What do you consider necessary to you personally, for your tax dollars? Tell me what you would continue to fund if you had the purse? I assume that's much easier than the other way.
Though I applaud your charity, and don't doubt that you'd do as you say, there's a fundamental difference here b/w you and I, at least. I wouldn't just pass Biff a twenty. I'd have him come in and eat some of the stuff my wife made. His kids could sleep on sleeping bags in my kids' room. Biff could go to my church's ClothesLine to get a gently-worn suit for his interview. I could leave a little earlier to drive him to his new job (or to a bus stop, if it's that far out of the way). After he got his new job and new apartment, his wife could go "shopping" at our church's Food Bank until he gets back on his feet. You don't have to toss money (especially federal money) at it to solve a problem. Often, that's the least efficient way. What percentage of kids do you know that watch PBS? What percentage nationwide do you think it covers? Is Sesame Street that much better than, say, Sprout or Nickelodeon Kids or History Channel or National Geographic?
All the kids I know watch PBS, and most of the adults too. While the other channels you mention provide much knowledge, their singular viewpoint is heavily influenced by the groups who sponsor each, and therefore must be consumed with a degree of skepticism and care.
I have seen the sponsors and they are us: Federal and state funding Historically, public broadcasting has received 15% to 20% of its annual operating revenue from Federal sources (primarily the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) and 25% to 29% from State and local taxes.[3] This has caused ongoing controversy and debate since the CPB was created on November 7, 1967 when U.S. president Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.[citation needed] [edit] Public need PBS was founded to provide diversity in programming at a time when most television was broadcast over the public airwaves by only three privately owned national networks (as opposed to the multitude of programming sources provided by today's private cable or satellite delivery services). There is debate as to whether or not the PBS system has outlived its public necessity.[14] Public television proponents maintain that the original mandate to provide universal access, particularly to rural viewers and those who cannot afford to pay for the private television services, remains vital. In addition, they argue that PBS provides some types of critical programming which would not be shown at all on the commercial networks and channels, including extensive educational children's programming, scientific exposition, in-depth documentaries and investigative journalism. [edit] On-the-air fundraising Since 53% to 60% of public television's revenues come from private membership donations and grants,[3] most stations solicit individual donations by methods including pledge drives or telethons which can disrupt regularly scheduled programming. Some viewers find this a source of annoyance since normal programming is often replaced with specials aimed at a wider audience to solicit new members and donations.[15] [edit] Political/ideological bias The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 required a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature". It also prohibited the federal government from interfering or controlling what is broadcast. Banned by PBS: Muslims Against Jihad On July 19, 2007, Fox News carried published "Banned by PBS: Muslims Against Jihad," charging the network of liberal bias. In at least one instance (a 1982 broadcast of the United States Information Agency program Let Poland be Poland about the martial law declared in Poland in 1981), Congress has expressly encouraged PBS to abandon its conventional position of non-partisan neutrality. The program, a protest against the imposition of martial law by a Soviet-backed régime, contained commentary from many well-known celebrities. While widely viewed in the U.S., it met with skepticism on the part of European broadcasters due to concerns that the show, "provocative and anticommunist," was intended as propaganda.[16][17] Bush's attempt to ignore Federal laws and turn PBS into a propaganda tool for the far-right: Kenneth Tomlinson, former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting resigned in November 2005 after a report sharply criticized Tomlinson for the way he used CPB resources to "go after" perceived liberal bias at PBS, including directing funding towards conservative-written programming, secretly hiring an outside consultant to monitor the Now with Bill Moyers program, and hiring White House employees to form an ombudsman office to "promote balance in programming".[18][19] Individual programs have been the targets of organized campaigns by those with opposing views, including former United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.[20] Kenneth Tomlinson, who took over at CPB in 2003, began his tenure by asking for Karl Rove's assistance in overturning a regulation that half the CPB board have practical experience in radio or television. Later he appointed an outside consultant to monitor the regular PBS program NOW with Bill Moyers. Told that the show had "liberal" leanings, Moyers eventually resigned in 2005 after more than three decades as a PBS regular, citing political pressure to alter the content of his program and saying Tomlinson had mounted a "vendetta" against him.[21] Moyers eventually returned to host Bill Moyers Journal, after Tomlinson resigned. Subsequently, PBS made room temporarily for conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, formerly of MSNBC and co-host of CNN's Crossfire, and The Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot, an editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page (this show has since moved to Fox News Channel) to partially balance out the perceived left-leaning PBS shows.[22] On November 3, 2005 CPB announced the resignation of Tomlinson amid investigations of improper financial dealings with consultants.
Gotta say PBS violates the public broadcasting act of 1967 constantly. There's a revolving door between PBS and CNN and NBC, the latter two hardly unbiased. Interesting that Maris' post contains the words "perceived liberal bias" as if it isn't actually perceived. This whole argument is similar to the one about public unions and collective bargaining. PBS gets funding from Democrats and praises Democrats and is on-air advertising for Democrats' campaigns, which assures they get more funding.
"PBS, NPR Pumping Millions into Investigative Reporting" "WASHINGTON — NPR, PBS and local public broadcast stations around the country are hiring more journalists and pumping millions of dollars into investigative news to make up for what they see as a lack of deep-digging coverage by their for-profit counterparts." This is from Today's news. Right, they should be defunded and they are just the same as private media. They serve a great public purpose.
Why didn't they hire more investigative journalists when Obama and Democrats ran the whole show? Seems like we needed far more oversight then, since congress wasn't watching over the $trillions in blank checks they gave Obama. Or is this hiring in response to republicans having some power, and a way to dig up dirt? Seriously, this shouldn't even be questionable. Nobody gives a shit about NBC's bias, or at least it's not taxpayer money paying for it.
You know where they got that money, right? I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with Sorge Goros. Do you believe that reporting will be neutral?
Aren't you the guy with the tin foil hat? Anyhow, there is a 1st amendment and a govt. sponsored news outlet seems to violate the law, if not the spirit of the law. That's the point I've raised through rhetorical questions in this thread.
It should be a rule that if you bring up George Sorros, then you have to bring up the Koch brothers as well. Each do the exact same thing for the wing of the left and right.
Ever read Reason Magazine? http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/03/zero-hour-for-public-broadcast I am an American and a male, so you can easily guess the first thing I do when I arrive in a hotel room: pick up the TV remote and turn on ESPN. The second thing may not be so universal: tune the clock radio to the local public radio station. I have been happily addicted to the medium since 1979, when National Public Radio launched its "Morning Edition" news show. I wake up to NPR every day. I listen to it in the shower. It's the first button on my car radio. I've set up automatic monthly contributions to my public radio station, so I'll be supporting it till the day I die, and maybe after. In short, I think congressional Republicans are badly mistaken in denouncing public radio as a contemptible source of liberal propaganda and snooty elitism that the nation would be better off without. It's a national treasure, in my view. And their proposal to eliminate all federal funding for public broadcasting? I'm all for it. (Read on)
