This point has been expressed many times in this thread.
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?
They aren't silly, they provide great educational programs for kids, how many times did you watch a documentary in school, and it was made by PBS? Also the reason you want to cut them is the deficit right? Well that has already been addressed as well, and defunding them won't solve the deficit.
The Constitution does not authorize the funding of a government propaganda network..
TNor should people who oppose the socialist message of NPR be forced to pay taxes to support it.
NPR should compete for dollars on the same free-market place that Limbaugh, Beck, and John and Ken are competing in. If they can't remain financially solvent then that's proof enough that the majority don't want it, and as Mayor Sokum keeps hearing from the left, the will of the majority is supposed to prevail.
Guess what? It already does. NPR gets a very small percentage of its operating dollars from government funding. Cut the funding and NPR barely hiccups.
There are other companies that create education videos for kids, Star. And PBS would survive not having the small percentage they get from the government. Who has said it would solve the deficit? Cutting uneccessary spending is what needs to happen. Why not start here and get the ball rolling?
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?
Guess what? It already does. NPR gets a very small percentage of its operating dollars from government funding. Cut the funding and NPR barely hiccups.
Guess what else? The republican obsession with NPR is really a testament to how clueless they are about fixing the budget. Their is a $1.5T shortfall and they chose to spend considerable time on the merits of a $7.5M. So that you understand the magnitude of $1M to $1T, consider that you live for 1,000,000 seconds every 11 days, but it takes 33,000 YEARS to have lived for 1,000,000,000,000 seconds.
The reasons given are silly. If we defund PBS, they'll survive. And even if they don't (slim chance), there are many other TV stations with educational programming and they don't take money from the government. Why not slice away the unnecessary spending?
The TELEVISION is not your teacher........it is not your child's teacher......neither is the toaster......or the radio.....or any other appliance in your home.
Another issue is bias. Yes, public media funding makes up a tiny portion of the budget, and getting rid of it would not seriously affect the deficit. However, many people take issue with giving any of their money to a media organization that they do not want to support. Many people here have remarked on NPR and PBS's impartiality. While I agree that these outlets do an excellent job of showing both sides, saying that the stations are impartial sounds like the hard right-wingers insisting until their faces turn blue that Fox News is the most unbiased source. I know that each one of you, would not want to give your tax dollars to Fox News, even if it had a small impact on your wallet. Yes, I know you'll say that Fox News is way more biased. I won't disagree, but both have their biases. No matter how little that bias shows itself, it will create opponents who are ideologically opposed to the reporter's analyses.
First off, I fully recognize that funding for the NPR and PBS is a drop in the bucket when talking about the deficit and federal budget. And most of the politicians focusing on this are doing so because public broadcasting is an easy target to grandstand and win support from their supporters on. It reminds me of foreign aid. Conservatives love to harp on foreign aid, when it's a tiny fraction of the budget. It's not surprising becasue unfortunately, grandstanding is what politicians do best.
Twenty or thirty billion sounds huge until you realize we're talking about a 3 TRILLION dollar budget. Foreign aid is 1% of the budget. One percent is miniscule. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for cutting foreign aid to the bone, but it's not going to come anywhere close to solving our deficit problem. It's an easy target (like public broadcasting) that politicians can grandstand on so they don't have to address the real problem (which would mean cutting entitlements and military spending which make up the bulk of our budget).
ForeignAssistance.gov
People can learn much about language via the television. That was the whole point of Sesame Street.
People can learn much about science by having things demonstrated to them via television. That was the whole point of Mr. Wizard.
People can learn much about other parts of the world by watching recordings of what happens in those places. That was the whole point of the National Geographic tv specials.
Television is a tool and it can enlightened and educate others. Is it the only tool to do so? No. But it can help.
It's just politicians grandstanding, pretending to solve the deficit, when they are doing nothing about it, and are letting the real problem grow bigger.
PBS deserves the funding IMO, it's a worthwhile venture.
It is still 20-25 billion a year.Its still a **** load of money. Going oh its a minuscule amount is probably one of the things that got our country into debt.
You won't even defund NPR to save money, but you'll probably defund defense all day long and nothing else.
The problem is, then it would turn into something like Fox or MSNBC, useless partisan bulls**t. Right now, it maintains a decent amount of objectivity, a load more than the other big "news" agencies put together.
Actually "the children" used to learn all that in school.......
......before a bunch of liberal union slobs took over. Anyways if you support PBS so much....start using your wallet.....mine needs a break.
Then why can't I have my taxpayer's dollars go to NPR instead of to the congressional-military-industrial complex?
I don't care about PBS or NPR, other American stations have enough money to run themselves.
But here in Canada, the CBC is a necessity. If there was no CBC, we'd be quickly over flown with American content and our culture would be completely assimilated in a matters of years.
So in such a rich country like yours that holds most of the worlds good TV and Radio producers, go ahead, scrap the federal stations. But Canada and other countries need them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?