I don't agree with that analogy because roads are a necessity and serve a broad public service. PBS is television. While it can be informative and entertaining, television is still a luxury and not a necessity. While it has some good programming, it is ones personal opinion, for example, to say that it is the best. While some hail Frontline, others give praise to 60 minutes. There are many educational and informative programming on commercial and cable television, as well as broadcast radio, newspapers and the internet.

The point is, there is no room for the in depth reporting, educational, and cultural programming on commercial television. It seems like everyone here who disagrees with funding PBS do so basically because they choose not to watch PBS. Isn't that sort of like me saying roads should all be built with private money because I only want my money used to build roads I actually drive on?

A PIPA study that was limited to Americans perceptions on WMD in Iraq. It was not a broad study on overall news. Still, if PBS were to operate on the commercial/privately funded market instead of being tax subsidized, it would still be on the air and those programs that PBS fans watch would still be there. So commercials will now be on the programming. It's not like PBS is the ONLY channel they watch. They are still exposed to commercial programming on other channels. Sure there are those that could argue that programming could be effected by going commercial, but the same could be said by the influence of those in charge of the government grants. We even saw it with the threat of pulling funding if PBS aired Postcards from Buster that had the rabbit visit a child with two mothers. Threats of pulled funding can happen with both parties who object to certain programming. Better to use tax dollars toward the poor or to improve education. PBS programming won't disappear but rather be under new management.

For all the people who say the needs filled by public broadcasting can (and are) being filled by commercial stations, how do you explain the recent PIPA study that showed people who named PBS as their primary news source were far better informed about the facts of the war in Iraq than people who named Fox News as their primary news source? Also, you all seem pretty caught up in the national PBS, but you must realize that local public broadcasting plays in communities all around the country -- including markets where there is no other local news.

"I assume you feel the same way about all government programs? Education? Prison? Welfare?" I would say take the government money from from public broadcasting and put it into those programs you mentioned. This is television folks. People were educated and learned things before it's invention. If so many people like it, they are certainly able to donate whatever they like to keep it running commercial free if they wish. Despite some of the quality programs on it, the article hit the nail on the head by also saying that, over the years, it has aired programming, such as Benny Hill and Faulty Towers. Now while these may be classic comedies in their own rite, so are ones such as Cheers and Seinfeld, yet these series were able to be watched on free television that wasn't subsidized. As I said, Cable and sattelite have it's share of cultural programming and channels as well, such as shows like Modern Marvels and channels like the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel, as well as History International. Sure it's nice to watch some intereseting programming, but Television is still a luxury. Many report doing better in school without it so it is not a necessity and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. I would rather those taxpayer dollars go toward more useful things such as food stamps, homeless shelters, teachers pay, etc.

I understand why PBS needs the sponsorship and that the sponsors expect a "brought to you by" but I agree. We watch alot of Noggin, no ads during shows. When my two year old started say "chuck E cheese where a kid can be a kid" I knew that even the "sponsorship" were ads

"No, I would prefer they take corporate funding and any money the "public" wishes to give them and stop taking tax money." I assume you feel the same way about all government programs? Education? Prison? Welfare? I mean, why can't poor people just take whatever money the "public" is willing to give them in the streets, right? Public broadcasting is good for the social welfare. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should go away.

No, I would prefer they take corporate funding and any money the "public" wishes to give them and stop taking tax money.

Well, I've never seen those, so I'll have to take your word on it. But, isn't a little odd to say you don't want PBS ferderally funded and then complain when they take corporate funding?

Turn on PBS and have a look, the Chick-fil-a cow is there along with Tony the tiger on a skateboard. If it walks like a duck...