I like PBS, probably watch it more than any single network channel.
(Although that might be bad math, since I get 3 PBS channels, which run the same shows but at staggered times, making it more likely to match my schedule.)
But it seems that with however many channels out there looking for material, that some of them would air whatever BBC offerings PBS suddenly liberated.
Or conversely, that a commercialized PBS could find normal advertising sponsors to replace the public donations.
Recall that PBS started back when there were often only two channels for a city of a million, not even conceivable today. That original need is long gone. And their other premise, of spreading television technology across the country, and away from NYC and LA, is lost when so many shows are made by the BBC.
old thread on similar topic, memerable only because I started it. Which means it wasn’t memerable at all. It’s 3 years old, so the topic is certainly worth discussing again–it may well have been discussed sometime in between.
I don’t provide this link to be a damper on discussion. Merely to give you or others a chance to get some more information on the topic.
Personally, I think there are a lot of worse ways to spend public funds than on PBS.
More than 82% of the PBS annual budget comes from sources other than the federal government, which ponies up less than $340 million per year. [2005 budget]
There was a time when that was a significant amount of money. Not any more.
Thank you Fear Itself, that’s pretty much what I thought I remembered from the thread I linked to. But since I lack time or inclination to either look for current data or reread the thread I linked to, I hesitated to post that statement more explicitly.
I disagree that if PBS went off the air another channel would take up the same kinds of programming. If there was money in it, there would be plenty of for-profit channels doing the same thing.
Some of the money is spent on young filmmakers/television directors, actors, screenwriters, etc. Giving them a forum to show their work and get their first break. At least that is how it works at our PBS station in Houston. They provide access to facilities, and money for production costs. I myself was involved with a 30 minute short as an “Original Sound Recording by” technician. I was also involved with the final sound mixing for this short. Our PBS station also provided airtime for this work. During prime time no less. There were fifty or so people involved with this work that got real exposure for their talents. Got real experience working in a medium that is vastly different from any expectations one has going in.
There is no “Network” television station in Houston that would have provided that same opportunity to us.
Of the fifty of us, there are at least 7 of us that are working in the film/television industry that I know of for sure. Not a bad percentage for a bunch of first timers.
SO I definitely say yes, we still need PBS.
It doesn’t matter too much to me where the small portion of funding that comes from the public comes from: PBS is neither good nor bad enough for me to justify cutting off or continuing funding. (It’s not good enough, or rather, my local station’s not good enough, to justify donating myself, but whatever.)
However,
I think we need commercial free television if we want to play BBC offerings, since commercial free programs fit better in a commercial free timeslot. I’d pay a couple bucks a month for an a la carte BBC channel if it were commercial free so they wouldn’t have to chop up the shows into oblivion.
Since it is such an insignificant portion, it won’t be missed and should be eliminated.
Regards,
Shodan
Your logic, as usual, is non-existant.
There are. The History Channel shows historical documentaries, A&E shows arts programming, BBC America shows British dramas and comedies. The National Geographic Channel, the various Discovery channels, and the The Learning Channel also show many similar documentaries. As far as children’s programming, there are a ton of channels that show this.
PBS is basically welfare for wealthier, upper class people. These people can afford TV programming without government subsidizing it. There should be absolutely no government funding of PBS.
Some channels like the History Channel do have some nice documentaries. But you won’t see shows on PBS called “Did Aliens Build the Pyramids?”. There are some cable channels that carry content similar to PBS, but then again not everyone gets cable. It’s a modest amount of federal money (much less than Halliburton skims off in a slow day) and benefits a lot of people. We have to keep PBS viable, else I wouldn’t get to see Red Green.
So what? Why is it the government’s responsibility to ensure that everyone in America can see Masterpiece Theater?
I’ll grant you that it’s a modest amount of money. It’s the principle that counts for me. PBS is a complete waste of money and if we can’t de-fund that, what can we de-fund?
As far as its “benefits,” please show me how any of its programming truly benefits anyone. I’ll agree that a lot of its programming is nice, but I don’t think anyone would be harmed without having it.
If you want Red Green, then pay for it.
Some benefits are hard to quantify. Do art galleries and museums provide tangible benefits? Perhaps not, we could certainly live without them but it wouldn’t be as pleasant. There are a number of quality programs that just aren’t commercially viable, and without PBS we wouldn’t see them.
Excellent point. There just isn’t any need for this. It should be cut from government funding. If it’s worth having around, it will find a way to exist in the private sector like all the other channels.
