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

Stop trying to get your education from something that is appropriately referred to as the 'boob-tube' and this wouldn't be an issue.

 

First, PBS is already a non-profit corporation. It is not owned or run by the government. Only about 12-20% (depends upon the year) of PBS roughly $2 Billion budget comes from the federal govt.


What you are really asking is should the Corporation for Public Broadcasting be eliminated. CPB funding is almost all from the federal govt. CPB budget was $445 million in 2012. Somewhere around $280 million went to public tv.


So all of you who are complaining that PBS will be ruined if it is privatized, PBS itself destroys your arguement. PBS is already privatized. Over 80% of its funding comes from corporations, foundations, and individuals. Watch the first minute of a PBS program and you can see all the sponsors.

My opinion - end govt funding of CPB. PBS will be just fine. The corporation that managed to market Sesame St, Barney, and all the rest of the charachters you see when you walk down the toy aisle will not have any problem funding itself.

 

Yes, it is, but I'm asking specifically where the Constitution says the federal government must keep taxes low.

 

In Realityland, parents don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about their children beyond something to kick when they are bored, and kids love TV.

Besides, what's wrong with having educational shows on the TV? Do you WANT a culture of idiots?

 

What may be true for you is not the case for everyone.

I don't believe I said there was something wrong with educational shows on TV.

No, I WANT a culture that doesn't rely on television as a substitution for a real education.

 

It is, though. A vast majority of parents in this country do not care about their children, as evidenced by terrible behavior and terrible grades, among countless other problems.

So do I, but it's not going to happen. At least not in our lifetimes.

 

I suppose it depends on what counts as educational. Barney and the like are educational in general, but the other things on PBS aren't. They have a show that's basicly tourist informercials for various nations in Europe. Sure there's a bit of history, but only in the context of looking at a cool castle you're supposed to want to visit. I've seen better -- I'm not sure if it still exists (it's not on my cable anymore) but we used to have a channel dedicated to telecourses, and really most of them were interesting. I loved "Western Tradition" which is basicly the history of European Civilization from the Greeks to WW2 with some British lecturer. That is educational. Most things on TV beyond the Barney "Aphabets are cool" kiddie shows are garbage. Even Ken Burns doesn't really do the CW justice. It's always played as though it was inevitable, and as if it didn't tear states and neighborhoods and families apart, or that the whole affair was never political even though Lincoln was personally firing generals in the early part of the war. Nova is OK, but doesn't compare to Nat Geo's "The Universe". Watch it, you'll never look at space through the old "Star Trek" lens again.

Well, I see your point, but on the other hand, TV is great at giving an overview of a topic and hopefully getting people into the subject. A documentary about the banking system and burny madoff might be a good way to generate interest in the financial system or economics in general. Heck, MASH got me curious about the vietnam and korean wars. (Klinger would have been toast, BTW). How are people raised in a visual culture ever going to find out that some things exist? I'd barely heard of the Hutterites before Nat Geo did a reality show on them. I'd never given much thought to the power of a Quasar until I saw a CGI representation of one. How many kids would never hear of such things if they didn't have the nerd channels? We don't go to libraries as much as we should, but if TV gets people curious enough to read, I'm in favor.

 

It obviously doesn't. Is there a point here?

 

Forty years ago, when there were very few TV channels and only three "networks" (and America was rich and could afford it), it sort of made sense for there to BE a public broadcasting channel. Today, it is a needless, superfluous expense! I would say that regardless of whether PBS was infested with hyperlib propaganda spinners, or, arch-Conservative propaganda spinners. Today, we have LOTS of content, and many dozens of "channels" to get the content from. We don't need a PBS anymore, and we sure as hell can't afford to pay for one, either....

 

Yes, actually. The point is something is not bad/not allowed just because it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

 

Yet we seem to be able to afford a bloated and wasteful military budget. Imagine that.

 

For every Ice road truckers there is an American Revolution or Civil War miniseries. And the science Channel with Through the womhole and three different national geographic channels.

And yeah right the corporate world are all such rapacious pirates that they'll destroy anything they can't own out right. That's why half the toy aisle at walmart is cluttered with Sesame street licenced toys.

 

The path for PBS should be whatever the free market determines it should be. Why is it moral for you to use the state to rob taxpayers at gunpoint to pay for TV shows that potentially not enough people watch to keep it in business?

Economic efficiency does not matter to you, because you are a control freak.
Freedom does not matter to you because you are a control freak.

 

That's kind of one of those "apple/oranges" comparisons, but to an extent, you are right. There's lots of fraud, waste, and stupidity in many DOD procurements. That said, at least the military is directly authorized by the Constitution, and, defense is something that we need. As I said earlier, a "public" broadcasting channel may have been a beneficial thing back 40 years ago, when there were so few choices, and so little program content. Today, PBS is something we can easily do without.

Now, just to be perfectly honest, except for the hyperlib orientation, I really do like a lot of the programming on PBS. For one thing, PBS is not just totally ******-solid with commercials, which have just about made nearly all of "standard" television almost unwatchable! Try watching an NFL game these days. By the last part of the 4th Quarter, you're nearly tearing out pubic hair because of all the ******* endless, repetitive commercial blather. Right now, on PBS, I'm waiting for Season 3 of the BBC-produced modern version of "Sherlock", starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman -- and I know it will NOT be shown on "standard" commercial TV. But, should it be paid for by the entire United States population? As much as I love the whole "Sherlock" series, along with many others on PBS, I just cannot justify that....

 

The Seasame Street brand takes in hundreds of millions of dollars of profit over related products. They don't need to be publicly funded.

 

I could care less about the childrens programming like Sesame Street. PBS does serious shows that no commercial entity does. Things like The Ken Burns civil war series, American experience, Frontline, Nova and much more. Commercial TV and ratings gives us American Idol. I think it's more then appropriate that some of our tax money is used to educate and enlighten.

 

I like some of PBS's shows as well but I don't have this sense of self-importance that rationalizes other people being forced to pay for, what is essentially, my entertainment.

 

Not really. Look into Nat Geo, lots of good stuff. Or History or Discovery. There are lots of good programs on lots of different stations.

 

I didn't read past the title and I didn't have to. Great work. Great point.

 

Get this through your head......its not The Government's Job to provide Entertainment for you.

And if PBS worked.....then half of (D)etroit wouldnt be illiterate......but it is.
.
.

 

Fail.


.

 

You just defined every Republican in that statement.

No actual point proving anything. A direct attack on someone. Hates government. And a mass attack on Detroit. .........just brilliant

 

Why should our country go farther into debt to pay for a TV station? Would you take out a loan that you couldn't pay back just to have cable TV? Makes as much sense.

 

Big Bird, etal... is/are worth in the neighborhood of 1 billion...I THINK they can do quite well without PBS. I think PBS could do quite well on their own...with just a SLIGHT name change...PCs....(Politically Correct Station)....