Eliminate Subsidies For PBS
- Thread starter alaskaguy
- Start date
I'm going to have to think on that one. I don't care for government control or competition of very many things. PBS is probably one of the few government services that actually seems to offer a real service. I'll check back in and vote later.
Your poll asks a slightly different question, as it only mentions PBS. I voted before I read that you were including NPR, but I would still vote NO. Regarding PBS, the Newshour is the only nightly news program worth watching, they offer high-quality programming for kids, and their documentaries are slightly better than the cable channels (although still no substitute for actually reading a book). They offer a real public service.
- Mar 23, 2006
- 15,945
- 1,158
- 113
PBS provides Author, Curious George, Cyberchase, Fetch with Ruff, This Old House, Mexico One Plate at a Time, Ken Burns' The War (which has been great), Mystery! and the list goes on. I really like PBS and the programs our two PBS stations carry so I say we continue the subsidies. Plus PBS HD has had some really interesting shows that I probably would have never seen on basic cable.
Now NPR...I don't listen to it, it provides me nothing so as a selfish self centered American I say cut it off from the money train.:yes:
Now NPR...I don't listen to it, it provides me nothing so as a selfish self centered American I say cut it off from the money train.:yes:
I ended up with no. While I would not consider any expansion as a good thing, this is one government program that seems useful to me, and it is doubtful in my mind that PBS takes serious revenues away from private enterprise.
Because most people understand that some things beneficial to society just don't happen when left soley to the private sector. Why do you think public television was developed in the first place? If the private broadcast networks had been providing (or would have been willing to provide) the services and programming that was deemed necessary and useful for our society, there would have been no need to develop public television.
Example:
PBS' idea of an educational documentary: Nova
Showtime's idea of an educational documentary: Cathouse
Last edited:
When public television was first created, television offered far fewer options than what exist today. For example, cable television was a post-PBS creation.
Perhaps public television was warranted when it was created but is no longer? Perhaps it is another government program that has outlived its usefulness?
Not everybody has or can afford cable television. Cable television still caters to what makes money.
I am kinda drawn on this one. Part of me says it is an uneccesary waste of taxpayer money. But part of me says it is actually one of the few gov services other than defense and infrastructure that actually provides some public good.
Like I said before, I am conflicted on this one, but PBS seems way more beneficial than a lot of thing that the government spends money on, and I can't imagine that the entire PBS budget amounts to as much money as is wasted via fraud in our welfare programs.
Ummm, dude, you said "fraud" and "our welfare programs" in the same sentence. A little redundant, don't you think?:wink:
What about the constant whining and fundraising? At least "commercial TV" commercials have a point.
I'm against funding PBS and NPR, but not strongly so.
Of course, the "programming" that goes on PBS is largely "for profit" and PBS pays for it.
The fundraising is annoying, but it only happens two weeks of the year, and I usually give something to support public radio. It is well worth it considering it is far and away the best news source on the radio for the other 52 weeks of the year.
Wow.......you get 54 weeks a year? Is that a law student perk?:biglaugh::twitcy::biglaugh:
