By Robert Armstrong

March 19, 2011 8:46 AM | Link to this

I agree with everything the author says. I watch PBS frequently and occasionally listen to NPR. There are some good shows. Where we diverege is the her belief that she has some inate right to have her entertainment choices subsidize by everyone else. You see, I can turn off PBS/NPR if I don’t like it, but I’m still paying for it

By Anon

March 19, 2011 10:53 AM | Link to this

While I can understand the “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” defense the writer applies, that doesn’t mean that the Government should put a gun to my head and force me to give up money I earned to pay for it. Further, the Pentagon has and is going to take its fair share of cuts, but the NASCAR sponsorship cost is pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things. NPR has already admitted that it doesn’t need the government’s money; why give it to them? I can find absolutely no reason to support Public Broadcasting with my tax dollars; people like the writer are more than welcome to support Public Broadcasting by dipping into their own pockets voluntarily and paying for it. That’s called the Free Market. Lastly, the writer clearly forgets that the first responsibility of Government is the safety and security of its people. When the Defense budget in this nation is about 19% of spending and Welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid/Medicare programs represent more than double what we spend on our national defense, our Government simply isn’t doing it’s job. Quit stealing my money and handing it out to other people—it’s my job to be responsible for myself and my family; it’s not yours! Conversely, it’s NOT my job to take care of you. To the writer specifically: please get out of your cocoon and see the real world. Maybe you could even help by volunteering to be a part of our great nation’s national defense. Perhaps the education you’d receive through your experiences might just help you to see everything your education missed.

By Old man @ 60

March 19, 2011 11:02 AM | Link to this

Watch what you like, Marisa. Just don’t expect me to cater to or fund your viewing pleasures. I have listened to NPR and watched PBS. They are no better or worse than the other affiliates. I don’t have to fund them either.

By JT2

March 19, 2011 11:12 AM | Link to this

Oh well can’t post a link - NPR CEO makes 1.3 million a year.

By jeff

March 19, 2011 11:19 AM | Link to this

Why do we need state run media in the first place? Why must everyone subsidize somthing that caters to a very rich, very elite, very white, very liberal segment of the marketplace? Why can’t the government subsidize something with broader appeal, like strip clubs? Oh, I get it. Govt. checks for pole dancers doesn’t fit your personal politics? What a narrow-minded, pretentious little article!

By Cheech

March 19, 2011 11:58 AM | Link to this

NPR should be self-supporting as are other stations, HGTV comes to mind. The revenues in advertisement and royalties from the sale of Merchandise from Curious George and others are sufficient otherwise go by the wayside as would any other station. I agree with “Old Man” simply because you like it does not require me to pay for it. With the need of Government funds, Telethons etc. how viable or needed is it?

By dpkdayton

March 19, 2011 12:07 PM | Link to this

If you like this programming so much, please feel free to open up your own check book and send them money.

By Kurt

March 19, 2011 12:48 PM | Link to this

Since you claim that PBS makes you think more, why don’t you discuss the REAL argument here: Why is PBS any different than the other 600 channels you can get today? It had a good run, and served it’s purpose. But now it is just another channel in the vast wasteland of TV. It will survive without federal funding. Let it go on and stop wasting taxpayers dollars. Why should I have to pay for your ballet and opera?

By Kasi

March 19, 2011 1:34 PM | Link to this

Give me a break!!!! I can’t stand public media ….and if you want it, pay for it yourself. We are in a deep recession where everyone is suffering and your biggest worry is “your favorite cooking show will go off the air”. Pathetic!!!

By Ron

March 19, 2011 2:44 PM | Link to this

“… a lot of us want something-for-nothing, or at least something-for-less, and so we create the State in our own image. Only a moral transformation will change that image, and nothing short will topple the state.” -Albert Jay Nock That quote applies equally to the young mother pleading for funding for wholesome public programming to the greedy sharks bilking us dry through no bid military contracts and banker bailouts. Our government is corrupt beyond belief. The only thing separating us from the old USSR is we can still find food any toilet paper on the shelves. Change is coming, it’s inevitable. That’s what central governments do, gobble up power until they go into ruins, unless we think somehow the USA is going to redefine the history of all governments and civilizations.

By Wizard

March 20, 2011 3:36 AM | Link to this

I love NPR and PBS, but I don’t think federal funding should be involved.

