digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Is PBS Still Necessary?

nytimes.com — 40 years ago it was different. There were only 3 networks, and none of them were known for challenging programming. Public broadcasting came into being out of collective despair over what had become of the airwaves. Cable has changed all that. Many channels offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on PBS, and many do it better.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 02/19/2008, -33/+627Yes!!!
    • tomboy501, on 02/19/2008, -18/+38I hear ya, vroom. The nostalgia factor has a strong pull. PBS is an old friend.
      • notque, on 02/19/2008, -6/+91And you can't exactly get their content anywhere else on the dial. Who the hell is doing a show like frontline? No one!

        The History Channel is propaganda. As is the Military channel, and many others.

        PBS is the only channel that gives part of the story correctly. It is still a positive thing.
        • Antwan718, on 02/19/2008, -13/+3Thank you BCC.
          • nospinhere, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1PBS has been cursed ever since it fired Bob Villa.
        • MattB123, on 02/19/2008, -6/+31Yeah, or at least the programming doesn't have a commercial agenda. That's important!
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -25/+7Interesting that when comparing a government news outlet to a private cable network, you call the private network propaganda. Perhaps propaganda has a different meaning now.
          • Godlike, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5Like what? I want to hear the spin on that one...
          • digitalhair, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7I think we've seen what happens when "free" market privatization hacks like yourself get your way - Iraq contracts, Blackwater mercenaries, Hurricane Katrina response, etc. Your statement illustrates the real fallacy at the core of the debate about economics in a democracy - namely, that public/government funding somehow costs taxpayers MORE than privatization of these programs do, when it is clear that the Milton Freedman free market capitalists scoring government contracts see our nation's treasury (funded by the tax-paying citizens of the U.S.) as an endless source of funds that can be plundered without any real obstruction thanks to politics and a lack of governmental response to the concerns of its people. So your statement about PBS acting as an outlet for government propaganda demonstrates that you:
            - have never watched the station before.
            - have an agenda that promotes profit-seeking over public good/well-being
            - don't care about what I have to say because you're never wrong - precisely the kind of patterned character flaw we see in our nation's leaders that shows how weak the philosophy is: that, in their minds, the simple admission of guilt/error is enough to blow the entire stack of cards out from under them.
            People are starting to wake up. We're smart, and we won't let you get away with spewing deceptive and thoughtless ***** anymore.
          • bandomac, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Iraq contracts, Blackwater mercenaries, Hurricane Katrina response, etc?

            These are your examples of free markets at work? Sorry, they are examples of government croneyism. The free market was turned away during the Katrina crisis. Your comment blames free markets for what is essentially government corruption. We free market hacks would never advocate businesses getting in bed with the government like your above examples show. Look up the meaning of free markets, and try again.
          • Yond, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1and who corrupts the government? lobbyists, and who are iraq war lobbyists affiliated? blackwater mercenaries, Halliburton, and other private corporations part of the military industrial complex.
          • digitalhair, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1bandomac - why then would you not favor my position on these issues, then support what PBS is doing to expose the corruption? the simple fact is that free market capitalism is a viable academic idea, but in reality, the problems it creates don't fix themselves because the people that participate in the instututionalization of the idea are constantly meddling with the variables in order to force the results to favor themselves. The result is a chaotic world where survival of the fittest become survival of the most-evil and underhanded manipulator(s), which is why human beings historically resorted to create governing bodies when the idea of property ownership evolved eons ago. So, in other words, the cronyism we see in the examples I made above is inherent and intrinsic to this "free market" idealism, which is really a farce because the man or group of men/women that occupy the top-dog status in these systems today know they can maintain their "survivability" as long as their constituents agree that this system is God, no matter where those constituents sit in the heirarchy.
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 02/19/2008, -13/+19Yep. What better way to avoid propaganda than through government subsidized media! Those nasty advertisers will try to direct content, but the government would never try to regulate anything.
          • notque, on 02/19/2008, -4/+18PBS uses tacit assumptions as well, but it's significantly less.

            Advertisers direct content. Corporate owners direct content. The Government attempts to regulate PBS, but it has been defended fairly well.
        • CJMac, on 02/19/2008, -5/+25Secret:
          Have you ever actually watched PBS? You can't have if you're still calling it propaganda. Sure, some of their shows may not have the same appeal or draw as cable shows, but I know "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" is one of the best newscasts on television, giving balanced reports on things that actually matter, not just who Paris Hilton is banging this week. Watch a story on with them and then watch Fox cover the same one - then tell me which is propaganda.
          • sexybobo, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4they are both different spins on the news neither is truly balanced.
            PBS news casts are usually spun slightly to the left fox is spun drastically to the right. the main reason it is to the left is the fact that for the most part republicans do not think it is necessary and would cut all funding for it if they could democrats are usually trying to increase funding for it.
            It might not be the same as regular tv but they are still trying to please their sponsors in this case it is the democrats instead of GE.
          • Godlike, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9Hell yes, well said. Thank the maker that people still stand up for public TV, most people really have no idea how important that voice is.
          • merwin, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7@sexybobo
            As Colbert says, the truth has a liberal spin.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 02/19/2008, -2/+41PBS still fills a strong role, particularly with regards to children's programming for elementary and middle school ages.

        There is a HUGE qualitative difference in shows for kids between PBS and most of the cable stations aimed at kids. Nick has early morning programming that is educational and motivational, but it's only for the 5 and under crowd; most of the rest of their programming is garbage. Take, for example, Fairly Odd Parents. It's loud, it's fast-paced; it's obnoxious; everyone has an attitude; all adults are treated as idiots; mediocrity is lifted up as both the ultimate goal and the end result of any endeavor. When Nick would have a Fairly Odd Parents marathon, I could see the difference in my daughter; she would become noticeably more aggressive.

        It's not just Nick, though. Cartoon Network and even the Disney Channel is that way!

        Contrast that with a show like Arthur on PBS; the kids are working through psychological and developmental issues that are typical of their age range. Parents are shown as real people; flawed, but loving and supportive. Kids are learning new things, exploring other cultures, and learning how to respect one another. What's really great is that Arthur is more typical of the kinds of shows that are found on PBS. If I may use a food metaphor, PBS is a well-balanced diet consisting of all the major food groups, and these other channels are a steady diet of Ho-Ho's and Coca-Cola.

        I happily told my cable company to drop me down to Basic Cable service, which is just the local channels and PBS.
        • merwin, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2Nick has Backyardigans, Blue's Clues, Max & Ruby, Dora, Diego, Wow Wow Wubsy, Yo Gaba Gaba, Wonder Pets, and ni hao kai-lan. And those are just the ones that I can name off of the top of my head. Those are all thoroughly educational and not at all fast paced or obnoxious.

          I can see how that much of a selection might scare some people though.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8...and I threw them a bone for that, if you re-read my comment. But, those are Nick Jr shows, for the kindergarten and pre-K kids. First graders do not watch Blue's Clues. And even if my kids WERE interested in those shows, those are not the shows that are on when they get home from school, nor are they the shows that run during the day on weekends.

            Trust me, I've watched A LOT of children's programming over the last nine years :)
          • 11oops, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6But, filled with fast paced and obnoxious advertisements hawking candy, toys, etc.
      • xptoast, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6PBS is still needed as not everyone has cable.
        • boombye, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I have Satellite and still watch PBS.. Nova, Frontline, Smart Travels - Europe with Rudy Maxa, Nature and a few more.... All of which are in HD ..
    • MrBelding, on 02/19/2008, -9/+84definitely agreed....the documentaries are still where its at for me.
      • KraftDinner101, on 02/19/2008, -4/+53Nova ftw!
      • MattB123, on 02/19/2008, -2/+26Documentaries AND children's programming that doesn't have some thinly veiled commercial agenda.
        Commercial kids TV is utter crap these days. If there isn't a product to push, there is no show.
        • Xobs, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4It's funny you should say that "If there isn't a product to push, there is no show." That's part of the reason why Reading Rainbow was canceled: It's hard to sell it on a lunch box.
      • dMinor04, on 02/19/2008, -1/+7I actually find myself watching them when I eat lunch at work and there's no cable. Many of them are surprising well done and their documentaries overall are severely underrated.
    • SlvrEagle23, on 02/19/2008, -12/+9...but now who's going to argue for its funding? PBS lost its most passionate congressional lobbyist =*(
      • litolist, on 02/19/2008, -7/+12I still get a bit choked up whenever I think of Mr. Rogers. They should keep that channel, even if only to rerun that show.
      • FTLJohnson, on 02/19/2008, -33/+7Hopefully - No one... Theft is wrong.
        No one should be forced to pay so a few that losers who like a stupid TV network (and by a few, I do mean a few, PBS doesn't exactly have stellar ratings) can watch it for what these morons perceive as "free".

