Boston Globe reporter Megan Woolhouse reports that Channel Two is about to bring the hatchet down in light of budget shortfalls.
Alert to the brain trust at Channel Two. I’m here channel surfing as I blog – quite the multi tasker aren’t I – and in between words of wisdom on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic (which now goes by the much cooler moniker, NatGeo) I’m seeing a ton of ads and I don’t see how it’s eviscerating the educational programming for which the aforementioned media outlets have won numerous, prestigious awards. Do the execs in Brighton think commercials cause cancer, or something?
When does PBS wake up and smell the coffee???
Would a few volvo ads really descimate The American Experience, Nova, etc? In fact, a few commercials during the Emily Rooney Show – a.k.a. Greater Boston – would give me the time I need to run to the kitchen for a cookies and milk break.
Even better, becoming an independent broadcasting network, like everyone else, would alleviate the taxpayers sending the annual 400 million dollars PBS has become addicted to. Let me think……400 million in tax dollars……..maybe better spent on cancer research, feeding the poor, anything but TV.
I like my programming not interrupted by commercials, thank you very much! All we see these days is ads on TV, ads cluttering the roads on billboards, ads at sports venues (which are themselves often named for businesses), ads on the sides of busses and cabs. Enough of the over-commercialization of society already! I also feel that some of PBS’ more “reality based” news programming (Who else does a show like NOW?) could be jeopardized if they relied on corporate sponsorship.
“Public broadcasting” was a decent idea when there were only 3 networks and maybe a couple of fuzzy UHF channels. That was the 1960’s.
<
p>Now we have 500 channels excluding a million internet pipelines. Times have changed, but the CPB and PBS have not. Their federal subsidy has grown even larger over the years. The fact of the matter is the bloated public broadcasting industry is unable to survive on its membership dues alone without sucking at the taxpayer-funded teat that is our federal government.
<
p>I would likely subscribe to a self-funding PBS, but I’d like the option of not having to subsidize Christopher’s desire for commercial-free programming.
<
p>How’d he like to have his tax dollars funding some portion of the NRA’s budget? That’s how I feel.
NRA has a point of view which I’m not debating here. PBS reports stories and facts that sometimes it seems like the others won’t touch. Don’t get me wrong – the aforementioned cable channels have some great programming, but keep in mind not everyone can afford cable/satellite. The other thing about PBS is that lack of commercials frees it from worrying about ratings. As a specific example from experience – back in 2004 I did not have cable and thus only got 5 local channels (the ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, an PBS affiliates). No cable means no C-SPAN, so I was thankful the PBS carried both national party conventions throughout primetime with fewer interruptions than the commercial networks which maybe carried one hour per night. Bottom line, PBS still renders an invaluable service without requiring payment, which I would hate to lose.
Of course we do pay for it. Unless you don’t pay taxes.
<
p>We have no choice, no say in it, to pay for it. That’s my point.
and frankly in this case I think you know that. We all pay taxes and fund things collectively so that we all may also benefit collectively. Yes, it’s redistributive, but that’s precisely the point in my opinion.
The programming on History, Discovery, NatGeo is horrendous and superficial, save for say Mythbusters and a select few other properties. WTF is “Monster Quest”, anyway?
<
p>Nova, American Experience, Nature, Austin City Limits, Independent Lens, etc are almost always of a quality unparrelleled elsewhere on TV. The PBS children’s programming is a refreshing, thoughtful oasis away from the typical garbage packaged and sold to kids.
<
p>We got something good with PBS; let’s not eff it up.
I’m forced to pay for it even if I don’t want it. On the other hand, you don’t have to subscribe to cable.
<
p>Not that I really think PBS blows 100%. But a lot of it does, especially anything by Bill Moyers. I’d pay NOT to receive that programing.
<
p>I’d be happy to PAY for selected PBS programming, like Foyel’s War and other Masterpiece series. Maybe some sort of subscription pricing could maximize revenues and help wean CPB and PBS off the gvt dole.
…better start getting your money’s worth.
I pick and choose which PBS programming to watch. I like 20% of it. The rest, not so much.
Your argument applies to all government spending: military, transportation, even our institutions like the legislature, governor, president, etc.
Your comment is circular. Just because the gvt pays for it doesn’t mean it should.
<
p>You mention things that the gvt and only the gvt could fund and operate — national defense, government functions, etc. Running a TV network isn’t one of them. Neither are health care, housing, food preparation, etc.
<
p>If there’s a private sector delivery system, use it. CBP and PBS should be taken off government welfare. They’d do just fine as a subscription service.