TV viewers in the West and the heartland depend more upon antennas for TV reception. Using Nielsen Media Research data, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Consumers Union found that viewers depend more on over-the-air broadcasts west of the Mississippi than in the East.

If folks out in what people on the coasts euphemistically call "Fly-over land" receive an ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS station they are quite lucky. Certainly, there are places where there is also a Fox or CW station in addition, how there are far more locations where fewer than three TV stations are available off the air. Many often forget that everyone does not have access to cable TV, nor can everyone afford to pay for even the most basic of cable services let alone satellite.

Yes, PBS does have a place in this day of 500-channels. No, I am not happy with some of the patently partisan commentary from PBS network commentators, but I am no less unhappy with the political positions of many who comment on the other major networks either and all use supposedly public airwaves; however as an entity PBS deserves continued funding if only to provide programming to those poor souls who have the misfortune to have to live somewhere between New York and L.A.

I remain,

The Old Soldering Gunslinger

You have replies turned off or something. Every other post but yours has a little [reply] button.

Who cares if "600 billion for the Iraq war" is inflated 10 or 20 or even 50%. It's still a gigantic amount of money spent with no tangible benefit to the United States. (and don't pull out some tired line about how it made us safer... pre-war Iraq != Al Qaida)

If you are comfortable saying that it's hard to gauge the cost of war, are you able to admit that it might be hard to gauge the worth of PBS? Educational programming pays dividends in the future, and is proven beneficial. Compare that to the proven worthless "abstinence-only education" which cost us 200 million in 2007 (nearly 1/2 the PBS budget).

Rocketboy:
PBS budget of 460 million in 2007 is based on a google search. 150 billion Cost of Iraq for 2007 is a number frequently mentioned, I don't have an exact value. As of last November it was 576 billion for the sum total cost over 4 years. (that's $5760 per tax payer!) These dollars are specifically allocated to Iraq, above and beyond normal military funding.

My point in comparing the two was that, if you are worried about how your tax dollars get spent, there are much bigger fish to fry, things that involve many more dollars (Iraq) or have positive benefit for many fewer people (see: earmarks / pork).

Another fact: per wikipedia, less than 60% of households get basic cable/satellite/FIOS. That's a lot of people who can only choose between a handful of broadcast networks or PBS.

OMG, is that really THE Mrs. Rogers that commented above? How cool is that!

And put me down on the side of public television lovers. Like other commenters, I choose not to have cable or other premium television services in my home. Quite frankly, I don't want hundreds or even dozens of channels to pick from. I just don't want to spend that much time in front of the tube.

That said, PBS has been one of the most consistently positive things in our culture and in my life. I'm almost exactly the same age as Sesame Street. When I turned two, I told my mom my pizza was a triangle and she knew I was a genius. Yeah, that's really tame in this day and age of two-year-old computer whiz kids, but back in 1970, that kind of wide-scale, free, pre-school education was radical. Many of my generation owe a lot to PBS and the head start it gave us.

Now I enjoy the fabulous diversity brought to me via public television, everything from terrific documentaries (often just a few short months after their theatrical runs), science programs that are up to the minute, history made fascinating, news and current events (without a corporate bias), cooking shows, children's entertainment and educational programming, British imports, and possibly my favorite, the arts programing.

Tonight, I'll kick back and watch the amazing production of Stephen Sondheim's 2007 Broadway reviveal of Company that was filmed (and preserved for all time) by Great Performances. I was fortunate enough to fly 3,000 miles to see this production in NY, but the vast, vast majority of Americans did not have that priviledge. And probably couldn't afford tickets anyway. Thank goodness there's a way to share the best of our cultural heritage with everyone. With no price tag, and no subscription needed.

There are a lot of things I'm not thrilled with my tax dollars funding, but this is one that I'm behind all the way.

Ofcourse we need PBS! Not everyone has cable and that is particularly the case for POOR children who LEARN from shows like Sesame Street and Barney! Not to mention other educational programming for other POOR people who want to LEARN! The government can pay for any number of useless thing and cut enough from all EDUCATION related areas. Lets not add PBS to the list.

A little perspective for the PBS haters:

PBS's 2007 budget: 460million. That's a lot of dollars. But wait... assuming 100 million taxpayers in the US, each of us in a sense only paid about $5.

Now consider IRAQ and a round figure of 150 billion. Assuming the same number of tax payers, each of us paid $1500.

Another comparison: Ted Steven's ill-fated bridge to nowhere was going to cost more than 800 million, twice the annual budget of PBS, to service a town of a couple thousand people.

Why do you tryi so hard to cut PBS' budget? Because of a perceived liberal slant. But as far as I can tell, liberal in this case is nothing more than "fair consideration of both sides of the argument".

In a word: Yes.

See Austin City Limits.

State run media is something out of the old Soviet Union or 1984. If PBS has shows worth watching, they shouldn't have to force us at gunpoint to pay for their broadcast. They should stand on their own like every other show.

The anti-PBS crowd usually claims that PBS is irrelevant in the age of Discovery, et al. The two problems with this argument are, first, that one must subscribe to cable or satellite to get Discovery and like channels. PBS can serve the public with educational and informational -- and yes, entertaining -- programming for free over the air.
Second, the programming on channels like Discovery or History are more often then not suspect when it comes to educational content. I mean, both channels routinely run programs devoted to UFOs and the like. PBS has a far higher standard when it comes to education and journalistic integrity.

PBS is our last source of excellence and fairness in programming. As the wife of "Mr.Rogers" I've seen it consistently over 50 years. Today, for instance, we are celebrating the 40th year anniversary of "Mr.Rogers'
Neighborhood" on the air in collaboration with WQED, the PBS station in Pittsburgh, PA. Right on, George Miles!!
Cheers! Joanne Rogers