2006-10-18 11:25:05 · 12 answers · asked by alexandritekc 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If we actually funded it to some major degree, I'd worry about it.
There are much bigger fish to fry than NPR and PBS. Remember, there's still 30% of the nation that is out of reach of cable, and PBS is the only option for cultural, artistic, educational, and news programming.
Seriously, I wish people would start worrying about things that actually harm our pocketbooks instead of worrying about what seriously amounts to less than $2 per American annually.
You're that worried about $2. AND that $2 funds both PBS and NPR.
In comparison, the Treasury Department annually fails to account for approximately $24.5 Billion. That means they know it's been spent, but they don't know by whom or where it went. That's about $83 per person annually.
Why don't we worry about that first?
2006-10-18 11:35:48 · answer #1 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, not as its currently programed. PBS should not undertake the political positions of any party nor provide programing that does. It should be educational and artistic, without political bias. Today's PBS broadcasts are far to political.
2006-10-18 11:29:50 · answer #2 · answered by jack w 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
PBS replaced into symbolic. for sure the authorities has no business enterprise being in the leisure business enterprise. If the human beings truly wanted the programming, it would want to be on a commercial community. i'm particular Disney or Nickelodeon might want to %. up Sesame street and Charlie Rose might want to advantageous a house on CNN, MSNBC or Fox. the project is the liberals are anti-business enterprise and anti-capitalism.
2016-12-04 23:36:02 · answer #3 · answered by molder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Why should I pay for a service that is almost exclusively used to promote ideologies that I do not agree with. The congress recently passed a law stopping unions from doing the same thing. (using union dues to endorse people without the consent of the members.)
2006-10-18 11:32:38 · answer #4 · answered by Ranger473 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope.......though some of my fellow libs would disagree.
PBS has very high quality programming. BUT, it should sell ads like all the other networks. It would bring in more revenue for them.
The gov't could use the money for better things....like feeding people!
I love the History Detectives, and This Old House.
2006-10-18 11:27:50 · answer #5 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ummmm I am sure you mean PBS as in PUBLIC Broadcasting Service? I guess it should be funded by the PUBLIC then..
2006-10-18 11:28:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes i love PBS but they deserve money from the uncle SAM too as they spread true news and great educational programs,not just brain burn American TV.stupid **** american tv its the worst,pbs they are for the people too ,you dont have to spend money like for cable or sat to get the goodness of what they give,not sell,to give.
2006-10-18 11:29:41 · answer #7 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
NO WAY.
Since they choose to have a political agenda, they should be privately funded.
2006-10-18 12:14:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
eh... it's pretty far down on my list of "pork" to cut... I don't think it even gets that much... relative to other programs like NASA...
2006-10-18 11:36:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i thought it was made in part by contributions?
2006-10-18 11:35:11 · answer #10 · answered by Mr.happy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