        No thanks... I'll take lower taxes, and PBS can be "paid for by viewers like you". Next time they have a telethon, if you like Big Bird and Oscar - why don't you pick up YOUR phone and make a god damn donation rather than trying to steal money from the rest of us.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -21/+6Exactly. This is another example of how liberals are anti-freedom. PBS, along with NPR, could not survive on donations alone, so they must collect money from the citizens by force - whether they want to pay for it not (or even watch it at all).
          • cbreaker, on 02/19/2008, -4/+15You're a *****. Saying "damned liberals" makes you sound like a uneducated nit-whit, not a politically savvy educated person. Stop listening to Rush and think for yourself.
          • dvdrtrgn, on 02/19/2008, -4/+13Yeah! That's a few extra bucks we could be burning in Iraq. FREEDOM! It feels so good.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -8/+5dvd - you need to take a class in logic. No, you really do. You think that just because we are wasting money in one place means we have to waste it every where else? I would hate to see how you budget money.

            cbr - perhaps I should have called him a "a ***** retard pig *****" like your friend called the freedom lover below. Also, I never said "damned liberals" and I don't listen to Rush. Generalize much?

            So, is calling people who don't agree with me "*****" the way to sound more like the educated, politically savvy person you apparently are? Please tell me. Do I need to use more schoolyard name-calling and swearing?
          • FTLJohnson, on 02/19/2008, -9/+2The reasons why these networks could not survive on donations alone is because the people who are burying us are SCUM. They are the dregs of humanity. They ARE everything that they themselves hate about the world. This makes them LOATHESOME. They want PBS and NPR but refuse to PAY what would be necessary to support them. They feel ENTITLED to it. They feel like they should be compensated for everything that corporations have stolen from humanity (which they often do). They WANT these networks to be supported by theft and hope that they can continue in perpetuity. They want to continue anything that is good that comes from the theft of taxes, because they are perfectly aware of how much EVIL CORPORATE GREED, and MILITARY INDUSTRIAL DESTRUCTION results from the money that everyone pays into the machine. What these people are... is ABUSED VICTIMS. It is like the stockholm syndrome for much of America. They now love their rapist kidnapper and see anything good that our sociopathic government does as god-like. They are leeches.
          • zeusthemoose, on 02/19/2008, -4/+8Actually, it is you redbull who need to take a class in logic. Arguing to cut a program that takes up a tiny portion of the total budget and ignoring a war that takes up the majority of the budget is asinine. I would hate to see how you budget money. Your viewpoint is akin to screaming at your kids for buying a 20 ounce bottle of pop once a week and explaining how this is totally unacceptable, while you smoke 10 packs of cigarettes a day and think that you are being logical in your position.

            FLTJohnson, you are a moron. That is all that can be said about your post. The only scum I see is you and your freedom hating buddy redbull.
          • RobotBuddha, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4I think he's trying to make the point that the terms liberal and conservative really don't have much meaning in the US outside the context of partisan politics. They're fuzzy terms which really don't have a definition other than allowing someone to place people into an all or nothing "good people/bad people" category.
          • digitalhair, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4hey redbull, stop trolling pal. we're all trying to do something productive here.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -1/+8If you make $100,000 a year you're paying about $0.50 a month for NPR and PBS (and whatever other projects public broadcasting money might go to) combined. For what we pay a month for the war in Iraq (using an extremely conservative estimate) we could fund public broadcasting for 15 years. It's not a big issue.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2Ok. I want the government to subsidize Free Talk Live, a libertarian show that mostly downloaded over the internet. I want it broadcast over the radio every where in the US, because I think that it will make for a more informed citizenry.

            Since it won't cost that much, I assume you will OK with your tax dollars going fund it. After all, we spend a lot on money on Iraq, so this shouldn't even be an issue for you.
          • FallenWings, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4If you really wanted to get the word out about libertarianism, use the mechanism that's already in place (hint, it's called NPR). Don't go crying about how the "liberal media" won't cover your agenda though, considering:

            a) Your party only claims around 200,000 members nationwide
            b) The closest you guys got to injecting your ideas into the mainstream was Ron Paul and
            c) as libertarians, you probably couldn't agree on what to put on the air anyway.

            The point I'm trying to make is this: NPR and PBS both serve the public interest, and when addressing politics, do their best to keep it non-partisan. The same can hardly be said for the rest of the MSM. You want to get your ideas out there? Use what you're already paying for.

            Otherwise, quit bitching and go join Wesley Snipes and his buddies in court for tax protesting.

            I'm not opposed to libertarian philosophy as a whole, but you guys really need to pick your battles. There are much greater economic evils being perpetrated in government right now.
          • FTLJohnson, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1As a member of the Free Talk Live crew: Any talk about wanting any sort of subsidization from the Government - Is totally asinine. We wouldn't accept it.
        • bandomac, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5Hey Johnson, have you heard PBS's and NPR's new slogans? Thousands at work so dozens can watch.
      • LLLSecretChimp, on 02/19/2008, -3/+11When the Republicans took over congress and first cut PBS funding, revenues went up, since so may private and corporate contributors rallied to save Big Bird. At one point, government funding accounted for only 15% of PBS revenue. Keep PBS, but dump the government funding.
        • SillyDigger, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6If they begin to receive all of their funding from corporations it will just become another crappy network on TV.
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3There are other ways to fund PBS that aren't being pursued. For one, you could have the local PBS stations assume control of the cable community access channels and receive that funding. There could be a franchise fee added to the commercial broadcasters, the networks, the cable channels, and the cable and satellite companies. Or, there could be a tax added to each television and/or television tuner sold, or even a tax to movie tickets and prerecorded entertainment. All of those could work and still would be much less excessive as how the BBC collects their licensing fees from the general public in the UK.
        • digitalhair, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Where are you getting your numbers from Secret Chimp? I'd like to read more about that.
        • digitalhair, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2After checking out some graphs of public vs private PBS funding, I realize that private funding DID increase after we invaded Iraq. I then look at how the content evolved and realize that PBS has been the only news outlet telling the real story of what's going on over there. Because so many viewers benefit from knowing the truth about the Iraq war, I don't think it should be the responsibility of individuals with consciences to use their personal funds to pick up slack where corporate news left off.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1"I don't think it should be the responsibility of individuals with consciences to use their personal funds to pick up slack where corporate news left off."

