Congress Plans To Vote on Cutting Funds for Public Broadcasting

[TobalRox]

Anyone with basic cable gets Discovery, National Geographic, History Channel, HGTV, BBCA, etc....I don't really see where losing PBS would be any huge deal. I think I've watched a total of about 10 hours in the past year.

BBCA is digital around here, and we don't get National Geographic... also, out of that list, only Discovery is in HD, so I like having my PBS in HD. And as mentioned, not everyone has cable, so it's good to be able to have that provided for those people.

[Jeremy]

We don't cater to the lowest common denominator here.

Funniest thing I've read all day.

I've got some fond memories watching PBS, and since it provides a valuable service to a good number of folks in this country, I'd hate to see it go.

[voltz]

I just wish those commie fucks would leave well enough alone.

[Melf]

This isn't france. We don't cater to the lowest common denominator here.

You sure?



My daughter already gets her Sesame Street fix on Noggin, so I'm either way on this.

[piku]

I think it’s fairly obvious what my stance on this would be.

I mean really PBS has some of the most marketable programming there is so I have no idea how they couldn't be profitable. Really, losing the public sector chains would also free them quite a bit to expand and do more things so I am all for it..

[Diff-chan]

If you go by the theory that the federal government should be paying for things that the private sector cant do better, then PBS absolutely does not need federal cash.

I think PBS could survive and even thrive if left without federal money, so they should do that. PBS was absolutely necessary and important 30 or 40 years ago when there was like 15 channels but nowadays the government doesnt need to bankroll it.

[flux=rad]

So they put some commercials in the middle of Sesame Street, who gives a shit?

[piku]

So they put some commercials in the middle of Sesame Street, who gives a shit?

Exactly. Plus commercials brings in revenue which brings in higher budgets which brings in better programming which brings in more revenue which...

[Schlep]

That doesn't mean much to those people who can't afford the luxury of cable television I'd think.

Kids and some college students aside, I can't imagine there being a huge market of people without cable who regularly watch PBS. Naturally, I have no data to back this claim up.

[g0zen]

Exactly. Plus commercials brings in revenue which brings in higher budgets which brings in better programming which brings in more revenue which...

The flip side is they're now more bound to bringing in ratings than quality content. You know why television is filled with garbage reality shows? Because people watch them and the corporate sponsors want people to see their commercials.

There is plenty of other things to cut from the federal payroll ahead of PBS. There is no reason to specifically target public broadcasting. Besides, like I said, the federal money they receive is minute compared to the money they get from private organizations and donations. The only thing that even a small amount of federal funding does is makes it a station belong to the public, and thus dedicated to educating the public responsibly. They serve the people, not corporate America.

Besides, it was losing the federal component which turned all our news stations into infotainment crap and scare mongering.