Also, it’s just creepy for the government to be paying for a television channel. It’s so far removed from what the government is supposed to be doing. We have real concerns like keeping the trains running on time, so to speak. The government shouldn’t be spending money on the arts at all. It’s just not it’s role.
True, there are certainly intangible benefits to higher culture. But I expect the people who patronize that culture (generally upper-class people) to pay for it. I know this does not always happen, but I do not support using tax dollars to support culture. One, I think it is a waste of tax dollars. Two, the old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. When the government is footing the bill, folks like Jesse Helms have every right to try and stop taxpayer dollars from funding art he does not like. I don’t want politicians directly controlling art like that.
Again, I don’t think this is the case. As I pointed out, there are a variety of other channels that show PBS-like documentaries and television programming.
In a sense, I see PBS in a similar light to public service announcements. It’s an effort by the government to ensure that educational programming is available for free to all. (As BobLibDem pointed out, not everyone can afford the cable channels which sometimes air similar programming.)
Sesame Street has probably helped millions of disadvantaged kids learn to read, as well as teaching them the basics of polite behavior. Not everyone can afford to buy the Elmo videos, and cable sometimes doesn’t reach to rural areas.
NOVA is probably the best science show out there, bar none. I doubt if it would be the same show if it were on regular for-profit television. Not only are there the sponsors to avoid offending, but they’d have to “jazz up” their subject matter in order to attract an audience. Let’s face it: a show on String Theory is never going to be as popular as one about how monster trucks are built.
Thus, I feel that your insistance that those who want this sort of programming should “just pay for it” is unfair. You can’t buy a product that’s not for sale. If the product was for sale, it would have to be repackaged and altered to appeal to a greater market and at that point, it wouldn’t be the same product.
I fully understand that not everyone can afford cable, but I don’t see it as the government’s duty to ensure that people have a variety of TV channels. TV is a luxury, not a right.
Really? So without Sesame Street, we’d have millions of impolite illiterates running around? Sesame Street may indeed be quality children’s programming, but I doubt anyone learned to read or be a polite person solely from watching it.
I grew up in a rural area, and while we didn’t have cable, we didn’t have PBS, either. In a lot of rural areas, cable TV signals do not reach.
Except it is for sale. There are a lot of channels that have excellent science documentaries. There is a channel devoted to animal documentaries, one devoted to history documentaries, one devoted to military documentaries, etc. To say these don’t exist is to ignore the huge number of cable channels out there. And while the offerings of these channels may not be exactly similar to PBS, they are very, very close.
Furthermore, if people really want PBS to continue to exist, then they should pony up for it. The demographics of PBS skew towards the wealthy. How can you justify subsidizing TV for the wealthy? Shouldn’t they be forced to pay “their fair share”?
This is a valid point, but not enough to change my position. The point has not been lost on Republicans, who have tried to steer CPB and PBS hard to the right. .
You’re completely right about television being a luxury.
However, the government has a vested interest in what is broadcast over the airwaves. It probably spends more money policing what is on television than they do with ensuring quality programming. (How much does the FCC cost? How much did the uproar over Janet Jackson’s tit cost?) It may not be their duty to provide programming, but they don’t exactly have a “hands-off-it’s-a-free-market” approach, either.
No, I’m not saying that the country would be over-run by rude people who don’t know their colors or shapes, and no, I’m not saying that it was the only thing that taught them to read. However, I do think that there is quite a bit of value in it as a supplemental form of education. Doesn’t the govermnent have an interest in encouraging education?
I disagree that they are “very close.” The kind of quality programming you see on PBS is a rarity on any of these channels.
Tonight’s lineup on the History Channel
Tonight’s lineup on the Discovery Channel:
Tonight’s lineup on PBS:
According to the link Fear Itself provided, it seems they are paying their “fair share.” If I’m reading it correctly, 56.3% of their budget comes from prvate donations.
If you’d like to debate abolishing the FCC, then let’s do it somewhere else. However, it has nothing to do with this debate. This debate is about whether or not the federal government should subsidize a television channel that is watched primarily by upper middle-class or wealthy people.
Perhaps, but that is a separate debate. PBS has very little affect on education. If you think it really impacts the educational attainment of some people, then provide a cite for this.
Seems pretty close to me. Furthermore, there are a lot more channels than those you mentioned. There are a variety of Discovery channels, the Military channel, the History International Channel, etc.
No, that means that they are still relying on government funding for over 40% of their needs. That is a subsidy where I come from. Rich folks should pay for their own TV.