By ramjet

March 20, 2011 5:17 AM | Link to this

As I read the negative comments above, I am reminded exactly why we need PBR to have access to public funding. While it is true that some of the programing is slanted, that is not necessarily bad. PBR supports calm even presentations, entertainment and education including a very large educational base used by educators world wide. It does not provide a platform for hateful tirades by extremely slanted mouths from either side of the political spectrum nor does it promote violence in it’s programing although it does provide news coverage on an international and national level. PBR provides programing that is insiteful and level and does not promote a programing aimed at inciting targeted bigotry or negative actions presented as national agendas. At one time, comercial radio offered something as stern guidelines on civility, that does not occur on most commercial programing unless the advertiser supports that venue. PUBLIC RADIO AND TELEVISION, educates, informs, and entertains. While it may be supported more from the left that the right, it does present much more even information that the commercial electronic meda and is not influenced by the money of a single billionaire times how low a percentage of the population. Public Support for PBR is public support for the widest distribution of general information, insiteful presentations and entertainment we have in the United States of American, the country that my comrades and I risked our lives (and many lost their lives) so we would be free of the control of a few who control the power of our freedom. Keep PBR FUNDING. I

By Leslie

March 20, 2011 2:03 PM | Link to this

2005 Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s own chairman has confirmed what critics have long been saying: Public television has a liberal bias. Tomlinson stated,“‘Now With Bill Moyers’ does not contain anything approaching the balance the law requires for public broadcasting.”

By jimmie

March 20, 2011 4:37 PM | Link to this

Poor Marisa. She argues intelligently about the quality of NPR and how much she enjoys it. She then concludes by saying that I, as a taxpayer, must pay for her enjoyment. Don’t know if Marisa is an elitist lib or not, but she sure acts like one.

By Tomas

March 20, 2011 4:38 PM | Link to this

Heaven forbid that we should have media that actually has intellectual content! The people in this idiotic country prefer stupidity and want everything for nothing. This is most definitely a GOP ploy to get rid of something appears to support their opposition, since intelligence is required to listen or view PBS. Let ignorance rule in America, the land of fat stupid people.

By Realthinker

March 20, 2011 5:10 PM | Link to this

PBS no longer holds an exclusive on intelligent programming. Every kind of program available on PBS is also available on cable. That includes children’s programs. There is no need for state funded television in this country.

By Patti

March 20, 2011 5:50 PM | Link to this

If the free market is that great, why do I have several hundred channels of nothing by glorified commercials? At least PBs isn’t trying to get me to Home Depot or sell me an action figure. PBS has a long history of providing quality programming, that you simply DON’T get anywhere else. It’s akin to funding the arts. Keep it, flaws and all. I love how the R’s keep lowering expectations and bulldozing opposition.

By Dwight

March 20, 2011 6:28 PM | Link to this

Where in the constitution does it provide for taxpayer funding of PBS/NPR? I’ll give you a hint, IT DOESN’T. When you consider the shameless political left wing bias that the over paid elite management of NPR/PBS defiantly refused to admit until caught red handed, therein lies yet another reason to cut this bloated government agency off from the public purse. Liberals love nothing better than spending someone else’s money. What would Prince Harry and Queen Nancy be saying if PBS/NPR were a bastion of conservative thought as opposed to left wing liberalism? “Off With Their Heads”! Let the Liberal Crowd Munch on Some Cake. Only let them pay for it themselves for a change! A little more free enterprise would do them good!

By Judi

March 20, 2011 7:10 PM | Link to this

DWIGHT: stop with the stupid ignorant Right Wing BS remarks. Go watch FOX, since you obviously take what they say as the gospel. You’ve got those talking points (LIES) down pat. NPR is a good source of “fair and balanced” news and opinion, as well as PBS for their programing. They could very well make it without government support, though. BUT the point is here what the Republicans are really trying to do: they only want THEIR tunnel vision point of view to be broadcast. That way they can dumb down everybody (see DWIGHT) because the public is easier to manipulate that way. This country is on it’s way to the bottom.

By Freedomlover

March 20, 2011 7:25 PM | Link to this

Marisa’s article was missing one vital element. The constitutionality of such funding. NPR and PBS are just the tip of the iceberg. Planned Parenthood could very well be next.

By victoria

March 20, 2011 8:55 PM | Link to this

These stations can support themselves. It is wrong to use taxpayers money to subsidize them. We simply cannot afford them. There are many channels or stations where you can find any kind of information you want. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to provide them for the elitist few. There are much more important places to spend taxpayer money!!!

