PBS
Your tax dollars at work.
Featured
Topic |
Posted 39 weeks 3 days ago
Is PBS still necessary?
Why do we still have PBS? Back when there were three networks -- one of which broadcast "My Mother The Car" -- it made sense to have a thoughtful, brainy alternative, even if it came with incessant fund drives and Congressional battles. Now? In the digital era, PBS-style programming can be found on a whole range of channels.
Is PBS still valuable? Does it still deserve federal funding?
Thoughts
The PBS Censors That Which It Dislikes
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonAs much as the next guy, I love PBS, but I think PBS could be even better if it weren't paid for by our tax dollars. After all, it would have to cater to the market place and surely there is a market for young children with lots of time to spare. Blues clues anyone?
But what bothers me so much more is that PBS occasionally censors material it finds objectionable. How does it get that right? Fortunately Fox aired it instead, but really, when we the taxpayers pay for something we deserve to get it, and get it hard. Thank you, H.L. Mencken.
PBS doesn't stand for Poor Babies Scraping (for money)
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by Jim LakelyThat is a very interesting link to the Hoover piece, Ben. It's easy to presume that things like Elmo and other Sesame Street make gobs of money. It's even more striking to read what those products were generating in revenue 13 years ago.
And this is before Elmo Mania really took off in this country. So go ahead and bump all those figures up. Again, why the heck do we have to subsidize this racket?
Elmo would be amused to death in opulence
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by BenJim beat me to it, but it seems to me that one of the better arguments for eliminating tax-funded public broadcasting is the fabulous success of Children's Television Workshop. It's a controversial argument. The Big Bird people have long disputed the claim that they recline on giant piles of cash. Nevertheless, if Sesame Street can thrive in the marketplace, that says something about the viability of PBS without public subsidies.
But I want to take issue with the idea that the disappearance of PBS programming would be a terrible cultural loss and bad for the children. No it wouldn't. TV is mere entertainment. It's ephemeral. I've cited a left-winger once already today, but I'm going to cite another here. (Call it blue means to red ends.) Although Neil Postman published Amusing Ourselves to Death 23 years ago, his critique of mindless entertainment holds up well today. "Our culture's adjustment to the epistemology of television is by now almost complete," he wrote. "We have so thoroughly accepted its definitions of truth, knowledge and reality that irrelevance seems to us to be filled with import, and incoherence seems eminently sane."
It's no accident that the one of the biggest bugaboos in Postman's book was none other than Sesame Street.
Re: PBS
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by Jim LakelyThe question is not whether there is good programming on PBS. There is. The question is whether taxpayers should fund it.
I don't mean to get all Ron Paul on everyone, but where in the Constitution does it say Americans have the right to government-funded shows like Sesame Street and Frontline? Why should taxpayers be cutting checks to liberal, sourpuss scolds like Bill Moyers and Garrison Keillor? Why do they have a greater claim to public subsidy than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly?
(Moyers and Keillor, by the way, have become quite wealthy. They got that way not just from collecting public checks for what are essentially jobs for life, but by leveraging their public broadcasting fame to even greater riches in the private sector. And, as you might imagine, the untold millions made on the sale of Elmo dolls and TeleTubby swag goes not into the public coffer, but to the inventors of those characters made famous through public subsidy. What a deal!)
NPR and PBS attract the most affluent audiences in America -- a blessing they are happy to crow about. That is a demographic that advertisers drool over. Why not just privatize NPR and PBS and let advertising pay the freight instead of taxpayers? They could even keep their interminable pledge drives for nostalgia's sake.
PBS
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by Miriam GarciaI grew up watching PBS. PBS is a good channel for kids to watch and just because someone can not recieve PBS does not mean that they should not want to help the system. We have to think about other kids and not being selfish. Think about this.., "would you like for someone to help fund PBS if you had it and knowing that your child would hopefuly pick up good things from that channel?" What if you had it and decided that PBS is a good channel for your kids, would you still think not to fund the system and would you agree that PBS should stay on for every child that lives?
Cable/satellite
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by Joel"I think we take it for granted that everybody uses Cable/Satellite these days, and that's not true."
You're right. I don't have cable or satellite -- in fact, I don't have over-the-air TV -- but I do have the Internet. And that allows me to watch "Frontline," and invaluable PBS show.
PBS
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by AnonymousBy that logic why should we fund the prison system? I've never been there, so why should it exist?
Why should we fund medicare? I've never used it.
Why should we fund highways in Alaska? I've never used those either.
Oh yeah, maybe because those things are good for the country. And PBS is most definitely good for the country. Take the quality of programming of childrens educational programming, and evening news programming, and you'll see for many Americans without cable it is the only intelligent alternative.
I think we take it for granted that everybody uses Cable/Satellite these days, and that's not true.
PBS
Submitted on February 20th, 2008 by AnonymousWe do not receive PBS in our area.
My kids have grown up without viewing PBS so why should we fund a system for only people that have access to veiw it?