            If think someone else should be responsible and that you should be getting free goods and services at the expense of others, then you clearly do not have a conscience, and thus no dilemma about balancing your own greed with voluntarily donating you own funds.
          • fokov, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I disagree. What is on one company's network has nothing to do with real reporting. yes I would want real news, but the government should not be controlling what news is on ALL of the stations. That will just create one huge propaganda network. (We kind of have that today, but nothing even close to China). PBS should stay around with government funding because the sole intention of that channel was to increase the wellbeing of society, through moral shows, history documentation, or honest real news.
    • k1down, on 02/19/2008, -4/+70A lot more people than you'd think still don't have cable.
      • doctorcaligari, on 02/19/2008, -1/+45Nor do some of us want or need cable either. Free TV saves money.
        • Antwan718, on 02/19/2008, -3/+12Anthing worth getting can be Torrented anyway
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -2/+16Renting TV shows on DVD from Netflix of Blockbuster is way cheaper than cable (if you don't mind the wait).
          • woozlewuzzle, on 02/19/2008, -1/+12Even cheaper if you borrow them from your local library. Most libraries are part of consortiums that give you access to far more stuff than is on the shelf. Again, you need to be willing to wait. It is not for the immediate gratification crowd.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -11/+2I'm sure it is cheaper, since some else is paying for it. However, some of us have morals, and are not willing to live like parasites.
          • freeport7, on 02/19/2008, -0/+10What? We ALL pay for libraries. It's called taxes. If you don't use the library, you pay for it. If you do use the library, you pay for it.
      • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18Personally, I think it's a moot point - even if you do have cable, you're certainly not going to turn to it if you're looking for intelligent programming. I've got like 50 channels, and I can't think of a single one that even comes close to offering the same quality programming available on PBS (note - I get free cable, otherwise I wouldn't pay for that garbage).
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Discovery, History, History International, the Science Channel, National Geographic Channel, BBC America (for BBC World News), CSPAN and CSPAN2, the channel that once was TechTV, etc.
          • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2What the hell man? Aside from CSPAN, all of those channels are now complete garbage. They USED to have informative, intelligent programming, before they all hopped on the lowest-common-denominator bandwagon. Though I confess, I've never actually seen BBC America (don't get it here), but for the most part, yeah, those channels are just plain rubbish.
          • boombye, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1See I have no problem with those channels and in fact have them, except one is called G4 now or something.. But regardless, even though I have all those networks, I still go back to PBS for HD content.. My satellite is only broadcasting in SD, and I get HD on an over the air signal with an antenna and so I still watch PBS as it's the really great HD content and smart programming.. Nova is awesome, and some of the things they show late at light on wttwD(my local pbs) look great on my tv. I was already watching PBS before clicking on this story. Sometimes when I'm going thru Comcast's menu guide at a friend's place, there will be times when PBS is the one of the only channels showing something good and in HD.
      • notque, on 02/19/2008, -2/+17I think I'm going to turn my cable box in today. Cable is worthless, and costs a lot of money.
      • tyzent, on 02/19/2008, -2/+23i am proud to be one of the ~15% who still uses rabbit ears.
      • brundlefly76, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2These are the same people who need to be watching PBS programming the most.
    • Vodka2389, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2Do you believe in miracles?
    • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -5/+35There are countless shows, interviews, music programs, local specials, science shows, local community events, random interesting stuff,(ect) that i cannot find anywhere but PBS. You can take my PBS from my cold dead hands as far as I'm concerned.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -12/+6So how much money have you donated to PBS?
        • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9We're not rich but we do what we can. How bout you?
      • BOFH2, on 02/19/2008, -8/+6funding drives, funding drives, funding drives, documentary....
        • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9Once a year a funding drive comes on PBS and it doesn't interrupt all of the other programming. Would you prefer the model used by commercial TV where the fund raising drives come in 15 minute intervals throughout every program?
          • BOFH2, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1once a year? 3 times last year that i saw
    • digjam, on 02/19/2008, -4/+29The science and space shows(NOVA) on PBS is still educational... I am totally for PBS.. I would say MTV is not necessary...Theres no educational value for such channels and reality shows..
      • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Perhaps there should be a fee or tax on such worthless channels to pay for PBS then. Consider it a 21st Century "sin tax".
    • kyouteki, on 02/19/2008, -5/+26I don't watch PBS much, but I certainly listen to NPR quite a bit, and I understand the value of Public Broadcasting.
      • bacon_skoda, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6just started listening this year to NPR. great stuff. i'm tired of the stupid stuff from all the morning zoos
    • Square47, on 02/19/2008, -16/+12Personally, I don't care if you like their programming or not (find equals etc.). If there is real public demand for these shows, then they should be able to make it on the free market. I don't believe the government should have anything to do with being in the TV business regardless of political slant (or lack of). I know they waste money on a lot of stuff, but that doesn't make it OK for them to run a TV network on tax dollars.
      • glecko, on 02/19/2008, -7/+19"The free market" would get us Fox/NBC/CBS/ABC clones that spew mass garbage to the pseudo-majority that has "family values", needs ED drugs, and shops at Walmart. They keep the "free market" humming buy all the crap advertised on the "mass media's" channels.

        We NEED PBS for the minority that want to watch TV that is educational and that has some redeeming value. Is everything on PBS valuable to me? Probably not, but I would venture to guess that I could watch 24-hours of PBS and find ~20 hours of stuff I appreciate ... tell me another channel/broadcaster that has that kind of material?
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2The same argument that people make to ditch PBS could also be applied to the university system. Only 25% (or less) of Americans receive 4-year college degrees. Maybe people should make that counter-argument to deflate such assertions.
    • modusop, on 02/19/2008, -8/+9Absolutely it is. We need to not only keep PBS, but possibly add more not-for-profit voices to the national conversation. Too much of what we watch is produced with corporate and shareholder interest in mind, and it benefits the public good to keep an alternatively-motivated voice. Plus, old British shows are nice too.
      • glecko, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7I hope that you are aware that PBS is sponsored by many corporations (see the before and after "ads") ... I'm not saying that the corporations have influence over what is shown ... but there is influence there via monetary support.
        • salomejones, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2The support from those corporations is a tax shelter for the same. They are not supporting for the purpose of controlling content (as they do with private stations), they're supporting as a method to avoid paying taxes. As such, there can be all kinds of programming contrary to their interests. For example, the PBS special "Sea of Disaster" about the Exxon Valdez oil spill which painted Exxon in no friendly light....was actually partly sponsored by Exxon themselves--since they cannot choose exactly what programming their dollars pay for.

          The system of checks and balances is knit tightly into PBS's funding, and it's a good thing.
    • jsuther, on 02/19/2008, -5/+17Yes I want to be able to watch the news without 50% of it being dedicated to Britney Spears
    • salomejones, on 02/19/2008, -5/+15See here: The single most important thing about PBS programming is that it is absolutely unyielding to commercial interests---and that by itself should be more than enough reason for every person in the US to be screaming right now.
      • sequalls, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2PBS has loads of commercial sponsors. They even have full-length commercials now, not to mention the 1/2 hour infomercials they run as "fundraisers"(government sponsored golden oldies infomercials!). And they are completely beholden to all of the "non-profit" political groups that give them millions of dollars annually. If you think PBS is independent you are not watching closely.
        • salomejones, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Huh, the PBS stations in New York and Boston must be of a higher quality and ethic.
    • gernblansted, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8If even just for News and Investigative stuff like FrontLine, Yes. If we've ever needed infotainment free (or infoTAINTment free as I call it) news, it's now, especially since the 'networks' have long since given up on real News - even CNN is just fluff which just can't seem to cover enough Britney.
    • Daedalus81, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11I miss Square One, Reading Rainbow, Mister Rogers...you know...kids shows that don't suck?
    • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -2/+7PBS does really well for such low funding. Put more money into it like the BBC and maybe we can get an American Top Gear.
      • HesNikke, on 02/19/2008, -0/+5set up TV licensing like the UK (it's how they fund the BBC) and we'll have mass revolts to the Internet on the US. cable prices are ridiculous enough as it is. that's why i never plan to get cable.

        besides, everyone knows that 2/3 of PBS is BS. (sorry, i had to)
      • Chakat, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Yeah, that's all we need, more obnoxious gits talking about how big their internally combusted penis replacement is.
        • GliTCH82, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Yeah, that's all we need, cynical obnoxious idealists that hate anything that isn't considered "practical'. I bet you run around in a Prius too, don't you.
          • Chakat, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1I can appreciate fast vehicles. I've done my share of bombing down roads at 3+ times the speed limit. However, the hosts of top gear are just ***** retarded. Sorry.
      • bacon_skoda, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1MotorTrend
    • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6It think PBS makes a vital statement that intellectual pursuit is still something of importance to many Americans. The vast majority of their funds don't come from the government anyway, it comes from "people like you".
    • futureb, on 02/19/2008, -2/+16I can't believe this article tries to argue that PBS is unnecessary and doesn't mention FRONTLINE once...possibly the most important show on television. It makes me think this author has no idea.
    • mjl5629, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
    • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1As much good as PBS does, there's one element that will doom it completely. Not another Republican Congress or President, but one single man. That man is Huel (sic) Hauser. Terrible.
      • Boognish, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Huell Howser, you either love him or hate him,. Or if you live outside of Ca, have no figgin idea who the ***** he is.
    • triskele, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1PBS is great. It's where they hide all the real cooking shows. Foodtv[with a few exceptions] is laughable as a good source of culinary information that you can actually bring into your home.
    • dysonlu, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3If anything, we need PBS MORE THAN EVER!
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2I love my PBS
    • ahvi, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3Scientific American Frontiers, Frontline, Point of View, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nova, NovaScience Now. I couldn't imagine living without these shows. You can't find them or shows comparable to them anywhere else on television. Like National Public Radio, PBS is not interested in making money as much as they are interested in making good quality programming without having to worry about sponsorship or government interference. Everyone should see the movie Network by the way.
      • chijim70, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Amen and I'm atheist. Frontline WOW that show is the truth amongst millions of lies from ***** like history channel amongst others. There is NOTHING like or comparable to PBS period. Only sheeple who don't know they are being lied to think anything but PBS is objective. It is the last bastion of free media in the US. To state otherwise is stupidity and ignorance.
        Network for sure... a must see and guess where I saw it first? PBS!
  • kelt65, on 02/19/2008, -28/+420really? I don't think I'll ever see "Nature's most XXX-TREME animals" and ***** as is on cable on PBS. There isn't anything comparable to Frontline, Nova and the other PBS shows on cable. Cable is the cesspool at this point. Not even the Food channel is as good as the PBS cooking shows.