By refugee from glenbeckistan

March 20, 2011 9:20 PM | Link to this

NPR is the only source of unbiased news left in the country. No wonder the fairness doctrine scares the right wing to death. They wouldn’t survive a week if they to stand up to someone highlighting their lies.

By Harold

March 20, 2011 10:26 PM | Link to this

From what I see of these comments not many watch PBS or listen to NPR. If you did you would know of all the funding drives they do to help defray the costs. This money is donated by listeners. Frontline is a news investigation program that has won many awards for being unbiased in their reporting. Nova a science program that has been on for decades also has won awards. To get any other programing you have to shell out $40.00 a month to cable or dish. Free market. How do you like having just one newspaper in town.$1.85 for a Sunday paper and only one slant on the news. Not right or left, just theirs. Quit making me fund these stupid wars.I’ll take my chances Give me back my money that I paid for your street that I never drive on. Start reporting your REAL income to the IRS and quit looking for loopholes. And lastly get off your duff and do something for your community. Paybacks go many different ways.

By Uriah Deep

March 20, 2011 10:26 PM | Link to this

Public funding of mass media should be limited to servicing freedom of information act requests from citizens to get copies of government records and official business memoranda. NPR and PBS don’t do FOIA requests, nor do they present information retrieved from FOIA requests, so they should be de-funded immediately.

By dgl

March 21, 2011 5:50 AM | Link to this

Eliminating funding for PBS/NPR is a way to stir controversy. If certain individuals in congress want to eliminate funding for PBS/NPR then, we should eliminate ALL corporate socialism. This would include subsidies to the oil companies and pet defense projects on non-essential weapon systems. (systems being used to keep people employed and have no tactical or strategic importance.) Also eliminate ALL lobbyists and their pet interests. Take away NPR, take away corporate socialism.

By c'mon man

March 21, 2011 6:19 AM | Link to this

Its past time for NPR to stand on its own. I used to listen to it all the time until I got sick of the liberal bias. I am done paying for it.

By Navin Johnson

March 21, 2011 6:26 AM | Link to this

Judi’s daily post blaming everything on Fox News. Just another exercise in her liberal bias and she just doesn’t have the brain power to recognize her blatant hypocrisy. NPR not biased? They have admitted it, why can’t you?

By rt

March 21, 2011 6:39 AM | Link to this

Though some NPR/PBS stations provide quality programming, they should not be funded by the govt. Tax dollars should be spent on items truly needed by the public that are difficult to fund otherwise (police, fire,…)

By Thelma Slade

March 21, 2011 6:41 AM | Link to this

I enjoy some shows on PBS. The cooking shows, the historical and especially the recording artists. I don’t think the reasoning behind the financial cuts are clear. I believe and support the cuts for one reason. Obama. He and his associates such as George Soros, Cass Sunstein and others would like nothing more than to control the media regarding how much or shall I say how little conservative material is allowed on the television or radio. While I enjoy some of PBS, I support the Congress in their efforts to fight Obama.

By Bruce

March 21, 2011 6:59 AM | Link to this

NPR and PBS, IMHO, are a sound alternative and TV worth watching I have enjoyed for 40 years. During 1972-74 I had the opportunity to work for WOUB TV in Athens as a college student. Late into the evening we aired the Watergate hearings. There was no CNN, C-SPAN, or anything as fair and balanced as letting viewers see and hear for themselves-not sound bites but the whole thing. Early in the morning young children watched Sesame Street and received a head start on school and relationships. Parents trusted their kids with Bert and Ernie. Parents can still do this today. There is nothing else that compares even with 85.00/month satellite service! As I review the contents of my DVR, most of what I save and enjoy later is PBS — from Think TV Dayton. It’s time for me to pledge and further support what I enjoy. While I am in my car give me classical, bluegrass, state news, and rationale thought from NPR/WYSO. I absolutely shudder to think about radio with only Shawn, Rush, and other syndicated and local “talk” shows from the far right only…

By Ignatius

March 21, 2011 7:22 AM | Link to this

The right-wing ideology in the US is bible literalism. The left-wing ideology in the US is Diversity (victim cult). NPR and PBS present nothing important that is contrary to the phony right/left paradigm. In fact, NPR and PBS report information that is generally complimentary of both ideologies. For this reason alone, NPR and PBS taxpayer funding should end.

