What needs to be understood is that these sorts of enterprises need to change to remain relevant in a digital world that is also changing. In 10 years, what is the delivery system even going to look like? Advertizing as we know it is changing anyway... so looking at what is past, is not going to help with what is coming in the future...

Really I would think the newer delivery systems would be better tailored to something that is CPB, because the supporting by ad or subscription is better accomplished across a digital frontier rather than a broadcast one.

But I would agree that government support should be winding down. But y'know, it's scary to figure this new stuff out, don'cha know...

Now there are 15- to 20-second segments and, particularly on TV with its visual elements, they look just like ads.

15- to 20-second segments? Last time I watched, it was a full-blown commerical about how some oil company was a good corporate citizen.

"Sesame Street could survive on network TV," CPB spokesman Tim Isgitt told me. "But there will be a Sprite in the scene and the kids will be assaulted by Mattel ads every 10 minutes."

So, the kids will be "assaulted" by ads. Of course, the "assaulting" ads would be for non-CPB toys. After all, Sesame Street these days is, in reality, little more than a 30-minute commerical for "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls and "Big Bird" wind-up toys.

Nickelodeon and Disney have become the children's programming channels of choice. The Learning Channel, Discovery, and National Geographic provide adequate science and natural history programming. And, every once in a greath while, A&E actually shows something artsy and/or entertaining. Throw in the History Channel and BBC-America and you've pretty much replaced PBS. Although I will admit, it PBS went away, I'd miss "Masterpiece Mystery."

I'm one of those people who probably wouldn't even notice if PBS went off the air tomorrow. Like SwissArmyD said, the way we get television is changing and it's time to keep up or go the way of the dinosaur. I think it's time for the government to start using our tax dollars for more important things. No one "needs" public TV.

Dumb. Not only can you avoid the commercials by purchasing DVDs (or sticking to Disney Jr and Nick Jr) you can borrow kids' DVDs for free at the local library. Also, the "mentions" have always been ads. I remember when I was little I would ask to watch "ReadingRainbowBroughtToYouByKellogs" as though it were one word.

The good shows on PBS, for kids and adults, would be picked up in a hot minute by cable networks. The cable networks might've even asked Katy Perry to put a damn sweater on and not make her face look like a blow-up doll when she's plugging her new CD---oh, I mean, guest-hosting---on a kids' show. Seriously, I'd rather have a Sprite or a Juicy Juice Box in every episode than that.

There are Sesame Street characters on my kid's Pampers. Public Television has obviously found additional sources of funding for its programming. I'll concur with the commenters above who mention that Nick Jr and Disney Playhouse have comparable children's programming, commercial-free... If I must be subjected to that crap, I'll take Micky Mouse Clubhouse over Barney any day.

My facebook "friends" keep posting the "Tell Congress: Don't Pull the Plug on NPR and PBS" status update. Because, you know, Facebook petitions and awareness campaigns make a huge difference. Of the ten or so people who have reposted it, I'd say that maybe ONE of them could name a program on NPR.

Everyone talks about cutting budgets, then throws a fit when their pet project is on the chopping block. Public Televion and Radio are NOT ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS, and the government has no business funding them.

You can also tivo out the commercials, after a while my son started asking me to.

With all the new children's networks- sprout, 3 nicelodeans etc- I don't see a lack of programming that only PBS can fill. And don't give me anything about poor kids not being able to afford to watch network TV. There is an inverse relationship between income and the size of the TV you own.

Anyone got any links that discuss the intellectual property PBS and NPR own and why the hell they can't turn a profit on Barney, Curious George, Clifford, Plaza Sesamo, Garrison Keillor etc?

I'll take Micky Mouse Clubhouse over Barney any day.

(to the barney song)

I love you, you love me, I'll eat that stupid m-o-o-ou-se.

;-)

Disney has plenty of commercials, its just they are all for other Disney products

If we cut our defense spending in half, it would still be just a little less than the next five countries on the list added together. Balance the budget by cutting PBS? That would be like trying to lose weight by only eating eleven donuts a day rather than twelve.

Legitimate State Violence

Fred:  The city council is asking for donations to build a new park.
Mike:  Why are you pointing a gun at me?
Fred:  I thought it would put you in a more generous mood.

09/24/10 - National Review by Kevin D. Williamson [edited]
=== ===
What justifies violence by the state? This is an important moral concern.

To me, it is reasonable to shove a gun in someone's face to stop murder, rape, or robbery. It is entirely unreasonable to extort money to study monkeys high on cocaine. It is illegitimate for government to use force or the threat of force for projects that are not inherently public in character.

This useful distinction is not a figure of speech: A project is a legitimate concern of the state only if you are willing to haul off someone at gunpoint because of it.
=== ===

"...its just they are all for other Disney products"
True... or other Disney shows. Same with the "commercial free" Nick Jr, and PBS- I don't think any channel is truly commercial-free.

Ditto Conan and ahw. There is entire aisle of Sesame Street toys at Target. Why on earth Sesame Street of all things needs taxpayer support is beyond me. Revenue from Sesame Street toy sales could probably support all of PBS.