    Here's a run down of what's on cable:
    FOOD = Fat Texans shoveling mounds of BBQ in their fat faces
    HIST = Hitler Channel
    DISC = "Most XXXTREME Animals" total crap
    COMEDY = best channel overall
    EVERYTHING ELSE = playing CSI:Somewhere or some other cop, lawyer, or doctor show
    • jaxcs, on 02/19/2008, -5/+43While your breakdown of other cable networks is somewhat snarky, there's quite a bit of truth to what you say. Cable has largely co-opted PBS's formats. What PBS used to do is now done by several different cable network channels. How they go about it though isn't always classy or well regarded. The history channel's specials, for example, tends to run heavy on dramatic music and cliff hanger type moments as they prepare for the commercial break. It feels a bit dumbed down. While some may find PBS stuffy, it's shows generally seem through and well thought out. While many homes now have access to cable tv, many more do not. PBS takes the heart of all these other channels and does greater justice to the subject matter.
      • illegalcortex, on 02/19/2008, -2/+19PBS is the only one that shows nature documentaries that don't involve some annoying guy with an accent harassing the wildlife. Steve Irwin was funny and novel, but his success has ruined trying to watch a nature doc on anything other than PBS.
        • KSUdesigner, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10With the exception of Planet Earth. Nothing beats that series.
          • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9much of which came from bbc, public funding.
        • RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3That was a mini-series...a one off affair. The reason that was so good was most likely that Disc teamed up with the BBC. If a public broadcaster wasn't involved, we might have had an Australian Greco-Roman wrestling with a crocodile.
    • KraftDinner101, on 02/19/2008, -6/+32If the only thing to keep from PBS is Nova, it's still worth it.
    • sportbikepilot, on 02/19/2008, -11/+8dugg for "fat texans"
      • Rahodeb, on 02/19/2008, -4/+19Hey, as a fat Texan I would just like to say...I like BBQ.
    • ZomZom, on 02/19/2008, -24/+9While I agree that the programming on PBS can be quite exceptional, I think forcing taxpayers to fund it is wrong. It should have to compete for dollars without the hired guns of tax collectors.
      • notque, on 02/19/2008, -6/+13Corporate welfare is a significantly bigger offender, as is the Military. Why not focus on the big fish before you attack the publicly subsidized PBS. The viewers pay for part of it over and above taxes as well.
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 02/19/2008, -5/+5Good point for corporate welfare. However, PBS funding *is* corporate welfare. For example, The Children's Television Workshop sells over a billion dollars a year in Sesame Street merchandise.
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2[to the Children's Television Workshop argument]...So? The BBC makes a lot of money off *Doctor Who* merchandise too. The Beeb has to raise enough money so they can televise pub dart throwing championships!
        • 11oops, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2LLL, the difference is the funds from merchandise sales go towards fundraising, rather than towards a CEO's multi-million $ salary.
      • Marmot, on 02/19/2008, -4/+11Because PBS doesn't depend on advertisers for its funding, they are free to express a point of view that is important, even if it may be unpopular. For example, if they decided to run an episode of Frontline focusing on the oil industry, they don't have to worry about an advertising boycott from Exxon / Mobil / Shell / etc.

        While some might say that this gives them a left wing slant, what it really does is allow them to give an independent point of view.

        If your news and investigative programming is funded only by advertising dollars, then it's a little hard to bite the hand that feeds you.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -8/+6So instead it gets its money from government, making PBS and NPR into the pro-government, pro-tax, liberal stations they are. Independent view my ass. What do think the odds are of NPR having anti-government hosts on the air? I've never heard any.
          • Marmot, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5PBS gets its money from the corporation for public broadcasting, which gets some of its funding from the government. This is deliberate -- If they were directly funded by the government, it would make PBS into a pro government mouthpiece.

            If you watch any PBS programming (esp. Frontline), you'll note they're often critical of the current administration, and they go into much more depth than the privately owned networks (e.g. NBC, CBS, ABC). Does this make them liberal, pro-tax or pro-government?

            Or is it that just that you don't agree with what PBS has to say?
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6Have you looked at who subsidizes PBS? It's been called the "Petroleum Broadcasting Company". There are advertisements; they just come at the very beginnings and endings of shows.
          • Marmot, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Maybe so, but somehow, they're still able to keep a fairly neutral voice. Sponsorship is definitely publicity, but that's not quite the same as an advertisement.

            I won't claim it's always unbiased, but if you've got conservatives calling it a liberal / anticorporate bias, then somehow these corporate sponsorships haven't really flowed into the content of their programming.

            I haven't seen many documentaries on PBS that deny global warming -- in fact, I would expect quite the opposite. Also, I would expect it any such documentary to be presented very factually, not sensationally.

            Or am I wrong?
        • sequalls, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1PBS has loads of commercial sponsors. They even have full-length commercials now, not to mention the 1/2 hour infomercials they run as "fundraisers"(government sponsored golden oldies infomercials!). And they are completely beholden to all of the "non-profit" political groups that give them millions of dollars annually. If you think PBS is independent you are not watching closely.
      • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12You just... don't... get it, do you? It's able to offer that exceptional programming BECAUSE it doesn't have to compete - it doesn't need to lure in viewers with monster truck rallies and reality TV and all that other crap that makes other channels so terrible.
        • Malshew, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1You mean they won't need to put the ECW on it?
    • TripcodeMel, on 02/19/2008, -4/+20I don't think you watch the History Channel at all. It's more like the Hitler/Stalin Power Hour.
      • jfowler27, on 02/19/2008, -2/+14It's funny that I used to watch the History Channel a bunch because I liked shows about WWII, including some show(s) specific to Hitler. Then, I watched a profile of Hitler on PBS and I learned more in the first five minutes than the whole time I had watched the History Channel. I also wish they would keep 99% of that UFO/paranormal ***** off of the History Channel. It's one thing to have a program on about Roswell with relatively well respected people on both sides of the discussion, because that topic has become so pervassive in our underlying culture that I think it can belong on a history channel. But when you start showing stupid crap about werewolves and ghosts and UFOs that clearly aren't anything spectacular, you should probably find another channel for history.
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I don't recall seeing many documentaries on PBS about Hitler's meth addiction, his alleged homosexuality, or the role of Heydrich (sic) had on the Nazi genocides. I did see them all on History Channel though.
        • wfavorite, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2First you have the UFO shows - And how is this history???

          Then you see them splicing unrelated video into the shows... They show aircraft that do not make sense, they show scenes that are irrelevant - but are interesting to watch.

          The History channel is not a good source of history. If the news networks gave us infotainment, then the History channel gives us histotainment.
      • Haapi, on 02/19/2008, -6/+1The "Environmentalist WarMonger Channel".
      • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Well let's not forget the Jesus, Nostradamus, and UFO weeks.
    • mikephimikephi, on 02/19/2008, -12/+0you forgot AOTS on G4
    • Worktruck, on 02/19/2008, -3/+47Oh come on the History channel is no longer the Hitler channel that's so 2003. Now they are the Big foot/UFO channel. I mean for real who is more important to history Hitler or Big Foot.
      • DigitalOmnivore, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7It's so true. Yes, the History channel used to run a lot of ww2 shows. Of course WW2 is a big part of history. Now it's Bigfoot, the UFO's, and 'modern marvel's' which is usually something inane and stupid like 'how fast food is made!'. Occasionally there are alternate history specials based on whatever fad is going around, IE The divinci code.

        Personally I'd like to see the History channel get back to WW2, WW1, and even pre-western civ history. The problem is the UFO stuff gets good ratings. Hell I even watch it sometimes, because it's better than 90% of the other TV shows.



        • Worktruck, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Yes, it reminded me of the The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan where he get's in a cab and the cabbie recognized him. So, the cabbie is like wow cool let's talk about science and then he just starts going on about the lost city of Atlantis and possible locations for it..... I don't know it just seems like I use to watch the history channel a lot, and most things on there seems to be less about history and just what's popular.

