Here’s what other Americans have written about the efforts and talent of Bill Moyers and why PBS should no longer be funded since it is no longer even watched much over or underdeck.
“I am very saddened to hear Bill Moyers is leaving PBS…he will be difficult to replace…his insightfulness and caring was demonstrated in all his programs…he sought for truth and goodness…rare in TV.” — Moira
“I am devastated. I can only hope that a “review and reinvention” of its news and public affairs programming doesn’t mean a dumbing down.” — Susan Kohler
Hard to fund a dieing beast isn't it - With the imminent disappearance of “Bill Moyers Journal” and “Now on PBS,” PBS is on the verge of a long downhill slide into irrelevance.
Aria - 14 years ago
A large majority of radical right wingers assume if the station is not literally engaging in an all-out-war against what they perceive as Liberalism, then it must stink like one. They do not possess a cognitive functionality to discern a balance programming hence they clamor for defunding of the last bastion of something that at least resembles closest to what we have come to know as journalism.
As I said, if the programming does not match the garbage rhetorics of Fox NotNews, or from the other side of the spectrum MSNBC NotNews, then, in their simpleton mind, every little skit becomes a Communist manifestation waiting dastardly to stab the runaway emotions wildly. They cannot possibly comprehend the fact a mere 17% federal support is mandated to go for "educational" programming and not for news reporting or some opinion shows such as Bill Moyer's -- a one time, two hour program on Sundays which I believe is slanted. As a matter of fact, the funding is spent on the stations and not the content. The majority of the population (80%), more or less, support the funding of the public media. Remember, 82% are funded through other sources than the federal government. For those that are so fond of their GI Joe crap and cable news trash, you are free to stick to your useless entertainment.
Emily - 16 years ago
a government is supposed to take care of the military, national defense, and public services such as roads and police. it is not their job to entertain us, provide news program or anything of that sort. they can stay out of our lives and keep their hands out of our pockets. they don't need money for anything other than what I just listed cause that's not their job. I don't want to spend my tax money on a program I never watch.
Mary B - 16 years ago
I can't afford pay TV. I bought a cheap digital TV that could be a computer or dvd monitor if I couldn't get good digital signals. Wow! Three local PBS digital broadcast channels instead of just the one on cable.
I can't find many other broadcast channels, but that's OK. Even "good" commercial shows get interrupted by truly nasty and violent ads.
I'm not fond of the fund-raising appeals, but I have to admit that collecting data as well as dollars from donors seems to be an effective way to find out what local viewers like. Our locally produced programs are great, and the other choices my richer neighbors are making suit me.
Yes, there are a few programs and individuals I don't like or need. (I'm much too old for Sesame Street.) However, I work in adult literacy (1 in 5 American adults have very low or no reading skills.) and realize how many people would be even more uneducated if they could not see and hear the science, nature, history, literature, and all else available on PBS. I've even begun recommending "Between the Lions" to a few of our students. It is fun but isn't as childish as Sesame Street and looks like it will be a lot more effective at teaching reading.
I even like to watch some things I disagree with. Understanding someone else's point of view helps me better understand my own.
I don't make a lot of money, but I still pay some taxes. Compared to the Federal budget, my contribution is very, very small. (Yours is, too.) To make it real, I imagine just exactly what my dollars are paying for. I can pay for my part of PBS and still have tax money left to paint the stripes on a bit of highway. I haven't spent a cent of taxes on _____, which I detest. Maybe you did.
I am not a parrot.
Marie - 16 years ago
PBS is full of Left wing propaganda. Tax dollars should be spent on Education and the Arts without the liberal spin. It is a shame and very sad.
Nancy - 16 years ago
PBS is no longer safe for children or adults to watch.
It is filled with perversion directed at children which was not the case in the past.
It has a liberal, ungodly agenda.
Jane Austen's books have been changed to add immorality.
Some of its shows are now R rated. What a shame!
Nancy - 16 years ago
We occasionally listen to "A Prairie Home Companion", but nothing else. The programs (including the "news") are definitely liberal in slant, not objective. Our family is totally opposed to the government using our taxes to promote liberal propaganda.
Teresa Bitner - 16 years ago
PBS is definitely left leaning and only those with an open mind can see that. The billions of dollars going to the manufacture of character dolls and other paraphenalia could certainly go to fund their television programming. Sesame Street is so left that I did not encourage my children to watch it and the few times they did they walked away before the show ended. They preferred reading a book.
Tina - 16 years ago
While I do enjoy some of the programming on PBS, I am frustrated with the liberal propoganda that is seen in so many of the shows, from Sesame Street to the "news" shows.
I should not be forced to pay for this through my tax dollars.
Marillyn - 16 years ago
PBS is a God send. It is a myth that the majority of Americans have access to a large variety of news providers. I have lived in 5 different states and have had access to only 3 commercial and 1 public TV station in each. Public radio also saves me from Rush Limbaugh,etc., which is the only program available on commercial radio in our area from 1-4 pm daily.
Jackie - 16 years ago
I am not against PBS. I agree that it can be educational. But, how many children sit and watch PBS for anything but their specific age-related progams, and for how long? I had one child that could sit for quite awhile, then another that didn't sit in front of the tv at all. My next question is, "what happened to Mom and Dad" teaching their children all the things that those programs now HAVE to teach their children? That is where our families and educational system needs help. (I am not talking welfare here, either!)
I don't watch commercial tv at all anymore; it is THE "dumbing down of America"! After CBS ran the show "Dexter" this past fall, I gave up! What the hell were they thinking?
As far as I am concerned, the government is in my pocket for way too many things! I would like to be able to choose some of the things my tax dollars go to, not be told! Have you seen the email that seems to around yearly that lists 100 things we pay taxes on now that we didn't 100 years ago? The government makes so many of our decisions anymore where none of us have any choice. I feel like we are sheep being led to the slaughter. They "tell" us what we need and we so blindly follow along. We have to wake up!!!
Nancy Patterson - 16 years ago
My tax dollars already pay for far too many unnecessary things - if people want to watch PBS then they should pay for it - if i want to watch a premium channel on my TV through my DISH Network, i have to pay for it, so in my opionion it's the same issue.
Vickie - 16 years ago
The government should not be involved with the media. It should be privately owned. Too much of the "information" coming from PBS is politically slanted and should not be funded with my money. I do not watch it and do not wish to pay for its propoganda.
Carmen Corbett - 16 years ago
This is radio. Mrs. Kroc, (McDonald's) left a huge amount...millions to support the radio broadcasting. That was very nice of her. I believe there are needier programs to fund before PBR.
Joey - 16 years ago
No, no, NO! I am a HUGE fan of public television, but I don't think it's an appropriate use of tax money. And you cannot deny the leftist tilt, which makes it even worse to support the network with tax dollars. Given its exhaustive telethons, I certainly think PBS has the time, ability and strategy to attract advertising dollars. This is the land of opportunity and free commerce. If the product is worthy in the eyes of the public, advertisers will jump in. Use my tax dollars for highway repair, education and law enforcement!
Ed Drewsen - 16 years ago
At times PBS can be a liberal propoganda outlet. Why should our tax dollars fund any news source? Why should a conflict of interest such as government sponsored radio and TV be allowed by the American people? If any other government were to do it, we Americans would think it suspect. Why don't we call it suspect when our government does it? Are Americans paying attention?
Gary - 16 years ago
First, the Constitution forbids it.
Second, if people want it enough to pay for it, it will survive. If not, let it die. Such is capitalism. Let the system work.
Third, some of the programming is good but I disagree with much of it. I'm not the only one with this opinion. Our tax dollars should not be used to support that with which we disagree.
Chad Walls - 16 years ago
PBS is politically biased, and there is simply no reason that the government (which is, you'll recall, funded by ALL U.S. Taxpayers) should be funding a political mouthpiece. No doubt there is some worthwhile content on PBS, but as with most commercial enterprises, the gap will readily be filled by an entrepreneurial sole or soles. Our government needs to stop trying to be everything and stick to core essential government services.
Gary Fitzgerald - 16 years ago
In most other Western nations a tax on TV and radio ownership is how they fund "public" broadcasters. In Germany the local public radio stations in most large cities have symphony orchestras and their own performance centers. Yet in this land of 400 cable channels (and still nothin' on) we quibble over $400 million dollars --- a small fraction of what public TV and radio raises on its own each year. Mobil Exxon had 40 Billion in revenue during the past year. How about a 1% tax on that to raise the entire public broadcasting appropriation for one year.
momof4 - 16 years ago
Let me start by saying I love P.B.S. It is quality education and entertainment all mixed together. However, I do not believe the government should be funding P.B.S. I will not personally support P.B.S. as long as my money is already supporting them through my taxes. I believe the government is using everyone's tax dollars for things it has not business supporting. If there were major cutbacks in the things that should be funded privately, there would be money for all the necessities a government should fund. (Supposing that all politicians and governement contractors and employees were honest.)
Christy - 16 years ago
PBS is anything but unbiased. Their just one more liberal media outlet, with Bill Moyer leading their liberal ways. This is just one more way for people to blame our President for one more thing, instead of putting the blame where it needs to be. When are people in this country going to start beign accountable for their own actions, choices, and words? Oh wait...let me guess, that's somehow Bush's fault too.
Dick Yehl - 16 years ago
Pure and simple. We MUST have PBS as it continues to be one of the very few news sources that remains uncompromised in reporting the events of our time. Without PBS we have the likes of FOX News wantabe's flooding our various channels with slanted, sensationlized garbage....
I love PBS sometimes and other times it reaally annoyes me. The Natn'l Geographic is GREAT! I love it a lot but some of the bad things about PBS can be totally horrible! The teaching of nothing but evolution like it is "not a THEORY" and some of the strangest things can show up on it. I love antiques Road show,and the British humor shows but laying all that aside Taxpayer money needs to be spent elsewhere right now. I don't know of many children who have not grown up with Seasame Street. As long as profitable programming like the operas and childrens programs are first in line I say Okay. The things I get most annoyed with is the strange classroom settings I have seen over the years.