And why on earth are they even making new episodes of Sesame Street? It's not like the alphabet or the numbers from 1 to 10 have been changing lately.

PBS commercials? How about the endless pledge breaks both on radio and their TV specials. If I didn't have TIVO I wouldn't bother with the TV shows and I've stopped listening to NPR while driving because I get so irritated with their ultra-socialist minority and Israel centered political slant it incited me to road rage.

just to clear up, PBS doesn't own seseme street... it is show produced by CTW, just like any other show is owned and crreated by a producer. PBS orders and buys the shows... and I have heard they don't pay consistantly or on time.

from that perspective they are no different from any other television channel. Except where they get their money from.

Barney makes money. Where is the return on my tax dollar?

"If we cut our defense spending in half, it would still be just a little less than the next five countries on the list added together."

And if we cut our social spending in half, our Air Force would be flying starships in weeks.

But that buys votes.

cut our defense budget in half? I don't think so, but I am all for getting out of South Korea and Japan. Their economies are certainly big enough to pay for their defense. Same with Germany. As far as PBS not being a "big" number, when you cut expenses at home I guarantee you can only trim small ticket items. Things that make uo the biggest expense, like property taxes and mortgage are untouchable. SO you have to cut things like "heat", and aeating out, which are small ticket items but low hanging fruit

Conan said: "The Learning Channel, Discovery, and National Geographic provide adequate science and natural history programming."

Okay, I'll take exception to that statement. I don't have National Geographic, but there's no way you can make that argument for TLC & Discovery. TLC especially. Every time I flip through the guide, they're showing "My Strange Addiction", "Toddlers & Tiaras", "19 Kids & Counting" and other quality programming. And I checked to see what might be on Discovery these days, and found "American Chopper", "Cash Cab", and "Dirty Jobs", so I think I know why I don't watch that one either. Isn't TLC the one obsessed with shows about Little People, too? And which channel is responsible for Kate +8 and "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant"?

Ugh. I apologize, I really hate that kind of programming. I hate most of these "reality train wreck" things. My friend the other day laughed when we were in the supermarket and I walked by the tabloids going "What the fuck is a Kardashian and why should I care?!" Ergh.

Isn't PBS all self help shows now? Susie Orman and Wayne Dryer and that power of intentions stuff? A lot of seems like an infomercial.

Okay, I'll take exception to that statement.

I'll admit I haven't actually watched Discovery or TLC in a while.

Discovery still has Shark Week, MythBusters, Man vs. Wild, How It's Made, etc. Okay...point taken...not exactly actual science.

I guess they've been bitten by the A&E bug. It used to be the Arts and Entertainment network showed arts-related programming and higher brow entertainment. Now it's all Gene Simmons, tattoo parlors, and bounty hunter reality programming.

At least Animal Planet still has animals. And the History Channel has discovered history beyond World War II.

So, maybe we do need a PBS. Who else is gonna show real science and an occassional opera? But there's no reason it can't be self-supporting ... except that every other self-supporting arts, science, or educational channel has eventually taken the low road in programming.

Who knew Idiocracy was a documentary?

Still, you bring up a good question, what the hell is a Kardashian?

"Sesame Street could survive on network TV," CPB spokesman Tim Isgitt told me. "But there will be a Sprite in the scene and the kids will be assaulted by Mattel ads every 10 minutes."

That guy is either a moron, dishonest, or both. I pay for DVDs and netflix kid shows for my kid, and I have never seen one episode of Dora the Explorer or Go Diego Go (and I'm pretty sure I've seen them all) that had a Sprite can or Mattel ad in it, despite those shows being "commercial" programming. This guy just likes taking other people's money to support his hobby horse. Thanks but no thanks, dude - I'll be the one deciding what's worthwhile programming (and at what cost) for my own kid. I'm her parent - it's MY job.

PBS gets a cut of Sesame St. merchandising, but they were too stupid to make a deal with Barney. No sympathy.
And if NPR doesn't want ads, well, ask Warren Beatty to write a check.

"Did you eat your bulgar wheat?"

For years I thought it was "vulgar" wheat.

And from your description of it, I'm not sure I was wrong.

PBS and NPR are the only sane, non-politicized, non-corporate owned place where we can get non-partisan information, without yelling, disdainment, partial truths. It is an oasis of knowledge that one can listen to without worrying about the other side. All sides are presented.

To lose PBS and NPR would only leave us with commercial broadcast. There has to be an alternative to the need to pander for profits.

So, maybe we do need a PBS. Who else is gonna show real science and an occasional opera? But there's no reason it can't be self-supporting ... except that every other self-supporting arts, science, or educational channel has eventually taken the low road in programming.

The last few "real science" shows I've seen on PBS still are talking about global warming and wind and solar replacing coal. And that was last week.

The two on the right of the McLaughlin Group have a grasp on reality.

I live in the far-end of nowhere -- my only choice is broadcast or satellite. I do broadcast and get four PBS channels. Along with the four major broadcasters (and some secondary channels).

