i don’t see anything wrong with the government providing a SINGLE avenue of entertainment in a sea of corporate sponsored ones. one channel of programming that has something other than sheer ratings driving it can spawn some wonderful and otherwise undeveloped programs. it may not be the most libertarian use of money, i for one like the results.
this same logic goes for libraries. government sponsoring one way for people to access books/media isn’t going to shut down b&n or borders. the ancillary benefits of a place with books that isn’t in the business of selling books are very beneficial and otherwise unrealized if we lived in a world without book stores.
you could apply this to a host of other government-sponsored projects like national parks (can you imagine paying theme park prices to go camping?) and public beaches, monuments, community access, etc.
i have a soft spot for community access since they do the best job of covering local sports if you’re a high schooler. thanks to community access, i have vhs footage of me making a “highlight reel” that would otherwise never be featured even on the local friday night 11’oclock news.
anyway, if anyone’s outraged that the government is paying for PBS, they should take that misguided rage and direct it at other more pressing examples of government waste. leave PBS alone.
Comparing PBS to public libraries is fair enough, except that commercial TV doesn’t charge for its services either. If Barnes and Noble loaned out their books, were accessible to all people and made a profit by inserting ads in the books, then it would be a fair comparison and I for one would be questioning the need for public libraries. My objection to PBS isn’t the money spent, it is to the claims that it brings some sort of higher standard to TV, with a tinge of bother that the government has a hand in deciding what is high quality.
I am bitter because my local PBS station (WETA in MD) still calls me every year to call me thief. The say it on the phone, in the wads of junk mail they send every year and on TV- “If you are watching PBS and not donating then you are stealing.” A wonderful message from my government about a service my taxes help pay for. That is messed up. For this reason I just don’t watch PBS anymore, as fabulous as tired old BBC sitcoms may be.
Having a lot of bad options does not negate the different programming offered on PBS. The logic is like when we had 3 stations. Then UHF came along . I suppose we should have eliminated PBS immediately because we have doubled our options. More of the same is not increasing options.
We have a system of government. It’s not the best one (that would be me elevated immediately to Philosopher King of the United States) but it’s the best possible one. Each of us has a voice in electing leaders, and those leaders form policy; the leaders that do not meet our collective needs are not returned to office.
The elected leadership has found a reason to fund PBS.
But so, too, part of the process is public debate over policy, which this thread is. Perhaps the voices raised against continued PBS funding will persuade the government to end it. Or perhaps the voices in favor will convince the government to continue or even expand the funding. That’s how political debate works.
So it’s irrelevant to say, “All programming doesn’t have to meet your approval,” as though it’s some sort of guarantee that PBS should continue to be funded. It’s true – all PBS programming doesn’t have to meet jtgain’s personal standards, any more than it has to meet your personal standards. But the decision to fund PBS does have to meet the standards of our elected leadership, and they are in some measure driven by the aggregate approval of all of us, and influenced by discussions like this very one we’re having.
My daughter ate from her Big Bird plate and cup, played with numerous Clifford/Sesame Street themed toys, brushed her teeth with her Elmo toothbrush, and slept in her Caillou pajamas.
How are they not trying to sell a product? The merchandising from these shows is massive, second only to Disney. The Disney channel doesn’t have ads either, but they are selling 24x7, just like PBS is.
PBS has a share in Sprout TV, which shows mostly PBS-produced shows 24 hours a day, and has lots of commercials.
Just because an organization is non-profit, doesn’t mean they are not out to make money. They are out to make lots of money, but spend it all internally. Most of the corporate world is the same way. Growth is more important than profits to many managers, even at the highest levels, because it is easier to “harvest” compensation from a larger less profitable organization, than a smaller, more profitable one.
That looks like a very old link, giving figures from 2003. But this more recent pdf link, (provided by Fear Itself), says government funding is down to about 9%, (and it’s going lower as we speak/type). And why are so many subsequent posters more willing to go with these old figures from 2003, rather than the more modest ones for 2008?
And doesn’t that mean if government pulled out completely, that the other 91% would be enough votes to keep PBS going to some degree?
C’mon, why didn’t you ask me those questions, because I don’t have 500 channels, and I really do live on the cheap. I’m on dial-up with the cheapest internet rate I could find, ($10/month). I don’t have netflix or anything similar. I do have own a dvd player (paid $50 for it), but most of the DVDs I play on it are from the library, all for free. In fact this week I watched 2 library DVDs, both of which I had previously watched on PBS. And last month I watched 2 other PBS DVDs. And another DVD is currently waiting for me to pick up at the library, and still another is further up in the queue, both also from PBS. Last year I splurged and actually purchased a DVD ($30, ouch!). Funny how it was also one I had watched on PBS, and wanted to own. (FWIW I’m a documentary junkie.) So how much does someone like me have to use PBS (and not netflix, blockbuster, or high-speed internet, etc.) before someone like you will give me your stamp of approval, (not that I really need it). And BTW none of the options that you’ve suggested are as cheap as PBS. None. Just ask someone like me with seriously limited funds.
And if the last measly 9% of government funding gets yanked, I’ll still be a PBS member. Yes, there are lots of us who will continue to pay our share as best we can, keeping PBS on the air, because we think it’s a worthwhile value whether the government chips in or not. And that’s why it’s REALLY still on the air.
From here it seems as if some of you who are griping about PBS have truly run out of things to complain about. First the OP starts by going directly with the notion that PBS should be done away with. But wouldn’t it have been more reasonable to ask if it’s time that government funding should be withdrawn from it? Why the drastic suggestion that it should disappear completely from the airwaves? Besides, if your pockets are so deep that you can afford to pay a high monthly bill for 500 channels, high-speed internet, netflix, etc. it’s strange to read complaints about the government’s 9% contribution to PBS.
Or is it just because (as shiftless complains), that the language used in the brochures asking for money is making you feel guilty? Calling you a thief? Geez, are you being a little overdramatic in your need to feel wounded?
And WETA? That’s actually out of Washington, D.C. I’m guessing you can also pick up WNET from Baltimore, MD? And what about KQED from the D.C. suburb of Alexandria, VA? I used to live in the D.C. and area felt extremely fortunate to be able to pick up all 3 of those PBS stations at once. For a PBS addict like me it was like being in PBS heaven.
Interestingly, it so happens that Maryland’s WNET is one of the country’s most productive PBS stations, and their very impressive programs end up being viewed on PBS stations all over this nation. And it’s my opinion that we’re all the better for it. Yes, Maryland PBS rocks. YMMV, of course.
I forgot to mention, I think ALL comedy is inherently dumb, but that doesn’t mean it’s not funny as hell, or valuable to its viewers, or that it should be pulled from PBS. Benny Hill, Mr. Bean, Vicar of Dibley, Keeping Up Appearances, Are You Being Served? ARE ALL DUMB. But they’re also damned funny, and brilliant comedic works. And I recently watched Waking Ned Devine 3 times on PBS. It’s also a dumbass movie, but it still gave me quite a few laughs. And charmed me. And taught me a new Irish song besides.