Barbara Conko - 16 years ago
I have cable TV; without it reception in my area is nil. I have the basic package; having reviewed what the bigger ones offer, I saw nothing in them worth the extra money. The basic package gives me access to the best of what TV has to offer: local news, Jeopardy, a rare “special”, and . . . two PBS stations. I like so many interesting topics, GOOD entertainment, and being informed before I vote. Very few of us have time to sit and read all the books and magazines necessary to fulfill any one of these desires let alone all of them. Yet much needed to fulfill these goals is on PBS. And, for this multitasking generation, it can be enjoyed and absorbed while doing something else! (I work at crafts, exercise, or eat while watching; you could even text message while watching!)
As others have observed, most of the negative comments seem to be based on viewing only one show, or complain because one show “made it in the big time”. To the latter, I would like to say that if PBS had not taken a chance on “Sesame Street” and aired it initially, no one would have ever heard of Big Bird or Elmo or Burt and Ernie. Countless children would never have come to know and LEARN from these lovable Muppets. Being non-commercial, PBS stations that carry the show do not advertise any of the commercial spinoff items. Commercial TV does that. To the former, let me remind that commercial newspapers and TV stations are biased. PBS offers broad viewpoints, opinions from many sides, and information often not addressed ANYWHERE ELSE. If the one show you watched is overly liberal, try another . . . you may find it overly conservative. Better yet, try PBS programs that offer a third, fourth, or fifth viewpoint. You will NOT hear these other “sides” anywhere else because commercially supported media see only two sides to any issue.
PBS cannot “go commercial”; it would end up like all the other trashy commercial stations—we already have too many of those. PBS cannot operate strictly on donations; with money being tight in everyone’s’ pockets, it is harder and harder for PBS stations to meet their annual viewer donation goals.
The government is already committed to educating the American people through required schooling. PBS provides the "continuing education" portion of that schooling. Those who take advantage of this means of “keeping up” make better citizens; who can make better, informed decisions for supporting and voting on issues; to continue growing a better America; creating (one can hope) a continuingly improving government.
NOTE: Ken Jackson has a point . . . . . . . . . though that is another issue.
Bob Tomate - 16 years ago
Why on earth are my tax dollars being wasted on PBS. Which I have to pay for anyway because you have to have cable or satellite to view any channels now. I think everyone's tax dollars should be spent elsewhere. I have an idea, stop wasting money on tv shows and reduce the gas tax so people can afford to drive to work!
Richard L. Markman - 16 years ago
We have, because of the lack of funding for education and the arts, an uneducated electorate that repeatedly votes for politicians whose only purpose is to get re-elected (not to serve the people). Public Broadcasting puts the truth in front of its membership.
Eric Milton - 16 years ago
I realy like some of the programs on PBS and my wife and I support it with
donations. That said I am totly against Gov funding.
First it is not the Fed's job , Secound Gov funding will ruin PBS look at the so
called National Arts program.
The min the Fed's start talking control of PBS and make no mistake once they fund PBS the Fed's will control it.
When this happends my donations stop.
carol bussa - 16 years ago
Check the Constitution: funding radio and television broadcasts is NOT mentioned in the role of our government.
If left to our own devices, we would soon devise entertaining and informative communications.
IF the government was not spending taxpayers' dollars on unauthorized projects, we'd have more in our own pockets to use as we chose....
Mona - 16 years ago
When the government 'supports' it also rules. We don't need more politically-correct garbage.
Steve - 16 years ago
We need access to broadcasting that isn't just driven by ratings and corporate dollars. There's a place for commerical TV and professional wrestling, and there's a place for public TV and NewsHour.
Plus I get more in-depth coverage of issues on my local public TV station than on the commercial stations. And I know I can let my kids watch without having to change the channel when a commercial comes on for some blood-and-guts cop show.
$400 million for public TV stations across the nation is nothing compared to what the defense industry gets, and I'd trust public TV way more than Halliburton.
What I get for my tax dollar on public TV is absolutely worth subsidizing at the Federal level.
Kymberli - 16 years ago
I think that whatever Big Brother pays for, Big Brother will have say over. So, to keep PBS the wonderful station that it is, it needs to be funded by the people who watch it, or want to advertise on it. If Big Brother pays, they can put whatever offensive commercials they want, and I would like to have at least one channel I can let my children watch nowadays.
Tracy - 16 years ago
Please don't take PBS away that is the only cartoons that come on tv. I have only an antenna and PBS is my kids cartoon source. and a very good one at that. How would my kids live without Curious George, Clifford, Dragon Tales, Super Why, Jakers, Zula Patrol, Cyberchase, Arthur, Mya and MIguel, Barney, Seasame Street, Bob the Builder, Thomas the train, Caiou, or Mr. Rogers. Anyways, we don't watch anything but the cartoons on PBS but M-F that is a majority of what comes on PBS. Also, since the gov. made that new convertor box mandatory, we can now pick up the PBS Kids channel, which is catoons 24/7 whoo hoo thank someone for that. By the way that is the only good thing about the new switch to digital, I am getting tired of that darn box saying no signal or cutting in and out like satelitte. So whatever you do if you want to be smart please at least keep the kids pbs it is providing alot of young kids with some educational tv.
Caryn - 16 years ago
The government has no business using our hard-earned tax dollars to fund any radio station whose purpose is entertainment (or any other form of entertainment for that matter). My suspicion is that NPR appeals to a relatively small percentage of the population. Its programming is anything but non-biased (have you listened to Democracy Now recently?). It is exactly this type of funding of special interest projects, earmarks, etc, etc that puts our budget in the red and makes our taxes so high. PBS should learn to be self sufficient!
Helen Harris - 16 years ago
Where else can I go to hear an in-depth report, interview, or analysis? Only Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley on late night TV which is a public station or the radio's one or two stations. We still are supporting them privately as the government funds don't cover all the needs of the station. Through the years our cultural, political, musical, artistic, medical, educational, and rehabilitation
facilities get cut from budgets to incur the gargantuan amounts of money we spend on wars, waste, and scams perpetrated by CEO's and government officials.
Laurie - 16 years ago
Thomas Jefferson said to "compel a man to furnish contributions" to support ideas with which he disagrees is both "sinful and tyrannical." Our founders understood that we will not have a free press if the government compels people, through taxation, to support certain ideas and censor others.
Let's get back to the principles of freedom. The issue is not whether people like certain "arts" programming but whether Bill Moyers' political agenda should be funded by our tax dollars.
Great Grandma Jacky - 16 years ago
As I see it, likes and dislikes are not the issue, the issue is, does the Constitution of the United States allow for this kind of expenditure? No. That finalizes it. No . And there are many other gross misuses of our tax monies. We are a country based on law, not public opinion that just leads to confusion, and bankruptcy, which you see that we have already.
David - 16 years ago
PBS needs to compete just like every other tv broadcaster. No taxpayer subsidies!
Saretta K. Burke - 16 years ago
I voted YES thinking that I was voting FOR PBS but the question was negatively slanted; a NO meant YES for PBS and a YES meant NO. I can't believe 75% of the US sees no value in their varied programs. I shall go back to the poll to vote NO twice.
Pat Corbat - 16 years ago
I rarely watch PBS...can't stand Bill Moyers. Might watch if he got kicked off.
Michael J Hathaway - 16 years ago
I find it remarkable that this taxpayer supported system boasts the only reporters who actually push back when fed statements that are just not true. It is a joy to listen to NPR and their news coverage. One can count on getting facts amidst the spin and talking point pablum to which interviewees tend to want to stick. I also find the "thought provocation" level to be top notch even in the entertainment part of their broadcast mission.
LadyGrey - 16 years ago
To all of the politicized commentators on this list - please bear in mind that there is more to life than politics and PBS remembers that! My toddler and I are learning ASL (American Sign Language to those of you who are not as multiculturally aware) thanks to Sunday mornings on PBS. Not to mention that the absolute best quality, highly cultural and artistic community events that have happened in the area where I live were engineered by our local PBS affiliate. We (including my child!) would not be allowed to experience such beautiful quality theater as Cirque du Soleil if not for our PBS station, nor would we be introduced, artistically, to other cultures if we did NOT have public programming. I've NEVER SEEN ANY major network (other than those of us who are sattelite or cable subscribers and have access to Bravo, A&E, BBC America, etc.) that offered ANYTHING beyond mindless pandering to the masses that seem to believe that "cultural, artistic" offerings should consist of Velvet Elvises (no offense, but I can color inside the lines and make my own "velvet" artwork). If I didn't live as far north as I do, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with this geographical areas choices, but I don't live that far to the South where Elvis is god and banjos are the only musical instruments of note. Before anyone jumps all over my case about this - my sister lived in Tennessee for most of my life so I DO actually know whereof I speak...
Please Don't let quality die, regardless of political slants - keep PBS alive!!!!!!!!
C.M. DeBruin - 16 years ago
I don't believe I should be paying taxes for programming with a liberal slant. As a broadcast journalist, I applied for a job with PBS and NPR a number of years ago. My membership in the NRA apparently turned them off. Only liberals need apply, and only liberal stances will be taken. Besides, local PBS stations beg for money all year long, and the truly great programming only exists when major fundraisers are taking place.
Lance Persson - 16 years ago
PBS is very is partison and unfair. The fact is that PBS is "Politically "Correct" and part of that reason is that it is politically funded. Use your head folks, don't be deceived.
tax must be aclined to pay and support pbs.why? it must because pbs gives us a view of eduacation.
Noelle Marie - 16 years ago
I am all for public TV but I understand that PBS is capable of doing well without the help of the government's money. Let's use 400 million for other needs.
