TVSquad

Shows have moved off of PBS and onto commercial television in the past, like the Wiggles who are now on Disney.

But, it's not just about the kids shows, it's also about the news and cultural programming. Also, it's not just about PBS, there's a little thing called NPR which many of us depend on for information and entertainment.

Reply

True, but NPR is also on XM and I believe Sirius, which shows it can operate outside of being privately and government funded.

There are plenty of cable channels that have cultural and educational programming, such as Discovery, National geographic, History, Noggin, etc. I am just curious as to why PBS deserves government subsidies when similar shows thrive commercially.

Reply

Public and commercial broadcasting have different core goals. The entire purpose of commercial broadcasting is to bring in revenue. Public broadcasting is insulated from those market forces, and free to present cultural, educational, and news programming in a format that favors the content rather than caters to advertising and syndication revenues. PBS and NPR provide programming everyday that would not exist (and does not exist) on commercial stations. Also, in this age of increasing media consolidation, publich broadcasting is getting to be the only locally-oriented programming available to consumers.

Clear Channel owns six radio stations in my market in Central Virginia, and this is not a large market by any stretch. The programming decisions are made in some distant city, and there is very little thought put into the local community. There are also no commercial news stations in this area. On my way to work, i have the choice of several syndicated (out-of-market) "whacky" morning shows, a somewhat local "whacky" morning show, and NPR news. (I should also point out that I have Sirius, and I do sometimes listen to the 2 NPR Stations because they play programs like Fresh Air at different times than the local NPR station. So, if I miss a good interview, I may listen to Fresh Air in the morning instead of Morning Edition on the local station. However, there are several shows that the Sirius NPR stations do not broadcast at all, including Morning Edition and All Things Considered.)

On the TV side of things, point me to one show on any of my 200 DirecTV channels that compares favorably to Frontline. Name me one channel (or even a combination thereof) that shows the breadth of cultural programming available on PBS. Name me one channel that provides quality kids programming without selling fast food and toys to our children.

Reply

Sorry for the double post, but I have one more point to make.

If I take the same logic you are applying to PBS and NPR, and applied it to education I could say "we should get rid of publicly funded schools, because there are private schools that can provide the same services." I mean, who needs Virginia Tech when there is a Harvard? Why spend tax payer money on a elementary and secondary schools, when parents can just send their kids to private school?

If PBS were closed down, and all the programming still found its way to commercial channels, how many of those programs would still be available with a set of rabbit ears? Even if A&E took its name seriously and started showing real arts programming, would the same number of people have access that did with PBS? Even if the Disney Channel stopped showing McDonald's commercials, would you want to limit children's programming to only those who can afford a subscription to an extended cable channel?

Reply

Tony hit the nail on the head. PBS and NPR are intended for everyone, especially those without cable. We can get world news and quality programming without having to pay $35 a month. In fact, I still don't have cable because as my income has increased, so has the cost of basic cable in my area. It used to be $30 a month, and when I could afford that it became $35 a month and so on. Now it would cost me about $48 a month (before taxes) to get basic cable. Without PBS, I'd lose all worthwhile news (because the network stuff is just awful) and serious, quality programming.

Reply

Let me make sure I understand you guys. You advocate keeping the Perpetual Begging System so you can keep getting programming that is not commercially viable on the networks. Additionally, it is okay for the government to take money out of my paycheck so you don't have to pay for cable. What that equates to is alot of people paying taxes so you can get to see what you want. The rest of us are left paying extra to get cable to see the good stuff.

And as for the fast food ads to children, have you watched morning programming on PBS? I turned it on this morning for my daughter (instead of Noggin) and saw ads for Chik-fil-a, Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Chuck E Cheese and Danimals Yogurt.

Reply

I won't address the first part of your post because you are debating a straw man. I was replying to LC's comment that the programming would be picked up by commercial broadcasters, and I explained why that wouldn't be a good thing.

As for this: "I turned it on this morning for my daughter (instead of Noggin) and saw ads for Chik-fil-a, Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Chuck E Cheese and Danimals Yogurt."