By Bruce "shudders"

March 21, 2011 7:27 AM | Link to this

I’d shudder too, Bruce, knowing that your propaganda machine would have to continue on in a free market…funded by advertisers and all the radical “far right only” people who buy the products advertised. The country has to be overwhelmingly inhabited by National Socialists for non-government funded radio to survive. Listen to Air America, Bruce. Ohh!! It failed due to lack of listeners AND advertisers! I guess there weren’t enough Marxists with cash to keep it going. Even your main source of “anything as fair and balanced” George Soros couldn’t keep it going. Bruce…fund it yourself. Your bias to all things socialist is telling. This is a Republic, not your “collective”. Fund your anti-freedom (unless it’s your freedom), anti-American, anti-free thought (unless it’s your biased “free thought”) propaganda tourself…with the help of your central commitee and proletariat collective. Call Michael Moore for money…if you can get him to shut his food filled collective pie hole enough to speak. Call William Ayers and his wife for money. The founder of The Weather Underground, murderers and terrorists, will gladly help you out. Being found out to be liars and losers sucks, doesn’t it, Bruce?

By Love Dayton

March 21, 2011 8:52 AM | Link to this

When I read the comments, I weep for this “it’s all about me and keeping my money” country. I’ve traveled all over the world and this is the only one that doesn’t get it. By privatizing everything, the 400 people who control the wealth and power of 160 million Americans will dominate all aspects of what you consume, including media. As I look forward to retirement, I realize that I don’t belong in the USA any longer. I’m off to the UK. Brits get it. They take care of each other and aren’t off to screw everyone over for a dime. This country is doomed.

By Raoul

March 21, 2011 8:59 AM | Link to this

I enjoy NPR and PBS, despite the fact that I know there is a liberal bias. One cannot watch NOW with Bill Moyers without realizing the propaganda that takes place. None of the comments from people that support public funding of these media outlets make any significant points at all to support their views. However, most seem to try to make the point that PBS and NPR regular listeners are somehow smarter than the average FOX viewer. I have to ask, why do liberals always view themselves as smarter than conservatives? It’s almost as if they consider things like abortion on demand,. the public school system, renewable energy programs, and the War on Poverty as ‘good things’. I will continue to tune in to PBS and NPR, but I would prefer to support it with my own money when and if I want to contribute, rather than have it forced upon me. However, if it is ever decided to have a weekly debate on PBS between Bill Moyers, and say, Ann Coulter, I might support public funding.

By rm miamisburg

March 21, 2011 9:07 AM | Link to this

to think with the money they make off Sesame Street alone, last year PBS made 250 million on the merchandising of Big Bird,Elmo,Ernie, Bert, Kermit etc. So take that money and use it to pay for PBS or NPR. PBS has telethons every quarter, they raise the amount each time they need to keep programs on air. I enjoy watching PBS, This Old House and so many other’s, YET I don’t want to pay for other shows I don’t agree with points of view with them. Someone posted they pay for cable for 600 channels, we so do I. If the writer of this story, doesn’t have cable, fine her choice. But I do and think it is time PBS starts running TV Ad’s. I mean a Sponsor by Home Depot or Xyz paint or Chevy, is not a TV Ad, well I have some land under the Ohio River I will sale and cheap. As for Bruce and or Judi with I don’t want Rush-Hannity-Beck or other radio shows. Well there is something on the radio that I use. It is called changing the station or GASP buying Sat Radio, or even Cd’s, or gasp even turning the radio off. Lots of other programs on radio then Rush or Hannity or Beck. Music still abounds, or you can just not turn them on. Well must run and get my aluminum foil away from my head, last thing I want is spam from NPR hitting my mind.

By Love Dayton

March 21, 2011 9:10 AM | Link to this

Raoul - you are an idiot and your comments are indicative to support my blog entry re: the state of this country. Less than 10% of the people who actually listen or watch public media write a check to support it. Where are the rest of the lazy cheap SOBs who want something but won’t write a check? Off at Walmart supporting the Chinese economy? Bill Moyers and Ann Coulter? Give me a break! Ann Coulter is a moron in a dress. Love to listen to Bill M destroy her recent comments that “radiation is good for you” when referencing the Japanese nuclear problems. Go watch Fox Noise and lobotomize yourself!!!