Jim Kirkwood - 16 years ago
Back in the 50's when there were four channels, three entertainment networks and an 'educational' channel typically from a local university, publically funded broadcasting made some sense. Now with hundreds of specialized channels available to most and dozens available to those still on rabbit ears, there is no need for funding PBS. There probably never was constitutional justification for the spending of tax money. The biggest problem is that whoever is not accountable to the authority of people or market demands are free to do what seems right in their own eyes. PBS will survive without puplic funding because those who want it are willing to suport it. I would rather not. That should be an option for me.
Trena - 16 years ago
My children LOVE PBS. I love the fact that there is not much advertising (in reality no advertising, but the "supporters", like ChuckECheese show a blip at the beginning and ending of the program so my kids know their motto, etc). We have opted not to get cable or satellite TV due to the fact that even on those kids shows, I find many objectionable programs. With PBS, I know it's all educational during the daytime (we live is SC so they run kids shows from 8am to 5pm) and even many evening programs, like Nature and Wild, are very educational. I'm sure we'd find Discovery and the like even better, but I don't want all the other channels that come with cable or satellite. We HATE programs like SpongeBob and the Cartoon Networks evening line-up. Many low-income households cannot afford cable or satellite TV so PBS is still very much needed. My 3 yo can now recite his ABC's due to watching SuperWhy every morning. If the US wants to promote education and keep up with the other countries, we need the educational programming of Sesame Street... Disney and NickJr do not provide that kind of educational programming. Furthermore the other 3 major networks show no interest in educational programming and opt to run trashy soap operas, court TV and talk shows during the daytime; and whatever happened to shows like Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday morning cartoons, those are even hard to find anymore!
Just my 2 cents.
A concerned parent
Ms. Gordon - 16 years ago
I think PBS should be supported IF they are goign to include programming for all. There are a vast amount of American's who watch PBS either because they do not have cable or just for pleasure such as my mom. My son use to watch it but has switched to the cartoons on Nick and Cartoon Network. I enjoyed the cartoons they showed, which were clean and family oriented yet there was little or no diversity there - meaning could there at least be one cartoon focused on African American's.
I, myself, enjoy the shows because they are not focused on the normal that today's programming focus on, i.e., sex, violence and more!
Kimberly - 16 years ago
Government should NEVER fund the media. It makes me sad to see how many people don't understand the proper role of government. PLEASE read the constitution! We are not a communist state! (at least not yet)
judy pepper - 16 years ago
PBS news and reporting is very bias to the liberal side of most issues and candidates. I believe it could be good to provide some minimal support to public radio BUT the reporting must be more fair and balanced!!!!
Wanda Dietel - 16 years ago
PBS and NPR are too political plus are not balanced. I no longer support our local stations and do not what my tax dollars going to support the liberal view point presented on PBS and NPR.
D. Brockman - 16 years ago
My question is: How could anyone watch PBS for more than an hour and not see the government's bias blatantly thrown in our faces? And the majority of you want me to pay for that?! I guess that proves how very successful the current brainwashing experiment is going! Have we not learned from history? Oh, I forgot, you can't fix stupid.
Someone please list for me the provision in the US Constitution which says the the role of the Federal Government is to provide for "Public" television>?
Please, let's let the capital markets, that is, you and me, do their thing. That is the only way Freedom, this grand American experiment, can work and last.
Of course PBS is left leaning. That is obvious. Consider this? Has PBS ever covered aissue that it didn't call for a government response, or a larger government response?
The PBS shows have become very political. Has everyone forgotten the
debacle about a year ago.? The powers at PBS wanted a certain politcal
slant on a series that had been made for PBS and the person that made
it said no.
I don't want my money used for the liberal PBS to spread its slanted agenda!!!!!
Addie Dietrich - 16 years ago
As a librarian I applaud PBS for its wonderful cultural, historical, childrens', and news programs which have no match in the regular media. We have to keep supporting this kind of programing to allow people to see the best that media has to offer. Thanks to everyone who does. By the way, citizens should be supporting this, too.
marcia warrick - 16 years ago
PBS is a continuing educational service that is available to anyone who has a radio ( & lives in a reception area). It is versatile & credible. One doesn't have to watch TV nor pay for cable. The value is demonstrated the quality of programming they are able to provide. The amount being paid by the government is miniscule in comparison to a lot of the porkbarrel items that are attached to legislation.
Dave Neitzel - 16 years ago
Why should we support a liberal media with our tax dollars. The people from PBS may think they are "fair & balanced", but their many of the viewers and listeners know the truth, PBS isn't.
FOX News and Rush Limbaugh (& other consevative radio hosts) are so popular because they have the courage and honesty to tell us the all the news, both liberal & conservative.
Do you think PBS could or would be able to achieve that level of news reporting? If they can't, then their support from our tax dollars should be removed. PBS should raise their support thru advertizers or private contributions like other radio & tv networks and stations.
V Ryder - 16 years ago
No! No! No! TV, art, then earmarks, special projects, good grief where does this end? If an entitity cannot support itself through it's own advertising, funding raising, sales, or donation network why should tax payers foot the bill? This is exactly why government operates in the red while corporate America & private citizens have to budget, cutback, do without, or (God forbid) work! Why is this so difficult for the government to understand? Why is it ok to raise taxes on any working class American for these whims? PBS is a nice alternative & has it's place but let it support itself as the do the other media concerns. Less government more individual & responsibility!
Bob Reta - 16 years ago
PBS is anything but objective. Bill Moyers uses our tax dollars to promote his own left wing agenda. If some people like it let them support it...
Jackie Welch - 16 years ago
PBS offers viewers and listeners quality programming in the arts, travel, historical documentaries, world news, classical literature and drama and music, childrens programs etc. Many people do not have access to the great concert halls or opera houses or theatres or art galleries or museums, or cannot afford these cultural venues. Many cannot afford to travel abroad, with access to the various cultures and life styles of other nations of the world. For many people, TV and radio are their major source of entertainment and news . PBS offers cultural and educational programs, unlike commercial networks whose primary objective in programming is not to educate, but only to entertain , in order to impose their commercials, usually shallow or sometimes shocking. Our family watches only the PBS channels and listens to the classical radio stations . The government owes us the alternative to the insiped programs of commercial television, and should fulfill its obligation to retain high cultural standards in our entertainment media.
Sue C Carter - 16 years ago
Real people view PBS
Rich & poor
Some people would never be able to be exposed to the arts, culture, nature,inspired thinking, financial honesty, children's education etc. that should be available to all.
Without support from congress, PBS would not be possible.
I have known of adminstrators at pbs that make considerably more money than I do. They live in gated communities, send their children to private schools and own expensive imported cars. Why should we support them??
SEAL1 - 16 years ago
Anyone who believes PBS is balanced and impartial correspondence has been drinking Alice's potions. While there is a less "leftish" bent on some of the PBS material, the lean in public broadcasting is decidedly left, as is most "mass media" broadcastors, and PBS is not different. And as a recipient of government dollars for programming, every time PBS presents a contraversial hot potato, it is supposed to present time for the opposing position. Has anyone seen anything on PBS as to the balancing arguements regarding the issue of global warming. Nor has their been balanced presentations of arguements on opposite sides of the evolution/creationism theories. PBS, like too many other media, just present it all as though global warming and evolution were proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, and completely disregard the enormous amount of data debunking the urgency of global warming, and the horendous gaps in evolutionary chain of evidence.
This is the problem in our society these days. The population is predominantly in the dark as to the bias that is in most every form of television media, with rare exceptions. PBS unbiased...? Sure, and Santa is bringing me a Porshe this year.
Sue Herring - 16 years ago
While some people think the government shouldn't be involved in producing our entertainment, without its support to counteract the only fair to mediocre quality (at best) of most broadcast television, there would be little of cultural value for those without access to cable.
Cass Pfender - 16 years ago
As a very recent college graduate and up-and-coming grad student, I have found PBS indispensable! Forsaking the many music channels, which are vastly (and unfortunately) more popular with my age group, I feel that I have truly benefited from listening to PBS. I am happy to have my tax dollars supporting one of the least biased news sources available to Americans today. If only I could choose how the rest of my tax dollars were spent...
Jim in Saugus CA - 16 years ago
No...The left wing leaning of views expressed on tsuch programs as Bill Moyers must not be funded without offering counter points. The interview with the Rev Wright was shameless.
Mary Lou Gentry - 16 years ago
They have had it their way for years now, spouting their lliberal views with our taxpayers money. I even see commercials on there now, when I occasionally pass through. I watch Antiques Roadshow, sometimes, that's all.
Peter Scaglione - 16 years ago
Of course PBS is biased towards the left. Just like public radio. Just ask Bill Moyers and Tavis Smiley; both liberals. Name a conservative with his or her own show on PBS. The show Frontline tows the liberal line with each show whether about evil Republican politicians or the environment. You liberals are so comfortable with your dominance of media (movies, TV, newspapers, music, etc.) that you think Bill Moyer's views are just common sense and main stream. They're not.
Fact is, you liberals want PBS because you want every corner of the media you can get to indoctrinate and scare people to your views. Plus, who would watch Bill Moyers if he was on cable? No-one!
I'm a conservative Republican. Why should I have to pay for Bill Moyers to lie to me? Where is the balance?
STOP the subsidy of liberal PBS (BS is right) and Public TV.
Janis B. - 16 years ago
Two Points: 1) The vast majority of PBS programming is non-political and thus non-partisan. As for the rest of the programming, it provides a welcome relief from the mindless patriotism-is-what-we-say-it-is content found on the Big Corporate Media. 2) Most interesting cable programs cost money, and not everyone can afford it. Why should only the well off have access to good programming?
Major Frank L. Laifer - 16 years ago
Just watch a few episodes of "Masterpiece Theater" and then see if you can tell me, with a straight face, that this quality exists on commercial television.
Pem - 16 years ago
Everyone has their pet projects and programs they think the government should support. We have to stop this idea of government support funding everything. If it is that important to you, support it yourself. If it is not important enough to support it out of your pocket directly, then it is not important enough to continue.
