And another thing. Why is it that the first card they always pull out is the kids card (“they’re killing big bird!”), when the average viewer age is 58? (from Pat Mitchell, PBS President and COO from here).
Left Hand of Dorkness wrote
My take on that was that PBS viewers were polled to see how they rated the journalism quality of PBS, and the poll showed they were happy with it.
Which is very different from polling the public at large.
Also, not to be harsh, but Mr. Dickinson of the political department at Rolling Stone isn’t really what you’d call a good quality cite. Do you have a better one?
Hmm. It’s possible you’re right. I note that you’ve given no cite that the public doesn’t support PBS, but never mind; I’ll see what I can dig up. Meanwhile, I do encourage you to get on that trying-to-cut-funds-to-PBS thing.
Here’s a cite from 1995 that says that people are soft in support for public-funded broadcasting: that is, if they’re asked whether the program should be cut to reduce the deficit, people say sure, but if they’re asked whether they support funding it, people say sure.
PBS has a press release talking about an independent poll finding that:
Again, it was the article we were discussing, which is why I referred to it.
You’ll find that Newt Gingrich leapt backward from the issue in the mid-nineties as if a snake had bitten him. You’ll find that Congress has recently backpedaled on the idea of slashing funding. And you’ll find that politicians generally find public broadcasting to be a beloved use of government funds.
That’s why I want Republicans to try to slash them. I’m mean that way.
Daniel
Curses, I wish I could edit. I just saw the note at the end of that press release saying that PBS commissioned that Roper poll, which obviously casts some doubt on the results; my apologies for not having read the press release fully before citing from it. That was sloppy of me.
However, I do think it sets up a prima facie case that PBS is a popular program. If you want to dispute that, the ball’s in your court now to provide at least as strong a cite showing that slashing funding to it is politically practical.
Daniel
Quite frankly, I don’t think my local PBS affiliate (WQED) can be matched by the History Channel, or Discovery. WE are the ones who gave Mister Rogers his start. We have fantastic local history documentaries, a wonderful classical music radio station affiliated, and it’s incredibly popular here in Pittsburgh. I would hate to see all that go because they’re forced to go commercial.
The reason I like PBS is because it offers me options that aren’t at the mercy of the free market. How’s that for an oxymoron? Sometimes I don’t care for the outcome of the free market. Sometimes I don’t share the perspectives of the sheep that drive it, nor that of the wolves that profit from it.
Not at all. The free market has immense advantages; but it’s not the cure to all life’s ills, not the best solution to all problems. The fetishizing of the free market in America is kind of ridiculous sometimes.
Daniel
I wholeheartedly agree. I was referring to “mercy” and “free market” as oxymoronic, in case that wasn’t clear.
Ah, gotcha. I completely missed that.
Sorry, then–carry on! 
Daniel
So. given that some of the programming you enjoy is not popular with the vast majority of people, why should they be asked to pay for it?
Given that the vast majority of people are happy for tax dollars to pay for it, why should tax dollars not go toward it?
Daniel
Because the programming that are supported by the vast majority do not need it to exist. And government should spend our tax dollars where they are not needed.
For me, it’s the same reason that government shouldn’t pay for major league baseball stadiums. I’ve the private sector will get it done, put our tax dollars elsewhere.
But the case could be made that NPR is more informative than the commercial news outlets. There was a study done about the media nd the iraq war (I’ll dig for it later. Sleepy wolf now) that showed that NPR listeners had far fewer misconceptions about the facts of the war in Iraq than those that listened to/watched the other sources.
This would indicate that the private sector is not getting it done; “it” being the dissemination of information to the general population. Kinda sound like Don King there don’t I?
Then there are the high approval ratings that NPR gets that show that people do want it and thusly want their tax dollar (iirc, the amount of money per individual taxpayer that goes to NPR is $1) to support it.
Simply put: People want NPR and NPR is doing it’s job better than commercial sources. There is both need and want. I’m with ya on the baseball stadiums though. Hockey is a far superior sport anyways. The government should be funding more ice arenas.
Left Hand of Dorkness wrote
Uh, still waiting for that cite.
magellan01 wrote
At least a new stadium can bring dollars into the community that funds it. No such advantage in the case of PBS.
Somebody just squash that leech.
Harborwolf,
I’d be interested in looking over that report. Particularly (assuming it shows what you claim), the overlap between NPR listeneres and those who get their news from more than one source. Because I think that is what we all have to do these days.
I also think, as far as balance, the private sector IS getting it done, though not necessarily station-wide. Two specifics programs that I think usually do an admirable job of airing both sides of a story (and obstensibly presenting a something closer to the truth) is Hardball with Chris Mathews and O’Reilly’s Factor. I had rejected O’Reilly long ago, but have seen a few of his shows during the past year and have been very pleasantly surprised how fair he’s become.
As far as your point that people want their tax dollars spent on it, I’d say that very many do. But there’s an assumption that if they didn’t pay for it it wouldn’t be there. I think this is ridiculous. If it’s THAT popular, do you not think that there wouldn’t be a bidding war over it, with NPR being able to dictate almost any terms they’d like?
But even with all that, I could support it. My only condition being that if they are using taxpayer money to any degree, they have to be balanced. That’s it. One little condition. Are you with me?
Regarding your point about hockey–very funny. You almost had me there. Hockey, HA!
A municipality at least has the choice to do it or not. Although tax funds are involved, it is more akin to an investment. There are even negotiations. We’ll spend X, but we will get back X+. If the numbers don’t work they can always tell the franchise to build their own stadium.
I, too, am awaitng that wonderful sound: SPLAT!
Harborwolf wrote
That cite will be nice.
Yeah, a cite for that too will be nice.
Assuming both your claims are correct, then yes there is both a need and a want. As it turns out, both of these claims are highly dubious.
Harborwolf, after googling, I’m assuming the first cite you’re referring to is that highly-biased PIPA study, yes?
As to the second claim, the closest we have so far is an 11 year old article from Left Hand of Dorkness. This is from Current newspaper. Their about page says
So, clearly a highly biased source. But even this source reports than when average people are asked what should be cut from the federal budget, PBS is one of the first to go:
Los Angeles Times, Jan. 19-22
As you know, there is much discussion in Washington about which programs
should be cut back in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. Do you think
the government should back spending:
Yes No
on the arts? 69 25
for public television and public radio? 63 32
on food stamps for the poor? 48 45
on the environment? 27 67
on Social Security? 12 86
Now you’re just not telling the truth. I gave you a report from this year about a poll.
But as I said, I welcome all Republican attempts to try to slash public broadcasting funding. If Republicans want to forget their recent history, that’s peaches and cream to me.
Daniel