via 170 million Americans

Category: Television, Weekend

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

18 Responses to “Why Save PBS ?”

  1. Sarge says:

    If it’s so great then why can’t it make it on it’s own? If the feds only pay for 1/7th of it’s cost why not go all the way and make it 100% viewer funded?

    It’s always someone else’s sacred cow that must be led to slaughter.

  2. phasor says:

    Why don’t the oil and gas companies go it alone – they should receive no government tax breaks or incentives.

    No government money for agriculture companies – stop subsidizing corn. Make them consumer funded.

    Sarge is living in another world.

  3. Sarge says:

    No liberal bias here eh? Funded by your tax dollars. Now what would you say if it was Schiller gettin’ down on libs at taxpayer expense?

    What other world is that Phasor? I (and the Koch brothers) agree with you – no government subsidy of business – of any kind.

  4. WyMi says:

    Why indeed? If the masses are educated they will only demand to be informed; get upset with their lot; get unruly and protest for a more equal status – for more of everything. I say put em down in the sweatshops, the poorhouses, hell kick em out of their houses’ put em in slum camps. If they need to know anything, we have a government serving the interests that really count, who will tell em what they need to know, what their opinion is and how important it is. … oh! …well yes, why indeed?

  5. Kelja says:

    How ’bout no tax monies for PBS, the oil companies, and agriculture? I don’t like PBS, never have, don’t see the worth – if there is programming that is worth anything, let the market decide. The people who run that network are obviously detached from the real world and way overpaid.

  6. Sarge says:

    WYMi , I think you’re the one living in another world. You and phasor should get together.

    Do you not see the contradiction in your statement? IF the government is serving some interest other than the public’s than government funded “Education” and “News” is simply propaganda. In this case liberal/progressive propaganda as the latest NPR controversy illustrates.

    I thought you guys got that? I mean, you all act so smart.

  7. contrabandista13 says:

    PBS can and will make it on it’s own, without commercial interruptions….. That’s the great news… It’s the only source of information and entertainment that views the public as human beings as opposed to consumers… I say take the fucking government subsidy away and then, yield nothing onto Caesar, not even praise….

    This is the best thing that could happen to PBS….. They will make it on their own and be better off for it….. Then, just watch the right-wing haters squirm in agony….

    Best regards,


  8. franklin411 says:

    I agree with Sarge, but I’m not as big of a pinko liberal as he is. I wouldn’t stop with just ending free public programming. Why does the taxpayer have to teach kids how to read and write? Everyone knows that reading and writing are valuable skills, so why give something valuable like that away for free?

    The obvious free market solution is to educate our kids the way kids were educated for hundreds of years. Families would work as drudges for generations to save up enough money to send one kid to school eventually, and then they’d hope that that kid would earn more money so other kids in the family wouldn’t have to be drudges. Alternatively, families would sell their kids into voluntary servitude to an educated master, who would apprentice them in a skilled craft. The free market is God.

    We should be doing that now–imagine how much capital we could get by leasing our children out to China? And there would be no need for illegal immigration. Why, our strawberry fields would glow–glow I say!–with the glistening backs of millions of white kids bent over picking strawberries.

    It brings a tear to my eye. Such a beautiful vision!

  9. Jojo says:

    It is unfortunate that you seem to have such a stick up your ass about someone being a liberal, Sarge.

    I think that education IS a government responsibility (in addition to the persons/parents responsibility also).. PBS is one method of helping educate millions of people efficiently. Therefore, their allocation of money should be increased, not reduced.

    We can use the money that we remove from other entities that do not need subsidies as mentioned above (Big oil, big farming, overseas military bases and adventures, etc.).

  10. WyMi says:

    Sarge, for clarification, I do support public funding of education, public broadcasting, public healthcare, environment, defence, R&D and social services. For education and broadcasting, the educational content and editorial bias must remain independent of the funding government or their interests. I cannot support either if they simply use taxpayer money to reinforce their mandate and simply secure their own agendas. When governments demand that they appoint directors to oversee these public services, they are no longer public services, they are special interest services in the same way that governments are special interest services representing the interests of the highest paying lobby groups.

    Yes, I live in another world. I also support the separation of the judicary, policing, religion, and government policy making. I’d also like to support separation of lobby interests from government policy making, but the decisions that our politicians have gotten themselves into making, are too complicated. So they go to the industries affected for infomation and knowledge. The industry reps tell our politicians what to think, how to couch their opinions, and how to write policies. It’s self regulated in their interests (i.e. unregulated).