The government takes money out of my paycheck to give to others and to programs - who are they to decide that I am less needy than others or others are more needy than me?
Debby - 16 years ago
Now, more than ever, the citizens of the United States need a non-biased broadcasting medium. Current broadcasting mediums are all beholding to outside funders, i.e. corporations and other entities with agenda's.
Stephanie - 16 years ago
I am confused with the comments noting that PBS in non-partisan, that is absolutely not correct, do you actually listen to what they say? I love PBS and Public Radio, but come on people, it IS liberal media! I do not believe they should be funded by the government, the government should wean Public Broadcasting Media off funding by decreasing their funding each year. Can someone actually tell me that PBS funding is a wiser use of $400,000 of our tax dollars than other government programs that help to sustain life instead of entertain and inform life. There are many other avenues for entertainment and information, but not the sustainment of quality of life in this country or other countries. How about using that money to aid in ending world hunger?
Deb E. - 16 years ago
How uninformed and media UNsavy are you people? PBS is NOT unbiased. It is very left-leaning and I for one am SICK of our tax dollars going to support it. I wouldn't want that if it were right-leaning either. If it's so good, let a broadcasting company buy it and take care of its programs and its expenses. WHY should the taxpayers of America fund this? Its time for the 'arts' (etc., etc.) to take care of itself. Ridiculous!
Jmes Evers - 16 years ago
Definition of Objective: “To take into account all available information and to avoid any form of prejudice or bias.” The above definition of objective is not what I hear on PBS. It is slanted, very strongly, to the left. PBS has some very entertaining and excellent, non-political shows that I enjoy. Their news programs are so far to the left; Bill Moyers comes to mind, as to be ridiculous and should not be funded by our tax dollars. I would not mind the money being spent if it were truly non-bias and both sides, conservative and liberal were presented. Until that happens the money, regardless of how small of a percentage of the federal budget it is, should be cut.
Wayne Contello - 16 years ago
There is no charter in the US constitution that provides for the broadcasting or publication of any kind of media. At this point Sesame Street, Omni and other great show could be picked up by private broadcasters. If PBS is to survive it should do so on its' own and though the contributions of those who watch it. If people don't pay then the broadcasts should stop.
William Ellison - 16 years ago
PBS not only provides the most objective news available, it gives background and context rather than just soundbites. Also, it often is the only outlet for important news that doesn't have the sensational aspects that seems to be required by commercial media.
mitch - 16 years ago
PBS is no longer needed. The numerous media outlets provide a diverse assortment of education and opinion shows. If it continues...fine....however supporting it with tax dollars when we have a large Federal deficit is not wise.
How about using those funds to help feed the poor, or as some would like ..cut taxes, stimulating the economy?
BJ - 16 years ago
To call a lot of the PBS programming fair and unbiased is not the truth. To see my tax dollars undermining my own personal viewpoints consistently rankles me. $400 million not spent on PBS is still $400 million not spent. And does this include all the monies spent to perpetuate NPR as well? Please pull the plug on the cash cow at my expense and let Barbra Streisand and George Clooney and the like pay for it; they have the cash (we don't: we have kids instead) and it supports their views, not mine!
Chris - 16 years ago
To cut the funds is to turn the water off, to dry “the fountain of
knowledge” that provides educational programing and entertainment.
To silence the truth and opposing view points that do not coincide with
the administration and the far right believers.
A government that “gives billion of dollars to very wealthy
farmers and landowner..." but no funds for public programing!
Lee Skinner - 16 years ago
With the possible exception of History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and National Geographic, there is NO quality programming on cable. I believe it was Newton Minow who called commercial TV a 'vast wasteland,' and then and now Public Broadcasting was the real bright spot in an otherwise blighted landscape. By all means, let's keep Public Television and Radio.
Johanne - 16 years ago
Even though PBS has some quality educational programs such as Masterpiece Theater, Reading Rainbow, and Mr. Rodgers, I do not believe it should be funded by taxpayers since its news programs are definitely too liberal. They are too bias to make a fair assistment for all individuals listening to them. At one time I was a member but became disappointed in the political bias that was developing.
Molly - 16 years ago
The quality of most free and cable channels has continued to go down while the time spent on commercials has gone up. PBS gets my vote for public funding and interesting programming.
Robert Humphries - 16 years ago
Federal Funding for PBS should definitely continue if for no other reason than to allow Bill Moyer to be able to give us unbiased, intelligent reporting on the political scene in the country. Fox (Faux?) News, CNN, and all the rest of them are a sham today. We need independent, unbiased reporting, with the conclusions being drawn by the viewers, NOT the interviewers.
Of course, there are many other good reasons such as seeing such programs as Celtic Woman. You certainly would not see that anywhere else in TV land.
Robert H.
Angela Dunn - 16 years ago
PBS and NPR offer intelligent and thoughtful programming. It is the mosst democratic venue in the media. Their funding by tax paryer dollars means they are beholden to me not some corporate interest with an agenda. They provide thorough, factual information. The entertainment provided is second to none. This is the most efficient use of tax payer money.
Martin Rosenzweig - 16 years ago
There is no other programming on TV, cable or broadcast, that provides the depth and objectivity provided by PBS. Commercial TV caters to the lowest common denominator. Network news, which used to provide quality and objective reporting by Murrow, Cronkite, and others, has given way to economic pressures to lure and keep advertisers, thus in-depth reporting has given way to sensationalism. I don't know what I'd do without Lehrer and "Frontline". PBS also presents many programs on important current and historical topics not seen elsewhere. Because Mr. Bush is not a PBS viewer I think he greatly misunderestimates the quality and uniqueness of PBS programming.
Gene - 16 years ago
Where is this "high quality" programming on cable channels? We can't find it. We watch PBS about 75% of the time, other broadcast stations 15%(mostly news), and cable 10%(mostly sports). PBS is the oasis in the vast wasteland.
John - 16 years ago
I'm amazed by the "socialism and public TV are bad" crowd. You do realize that we are a semi-socialist state, and have been for a century, right? You do realize that Franklin, Jefferson, et. al. intended us to be socialist, right? And that we're the last major world power not to be "socialist"? The "tax and spend" form does indeed work, look at western Europe's economy versus our's these days, and for the last two decades. Add that the best programming in the British Isles is on the BBC, which PBS was based on. It's unfortunate that Fred Rogers isn't here to help us this time. So instead of going to quality programming and education, the $200 million will go to ineffective "abstinence only" programs and faith-based initiatives. Better we be anti-socialist than preserve the separation of church and state. Franklin and Jefferson would love that.
Amy Peterson - 16 years ago
NPR is the only place where you can hear news and information from all sides of the issue WITHOUT being frequently bombarded and assaulted by advertising. Yes, it should have government funding.
Jean Ash - 16 years ago
The corporate broadcast news media are continuing to cut back reporters and other personnel, and no longer do a good job of "serving the people" as their mandate dictated before the Communications Act was disembowled during the Reagan years. Tabloidism and reality shows dominate network television, and some cable operations are totally irresponsible. It is without doubt necessary that tax dollars should support PBS, the only responsible alternative for news and programming.
Mr Mitchell - 16 years ago
It amazes me how often people say PBS has no left-wing slant. I suppose the ultra-left looks central when seen from the far left. propaganda dirven commentary is the standard at PBS, and we would be united without the likes of Bill Moyers, NOW, Washington Week and Frontline, to name a few.
Elizabeth Farr - 16 years ago
It amazes me how often people say PBS has a left-wing slant. I suppose the center looks left when seen from the far right. Thought-provoking commentary is the standard at PBS, and we would be poorer without the likes of Bill Moyers and Frontline.
deroy - 16 years ago
we have 500 stations available. there is no need for PBS or NPR.
in addition, these public stations are agenda driven and prejudiced toward higher taxes and other advocacy positions.
stop funding them. we need our money.
Anthony Sabatino - 16 years ago
YET AGAIN WE THANK THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION WHO TEACHES THE PEOPLE NOT TO THINK . so letts goin gett som beer and watch som pro-raslin george. INTELLIGENT REPORT!!!!!! NEED I SAY (MORE-ON) The Subject.
Craig Moulton - 16 years ago
I know of no other source of real information in any media. All facets are delivered to any home in America willing to take the time to learn something. Learn about everything from the human condition to the wildlife that lives in the Adirondacks.
Our government should support any endeavor that allows the population to sit back relax and learn. It is too easy to turn control over to the advertisng dollar driven corporations that have a real agenda like General Electric or even the soft and harmless Disney Corp. We need to support the Public Corp.
Today's on site reporting from earthquake avalanches in China burying whole villages with people heroically clinging together to help all survive is the best news reporting I have EVER heard anywhere in my 76 years! Because 2 NPR reporters were in the region preparing special reports for next week, they were able to interview an English teacher in a devastated school that was shaking as she spoke, a young mother with 4 children (one baby) who walked 20 miles & still couldn't find help, and a man helping others whose whole family was still covered and dead. The facts WITH EMOTION INCLUDED really had a huge impact on my mind and emotions for the whole day today. It was like I was there it was so REAL. And it was a long report, unheard of in any other venue but NPR.
If our government listened to NPR more, they would avoid many of the mistakes they don't realize they are making.
IF one has a wide enough education to appreciate all of life, including the arts, science, "Birdnotes," new thought, political implications, history of middle east conflicts, unusual cultural traditions and perspectives, as well as typical news, one would expect to keep up their education the easiest way: just LISTEN TO NPR AND STAY INTELLIGENT AND THOUGHTFUL....OR AT LEAST RESPECTFUL AND ENLIGHTENED!
Here's a challenge: Stay up till 11 pm Pacific and listen to New Dimensions Radio till midnight Sundays. (94.9 FM). Hear many new directions of thinking, exploring science and personal growth and human exploration in new fields and spiritual enlightenment interviews. See if YOU don't grow your Self in the process!