You saw full-fledged child-targed advertising (Ronald McDonald running around a theme park with kids and prompting your children to ask you to take them to McDondald's)? Or, "this program brought to you by Kellogg's Frosted Flakes"?

Reply

Turn on PBS and have a look, the Chick-fil-a cow is there along with Tony the tiger on a skateboard.

If it walks like a duck...

Reply

Well, I've never seen those, so I'll have to take your word on it. But, isn't a little odd to say you don't want PBS ferderally funded and then complain when they take corporate funding?

Reply

No, I would prefer they take corporate funding and any money the "public" wishes to give them and stop taking tax money.

Reply

"No, I would prefer they take corporate funding and any money the "public" wishes to give them and stop taking tax money."

I assume you feel the same way about all government programs? Education? Prison? Welfare?

I mean, why can't poor people just take whatever money the "public" is willing to give them in the streets, right?

Public broadcasting is good for the social welfare. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should go away.

Reply

I understand why PBS needs the sponsorship and that the sponsors expect a "brought to you by" but I agree. We watch alot of Noggin, no ads during shows. When my two year old started say "chuck E cheese where a kid can be a kid" I knew that even the "sponsorship" were ads

Reply

"I assume you feel the same way about all government programs? Education? Prison? Welfare?"


I would say take the government money from from public broadcasting and put it into those programs you mentioned.

This is television folks. People were educated and learned things before it's invention. If so many people like it, they are certainly able to donate whatever they like to keep it running commercial free if they wish.

Despite some of the quality programs on it, the article hit the nail on the head by also saying that, over the years, it has aired programming, such as Benny Hill and Faulty Towers. Now while these may be classic comedies in their own rite, so are ones such as Cheers and Seinfeld, yet these series were able to be watched on free television that wasn't subsidized.

As I said, Cable and sattelite have it's share of cultural programming and channels as well, such as shows like Modern Marvels and channels like the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel, as well as History International.

Sure it's nice to watch some intereseting programming, but Television is still a luxury. Many report doing better in school without it so it is not a necessity and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. I would rather those taxpayer dollars go toward more useful things such as food stamps, homeless shelters, teachers pay, etc.

Reply

For all the people who say the needs filled by public broadcasting can (and are) being filled by commercial stations, how do you explain the recent PIPA study that showed people who named PBS as their primary news source were far better informed about the facts of the war in Iraq than people who named Fox News as their primary news source?

Also, you all seem pretty caught up in the national PBS, but you must realize that local public broadcasting plays in communities all around the country -- including markets where there is no other local news.

Reply

A PIPA study that was limited to Americans perceptions on WMD in Iraq. It was not a broad study on overall news.

Still, if PBS were to operate on the commercial/privately funded market instead of being tax subsidized, it would still be on the air and those programs that PBS fans watch would still be there. So commercials will now be on the programming. It's not like PBS is the ONLY channel they watch. They are still exposed to commercial programming on other channels.

Sure there are those that could argue that programming could be effected by going commercial, but the same could be said by the influence of those in charge of the government grants. We even saw it with the threat of pulling funding if PBS aired Postcards from Buster that had the rabbit visit a child with two mothers. Threats of pulled funding can happen with both parties who object to certain programming.

Better to use tax dollars toward the poor or to improve education. PBS programming won't disappear but rather be under new management.

Reply

The point is, there is no room for the in depth reporting, educational, and cultural programming on commercial television.

It seems like everyone here who disagrees with funding PBS do so basically because they choose not to watch PBS. Isn't that sort of like me saying roads should all be built with private money because I only want my money used to build roads I actually drive on?

Reply

I don't agree with that analogy because roads are a necessity and serve a broad public service. PBS is television. While it can be informative and entertaining, television is still a luxury and not a necessity.

While it has some good programming, it is ones personal opinion, for example, to say that it is the best. While some hail Frontline, others give praise to 60 minutes.

There are many educational and informative programming on commercial and cable television, as well as broadcast radio, newspapers and the internet.

Reply