When PBS (and its cousin NPR) were formed, there was a legitimate need for its service. Anyone old enough to remember the days of 3 networks can appreciate the importance of PBS in supporting educational broadcasting.
With the development of cable and networks like Discovery, National Geographic Channel, the History Channel, and Nickelodeon, the mission of PBS is met by the commercial marketplace. PBS and NPR have outlived their purpose. They are now political vehicles for the Democratic Party, with agenda driven broadcasts like NOW and Frontline, and pretty much the entire lineup of NPR.
It's time for the socialist broadcasting of PBS to compete in the marketplace with the rest of the broadcasting universe. They could of course remain a non-profit entity, but their encampment in the American university system, and their government subsidy, must be ended.
Your thoughts?
2007-07-05 05:51:55 · 12 answers · asked by A Plague on your houses 5 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
wow, i got to say that this is one of the best questions i've found asked on here since i became a member. I pretty would have to agree with what u think because the channels like discovery, tlc, a&e, discovery health, etc. are playing the roles that pbs was once used for, so if pbs would like to remain a station then i think they should become more commercialized like these other big profit stations
2007-07-05 05:58:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hmmm. Well, I am a contributor to public broadcasting, so I think what they do is worthwhile.
I'm not completely convinced about the idea that there is comparable broadcasting work done in the private sector. I'm thinking specifically of children's programming, which is far better than anything out there. My favorite show on tv probably is "The American Experience," which is unmatched on any of the several dozen other channels I get. And while I'd probably say that public broadcasting does lean a little left, I would guess that it's far less than you might think -- there are far fewer chances to consciously tilt a story than you might think.
The subsidies aren't huge in the grand scheme of things. In a perfect world, I'd rather it get alternate forms of funding that from the federal government -- and PBS does do a lot of that -- but I guess I'm OK with it.
2007-07-05 14:13:19 · answer #2 · answered by wdx2bb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion they still have some good broadcasts. If it's one thing I DO like about PBS is that they are not commercialized (not nearly as much) as the other stations mentioned. If you don't like it, it don't watch it. If you do watch it and don't like what they are saying don't listen. At least you can honestly say that when they are saying or doing things you don't like, you can vebalize your disagreement with their policies. Debate is good, so they must be doing something right.
In addition, if you do your research they do participate in numerous charitbale campaigns (especially the arts). If they are helping others then they must be doing something good. How many Charitibale campaigns do the other stations contribute to or sponsor?
Live and Let Live.
2007-07-05 06:07:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
in my town there are still people who do not have satellite or cable and they only have 5-6 channels depending on where they live. PBS hasn't out lived its purpose for people like this.
2007-07-05 06:01:33 · answer #4 · answered by bookgrl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
LOL talk approximately leaping to conclusions no one pronounced something approximately cancelling PBS, it is going to be funded with the aid of money from inner maximum electorate who watch the programming, corporationss who donate (as they do now). it fairly is one entitlement that we as taxpayers shouldn't would desire to fund. it fairly is doing quite properly with it rather is revenues of things to enhance money to pay for the programming it has.
2016-09-29 03:19:08 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally think they have lots of good programming. I guess if we want to get rid of programming with political overtones we need to give FOX news channel the ax too. If nobody watches PBS they would go away on their own. They obviously have plenty of viewers and supporters. Why not live and let live. If you don't like it...don't watch.
2007-07-05 06:05:34 · answer #6 · answered by Mark P 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Mark, get ride of Fox. PBS has some great programming, and a variety of interesting shows that the other guys can't touch. Keep'em.
2007-07-05 06:19:37 · answer #7 · answered by Snipermonkey 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
hmmm...where I live we still have an antanea for one b/c sometimes sattelite goes out and for two we can not get cable...so sometimes I still watch pbs...i love "nature"...what is wrong w/ a publically funded broadcast channel....get over it and let it be!
2007-07-05 05:56:19 · answer #8 · answered by tll 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, all government funding of this left-wing network should be removed. The network should be forced to survive on its own from donations and contributions from corporations and public. I know of nothing it provides that can not be found elsewhere and provides a strong enough argument for its continued funding from tax payers. This is especially true for NPR.
2007-07-05 06:05:14 · answer #9 · answered by hemi_55 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
It doesnt bother me one way or another - dont like the shows on PBS - dont watch. I dont like them so i dont watch. But they should be allowed to remain on the air because i know others might like them. We dont need to start censoring airwaves anymore than they already are.
2007-07-05 06:00:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