NPR is the best company I can invite into my home and car. If it were cancelled I don't know what I would do for company (I live alone now as a new widow) or for stimulation while I work at home or drive.
We could all give more during the pledge drives, YES??
With gratitude,
Lee Landrud, Seattle
Bob Donaldson - 16 years ago
Government Money should be limited to 5% of PBS Budget. I agree that PBS is biased liberal. The news reporting is more commentary than news reporting, BUT with Government (taxpayer) funding, however, with some government reporting, the public can ask for an audit of how the PBS budget is spent.
Sonia Turanski - 16 years ago
To make the argument that PBS is not needed because cable channels offer high quality programing is absurd. Standard television is moronic at best; PBS offers some of the only worthwhile programing available. I fully support our government in spending money for PBS rather than in continuing the shameful and wasteful endevour in Iraq.
Lynne Fowler - 16 years ago
Although PBS is wonderful, there are so many other organizations and groups that need our tax dollars more. As a nation we need to put our limited financial resources (the taxpayers' money) into finding solutions for energy resources, Social Security, immigration issues, and education to name just a few. Also your presentation is flawed. You did not present all facts on both sides of this issues, which slanted your poll for the results you favor (your own salaries.)
Debbie Cox - 16 years ago
NO! PBS stands for Public Braodcasting Station. PUBLIC. Funded by the PUBLIC.
The government is too big already. We are getting more Socialistic everyday.
Grants and the viewers should be support this station.
Here’s what other Americans have written about the efforts and talent of Bill Moyers and why PBS should no longer be funded since it is no longer even watched much over or underdeck.
“I am very saddened to hear Bill Moyers is leaving PBS…he will be difficult to replace…his insightfulness and caring was demonstrated in all his programs…he sought for truth and goodness…rare in TV.” — Moira
“I am devastated. I can only hope that a “review and reinvention” of its news and public affairs programming doesn’t mean a dumbing down.” — Susan Kohler
Hard to fund a dieing beast isn't it - With the imminent disappearance of “Bill Moyers Journal” and “Now on PBS,” PBS is on the verge of a long downhill slide into irrelevance.
A large majority of radical right wingers assume if the station is not literally engaging in an all-out-war against what they perceive as Liberalism, then it must stink like one. They do not possess a cognitive functionality to discern a balance programming hence they clamor for defunding of the last bastion of something that at least resembles closest to what we have come to know as journalism.
As I said, if the programming does not match the garbage rhetorics of Fox NotNews, or from the other side of the spectrum MSNBC NotNews, then, in their simpleton mind, every little skit becomes a Communist manifestation waiting dastardly to stab the runaway emotions wildly. They cannot possibly comprehend the fact a mere 17% federal support is mandated to go for "educational" programming and not for news reporting or some opinion shows such as Bill Moyer's -- a one time, two hour program on Sundays which I believe is slanted. As a matter of fact, the funding is spent on the stations and not the content. The majority of the population (80%), more or less, support the funding of the public media. Remember, 82% are funded through other sources than the federal government. For those that are so fond of their GI Joe crap and cable news trash, you are free to stick to your useless entertainment.
a government is supposed to take care of the military, national defense, and public services such as roads and police. it is not their job to entertain us, provide news program or anything of that sort. they can stay out of our lives and keep their hands out of our pockets. they don't need money for anything other than what I just listed cause that's not their job. I don't want to spend my tax money on a program I never watch.
I can't afford pay TV. I bought a cheap digital TV that could be a computer or dvd monitor if I couldn't get good digital signals. Wow! Three local PBS digital broadcast channels instead of just the one on cable.
I can't find many other broadcast channels, but that's OK. Even "good" commercial shows get interrupted by truly nasty and violent ads.
I'm not fond of the fund-raising appeals, but I have to admit that collecting data as well as dollars from donors seems to be an effective way to find out what local viewers like. Our locally produced programs are great, and the other choices my richer neighbors are making suit me.
Yes, there are a few programs and individuals I don't like or need. (I'm much too old for Sesame Street.) However, I work in adult literacy (1 in 5 American adults have very low or no reading skills.) and realize how many people would be even more uneducated if they could not see and hear the science, nature, history, literature, and all else available on PBS. I've even begun recommending "Between the Lions" to a few of our students. It is fun but isn't as childish as Sesame Street and looks like it will be a lot more effective at teaching reading.
I even like to watch some things I disagree with. Understanding someone else's point of view helps me better understand my own.
I don't make a lot of money, but I still pay some taxes. Compared to the Federal budget, my contribution is very, very small. (Yours is, too.) To make it real, I imagine just exactly what my dollars are paying for. I can pay for my part of PBS and still have tax money left to paint the stripes on a bit of highway. I haven't spent a cent of taxes on _____, which I detest. Maybe you did.
I am not a parrot.
PBS is full of Left wing propaganda. Tax dollars should be spent on Education and the Arts without the liberal spin. It is a shame and very sad.
PBS is no longer safe for children or adults to watch.
It is filled with perversion directed at children which was not the case in the past.
It has a liberal, ungodly agenda.
Jane Austen's books have been changed to add immorality.
Some of its shows are now R rated. What a shame!
We occasionally listen to "A Prairie Home Companion", but nothing else. The programs (including the "news") are definitely liberal in slant, not objective. Our family is totally opposed to the government using our taxes to promote liberal propaganda.
PBS is definitely left leaning and only those with an open mind can see that. The billions of dollars going to the manufacture of character dolls and other paraphenalia could certainly go to fund their television programming. Sesame Street is so left that I did not encourage my children to watch it and the few times they did they walked away before the show ended. They preferred reading a book.
While I do enjoy some of the programming on PBS, I am frustrated with the liberal propoganda that is seen in so many of the shows, from Sesame Street to the "news" shows.
I should not be forced to pay for this through my tax dollars.
PBS is a God send. It is a myth that the majority of Americans have access to a large variety of news providers. I have lived in 5 different states and have had access to only 3 commercial and 1 public TV station in each. Public radio also saves me from Rush Limbaugh,etc., which is the only program available on commercial radio in our area from 1-4 pm daily.
I am not against PBS. I agree that it can be educational. But, how many children sit and watch PBS for anything but their specific age-related progams, and for how long? I had one child that could sit for quite awhile, then another that didn't sit in front of the tv at all. My next question is, "what happened to Mom and Dad" teaching their children all the things that those programs now HAVE to teach their children? That is where our families and educational system needs help. (I am not talking welfare here, either!)
I don't watch commercial tv at all anymore; it is THE "dumbing down of America"! After CBS ran the show "Dexter" this past fall, I gave up! What the hell were they thinking?
As far as I am concerned, the government is in my pocket for way too many things! I would like to be able to choose some of the things my tax dollars go to, not be told! Have you seen the email that seems to around yearly that lists 100 things we pay taxes on now that we didn't 100 years ago? The government makes so many of our decisions anymore where none of us have any choice. I feel like we are sheep being led to the slaughter. They "tell" us what we need and we so blindly follow along. We have to wake up!!!
My tax dollars already pay for far too many unnecessary things - if people want to watch PBS then they should pay for it - if i want to watch a premium channel on my TV through my DISH Network, i have to pay for it, so in my opionion it's the same issue.
The government should not be involved with the media. It should be privately owned. Too much of the "information" coming from PBS is politically slanted and should not be funded with my money. I do not watch it and do not wish to pay for its propoganda.
This is radio. Mrs. Kroc, (McDonald's) left a huge amount...millions to support the radio broadcasting. That was very nice of her. I believe there are needier programs to fund before PBR.
No, no, NO! I am a HUGE fan of public television, but I don't think it's an appropriate use of tax money. And you cannot deny the leftist tilt, which makes it even worse to support the network with tax dollars. Given its exhaustive telethons, I certainly think PBS has the time, ability and strategy to attract advertising dollars. This is the land of opportunity and free commerce. If the product is worthy in the eyes of the public, advertisers will jump in. Use my tax dollars for highway repair, education and law enforcement!
At times PBS can be a liberal propoganda outlet. Why should our tax dollars fund any news source? Why should a conflict of interest such as government sponsored radio and TV be allowed by the American people? If any other government were to do it, we Americans would think it suspect. Why don't we call it suspect when our government does it? Are Americans paying attention?
First, the Constitution forbids it.
Second, if people want it enough to pay for it, it will survive. If not, let it die. Such is capitalism. Let the system work.
Third, some of the programming is good but I disagree with much of it. I'm not the only one with this opinion. Our tax dollars should not be used to support that with which we disagree.
PBS is politically biased, and there is simply no reason that the government (which is, you'll recall, funded by ALL U.S. Taxpayers) should be funding a political mouthpiece. No doubt there is some worthwhile content on PBS, but as with most commercial enterprises, the gap will readily be filled by an entrepreneurial sole or soles. Our government needs to stop trying to be everything and stick to core essential government services.
In most other Western nations a tax on TV and radio ownership is how they fund "public" broadcasters. In Germany the local public radio stations in most large cities have symphony orchestras and their own performance centers. Yet in this land of 400 cable channels (and still nothin' on) we quibble over $400 million dollars --- a small fraction of what public TV and radio raises on its own each year. Mobil Exxon had 40 Billion in revenue during the past year. How about a 1% tax on that to raise the entire public broadcasting appropriation for one year.
Let me start by saying I love P.B.S. It is quality education and entertainment all mixed together. However, I do not believe the government should be funding P.B.S. I will not personally support P.B.S. as long as my money is already supporting them through my taxes. I believe the government is using everyone's tax dollars for things it has not business supporting. If there were major cutbacks in the things that should be funded privately, there would be money for all the necessities a government should fund. (Supposing that all politicians and governement contractors and employees were honest.)