          I've watched 1 episode of Monster Quest granted they did disprove whatever they were looking for I think it was the giant birds in North America, but at the end when both sides get to say their peace the one guy that believed in it said something like "Science has disproved things that people believe in, but people still believe in things." Now granted I laughed my ass off, but if I want to see people prove just how stupid they are I can watch VH1 and MTV reality shows or just watch the soup on E for just the funny parts.
      • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4right before the iraq war they were the "saddam is hitler" channel. precisely why we need non-corporate owned media.
        • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2that 2-hour special on the links of the Baath Party and the Nazis was enlightening.
      • futureb, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1YES and this is the whole point. when you have a for-profit channel like history channel, discovery, food channel, etc., you must show profitability. so there is a constant battle to "cut costs", which basically means you make a tv show for the least amount you possibly can and still get people to watch it...and sell adverts. have you seen this crap on the food channel? "let's go see how aunt betty in rural iowa makes candy." that crap costs basically nothing to make. PBS, on the other hand, has to rely in part on the gifts of people who actually watch the channel & want to see it stay on the air. So as opposed to the food channel, PBS has an incentive to make quality programming that people will not only watch, but pay to see again. It's a HUGE difference.
    • medarby, on 02/19/2008, -2/+17If the HIstory Channel were mostly about Hitler, that'd be ok by me. I find most of their programming is about religion/occult, ufos, nostradamus, or crap like "mega marvels: the history of the shovel".
      • lightningrod220, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding? The documentary about the development of the Pacific Coast Highway was very interesting, and the "History of the Joke" bit last night was incredibly funny.
      • Klinky, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6I swear one time I saw a programming promo on History Channel promoting the following line-up:

        7pm Modern Marvels: Paint
        8pm Modern Marvels: Glue
        9pm Modern Marvels: Boxes

        Actually though I find most episodes of "Modern Marvels" interesting. I also watch the Discovery Channel's "How It's Made". Fascinating stuffs.
        • Hellmark, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Which rip off Mr Roger's Picture Picture. Still, nice to see someone carrying the how things are made torch.
    • notque, on 02/19/2008, -4/+15Don't forget Bill Moyers Journal, the only real discussion program worth watching. *that isn't comedy*
      • Iconoclast25, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1And like moyers makes even the slightest pretense of *NOT* being a bleeping far left loon! He alone is enough reason to demand that PBS receive none of my money! Let soros and the other socialists pay for this crap.
      • Boognish, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1And don't forget the McLaughin group.
        Oh wait...I take that back, it is comedic at times.
    • mlvassallo, on 02/19/2008, -3/+21What FOOD Network are you watching... Mine is stuck on 24-7 Rachel Ray...
      • Antwan718, on 02/19/2008, -4/+10Are you watching her cooking or her Clevage though?
        • XtremeBug, on 02/19/2008, -0/+7Those little lumps?

          Everyone knows that Giada De Laurentiis is where the cleavage is at!
      • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -2/+8For some reason, whenever I flip over to the Food Network, I always end up seeing 80 billion commercials for stool softener. I had never in my life prior to that even seen a commercial for stool softener. And I've got to say, that is absolutely the last thing I want to be thinking about when I'm watching cooking shows.
    • MaceSoul, on 02/19/2008, -18/+5If these programs are so good, why do they have to be funded by tax money? Why can't they compete with other good programs? If crap like Trading Spaces can make it without tax money, Nova should be able to.
      • notque, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6What percentage of our budget was PBS again?
        • MaceSoul, on 02/19/2008, -10/+5It should be zero.
          • notque, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8So what percentage is Military spending, and what percentage is PBS?

            Trying to get my priorities in order...
          • Nevarius, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2US military spending is around $626 billion (which is about the same as the next 168 largest spenders combined) At the moment 54% of your federal income tax goes toward the military (including vets and interest on debt) World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1,001 billion at constant.

            PBS receives about $500 million (do i even need to put a percent on that?)

          • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Bush proposed a $3 trillion budget. It's also been proposed to cut public broadcasting spending by 22%. That would make public broadcasting 00.013% of the budget, and military spending 20.87%.
      • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1That's the problem. If PBS has to compete for money like everybody else you'll end up with crap like Trading Spaces. Having to compete for money means you go after the lowest common denominator, which is exactly what PBS is designed to avoid.
    • Coffeedemon, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Its the huge rush to create a ton of channels to go with the shiny HD TV without stopping to think about content. They have to fill up the channels with garbage that would never have seen the light of day before. I was all excited when I moved into the new apartment and the cable package had the National Geographic channel. At least 80% of it is pandering garbage. "Eco-Celebrities" - caricatures of the Crocodile Hunter who himself was a caricature of Marlin Perkins hosting dangerous animal shows; top ten lists of animals ranked by cuteness, etc... once in a while you'll catch one of their classic shows but I'm not going to sit around all night and wait.
      • bdcapps, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8Not to mention that PBS has some of the best looking HD content over the air.
      • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2We used to love watching "Wild Kingdom" when I was a kid. Marlin Perkins would describe something from the studio, then watch from the Land Rover as "Jim" would nearly get himself killed by lions or whatever. At least Steve Irwin didn't send someone else in.
      • lormahoykyd2007, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1That's what Tivo is for, and not the ***** cable company version.
    • digjam, on 02/19/2008, -4/+5Well History is good for some good education..Discovery is good for Physics and nature.. Comedy central ... yeah timepass.. Discovery HD good for travel info ... NATGEO...overall GK...everything else... is a murder investigation educating ppl how to kill others..including the ***** news channels...
    • Crosshare, on 02/19/2008, -5/+5I happen to enjoy watching fat texans shoveling down bbq. At least you know where to get a decent bite to eat.
    • Zippo, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Discovery Channel Canada has a number of edutainment shows, but they also have a number of really good programming.
      Besides, Mythbusters ***** rocks.
    • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -4/+12How can this guy (in the article) even say this *****? I saw almost the entire Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival on PBS the other night. It was awesome and it was not mentioned even in passing on any other channel. I can't even count how many times I get exposed to some new artist from watching PBS. These are artists that I would possibly never hear of otherwise. The art and culture programming alone is 200 times enough reason to keep PBS. I'm ***** shocked at this nonsense. Watching too much Cable TV is like being on crack cocaine, it makes you stay awake, paranoid and memorized, constantly flicking the remote looking for your next quick high (all the while it's killing your brain cells). Whenever I watch cable I get jumpy because I'm always constantly changing the channel to avoid boredom, boner pill commercials and pathetic programs.
      @ZomZom - How much tax money is PBS costing you now, do you even have an idea? The Republicans have already gutted the funding, filled the leadership positions with people who reflexively hate the very idea of public anything and they plan another round of 50% cuts this year. Should we just eliminate any and all TV and radio that might make people think and give our kids the well rounded world view they will need if we want to continue to compete in the world. With our educational system partially in shambles, I think that (as someone who was raised on Sesame Street and Electric Company ect) doing away with PBS now would be "letting the terrorists win"
      • BubbaBubberson, on 02/19/2008, -11/+5I don't want the government giving my kids ANY kind of worldview!!
        • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6Exposing kids to culture and learning is not "giving them a world view".
        • BubbaBubberson, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2Sure it is. It depends on what kind of 'culture and learning' is exposed to our kids. I get the impression that everyone here actually believes that PBS is an unbiased source of news and entertainment. I find that assertion as laughable as saying Fox news is 'fair and balanced.'
          • futureb, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4*are*...hey bubba - is our children learning? perhaps Mr. bubba should have turned on sesame street when you were a kid.
        • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1PBS does not represent the government and how can it's science programming be biased unless you reject science period. I bet you don't want your kids learning about physics or evolution either. DO you not realize that this rejection of learning and progress is going to doom the country that you (and I) love so much?
          • BubbaBubberson, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Can science really be unbiased?
      • lormahoykyd2007, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4But Bubba isn't that what you rednecks do? The TV is the babysitter. That's why I now have custody of my daughter my ex was a stupid lazy hillbilly who used her kids for slaves.
        • BubbaBubberson, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Unfortunately for our kids (and our country), you are correct.
          BTW, why would you marry a 'stupid lazy hillbilly'?
        • Barbosa, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Wow that sucks dude. At least you got custody from her though. Hopefully you were exaggerating a bit... hopefully. ***** like this is yet another reason I will never get married.
    • slothlovechunk, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12PBS is the only channel that has real documentaries. The ones on the discovery and history channel are usually conspiracy theory ***** where they can't risk alienating their core audience of irrational people.
    • fancyj, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3good eats with alton brown is a really good show on food network
    • Calcularius, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3SO TRUE!
      Don't forget The Learning Channel's 786 hour Wedding Nightmares marathon.
    • r3neGaDe, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4I'm guessing that you haven't watched the Discovery Channel in the last six months. Between new episodes of Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, How It's Made, Future Weapons, and Deadliest Catch, Discovery has some of the better programming on TV at the moment. Regardless of where these shows started, they're currently playing on the Discovery Channel. From what I can see none of them are "Most XXXTREME Animals" like you suggested.
    • doubledmateo, on 02/19/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't say that ALL channels on cable are complete garbage, just most of them. I'm a huge fan of PBS, and in our house it's the most common channel to catch us watching. I think it would say a lot about the US if it was ever cancelled, being as it's one of the most important channels on television, and that it's free and accessible to everyone.
    • pshoaxbuster, on 02/20/2008, -2/+0PBS - watch documentaries to gain knowledge
      Cable - watch documentaries for entertainment

      I value knowledge.
    • TheReport, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2while I'd like to jump on the bandwagon and be the next naysayer of ad sponsored cable television I'd have to say your broad generalization of cable t.v. could only be further from the truth.

