Save PBS. It makes us safer

Post by theparanoid » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:42 PM UTC

gavinpc wrote: post #35

To me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a fi…

Post by astrodust » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:43 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #33

randyrand wrote: post #6

How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.

I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit. Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)

Post by astrodust » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:44 PM UTC

theparanoid wrote: post #41

gavinpc wrote: post #35

To me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a fi…

PBS is in a dying industry. Television. Perhaps another equally good public-private partnership will arrive. The Khan Academy and Wikipedia are something like that.

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:45 PM UTC

jhbadger wrote: post #29

knz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation. I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channel…

I remember how twenty years ago, the argument was made that the high quality of educational programming on the Discovery and History Channels made PBS redundant. I didn't agree even then, but at the time there really were some pretty good stuff on those commercial channels. But it turns out that shows about science and history don't make as much money as nonsense about ancient aliens and so the commercial stations st…

Post by LeifCarrotson » Wed, Apr 05, 2017, 10:48 PM UTC

67726e wrote: post #36

gavinpc wrote: post #35

To me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a fi…

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution. Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.