PBS is anything but unbiased. Their just one more liberal media outlet, with Bill Moyer leading their liberal ways. This is just one more way for people to blame our President for one more thing, instead of putting the blame where it needs to be. When are people in this country going to start beign accountable for their own actions, choices, and words? Oh wait...let me guess, that's somehow Bush's fault too.
Pure and simple. We MUST have PBS as it continues to be one of the very few news sources that remains uncompromised in reporting the events of our time. Without PBS we have the likes of FOX News wantabe's flooding our various channels with slanted, sensationlized garbage....
I love PBS sometimes and other times it reaally annoyes me. The Natn'l Geographic is GREAT! I love it a lot but some of the bad things about PBS can be totally horrible! The teaching of nothing but evolution like it is "not a THEORY" and some of the strangest things can show up on it. I love antiques Road show,and the British humor shows but laying all that aside Taxpayer money needs to be spent elsewhere right now. I don't know of many children who have not grown up with Seasame Street. As long as profitable programming like the operas and childrens programs are first in line I say Okay. The things I get most annoyed with is the strange classroom settings I have seen over the years.
I have cable TV; without it reception in my area is nil. I have the basic package; having reviewed what the bigger ones offer, I saw nothing in them worth the extra money. The basic package gives me access to the best of what TV has to offer: local news, Jeopardy, a rare “special”, and . . . two PBS stations. I like so many interesting topics, GOOD entertainment, and being informed before I vote. Very few of us have time to sit and read all the books and magazines necessary to fulfill any one of these desires let alone all of them. Yet much needed to fulfill these goals is on PBS. And, for this multitasking generation, it can be enjoyed and absorbed while doing something else! (I work at crafts, exercise, or eat while watching; you could even text message while watching!)
As others have observed, most of the negative comments seem to be based on viewing only one show, or complain because one show “made it in the big time”. To the latter, I would like to say that if PBS had not taken a chance on “Sesame Street” and aired it initially, no one would have ever heard of Big Bird or Elmo or Burt and Ernie. Countless children would never have come to know and LEARN from these lovable Muppets. Being non-commercial, PBS stations that carry the show do not advertise any of the commercial spinoff items. Commercial TV does that. To the former, let me remind that commercial newspapers and TV stations are biased. PBS offers broad viewpoints, opinions from many sides, and information often not addressed ANYWHERE ELSE. If the one show you watched is overly liberal, try another . . . you may find it overly conservative. Better yet, try PBS programs that offer a third, fourth, or fifth viewpoint. You will NOT hear these other “sides” anywhere else because commercially supported media see only two sides to any issue.
PBS cannot “go commercial”; it would end up like all the other trashy commercial stations—we already have too many of those. PBS cannot operate strictly on donations; with money being tight in everyone’s’ pockets, it is harder and harder for PBS stations to meet their annual viewer donation goals.
The government is already committed to educating the American people through required schooling. PBS provides the "continuing education" portion of that schooling. Those who take advantage of this means of “keeping up” make better citizens; who can make better, informed decisions for supporting and voting on issues; to continue growing a better America; creating (one can hope) a continuingly improving government.
NOTE: Ken Jackson has a point . . . . . . . . . though that is another issue.
Why on earth are my tax dollars being wasted on PBS. Which I have to pay for anyway because you have to have cable or satellite to view any channels now. I think everyone's tax dollars should be spent elsewhere. I have an idea, stop wasting money on tv shows and reduce the gas tax so people can afford to drive to work!
We have, because of the lack of funding for education and the arts, an uneducated electorate that repeatedly votes for politicians whose only purpose is to get re-elected (not to serve the people). Public Broadcasting puts the truth in front of its membership.
I realy like some of the programs on PBS and my wife and I support it with
donations. That said I am totly against Gov funding.
First it is not the Fed's job , Secound Gov funding will ruin PBS look at the so
called National Arts program.
The min the Fed's start talking control of PBS and make no mistake once they fund PBS the Fed's will control it.
When this happends my donations stop.
Check the Constitution: funding radio and television broadcasts is NOT mentioned in the role of our government.
If left to our own devices, we would soon devise entertaining and informative communications.
IF the government was not spending taxpayers' dollars on unauthorized projects, we'd have more in our own pockets to use as we chose....
When the government 'supports' it also rules. We don't need more politically-correct garbage.
We need access to broadcasting that isn't just driven by ratings and corporate dollars. There's a place for commerical TV and professional wrestling, and there's a place for public TV and NewsHour.
Plus I get more in-depth coverage of issues on my local public TV station than on the commercial stations. And I know I can let my kids watch without having to change the channel when a commercial comes on for some blood-and-guts cop show.
$400 million for public TV stations across the nation is nothing compared to what the defense industry gets, and I'd trust public TV way more than Halliburton.
What I get for my tax dollar on public TV is absolutely worth subsidizing at the Federal level.
I think that whatever Big Brother pays for, Big Brother will have say over. So, to keep PBS the wonderful station that it is, it needs to be funded by the people who watch it, or want to advertise on it. If Big Brother pays, they can put whatever offensive commercials they want, and I would like to have at least one channel I can let my children watch nowadays.
Please don't take PBS away that is the only cartoons that come on tv. I have only an antenna and PBS is my kids cartoon source. and a very good one at that. How would my kids live without Curious George, Clifford, Dragon Tales, Super Why, Jakers, Zula Patrol, Cyberchase, Arthur, Mya and MIguel, Barney, Seasame Street, Bob the Builder, Thomas the train, Caiou, or Mr. Rogers. Anyways, we don't watch anything but the cartoons on PBS but M-F that is a majority of what comes on PBS. Also, since the gov. made that new convertor box mandatory, we can now pick up the PBS Kids channel, which is catoons 24/7 whoo hoo thank someone for that. By the way that is the only good thing about the new switch to digital, I am getting tired of that darn box saying no signal or cutting in and out like satelitte. So whatever you do if you want to be smart please at least keep the kids pbs it is providing alot of young kids with some educational tv.
The government has no business using our hard-earned tax dollars to fund any radio station whose purpose is entertainment (or any other form of entertainment for that matter). My suspicion is that NPR appeals to a relatively small percentage of the population. Its programming is anything but non-biased (have you listened to Democracy Now recently?). It is exactly this type of funding of special interest projects, earmarks, etc, etc that puts our budget in the red and makes our taxes so high. PBS should learn to be self sufficient!
Where else can I go to hear an in-depth report, interview, or analysis? Only Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley on late night TV which is a public station or the radio's one or two stations. We still are supporting them privately as the government funds don't cover all the needs of the station. Through the years our cultural, political, musical, artistic, medical, educational, and rehabilitation
facilities get cut from budgets to incur the gargantuan amounts of money we spend on wars, waste, and scams perpetrated by CEO's and government officials.
Thomas Jefferson said to "compel a man to furnish contributions" to support ideas with which he disagrees is both "sinful and tyrannical." Our founders understood that we will not have a free press if the government compels people, through taxation, to support certain ideas and censor others.
Let's get back to the principles of freedom. The issue is not whether people like certain "arts" programming but whether Bill Moyers' political agenda should be funded by our tax dollars.
As I see it, likes and dislikes are not the issue, the issue is, does the Constitution of the United States allow for this kind of expenditure? No. That finalizes it. No . And there are many other gross misuses of our tax monies. We are a country based on law, not public opinion that just leads to confusion, and bankruptcy, which you see that we have already.
PBS needs to compete just like every other tv broadcaster. No taxpayer subsidies!
I voted YES thinking that I was voting FOR PBS but the question was negatively slanted; a NO meant YES for PBS and a YES meant NO. I can't believe 75% of the US sees no value in their varied programs. I shall go back to the poll to vote NO twice.
I rarely watch PBS...can't stand Bill Moyers. Might watch if he got kicked off.
I find it remarkable that this taxpayer supported system boasts the only reporters who actually push back when fed statements that are just not true. It is a joy to listen to NPR and their news coverage. One can count on getting facts amidst the spin and talking point pablum to which interviewees tend to want to stick. I also find the "thought provocation" level to be top notch even in the entertainment part of their broadcast mission.
To all of the politicized commentators on this list - please bear in mind that there is more to life than politics and PBS remembers that! My toddler and I are learning ASL (American Sign Language to those of you who are not as multiculturally aware) thanks to Sunday mornings on PBS. Not to mention that the absolute best quality, highly cultural and artistic community events that have happened in the area where I live were engineered by our local PBS affiliate. We (including my child!) would not be allowed to experience such beautiful quality theater as Cirque du Soleil if not for our PBS station, nor would we be introduced, artistically, to other cultures if we did NOT have public programming. I've NEVER SEEN ANY major network (other than those of us who are sattelite or cable subscribers and have access to Bravo, A&E, BBC America, etc.) that offered ANYTHING beyond mindless pandering to the masses that seem to believe that "cultural, artistic" offerings should consist of Velvet Elvises (no offense, but I can color inside the lines and make my own "velvet" artwork). If I didn't live as far north as I do, I wouldn't have as much of an issue with this geographical areas choices, but I don't live that far to the South where Elvis is god and banjos are the only musical instruments of note. Before anyone jumps all over my case about this - my sister lived in Tennessee for most of my life so I DO actually know whereof I speak...
Please Don't let quality die, regardless of political slants - keep PBS alive!!!!!!!!
I don't believe I should be paying taxes for programming with a liberal slant. As a broadcast journalist, I applied for a job with PBS and NPR a number of years ago. My membership in the NRA apparently turned them off. Only liberals need apply, and only liberal stances will be taken. Besides, local PBS stations beg for money all year long, and the truly great programming only exists when major fundraisers are taking place.
PBS is very is partison and unfair. The fact is that PBS is "Politically "Correct" and part of that reason is that it is politically funded. Use your head folks, don't be deceived.
tax must be aclined to pay and support pbs.why? it must because pbs gives us a view of eduacation.
I am all for public TV but I understand that PBS is capable of doing well without the help of the government's money. Let's use 400 million for other needs.