      Food Network = Iron Chef (both American and Japanese), A Cook's Tour with Anthony Bourdain. Good Eats with Alton Brown
      Disc Ch. = Dirty Jobs w/ Mike Rowe, MythBusters, Smash Labs, Deadliest Catch
      Travel Ch. = Bizarre Foods w/ Andrew Zimmern, No Reservation w/ Anthony Bourdain,

      To be honest with you I think Cable Television has dramatically gotten better since the days of my youth, I think the only channel to go in the opposite direction is MTV, that channel has become the epitome of corporate sponsored programing and teen self indulgent arrogance.

      PBS will always be a top favorite of mine but I don't see any reason it cant co-exist with the all these other quality programming.
      • TheReport, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I take that back Nickelodeon has become ***** as well.

        Pete and Pete, Rocko's Modern Life, Salute Your Shorts, Hey Dude, these shows will always hold a place in my heart
    • Trav3133, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Don't act like you do not enjoy watching some of those shows.
  • ichchappycat, on 02/19/2008, -12/+132I'm really surprised to see this in the New York Times... While I think PBS needs a facelift, I agree with kelt65 about how PBS doesn't host the crap programming to bring in the mindless masses.
    • ChazHollywood, on 02/19/2008, -17/+5Yet you still think it's ok to charge each and every "mindless" person via their tax dollars to fund this program? If you like it, YOU pay for it.
      • rkzda, on 02/19/2008, -4/+13And many people do via donations. Your tax money goes to far worse things you should be vocal about.
        • ChazHollywood, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4"Your tax money goes to far worse things you should be vocal about." Yes, like Medicaid, Social Security, educating and hospitalizing illegal immigrants...
      • sequalls, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Yah!!
    • gernblansted, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6The mindless masses don't like paying for something which helps keep their country from being completely flushed down the britneyvision tube. They are upset that the quality of their country still has a shred a decency when it comes to News programming, and the fact that large Corporations don't dictate the content of that infotainment crap bothers them. Also, where are the totally rad commercials? And all the pretty moving graphics and quick cuts to the next piece of useless fluff that keeps the mindless mind occupied?
      • bamapachyderm, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3What's with you people? You think that if someone doesn't watch PBS, they're automatically watching Britney, infotainment, and crap commercials?
        Jesus. Change the ***** channel and get out of your echo chamber. There ARE more than a few cable/satellite channels on the tube, and not all of us even watch teevee all the damn time.
        God, you're a bunch of obnoxious faux-elitists, brainwashed into thinking that watching PBS is what sophisticated intellectuals are supposed to do. Give me a break.
    • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Problem is, the mindless masses are too mindless to look up the numbers. The federal government budget for CPB was $380 million last year. That's $1.27 per person...basically one large Coke per year at McDonald's.
      • warnergt, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Next time you complain about the federal debt, don't forget to mention the $380 million that goes to the CPB for leftist propaganda.
    • annenk38, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0You've picked the wrong forum to talk about "mindless masses".
  • linktothepast, on 02/19/2008, -27/+17Yes, next question, please?
  • DonWigler, on 02/19/2008, -85/+25If you like it, you can pay for it. Just stop forcing me to pay for it!
    • jaxcs, on 02/19/2008, -15/+66I find this kind of comment less than useless. You can pay for the military and I will pay for PBS, you can pay for corporate tax breaks and I will pay for public schools. Would this make it fair? Is this what you want?
      • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -39/+14no, it would be fair if PBS went private and the people that WANT it support it. its called capitalism and free market. privatizing the military probably isnt a real good idea.
        • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -6/+17And in doing so, it would lose it's primary advantage - not having to cater to the braindead masses. Besides, you're talking about drops in the bucket here. There are so many other things the government is wasting so much more money on, and yet you don't hear any public outcry over them.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -14/+5my tax dollars are being wasted in many ways. this is just one of them. a drop in the bucket, yes, but its still in that bucket.
          • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11But we're actually getting something worthwhile from it, too. Think about how much of your tax money is going to things like corporate welfare and the stupid Iraq war - and how you're not getting a damn thing in return. Now, whether you make use of it is up to you, but the point is, it's not just money that you'll never see again and you'll never see any positive benefits from.
        • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -14/+5whoa, buried to hell with no explanation... speak up! help me understand where i am wrong.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Funding for public broadcasting (PBS, NPR, etc.) is less than 1% of what the Federal Government gives to education. I would argue the educational return on investment is higher with public broadcasting. Think how many people have been educated by public broadcasting. A more highly educated population ultimately means people earn more and pay more in taxes, so it's quite possible it's paying for itself.
        • mrn111, on 02/19/2008, -8/+13Capitalism is the one of the reasons there is such ***** programming on cable now.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -11/+7which government forced you to subscribe to cable? the US govt takes my money away from me and uses it for PBS's ***** programming. at least the cable company asks first.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -8/+4go ahead abandon capitalism. worked for Cuba.
          • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7go ahead, cut social programs and have a pure free market. worked in chile under pinochet.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -7/+3Pinochet was a lunatic and corrupt! we have a real representative democracy here. you cant compare the two governments
          • itzac, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4@Scrappy1850: BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! That's rich. Really, you're just TOO MUCH!!! Representative democracy... Go OOOONNNN!
          • boombye, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Haha holy ***** I haven't laughed this hard in a while, time to smoke another bowl hahaha.. Oh ***** Scrappy, you're awesome. Our representative democracy will keep out those lunatics and the corrupt!
        • MadKennyP, on 02/19/2008, -3/+19Good. I'd like my money back for the tax breaks given to oil companies in the last couple years and the expense of military protection of the oil pipelines.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -10/+5i would like my money back from the oil company tax breaks too! there are lots of ways the govt spends taxes that is wasteful. but protection of oil pipelines keeps our infrastructure sound.
          • FTLJohnson, on 02/19/2008, -11/+6Shhhhh, you are going to be buried by the government loving democrat brigade. If you challenge their idea that the theft they support is for the "greater good" (like destroying the environment, and killing brown people, and adding to the personal fortunes of politicians) or if you mention that Barack and Hillary are not saints and that their ideas might be as bad as McCain's 1000 year war in Iraq, or Ron Paul's coat hangar fetish - you will surely fall victim to rapid censoring - because it makes them feel good to deny any contradiction rather than to find balance and truth.
          • Antwan718, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Besides, theres that nasty 45 Cent per gallon gas tax that no one wants you to know about, if there were no energy tax fuel would be what, 2.70 a gallon for regular again, and a gallon of milk would come down from 4.29. Besides you should be more concerned about the lack of nuclear energy sources, electric companies require a large amount of fossil fuels, if we can get off that and the demand for oil goes down the price will drop along with it.

            Fyi 45 cent gas tax source is: Red Diesel 3.01 a gallon and at the same station "Highway" Diesel was 3.50
          • zeusthemoose, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7FTLJohnson, you wouldn't know balanced truth if it smacked you right in your face. You have your head shoved so far up your ass that you have lost all sight of reality. It individuals like yourself that I truly pity. Please, stop posting on digg and go back to your fringe group forum.
        • mysteri0usdrx, on 02/19/2008, -4/+8this entire comment thread is useless, because taxes pay for less than 1/5 of PBS' budget. Bush even wants to half that. The rest is corporate and private donations.
          • chrissandvick, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2If taxes make up 1/5 of the budget than it can survive with it being 0 of it's budget.
        • jaxcs, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Maybe we shouldn't privatize the military, but that hasn't stopped us from trying. There are little companies such as Haliburton, KBR and Blackwater who are paid well to participate in our middle east adventure. PBS is mostly private at this point anyway. The article talks about how cable is eating PBS's lunch but not everyone has cable. I am well aware of capitalism and free markets, but there are services and institution that are uniquely public. Parks and libraries are the two easiest talk about. What sort of business model could a for profit library follow? rare books for the scholars and porn for the masses? Why would anyone preserve a park when the land could gross more money if developed? If parks and libraries and PBS adds value to civilized life, they should be supported. People forget that the airwaves are publicly held and only leased to the networks. They are supposed to educate as well as entertain. Although it is unlikely to happen, technically, the networks can have their licenses revoked if they fail in their charge. If PBS were to follow a for profit model, I can't imagine them sticking to their current format, game shows, reality shows, nudity and violence is where the money is. Do we really need another station like this?
      • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -13/+10Generally, publically funding things which can work well privately isn't that great of an idea.
        • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -1/+10Which is why PBS needs public funding - it can't work well privately - otherwise, in the dozens of channels of cable I get right now, there'd be something remotely resembling intelligent programming.
        • dvdrtrgn, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4Obviously 'privately' funding works worse in some situations. The invisible hand you hold is ideological faith.
        • RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -1/+11Exactly...If you let PBS go private it would be off the air in no time. How could it possible compete with COPS and America's Next Top Model.
    • sportbikepilot, on 02/19/2008, -5/+14that's fine, as long as I can stop paying to educate your hell spawn...
    • superRoot, on 02/19/2008, -8/+4Doesn't PBS get their funding from viewers like you? I don't think tax dollars go to PBS, though I could be wrong. If they do get money from the government, it obviously isn't much as they are always doing cash drives.
      • warnergt, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1They always want more money -- exactly like those "evil" corporations and greedy CEOs they always rail against. But, instead of earning it, they have a way to take it from taxpayers.
    • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7right, let's stop paying for roads and libraries too. i'm a libertarian, ROAR!
    • zeusthemoose, on 02/19/2008, -6/+10Then stop forcing me to pay for the ill conceived war in Iraq! Oh, but wait that is in the name of "freedom" so its ok to force one to pay for that, right? You rightwingers lack any form of rational logic.
      • Singularitarian, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Two wrongs don't make a right.
      • ArnoldTPants, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4But...but...but Iraq!!!

