Should Congress fund PBS?
 

I think it should, but it looks like an overwhelming majority of Americans think it shouldn't.

Vote at Parade.com.

VOTE: http://www.parade.com/articles/editi...ligence_Report

I'd say yes, just because my daughter and I really like the Curious George cartoon.

I, for one, am shocked...shocked that readers of "Parade" magazine don't like PBS.

No.

I am an avid fan of PBS and my daughter loves their kids channel, but no the gov't shouldn't be funding it.

However, the money spent on PBS is a pittance compared to most other things - so I really don't have a problem w/ it.

I feel that if the government starts to fund PBS, then they can get trigger happy with which content goes out. That to me a a major no-no. PBS is regulated by the FCC right? That should be enough.

However if the government wants to do like a grant or something similar (so long as they don't have say over what the money does), then I am all for it.

The government already funds PBS. The Bush administration wants to cut the funding in half.

Does a majority in a poll on Parade's website translate into "an overwhelming majority of Americans"?

Yeah, this is in the top ten of "things the government probably shouldn't pay for, but the amount is so small it doesn't really bother me."

What wenders said.

If they are legally required to keep the content neutral and unbiased like the BBC, then I'm all for it. The educational programming specifically retains a pretty high standard.

I was under the impression that it was on a local government level...guess not. Either way, my comment stands.

As long as they don't take Eastenders off the air I don't care either way.

Does PBS making any money off pledging? They do it quite often and I'm just curious if that makes them any money. It's usually between $30-$250 donations and if they just ask for bigger donations they could just knock off $100-$150 million.

Besides Eastenders I don't watch PBS very often, but I grew up with Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and Sesame Street. The kids like it and it's educational so I think it's pretty important.

Like others, I don't like the thought of the goverment dictating content, but on the other hand, they blow so much money on other pork-barrel crap, I wouldn't mind seeing some of that money go to a better cause.

Yeah, I feel sort of the same way. I would have absolutely no problem with the government paying for it outright, if I didn't see some Elmo toy selling a bagillion pieces every 3rd christmas or the Thomas the Tank Engine section of an aisle being 16 feet long. That rubs me the wrong way, but then I'm sure there is something here that I don't understand that would explain why things are this way.

But I really like Nova, Arthur (such a cute show), and Charlie Rose, as well as a smattering of other shows and specials and I want them to have a home. Especially with channels like TLC and Discovery dumbing down more and more with each passing year.

Didn't the government contribution break down to two cents per person? This was a while back so I'm sure it's even less now. I watch little PBS because the shows I would be interested in are edited for broadcast and often PBS does not run a disclaimer letting the viewer know.

if the government stopped funding PBS, they could have more advertising and they would probably get it. a lot of big companies already advertise on it

It would probably be a vast improvement for KCPT in Kansas City. I LOVED channel 2 in Minneapolis/St. Paul...a very progressive station, with a great variety of programming. KCPT in Kansas City is a pathetic excuse of a PBS affiliate.

Definately. With the History and Discovery Channels slowly turning to crap, I'd like to have one station thats still marginally 'educational'.

Mean you want to learn rather than watch men fish on a boat or a reality show about a family of Hobbits?

source

For fiscal year 2005, the total amount of money spent by "public broadcasting" was about $2.4 billion. That includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's $390 million Congressional appropriation, another $66 million in Federal grants and contracts, and $382 million from state and local governments. The rest mostly came from colleges/universities (mostly from state run colleges/universities), business, foundations, and "viewers like you".

I'm in favor of eliminating all federal funding for CPB.

In theory, I have no problem with federal funding for PBS. But their politics are skewed so far to the left that I have a serious problem with my tax dollars going to them.

Get them to clean up their act and then I'd be for it.

If they can't stay in business from donations then perhaps they should go to a pay service. I don't see any reason for the government to fund a television station.

I'd like to see government funding go away from this. It also seems to me if PBS did a better job negotiating merchandising rights to the kids shows (Elmo, Big Bird, whatever else is on there that kids watch nowadays), the $ from that could fund non-revenue producing shows and documentaries.

It is not so much the money that is being spent, which in the grand scheme of things is a drop in the bucket, but with the proliferation of cable channels out there, PBS needs to find private ways to keep itself afloat and in competition. Whether that be commercials, user donations/fees, other revenue, or some combo of the above.

So basically you want a government sponsored FOX News.


Would like to hear some examples of how PBS is so far left.