Back in the 50's when there were four channels, three entertainment networks and an 'educational' channel typically from a local university, publically funded broadcasting made some sense. Now with hundreds of specialized channels available to most and dozens available to those still on rabbit ears, there is no need for funding PBS. There probably never was constitutional justification for the spending of tax money. The biggest problem is that whoever is not accountable to the authority of people or market demands are free to do what seems right in their own eyes. PBS will survive without puplic funding because those who want it are willing to suport it. I would rather not. That should be an option for me.
My children LOVE PBS. I love the fact that there is not much advertising (in reality no advertising, but the "supporters", like ChuckECheese show a blip at the beginning and ending of the program so my kids know their motto, etc). We have opted not to get cable or satellite TV due to the fact that even on those kids shows, I find many objectionable programs. With PBS, I know it's all educational during the daytime (we live is SC so they run kids shows from 8am to 5pm) and even many evening programs, like Nature and Wild, are very educational. I'm sure we'd find Discovery and the like even better, but I don't want all the other channels that come with cable or satellite. We HATE programs like SpongeBob and the Cartoon Networks evening line-up. Many low-income households cannot afford cable or satellite TV so PBS is still very much needed. My 3 yo can now recite his ABC's due to watching SuperWhy every morning. If the US wants to promote education and keep up with the other countries, we need the educational programming of Sesame Street... Disney and NickJr do not provide that kind of educational programming. Furthermore the other 3 major networks show no interest in educational programming and opt to run trashy soap operas, court TV and talk shows during the daytime; and whatever happened to shows like Schoolhouse Rock on Saturday morning cartoons, those are even hard to find anymore!
Just my 2 cents.
A concerned parent
I think PBS should be supported IF they are goign to include programming for all. There are a vast amount of American's who watch PBS either because they do not have cable or just for pleasure such as my mom. My son use to watch it but has switched to the cartoons on Nick and Cartoon Network. I enjoyed the cartoons they showed, which were clean and family oriented yet there was little or no diversity there - meaning could there at least be one cartoon focused on African American's.
I, myself, enjoy the shows because they are not focused on the normal that today's programming focus on, i.e., sex, violence and more!
Government should NEVER fund the media. It makes me sad to see how many people don't understand the proper role of government. PLEASE read the constitution! We are not a communist state! (at least not yet)
PBS news and reporting is very bias to the liberal side of most issues and candidates. I believe it could be good to provide some minimal support to public radio BUT the reporting must be more fair and balanced!!!!
PBS and NPR are too political plus are not balanced. I no longer support our local stations and do not what my tax dollars going to support the liberal view point presented on PBS and NPR.
My question is: How could anyone watch PBS for more than an hour and not see the government's bias blatantly thrown in our faces? And the majority of you want me to pay for that?! I guess that proves how very successful the current brainwashing experiment is going! Have we not learned from history? Oh, I forgot, you can't fix stupid.
PBS may be nice, maybe not.
Someone please list for me the provision in the US Constitution which says the the role of the Federal Government is to provide for "Public" television>?
Please, let's let the capital markets, that is, you and me, do their thing. That is the only way Freedom, this grand American experiment, can work and last.
Of course PBS is left leaning. That is obvious. Consider this? Has PBS ever covered aissue that it didn't call for a government response, or a larger government response?
Let freedom reign, not government conrtol.
I love America! paul
The PBS shows have become very political. Has everyone forgotten the
debacle about a year ago.? The powers at PBS wanted a certain politcal
slant on a series that had been made for PBS and the person that made
it said no.
I don't want my money used for the liberal PBS to spread its slanted agenda!!!!!
As a librarian I applaud PBS for its wonderful cultural, historical, childrens', and news programs which have no match in the regular media. We have to keep supporting this kind of programing to allow people to see the best that media has to offer. Thanks to everyone who does. By the way, citizens should be supporting this, too.
PBS is a continuing educational service that is available to anyone who has a radio ( & lives in a reception area). It is versatile & credible. One doesn't have to watch TV nor pay for cable. The value is demonstrated the quality of programming they are able to provide. The amount being paid by the government is miniscule in comparison to a lot of the porkbarrel items that are attached to legislation.
Why should we support a liberal media with our tax dollars. The people from PBS may think they are "fair & balanced", but their many of the viewers and listeners know the truth, PBS isn't.
FOX News and Rush Limbaugh (& other consevative radio hosts) are so popular because they have the courage and honesty to tell us the all the news, both liberal & conservative.
Do you think PBS could or would be able to achieve that level of news reporting? If they can't, then their support from our tax dollars should be removed. PBS should raise their support thru advertizers or private contributions like other radio & tv networks and stations.
No! No! No! TV, art, then earmarks, special projects, good grief where does this end? If an entitity cannot support itself through it's own advertising, funding raising, sales, or donation network why should tax payers foot the bill? This is exactly why government operates in the red while corporate America & private citizens have to budget, cutback, do without, or (God forbid) work! Why is this so difficult for the government to understand? Why is it ok to raise taxes on any working class American for these whims? PBS is a nice alternative & has it's place but let it support itself as the do the other media concerns. Less government more individual & responsibility!
PBS is anything but objective. Bill Moyers uses our tax dollars to promote his own left wing agenda. If some people like it let them support it...
PBS offers viewers and listeners quality programming in the arts, travel, historical documentaries, world news, classical literature and drama and music, childrens programs etc. Many people do not have access to the great concert halls or opera houses or theatres or art galleries or museums, or cannot afford these cultural venues. Many cannot afford to travel abroad, with access to the various cultures and life styles of other nations of the world. For many people, TV and radio are their major source of entertainment and news . PBS offers cultural and educational programs, unlike commercial networks whose primary objective in programming is not to educate, but only to entertain , in order to impose their commercials, usually shallow or sometimes shocking. Our family watches only the PBS channels and listens to the classical radio stations . The government owes us the alternative to the insiped programs of commercial television, and should fulfill its obligation to retain high cultural standards in our entertainment media.
Real people view PBS
Rich & poor
Some people would never be able to be exposed to the arts, culture, nature,inspired thinking, financial honesty, children's education etc. that should be available to all.
Without support from congress, PBS would not be possible.
I have known of adminstrators at pbs that make considerably more money than I do. They live in gated communities, send their children to private schools and own expensive imported cars. Why should we support them??
Anyone who believes PBS is balanced and impartial correspondence has been drinking Alice's potions. While there is a less "leftish" bent on some of the PBS material, the lean in public broadcasting is decidedly left, as is most "mass media" broadcastors, and PBS is not different. And as a recipient of government dollars for programming, every time PBS presents a contraversial hot potato, it is supposed to present time for the opposing position. Has anyone seen anything on PBS as to the balancing arguements regarding the issue of global warming. Nor has their been balanced presentations of arguements on opposite sides of the evolution/creationism theories. PBS, like too many other media, just present it all as though global warming and evolution were proven, beyond a shadow of doubt, and completely disregard the enormous amount of data debunking the urgency of global warming, and the horendous gaps in evolutionary chain of evidence.
This is the problem in our society these days. The population is predominantly in the dark as to the bias that is in most every form of television media, with rare exceptions. PBS unbiased...? Sure, and Santa is bringing me a Porshe this year.
While some people think the government shouldn't be involved in producing our entertainment, without its support to counteract the only fair to mediocre quality (at best) of most broadcast television, there would be little of cultural value for those without access to cable.
As a very recent college graduate and up-and-coming grad student, I have found PBS indispensable! Forsaking the many music channels, which are vastly (and unfortunately) more popular with my age group, I feel that I have truly benefited from listening to PBS. I am happy to have my tax dollars supporting one of the least biased news sources available to Americans today. If only I could choose how the rest of my tax dollars were spent...
No...The left wing leaning of views expressed on tsuch programs as Bill Moyers must not be funded without offering counter points. The interview with the Rev Wright was shameless.
They have had it their way for years now, spouting their lliberal views with our taxpayers money. I even see commercials on there now, when I occasionally pass through. I watch Antiques Roadshow, sometimes, that's all.
Of course PBS is biased towards the left. Just like public radio. Just ask Bill Moyers and Tavis Smiley; both liberals. Name a conservative with his or her own show on PBS. The show Frontline tows the liberal line with each show whether about evil Republican politicians or the environment. You liberals are so comfortable with your dominance of media (movies, TV, newspapers, music, etc.) that you think Bill Moyer's views are just common sense and main stream. They're not.
Fact is, you liberals want PBS because you want every corner of the media you can get to indoctrinate and scare people to your views. Plus, who would watch Bill Moyers if he was on cable? No-one!
I'm a conservative Republican. Why should I have to pay for Bill Moyers to lie to me? Where is the balance?
STOP the subsidy of liberal PBS (BS is right) and Public TV.
Two Points: 1) The vast majority of PBS programming is non-political and thus non-partisan. As for the rest of the programming, it provides a welcome relief from the mindless patriotism-is-what-we-say-it-is content found on the Big Corporate Media. 2) Most interesting cable programs cost money, and not everyone can afford it. Why should only the well off have access to good programming?
Just watch a few episodes of "Masterpiece Theater" and then see if you can tell me, with a straight face, that this quality exists on commercial television.
Everyone has their pet projects and programs they think the government should support. We have to stop this idea of government support funding everything. If it is that important to you, support it yourself. If it is not important enough to support it out of your pocket directly, then it is not important enough to continue.
The government takes money out of my paycheck to give to others and to programs - who are they to decide that I am less needy than others or others are more needy than me?
Now, more than ever, the citizens of the United States need a non-biased broadcasting medium. Current broadcasting mediums are all beholding to outside funders, i.e. corporations and other entities with agenda's.