    I have no doubt that the little bit of funding provided for public broadcasting comes with strings attached – but what good could come of another Fox, abc, nbc, cbs, cnbc, cnn, bloomberg, you name it. The knowledge gained from these propaganda systems is crime against mankind.

  11. BusSchDean says:

    Governments have subsidized industries, individual businesses, and not-for-profit organizations for centuries. Businesses seeking gov’t help was an early issue for Alexander Hamilton.

    Sarge, as much as you may want that world, it has never been the “real” a world nor will it be in your lifetime even if you are young. If you believe otherwise go way short on government subsidized industries.

    We will not stop subsidizing business – and hopefully not NPR or scientific research — though in the tug of war there will be give here and there. Our problem is not with bias (inherent when two people talk each other — or just one person to himself); our problem is hiding truth and treating facts as if they are not facts.

  12. Transor Z says:

    PBS used to carry William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” which was an awesome show — but that was back in the days when “intellectual conservative” was not an oxymoron. And then you had that flaming arch-liberal Louis Rukeyser.

  13. I’m all for PBS! And support the role of government in developing a healthy culture.

    But there are additional possibilities for funding. I like pragmatic solutions.

    Its another role for the Commons-dedicated Account & Network!

    (A For profit enterprise in the Charity/Campaign Services Sector)

    A neutral network of accounts for political, charitable and speech related monetary participation… which in order to properly network and scale individual capability must allow a viable, one-button, secure and (importantly) financially unburdened micro-transaction. Such a network ideally should maintain its own cloud and bank. Accounts may be created and/or maintained with zero balances and/or only momentary balances during a pass-through transfer (monetization model requires no burden on the actual transaction.)

    From user’s perspective it’s similar to Facebook credits or X-box points except for Commons-oriented functions instead of games, etc. …and critically not adding to or drawing from transaction costs since monetization arises from other sources (advertising, charity/campaign services)

    And if you want the government to fund it you can lobby for that too!

    “…[campaign contribution] could become much easier if campaigns can figure out how to allow people to donate by making the process easier through one click pay methods and a short form for the additional FEC information required.” – Katie Harbath, chief digital strategist at the National Republican Senatorial Committee… now with Facebook


    Finding Roots in a Shifting Landscape: Facebook and the Future of Social Networks

    Patent #7,870,067 just granted by USPTO 01/11/’11

  14. teraflop says:

    I listen to NPR daily, during the morning commute. However, between 9AM and 4PM it’s skip-worthy due to a preponderance of “culture” that has little to do with my interests. My eyes are wide-enough open, they don’t need further ripping up of alternative ways of thinking (“who needs to work for a living, really?”). On weekends, I find it delightful, I just have a problem with the weekday non-peak content.

    That being said, I consider its cost to be negligible compared to its benefits. I think a collection of tomahawk missiles (or whatever) a poor exchange for what I derive from public broadcasting in general.

  15. Bill Wilson says:

    I listen to NPR almost everyday, and I give money to NPR, but I think it’s time to cut the cord. Public broadcasting will survive without it. Also, I can understand why some people don’t like it. Why should they be forced to contribute?

    I’ll admit, it’s pretty foolish to vote for ethanol subsidies of dubious merit to the tune of 25 billion, then complain about funding for public broadcasting. But, that doesn’t mean that either is a good use of public money.

    My biggest complaint about NPR. They are so full of their own Kool-Aid when they start talking about how unbiased they are. I live in Boston, so I listen to WBUR. The liberal bias is easy to here, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. Everyone is biased. They need to just admit it.

  16. nbasi says:

    I hope everyone’s who’s suggesting to “let the market decide” is being facetious. Can anyone who has money in wall street say such a thing with any credibility? Let the market decide, indeed. Remind me why GM is still in business? Did the market decide that it would be viable, or was it a big fat loan from Uncle Sam?

    Unfortunately, the US doesn’t work in such a way that only projects that you like will be funded. I wasn’t keen on us invading Iraq, but my tax dollars went to pay for it. If memory serves correctly, we’ve spent more money on that war than we have PBS or any sort of arts funding.

    It’s a rather naive belief that, somehow, the freemarket will balance everything out. Money buys government influence – and government influence can give a corporation a decided advantage. If that weren’t the case, then the freemarket would be a reality instead of some religious belief.

  17. KJMClark says:

    You all realize that PBS and NPR are separate entities, right? Sarge’s video is about NPR – but this advert is about PBS.

  18. jswap says:

    I call “propaganda”. Let’s cut their budget in half and then we can say “for every 1 dollar in government spending, pbs raises 12″. That would be twice as good. Cut the budget even more, and the ratio gets even better!