        I don't want to pay for PBS or Iraq. Both are unconstitutional and a waste of money.
    • Singularitarian, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6The socialists are out in full force on this thread. One person politely requests not to be subjected to force to pay for a TV channel--an utterly reasonable request--and somehow he is told that this request is "less than worthless". People who would never point a gun at someone don't think twice about having someone else (the government) point the gun for them.
      • minorthreat, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4i think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of socialism.
      • bubba9999, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4I always get my sense of social etiquette and polite behavior by watching Bill O Reilly.
      • jaxcs, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1Why are we talking about guns or socialism? If you want to use the argument that if you don't want something therefore I shouldn't have to pay for it Why can't I employ the same rational? If it's ok to say that you don't want to pay for PBS cause you don't like it, there are things I would like to stop being funded because I also don't like them. Even stevens, yes? I don't think there is anything socialist in what I wrote. In fact, I think it's very American to want a fair deal. I think this is a very reasonable request.
  • JimmySpaza, on 02/19/2008, -94/+14PBS is no longer needed or relevant. And it certainly should not be tax-payer funded or supported.

    If it is so good as some of its proponents say, then let it try to survive on its own without government support.

    The bottom line is that without government funding, PBS would dry up and blow away. Good riddance.
    • stilesja, on 02/19/2008, -7/+54Seriously dude, surviving on its own gives you "Girls Gone Wild" commercials during Nova... The Learning Channel started out cool informational programming now its ***** home make over *****... In a world of mindless entertainment PBS is using the publicly owned airwaves to deliver quality educational programming. If you don't like it no one is going to make you switch over from the Monster Truck rally.
      • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -17/+6i really doubt GGW will buy time during NOVA. and if people didnt want GGW then they wouldnt buy it. just because YOU dont like it doesnt mean its horrible. i have never seen a GGW commercial on discovery science. why do MY tax dollars have to pay for the broadcast of a celine dione concert or a paul simon tribute?
        • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -5/+17oh stop whining, im sure the .003 cents that it takes away from your McDonald's check every week really won't be missed.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5I'm not whining, i am opposed to my tax dollars being used for lots of stuff that is unnecessary. this is why our founding fathers didn't want an income tax. why does the govt have to sponsor a TV station?
          • wukillabee, on 02/19/2008, -8/+1because pbs owns
          • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -5/+9@Scrappy
            How the hell is PBS unnecessary?
          • Antwan718, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7@scrappy, why would you bother complaining about the next to nothing amount needed to fund Pbs vs the 800 billion or so that it takes to fund Iraq, not to mention paying 5 people at every social security office or DMV to process 3 each people ever 6 hours
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5@ macweirdo - look up necessary in the dictionary. we don't need it. what do you NEED it for?
            @ antwan - yes, there are many ways the govt wastes money. this is simply one of the ways.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -7/+7Is that the compassion that liberals show the working poor?
          • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8I NEED PBS in order to be an informed citizen. I NEED to know what's going on in the world around me, so that I can make informed decisions. Did I miss something? Did being informed about the world around us suddenly become obsolete? Does being educated no longer matter? Well, I think in that case, we can save a pretty damn good chunk of change by throwing out our education system right now.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5@ macwierdo - you really need PBS to be informed? try reading. there are lots of free sites on the net that have stories from all different viewpoints on all different topics. none of which are funded by my tax dollars. from social news to blogs to foreign and national news organizations, news is all around you my friend! PBS is not the only place to gather information.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/19/2008, -9/+5Amazing, isn't it? This wierdo guy is on the ***** INTERNET and he is whining that he needs to government to spoon feed him information so he can "stay informed." Liberals have got to be the most pathetic, helpless creatures on earth.
          • zeusthemoose, on 02/19/2008, -6/+4... And rightwingers lack any form of a brain. They do not know what logic is. They have lost all sight of reality.
    • enki25, on 02/19/2008, -8/+30Dumb people don't like PBS. Does not liking PBS make people dumb? Or are dumb people simply too dumb to understand why it's so great? We will never know. You will certainly never know, because you are a ***** retard pig *****.
      • JimmySpaza, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1The more bad language one uses, the bigger the loser. You're funny.
        • enki25, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Thanks I really like it when tractor-riding kool aid drinkers live on digg and call me a loser. How's this for bad language? Go ***** yourself you smegma drinking closet *****.
    • wukillabee, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8Tavis Smiley > JIzzySPAMza
    • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -6/+13You're like some little kid trying to argue that if broccoli was really healthy, then it would taste good.
    • rhodydog, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4Bottom line is, without taxpayers the military would dry up and blow away. I say let the military stand on their two feet. If the military is so important as many right-winders suggest, then people will step up and pay for it, it certainly should not be tax-payer funded or supported.
      • sequalls, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2READ the constitution. or maybe they will have a documentary about it on PBS.
        • JimmySpaza, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1For liberals, the Constitution is just something that gets in the way...or gets referenced occasionally when THEY need it.
    • amoirae, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6JimmySpaza is no longer needed or relevant.
  • stilesja, on 02/19/2008, -9/+169The public owns the airwaves, there needs to be a public broadcast system. No one is stopping anyone from watching the mind numbing ***** on the rest of the channels, hell its enjoyable sometimes but PBS never fails to deliver a good documentary or educational programing. I wish there were more of it like the science shows from the BBC I see you YouTube though.
    • kazamx, on 02/19/2008, -4/+19I just wish the BBC would put those shows up on iTunes or let people from the US pay to access BBC iPlayer. That way the BBC would have more money and make even more great shows.
    • Spuy767, on 02/19/2008, -7/+12I would ike PBS a hell of a lot more if that useless teletubbies/Barney ***** wasn't on all goddamn day until 7pm.
    • saxreturns, on 02/19/2008, -2/+10Sometimes I think you guys across the pond appreciate the BBC's programming more than most of us Brits do. I really think it's time the BBC listened and looked into expanding more into other countries that enjoy what they make. I've learned to appreciate it more myself recently, as most commercial channels here seem to be beginning a terminal descent into the gutter.
      • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Most of us across the Pond would greatly appreciate it if the BBC would make Steven Moffat the showrunner to *Doctor Who* instead of Russell T. Davies who is the most overrated writer/producer since Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams. We'd also like to better fund the show so it can be shot on HD from the start too...that would be much better than wasting money on the spin-offs like *Touchwood* that actually are shot on HD.
      • bubba9999, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1We only end up getting the cream of the crop over here, so Americans have a skewed view of British tv.
      • warnergt, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1No, we don't appreciate the BBC. It's anti-Americanism is second only to al Jazeera.
    • neodorian, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4That's really what it comes down to. The airwaves are supposed to be a public resource and the nature of public broadcasting vs commercial just shows the importance of having an outlet for those things that educate and inform as well as those other things that make money. If the only criteria you have to meet is to be profitable then the only TV you will end up with is "Ow My Balls".
  • Jakerzon, on 02/19/2008, -18/+8PBS is relevant to me if only because of those golden days of Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers.
    I find some of these topics on Digg to be devoid of interest and sterile of real value. This would be one of them. Asking if PBS is necessary is totally irrelevant and this guy's opinion is erroneous.
    • darthtofu, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5I lost faith in sesame street when cookies became a 'sometimes food'
  • coltrane68, on 02/19/2008, -27/+45"Don't force me to pay for PBS". Are you kidding? Nobody has been forced to pay for PBS.

