1990s contract. The airtime is on the ABC Family channel."


http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/print.cfm?story=101773&ran=28699

[Alexodin]

54. I have a feeling I'm making you angry and that is not my intention.

They "showed as revenue" is a book keeping term. Apparently CBN received airtime for free from ABC, god knows why, I would guess that they traded something for it, perhaps a station, but whatever, the air time had value so they showed it as revenue. Again I will ask you to ask someone that works at a TV station or in the cable biz. I am retiring from this discussion because as I said I really am not here to make you angry.

[cosmik debris]

57. Not angry, just frustrated

You refuse to present anything but opinion, not a shred of evidence to support your opinion, and you insist that you are correct. And no matter how much evidence I present you refuse to accept it. I would suspect that you have already closed your mind to any new evidence, so by all means, retire.

[neebob]

53. I used to support Pat Robertson and TBN

but then Bresnan Communications (aka the Wingnutty Cable Company, and don't get me started about the wingnutty letter and the gospel music on the rolling schedule when they first acquired my local mom & pop cable company) switched me over to the city system. Now I support Pat Robertson and this weird, boring couple named Al and Tommie who run God's Learning Channel and all their weird, boring guests who are all about Israel. Not to mention supporting the Wingnutty Cable Company, which I have a problem with but haven't settled on a better solution.