Think PBS would be better off privatized? Just take one look at TLC

A lot of people don't realize that TLC used to be a public channel. It was started by the Department of Health, Education, And Welfare and NASA in the 1970s. It featured shows that educated viewers on everything from science, to nature to home improvement to cooking. It had modest ratings but this was okay because it was non-profit and it's sole goal was to educate the population.

In 1980 the channel was privatized and slowly but surely the content became less education oriented and more entertainment oriented. Today what is the top rated show on TLC? Honey Boo Boo.

Do we really want this path for PBS?

 

meanwhile The discovery channel the science the military channel and the History channel and there various clones continue to cover everything that PBSdoes and more besides, without cursing us with leftwing agitprop as they do so.

 

...and therein lies the truth of the matter...Fat cat corporate types want Big Bird all to themselves to profit from. It's all about the profit potential. PERIOD.

 

Actually sesame street is legally the property of Jim Henson's family. It is not owned by PBS. So, even if PBS went corporate, the rights to Sesame Street would not come with it.

 

No, they "curse" you with reality TV shows full of brain garbage that has no value. All the good stuff is going to pots on the privetly run stations, and there is no substatute for Big Bird!!!
Oh, and the leftwing "agitprop" is called "education", and we all know how much the rightwingers hate that! LOL!

 

Half the shows on history channel have nothing to do with history now.

 

Well....it's been fine all these years for many Americans growing up. Why mess with success? Corporatize it, and you'll be paying 20 bucks a month for the channel, and they'll probably outsource Bert and Ernie to China or India.

 

In the world of corporate control, anything that is not under their control will be eliminated, that's how they work. They don't "compete", they destroy that which poses a threat to a single dollar of their desire.

 

But I thought that corporations own the government? Indeed, they do. So, the corporate government should probably spend the corporate money for their propaganda rather than taxing people for it.

 

Yes, the History Channel is as educational as PBS. 'Cause, you know, Pawn Stars...Ice Road Truckers...Ancient Aliens...

 

While the History Channel has morphed into something other than what I used to enjoy watching they still manage to make some excellent documentaries from time to time. Unfortunately in order to get those you have to put up with shows liek Pawn Stars etc that are the money makers. The latest Revolutionary War documentary was excellent and informative and even had some new stuff I hand't hear of before like the one general having narcolepsy which was amusing. PBS makes some good ones but lets be honest most people would rather watch a History Channel version with live actor reenactments that Ken Burns boring ass films with just photos. At least he used some video in the WW2 documentary.

It's the same dilemma that face video game players. Consoles have in a sense both saved and destroyed video games. They saved video games financially and allow developers to keep making new ones but the downside is that you have to put up with so many (*)(*)(*)(*)ty consolized games and unfortunately it bleeds over into PC games as well.

 

Meh, I'm more of an MMO gamer myself. World of Warcraft, The Lord of the Rings Online, a new one off Steam I don't recall the name of, etc.

 

PBS gets around that in tax money already. And, like I said, if PBS goes private, the shows like sesame street can go to another channel. They would easily be able to get a spot with the ratings it would bring in. Hell, they could start out own channel.

 

Where in the constitution does it say that operating a broadcasting station is a responsibility of the Federal Government?

 

not sure, but I think the BBC should be privatised. It is not exactly "politically neutral" as it is (and certainly not socially neutral), so why not?

 

Where does it say keeping taxes low is a responsibility of the federal gov't?

 

Oh, pul-lease.

Half the shows are defense company paid info-mercials to make us feel good about the trillion dollar defense budget with sparkly glowing reports of how the weapons systems we buy are make the USA into gods, and thinly disguised religious promotional shows with some candy like Myth-busters thrown in to leaven the mix.

TODAY'S PROGRAMMING, on the "History" Channel has TWENTY-SEVEN episodes of "Pawn Stars".

And they are quickly approaching 50% paid commercial time, even in the middle of the paid commercial shows!

Yeah, that will REALLY replace PBS programming,

 

Just FYI, I have no position either way. Government-run television and radio can be valuable, but PBS... Meh. NPR is far more valuable and informative for news, without as much of the chaff that could be done elsewhere, better.

1. PBS is generally unbiased.
2. PBS doesn't run tripe like Lost: The Body Found or Ancient Aliens (even ignoring the more reality-TV-based shows, stuff like this masquerading as real history or science documentaries has got to stop).

The BBC is incredibly neutral. What makes you say otherwise?

 

I find it mildly irritating when ignorant people claim that the BBC is left-biased.

But then, a lot of the American right-wing (almost exclusively the Republican branch) are paranoid about every little thing they don't like being controlled by the evil leftists.

 

I swear, the right wing on this site is gonna start claiming that everything to the left of WND and Conservapedia are liberally biased soon. :/

 

Taxation actually is a federal competence in the constitution.

 

I don't know about the science channel but the discovery channel is terrible and getting worse every year. The reality shows have taken it over. And the history channel has become nothing but conspiracy theories and light history that's pretty much meaningless and more (*)(*)(*)(*)ing reality shows.

 

Well, at least the sci-fi channel is still pretty good.

 

It doesn't matter to me. PBS can become commercialized and broadcast old farts playing pool naked for all I care. People will watch what they want to watch.

 

Is anyone here arguing that PBS would be better if it was privatized? I'm curious, partially because it's such a ridiculous proposal (I hope I don't have to explain this: almost all TV that gets good ratings is absolutely horrible on multiple levels), but mostly because it seems to me that the argument is more "The government shouldn't be running its own TV channel" than "PBS would be better if we made it private". And there's merit to that, given the state of the budget and what PBS is.