    Public broadcasting is necessary for cultural, technical, and sociological reasons. However, I agree that television variety is no longer a compelling need.
    • olik, on 02/19/2008, -2/+19I disagree -- television variety is as essential as ever, and only likely to become more elusive as the FCC permits further consolidation.
    • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -21/+22the govt forces everyone to pay for PBS through tax dollars. and use the reply button if you are going to respond to a comment
      • RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -7/+7WOW, Public Television and Radio cost the general population roughly $1 a year. I think their are a lot bigger fish to fry if you want to start whining about government waste. Of course, the government wastes ***** of OUR money, but this is definitely money well spent. Also, lets not forget that Digital Cable, Broadband, DVD players, computers, etc are not available to everyone in this country. Not everyone has the clear choice between G4, GGW DVDs, and internet porn that you seem to have.
        • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -4/+8just becuase the govt wastes money elsewhere doesnt mean it can waste money here, just because you like PBS. and where in the constitution does it say the govt has to provide the poor with a TV station? if you cant afford internet, DVDs or cable then you can go to a library for any information that would be on PBS.
          • sirhomer, on 02/19/2008, -5/+3That makes no sense. You are against PBS which as RonJon715 said costs less then $1 per year, but you are for libraries, which often cost the average taxpayer hundreds of dollars per year? Let me guess, you are for the Iraq war too, costing the average tax payer thousands of dollars..?
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5i never brought up a war. stick to the issue at hand. libraries are funded by state and local taxes. PBS is funded with federal money. if i dont like how my local libraries are being run or funded i can get a voice or a hand in how they are run much more easily. or i can move to another state or municipality that suits my needs better if i feel that strongly about it.
          • sirhomer, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2@Scrappy1850

            I am just going by your past comments. The federal government is not unlike a state or a city government. You also have a voice no matter who moronically misguided it is, and you can also run for federal government positions. And of course, you can move to another country if this one doesn't suit you.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3its a lot easier to have an impact locally. i am a US citizen and i always will be. even if i move to Brazil i can not run away from that. i don't want to abandon my country over PBS. i just want the federal govt to stick to the constitution and quit spending my money on frivolous things. i thought most diggers were constitutionalists.
          • SKick, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1The federal government is funding a beneficial, educational tool for the American public in televised form. While the constitution doesn't explicitly grant the federal government permission to fill in a void otherwise ignored by the wasteland that is modern programming, I highly doubt many of the founding fathers would be against the education and enlightenment of its public. Sure, you're out of pocket a few dollars. In exchange, you don't have a fractionalized, poorly funded (in comparison) alternative, and I believe helping my fellow man is far more important than pushing some poorly thought-out, strict constitutionalist propaganda.
        • RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -5/+4Soooo, government money spent on libraries is better than government money wasted on PBS....I get your arguement, but your doing the same thing that I am, voicing an opinion about what constitutes well-spent public funding. So, where in our constitution does it directly state that the government should fund buildings full of books? Where in our constitution does it say that the Bush Administration can ignore our other two branches of government? No where....Like I said, bigger fish to fry...sorry if I came off as dick, digg can get a little impersonal.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4the difference is libraries get local (state and municipal) funding. PBS gets federal funding. i dont pay for your libraries, nor should i. i pay for my libraries through my state and local taxes.
          • Lynxpro, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4The various States do support their Public Broadcasting channels. I suggest you look up the published budget of your local PBS station, Scrappy.
          • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4so PBS gets no federal funds?
        • ddiggs, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4I eat at Taco Bell more often than I watch PBS, so give me my dollar so I can get a taco.
    • Lukesed, on 02/19/2008, -6/+22"Nobody has been forced to pay for PBS."
      Taxes, dude. I would probably choose to pay for nova if I wasn't already doing so every april 15 but not everybody wants it and I respect that.
      • EntropyFan, on 02/19/2008, -9/+14Not everyone wants to fund the military at its current level. I most certainly dislike corporate welfare, where we pay to have the Exxon Valdez renamed "Queen Mediterranean" and again carrying oil...
        I for one am glad to see my tax dollars, which I have very little say in spending, doing at least one good thing.
        • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -8/+7are you blaming the ship for that wreck?! the ship was fine, the captain was wasted!! now if tax dollars went to getting him back in the captains chair you might have an argument...
        • warnergt, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1"I most certainly dislike corporate welfare..."

          ...like where we have to pay the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting.
    • pintomp3, on 02/19/2008, -7/+6exactly, it's like saying "don't force me to pay for roads" an informed public is even more necessary. frontline alone has more truth than all of the corporate media.
      • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3roads are necessary for an effective infrastructure. PBS broadcasts muppets. there is a difference. there are plenty of other free ways to get news and stay informed.
        • jaxcs, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Roads aren't necessary if I never drive on them. Why do my tax dollars go toward maintaining a road in Kansas? PBS of course broadcasts much more than muppets and the programing of PBS is unique. When was the last time any of the networks showed a documentary at 8PM? Not everyone has cable tv.
        • warnergt, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1How do you think your food gets to your table?
          Do you have some kind of supply airlift so you don't need roads?
          • jaxcs, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1You miss my point, is education (and I don't mean just for kiddies) part of infrastructure? Why do some get to cherry pick and others don't? Why are roads all important, but news and shows about things other than American idol not important? Applying the same principles, Kansas probably has too many roads, I don't want to pay for roads that I'll never use. I don't want to be heartless, I'll give them one road. All those smaller roads between farms and communities, I think my tax dollars are better spent elsewhere.
    • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7The budget for CPB was $380 million last year. That is paid for by 300 million Americans, an average of $1.27 each. And given that I pay a lot more than the average in federal taxes, personally I consider $1.27 per person a fantastic bargain.
      • ArnoldTPants, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4300 million Americans do not pay taxes. If you like PBS then you pay for it. People that don't like it shouldn't pay for it. I also like PBS but will never given them a cent because I am already forced give them money. AND IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
      • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3pay me $1.27 every year for the rest of your life for a service that i provide that you will never use. sound like a good idea to you?
      • jhammond, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/
        CPB's budget is over $400 million. Not all of that money goes to public television. Money also goes to radio and Internet entities, and research.
    • bubba9999, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2Don't force me to pay for your ***** war then.
      • Scrappy1850, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3wrong topic. this isnt a "one or the other" situation. stick to PBS
  • pampusik, on 02/19/2008, -7/+200Yes, PBS is needed. Today we have thousands of channels and 99.98% of them are pure crap.
    • macweirdo42, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6True dat... Got like 50 channels of cable here, and I can't find a single one that isn't sensationalist garbage. Honestly, wouldn't even have cable right now if it wasn't free with the apartment.
    • deadhead05, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2Maybe, but so is the ***** on PBS. Teletubbies?
  • Tullamore, on 02/19/2008, -4/+52There are still a lot of places that cannot get cable. Cable and high speed internet is not available in my area.
  • joerod, on 02/19/2008, -6/+52without PBS where would I watch Sesame Street?
    • dblespresso, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9you would watch it on pbskids, the pay channel through directtv. They aren't above a little capitalism
    • lewhich, on 02/19/2008, -4/+6For real, where will I see Grover? and Bernie and the Count!
      • RonJon715, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2Is Sesame Street even on regular PBS anymore?
    • janeuner, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Bittorrent? =/
    • dig412, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Elmo knows where you live!
    • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Well unless you have cable, your kids will have to watch soap operas instead. Apparently that's the New York Times' version of "progress".
    • Singularitarian, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4If for some reason the government made shoes, then socialists would say, "under laissez-faire, who would make shoes?"
    • Atertract, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Or you could watch it on the Disney Channel and learn how to be a slut at the same time.
  • NCWdigital, on 02/19/2008, -5/+48Some of my favorite programs are on PBS -I grew up with PBS. I would hate to see it go.
  • hellbent88, on 02/19/2008, -9/+35of coarse they have kick ass documentaries
    • Chicken, on 02/19/2008, -1/+14They also have shows that help you spell!
  • YEEK, on 02/19/2008, -7/+120One word... "FRONTLINE"
    • tim620, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8Absolutely! My favorite. I would hate to see it disappear.
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 02/19/2008, -2/+8Best show ever.
    • higgs, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8Yes indeed!!!! It's worth keeping for Frontline alone. Lowell Bergman and the rest are some of the few remaining real journalists in America.
    • bdbr, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8Frontline has been one of the few shows that has been willing to take an in-depth, critical look at issues these days. All the other "news channels" are just quick hits and opinions that are cheap to produce.
    • tyboulder, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I'm with you 100%. An hour of Frontline has more content in it than 10 hours of any major news network. If people deem PBS to be unnecessary, then that speaks more of our society than it does PBS.
  • jebudas, on 02/19/2008, -6/+95God! If you had any doubt that the NYTimes has totally sold out then this article should put that to rest. F the NYT.
    • mrmx, on 02/19/2008, -13/+4sold out? The only TV program that I've watched on PBS was "antiques road show" and that show is so materialistic and pointless. I no longer have a TV (5 years now) and have been happier and mor