AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels last weekend laid out a vision for "limited but active" government. He is a conservative Republican and I'm sure I'd disagree with him over what falls within those limits. Still, it's clear to me that public broadcasting is not in a league with national security, a healthy economy, safe food, drugs, air, water and products (be they cars or mortgages), and a social safety net for the sick, the poor and the elderly (the better to "promote the general welfare," as the Constitution puts it).Unlike NPR, PBS does have some merit to continue to exist!
If NPR disappeared at midnight tonight - forever - face it, the planet would be none the wose off ...
That said, PBS, by contrast, has provided some excellent programming for over 4 decades - great kids programs, travel, nature, comedy .. etc., etc .. family entertainment, commercial-free. It has and continues to have a positive contribution and alternative in what is ofen viewed as TV wasteland .........
Does PBS need 350+ TV stations? NO
Should PBS stations be constantly trolling to keep and get new subscribers with their never-ending fund raisers? NO
How many PBS TV stations have gone "belly up" in the past 5 or so years due to lack of funding? Nil to none?
What PBS should be ...
. Keep the 6 - 8 best stations (based upon programming excellence and reputation)
. Make those stations available nationwide/regionally
. Eliminate the other 342 stations .. they're mostly redundant; similar programs, duplication of investment, staffing, etc., etc
Bottom line .. keep the best; scuttle the rest!
Some Federal funding (greatly reduced by eliminating the marginal/also-ran stations) would continue for the 6 - 8 Flagship PBS stations - we all enjoy PBS occasionally or frequently - they really do provide welcome change from the otherwise miserable programming offered on commercial TV/Cable/Dish
PBS should not be soooo very far left! They are so biased & have been always.
Let them get their money from their sponsors.
I would guess that many of the posters who would like to see Fox and their headliners silenced are appalled at the thought of paying for PBS as if it were a profitable enterprise. If the PBS programming is so "fair and balanced" and so popular, then let those who enjoy the fare please step up and do pay for it. It is grossly unfair to have the government fund radio broadcasts that compete with private stations. If the shows are so superior and so popular then they can stand on their own and pay the way for more shows. Stop using my money for an arm of the government to compete with business.
February 20 2011 at 4:17 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyIts a drop in the bucket but we have to stop spending!!!!!!
February 18 2011 at 10:04 AM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyCan the "it's such a small part of the spending" stop, and the chopping begin? The way to get something done is to take a first step, big or small........
February 17 2011 at 9:24 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyOne thing that has not been mentioned is the fact there are many, many public radio stations that are not affiliated with NPR. Further, there are many public stations that only carry NPR's morning and afternoon news programs, Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They might also carry a few non-news shows such as Car Talk but overall they offer some other type of programming. NPR does not share money with public stations it is the other way around and it is very costly to the local station. Many public stations reach rural or urban areas that could never financially support them. Most of these stations are very involved in their communities working with the arts community or other non profits to bring awareness to events or issues in the community. Commercial stations could never/would never do this type of community work...they couldn't afford it. The assertion that public radio stations should raise money like commercial radio stations does not consider the community element of public broadcasting which is mission driven rather than money driven. As an example there are quite a few public stations that offer a reading service for the visually impaired...can you really imagine a commercial station offering this service? Also, the amount of money that a station receives is adjusted according to the audience served. Rural stations get the most CPB dollars whereas stations in Metro areas that could support themselves get little (some may not get any at all but I am not 100% sure about that). CPB dollars might be a drop in the bucket to some stations but not to small rural or urban stations that could never serve their community without that money.
February 17 2011 at 10:22 AM Report abuse Permalink +4 rate up rate down Replygovernment should not fund any radio or tv. let them get sponsors just like everyone else---no tax funding. period. that includes left or right media.
February 16 2011 at 10:32 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down ReplyLet us find something to cut that doesn't give so much pleasure to so many people for so little government investment. Perhaps those millionaires and billionaires don't need those huge tax cuts after all.
February 16 2011 at 7:08 PM Report abuse Permalink -3 rate up rate down ReplyThere is absolutly no reason to spend tax payers money on a Public Broadcast Company. This is another case of over stuffed bureaucracy. This should stand by itself based on is own merits. It is a leftist slant company and should be supported solely by it audiance and not the general public.
February 16 2011 at 11:21 AM Report abuse Permalink +6 rate up rate down ReplyAnother dimension to CPB: news. Do we want government to fund coverage of itself? Or as George Will once asked and have never heard answered: How would we feel about a Corp for Public Newspapers?
And, oh, yes, I am a rabid consumer of NPR/PBS. Tonight I heard a PBS podcast report on a proposal to cut PBS. The PBS reporter deserved an Oscar for playing it objective, but still this example points to the inherent problems in this government/media funding relationship. And it's bigger than Juan Williams or adding token conservative commentators to this or that program. The Pravda was mocked not just for this or that silly headline but because it was structurally a government organ. Let's do a favor to NPR/PBS and remove the similar funding arrangement.
Follow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners






Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
215 Comments