Every single PBS show is cut so that can be run with regular commercials. To add on to that when the show ends at 26.5 minutes (not exempting for the 30-90 seconds of this show is sponsored by Delta or Kitchens.com) you have 3-3.5 minutes of we're "You're watching PBS". I don't know about anyone else -- at the 15 minute mark, I wouldn't mind a break if I need to absolutely need to take a leak.

Then the pledge weeks (months?), every quarter. Why is that the only time I get to see the Celtic Women belting out their best. If I cough up cash -- can I see them every week and you'll dump the Lawrence Welk repeats? Does anyone know he died on May 17, 1992. Name me one other show that is still in regular rotation since then. Even MASH doesn't have that level of repaeats.

For being a non-commercial station -- if you add up the numbers -- the commercials are the same, it location that changes.

PBS and NPR are the only sane, non-politicized, non-corporate owned place where we can get non-partisan information, without yelling, disdainment, partial truths. It is an oasis of knowledge that one can listen to without worrying about the other side. All sides are presented.

I am more willing to listen to non-partisan ideas.

Please give me links to the non-partisan, reality based comments on PBS's Washington Week?

Show me where Tavis Smiley has had a Republican (let alone a republican) on his show?

Can you explain to me why Now and Bill Moyers Journal were taken off the air?

"PBS and NPR are the only sane, non-politicized, non-corporate owned place where we can get non-partisan information, without yelling, disdainment, partial truths. It is an oasis of knowledge that one can listen to without worrying about the other side. All sides are presented."

BWHAHAHA! Y'know, I used to be a fan of the local NPR station, mainly because I liked their classical music programming. I even used to send them a check every now and then.

Nowdays it's all far-left political opinion, all the time. No classical music (or any other music) anymore. Just hour after hour of Cokie Roberts' ranting and raving. NPR doesn't employ anyone that they suspect might have even the slightest bit of conservative or libertarian sympathy. Juan Williams, no conservative he, was very publicly blackballed from the NPR club because he dared to ask an inconvenient question.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say about when government forces people to pay for the production of speech that they disagree with. So NPR can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Screw that ten-year phaseout stuff. Zero it out this year and let that be it. Oh, and my classical music? I get that from XM now, and the subscription is less than what NPR used to want me to contribute every year.

*****PBS and NPR are the only sane, non-politicized, non-corporate owned place where we can get non-partisan information, without yelling, disdainment, partial truths. It is an oasis of knowledge that one can listen to without worrying about the other side. All sides are presented.*****

Are you SERIOUS??? I call it socialist radio. I don't know what you're listening to, but apparently it's not what I'm listening to.

And, double post to say Cousin Dave is SPOT ON.

GRanted I left the country last summer, but back then they usually had people from both sides of an issue on NPR.

I'm not behind you on this, Amy. American free market television produces too much crap. It's good to have a bit of quality, too. If we didn't launch wars all over the place funding would be a non-issue. It is not a large percentage of our budget.

Given the Internet, PBS and NPR no longer serve much purpose. You can find content as good or better online.

Regarding commercials - we were back in the USA over the summer, for a family emergency, and my kids wound up watching a lot of TV while theadults were busy. I found it frankly pretty shocking! On some programs, up to 1/3 of the time was used for commercials! Do people not notice or not care? Or is commercial TV trying to drive viewers away and commit corpoate suicide? Even my kids thought that it was pretty horrible.

It's not about balance, its about quality. I think there's a role for the government in funding of the arts.

"I don't understand why 'balance' must come from taxpayer funded TV."

What I can't figure out is how "balance" is supposed to be a result of taxpayer funding. Why would taxpayer-funded news shows be any more objective than commercial ones? And, since federal funding makes up less than ten percent of NPR's budget, how does the influence of commercial and individual donors impact NPR's objectivity?

I think there's a role for the government in funding of the arts.

Why? Do we live in a patronage society where artists rely upon the good will of the King for their supper?

Government funded arts gets us such wonderful works as "cross in a jar of wee" and "poo on a painting".

Can you explain to me why I need to pay someone to mix art and excrement? Because I'll be honest, I sure as hell can't come up with one.

And regarding PBS - we are not a totalitarian society, we don't need official state media for propaganda. It's bad enough that we have unofficial state media spreading propaganda.

I agree with you on the excrement paintings. The standards should be higher.

Historically, artists have relied on the good will of the King for their supper. If we want art, we have to pay for it.

*****Historically, artists have relied on the good will of the King for their supper. If we want art, we have to pay for it.*****

Yes, but "we" doesn't have to be the taxpayer. If you like someone's art, you'll support it. If I don't like it, I won't.

It's called capitalism. I know it's hard to come by these days, but I think it's a way of life we need to start promoting again.

"Historically, artists have relied on the good will of the King for their supper. If we want art, we have to pay for it."

I've purchased plenty of art. Our house has quite a few art photographs, ceramics, glass sculptures, and other art works. We attend the symphony and plays, and we support the local dance community. So don't lecture me about how I'm a Philistine for not supporting government-approved "art".

Again: I'll emphasize that there is no art of any kind being broadcast by the local NPR station. It's all left-wing politics, all the time. And you know what? If it was all right-wing politics, all the time, my answer would be the same: No citizen should be compelled by government power to subsidize the production of opinions with which he or she disagrees.