I am confused with the comments noting that PBS in non-partisan, that is absolutely not correct, do you actually listen to what they say? I love PBS and Public Radio, but come on people, it IS liberal media! I do not believe they should be funded by the government, the government should wean Public Broadcasting Media off funding by decreasing their funding each year. Can someone actually tell me that PBS funding is a wiser use of $400,000 of our tax dollars than other government programs that help to sustain life instead of entertain and inform life. There are many other avenues for entertainment and information, but not the sustainment of quality of life in this country or other countries. How about using that money to aid in ending world hunger?
How uninformed and media UNsavy are you people? PBS is NOT unbiased. It is very left-leaning and I for one am SICK of our tax dollars going to support it. I wouldn't want that if it were right-leaning either. If it's so good, let a broadcasting company buy it and take care of its programs and its expenses. WHY should the taxpayers of America fund this? Its time for the 'arts' (etc., etc.) to take care of itself. Ridiculous!
Definition of Objective: “To take into account all available information and to avoid any form of prejudice or bias.” The above definition of objective is not what I hear on PBS. It is slanted, very strongly, to the left. PBS has some very entertaining and excellent, non-political shows that I enjoy. Their news programs are so far to the left; Bill Moyers comes to mind, as to be ridiculous and should not be funded by our tax dollars. I would not mind the money being spent if it were truly non-bias and both sides, conservative and liberal were presented. Until that happens the money, regardless of how small of a percentage of the federal budget it is, should be cut.
There is no charter in the US constitution that provides for the broadcasting or publication of any kind of media. At this point Sesame Street, Omni and other great show could be picked up by private broadcasters. If PBS is to survive it should do so on its' own and though the contributions of those who watch it. If people don't pay then the broadcasts should stop.
PBS not only provides the most objective news available, it gives background and context rather than just soundbites. Also, it often is the only outlet for important news that doesn't have the sensational aspects that seems to be required by commercial media.
PBS is no longer needed. The numerous media outlets provide a diverse assortment of education and opinion shows. If it continues...fine....however supporting it with tax dollars when we have a large Federal deficit is not wise.
How about using those funds to help feed the poor, or as some would like ..cut taxes, stimulating the economy?
To call a lot of the PBS programming fair and unbiased is not the truth. To see my tax dollars undermining my own personal viewpoints consistently rankles me. $400 million not spent on PBS is still $400 million not spent. And does this include all the monies spent to perpetuate NPR as well? Please pull the plug on the cash cow at my expense and let Barbra Streisand and George Clooney and the like pay for it; they have the cash (we don't: we have kids instead) and it supports their views, not mine!
To cut the funds is to turn the water off, to dry “the fountain of
knowledge” that provides educational programing and entertainment.
To silence the truth and opposing view points that do not coincide with
the administration and the far right believers.
A government that “gives billion of dollars to very wealthy
farmers and landowner..." but no funds for public programing!
With the possible exception of History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and National Geographic, there is NO quality programming on cable. I believe it was Newton Minow who called commercial TV a 'vast wasteland,' and then and now Public Broadcasting was the real bright spot in an otherwise blighted landscape. By all means, let's keep Public Television and Radio.
Even though PBS has some quality educational programs such as Masterpiece Theater, Reading Rainbow, and Mr. Rodgers, I do not believe it should be funded by taxpayers since its news programs are definitely too liberal. They are too bias to make a fair assistment for all individuals listening to them. At one time I was a member but became disappointed in the political bias that was developing.
The quality of most free and cable channels has continued to go down while the time spent on commercials has gone up. PBS gets my vote for public funding and interesting programming.
Federal Funding for PBS should definitely continue if for no other reason than to allow Bill Moyer to be able to give us unbiased, intelligent reporting on the political scene in the country. Fox (Faux?) News, CNN, and all the rest of them are a sham today. We need independent, unbiased reporting, with the conclusions being drawn by the viewers, NOT the interviewers.
Of course, there are many other good reasons such as seeing such programs as Celtic Woman. You certainly would not see that anywhere else in TV land.
Robert H.
PBS and NPR offer intelligent and thoughtful programming. It is the mosst democratic venue in the media. Their funding by tax paryer dollars means they are beholden to me not some corporate interest with an agenda. They provide thorough, factual information. The entertainment provided is second to none. This is the most efficient use of tax payer money.
There is no other programming on TV, cable or broadcast, that provides the depth and objectivity provided by PBS. Commercial TV caters to the lowest common denominator. Network news, which used to provide quality and objective reporting by Murrow, Cronkite, and others, has given way to economic pressures to lure and keep advertisers, thus in-depth reporting has given way to sensationalism. I don't know what I'd do without Lehrer and "Frontline". PBS also presents many programs on important current and historical topics not seen elsewhere. Because Mr. Bush is not a PBS viewer I think he greatly misunderestimates the quality and uniqueness of PBS programming.
Where is this "high quality" programming on cable channels? We can't find it. We watch PBS about 75% of the time, other broadcast stations 15%(mostly news), and cable 10%(mostly sports). PBS is the oasis in the vast wasteland.
I'm amazed by the "socialism and public TV are bad" crowd. You do realize that we are a semi-socialist state, and have been for a century, right? You do realize that Franklin, Jefferson, et. al. intended us to be socialist, right? And that we're the last major world power not to be "socialist"? The "tax and spend" form does indeed work, look at western Europe's economy versus our's these days, and for the last two decades. Add that the best programming in the British Isles is on the BBC, which PBS was based on. It's unfortunate that Fred Rogers isn't here to help us this time. So instead of going to quality programming and education, the $200 million will go to ineffective "abstinence only" programs and faith-based initiatives. Better we be anti-socialist than preserve the separation of church and state. Franklin and Jefferson would love that.
NPR is the only place where you can hear news and information from all sides of the issue WITHOUT being frequently bombarded and assaulted by advertising. Yes, it should have government funding.
The corporate broadcast news media are continuing to cut back reporters and other personnel, and no longer do a good job of "serving the people" as their mandate dictated before the Communications Act was disembowled during the Reagan years. Tabloidism and reality shows dominate network television, and some cable operations are totally irresponsible. It is without doubt necessary that tax dollars should support PBS, the only responsible alternative for news and programming.
It amazes me how often people say PBS has no left-wing slant. I suppose the ultra-left looks central when seen from the far left. propaganda dirven commentary is the standard at PBS, and we would be united without the likes of Bill Moyers, NOW, Washington Week and Frontline, to name a few.
It amazes me how often people say PBS has a left-wing slant. I suppose the center looks left when seen from the far right. Thought-provoking commentary is the standard at PBS, and we would be poorer without the likes of Bill Moyers and Frontline.
we have 500 stations available. there is no need for PBS or NPR.
in addition, these public stations are agenda driven and prejudiced toward higher taxes and other advocacy positions.
stop funding them. we need our money.
YET AGAIN WE THANK THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION WHO TEACHES THE PEOPLE NOT TO THINK . so letts goin gett som beer and watch som pro-raslin george. INTELLIGENT REPORT!!!!!! NEED I SAY (MORE-ON) The Subject.
I know of no other source of real information in any media. All facets are delivered to any home in America willing to take the time to learn something. Learn about everything from the human condition to the wildlife that lives in the Adirondacks.
Our government should support any endeavor that allows the population to sit back relax and learn. It is too easy to turn control over to the advertisng dollar driven corporations that have a real agenda like General Electric or even the soft and harmless Disney Corp. We need to support the Public Corp.
Today's on site reporting from earthquake avalanches in China burying whole villages with people heroically clinging together to help all survive is the best news reporting I have EVER heard anywhere in my 76 years! Because 2 NPR reporters were in the region preparing special reports for next week, they were able to interview an English teacher in a devastated school that was shaking as she spoke, a young mother with 4 children (one baby) who walked 20 miles & still couldn't find help, and a man helping others whose whole family was still covered and dead. The facts WITH EMOTION INCLUDED really had a huge impact on my mind and emotions for the whole day today. It was like I was there it was so REAL. And it was a long report, unheard of in any other venue but NPR.
If our government listened to NPR more, they would avoid many of the mistakes they don't realize they are making.
IF one has a wide enough education to appreciate all of life, including the arts, science, "Birdnotes," new thought, political implications, history of middle east conflicts, unusual cultural traditions and perspectives, as well as typical news, one would expect to keep up their education the easiest way: just LISTEN TO NPR AND STAY INTELLIGENT AND THOUGHTFUL....OR AT LEAST RESPECTFUL AND ENLIGHTENED!
Here's a challenge: Stay up till 11 pm Pacific and listen to New Dimensions Radio till midnight Sundays. (94.9 FM). Hear many new directions of thinking, exploring science and personal growth and human exploration in new fields and spiritual enlightenment interviews. See if YOU don't grow your Self in the process!
NPR is the best company I can invite into my home and car. If it were cancelled I don't know what I would do for company (I live alone now as a new widow) or for stimulation while I work at home or drive.
We could all give more during the pledge drives, YES??
With gratitude,
Lee Landrud, Seattle
Government Money should be limited to 5% of PBS Budget. I agree that PBS is biased liberal. The news reporting is more commentary than news reporting, BUT with Government (taxpayer) funding, however, with some government reporting, the public can ask for an audit of how the PBS budget is spent.
To make the argument that PBS is not needed because cable channels offer high quality programing is absurd. Standard television is moronic at best; PBS offers some of the only worthwhile programing available. I fully support our government in spending money for PBS rather than in continuing the shameful and wasteful endevour in Iraq.
Although PBS is wonderful, there are so many other organizations and groups that need our tax dollars more. As a nation we need to put our limited financial resources (the taxpayers' money) into finding solutions for energy resources, Social Security, immigration issues, and education to name just a few. Also your presentation is flawed. You did not present all facts on both sides of this issues, which slanted your poll for the results you favor (your own salaries.)
NO! PBS stands for Public Braodcasting Station. PUBLIC. Funded by the PUBLIC.
The government is too big already. We are getting more Socialistic everyday.
Grants and the viewers should be support this station.