By Squirrellygirl

March 21, 2011 9:41 AM | Link to this

Although I thought Jeff’s blog was a little base, I actually agree with him. Taxpayers don’t agree on what we like, so why are we paying taxes to fund a station that may or may not broadcast stuff we all agree on? The tough survive. If it is worthy, it will stick around. There is plenty of other broadcasting stations, and cable stations, etc. so why do we need to use our tax dollars to fund this? Especially when our dollars are needed for more important things, and especially since our Federal gov’t is operating at a deficit? We should stop the funding of anything that is unnecessary, and people, this is unnecessary. When our country is no longer looking at a failing economy, then revisit it. But for now, we need to get out of the broadcasting business. And we don’t need to be funding PP neither. 30% of PP’s budget comes from the tax payers, and we shouldn’t be funding such a polarizing place. Tax payers can’t agree on this, so why are we paying for it?

By Mike

March 21, 2011 9:46 AM | Link to this

Republicans are ghoulish. Free market…that’s funny. Do some research instead of just parroting talk radio and Faux News . What a bunch of sheeple.

By Love Dayton

March 21, 2011 10:33 AM | Link to this

S-girl - So we all have to agree with something for it to be funded? How ignorant! I don’t agree with invasions of countries other than to ensure the flow of oil, so let’s roll that cost back. I don’t agree with buying planes, bombs and $500 toilet seats, so let’s cut that cost. This country is based upon and drew strength from its differences. Now, we all have to be the same or it’s cut, cut, cut. This country has become insane!

By Quentin

March 21, 2011 10:36 AM | Link to this

Love Dayton is a perfect example of the problem. Even a basic and non-insulting post like Raoul made is not acceptable as a different opinion to the liberals. They feel we MUST pay to support their biased opinion sources but then demand we also silence different opinions. If you do not believe like they do, then you are not as smart, well informed or etc. Of the many posts you will see that the liberals are full of hate and insults in their posts here with reason and actual thought being the primary posting of those who are more conservative. I have a simple challenge, will any of the liberals who push we need diverse thought, beliefs, opinions and free speech without hate in a civil debate actually speak out against this by their own side? I doubt I will see that and instead will likely get a lot of hate posts instead by the “civil and thoughful” liberals.

By Bob

March 21, 2011 10:45 AM | Link to this

Raoul, go back to Cuba man. Bill moyers has been off PBS for over a year now and retired. You just want tot complain to hear yourself complain!

By Elmo

March 21, 2011 11:10 AM | Link to this

Sesame Workshop is a non-profit organization. http://www.sesameworkshop.org/sesamestatement02152011

By Love Dayton

March 21, 2011 11:17 AM | Link to this

Quentin - “non-insulting”? Looks like you need to have your head examined. He said “liberal propaganda”. I’m sick of Rethugs thinking that Dems will roll over and take their litany of mindless garbage without standing up to defend ourselves. “Don’t Tread on Me” works both ways. BTW, there is no doubt in my mind that the average liberal is better read, greater traveled, and generally more intelligent than the average Walmart-shopping, McDonald-eating, Fox News-watching Repub….no doubt at all. I was raised to read, educate myself and improve my life. Now, that makes me an “intellectual elitist” by the freakin’ white trash gun-toting conservatives! I hate what you’ve done to the USA!

By NCF

March 21, 2011 11:32 AM | Link to this

Sesame Street is big business. They even have a theme park. (It’s a great park, by the way. My kids love it.) If worked correctly, PBS could fund itself by merchandising its own “action figures”. Good grief, people! Are you all so far entrenched in your personal ideologies that you cannot see the middle ground? The programs could still advertise their corporate sponsorships and grant underwriters as they do now, and they could recycle (heh) the profits from merchandise licensing back in to support the channel. No, I don’t think they’ll need to show ads for Big Bird backpacks that they sell in Wal-Mart. (Kids find those things now, don’t they? And without commercials!) And, squirrellygirl, you know I agree with you on many points, but to cut funding on an entire broadcasting network simply because we don’t all agree is unreasonable, and your opponents can take your argument there into a “reductio ad absurdum” counterargument. I really enjoy some of the shows on PBS, and hope that when the dust settles it remains in existence — just not taxpayer funded. I know Mister Rogers would take a dim view of the way you people on both sides of this are acting. Now, about free-market solutions for WYSO… not sure. I’d hate to see my buddy Jerry out of work, and I think there could be a way to make it viable… how does WSWO do it?

By null

March 21, 2011 11:41 AM | Link to this

the day PBS carries Larry the Cable Guy is the day I’ll start watching.

By null

March 21, 2011 11:44 AM | Link to this

I say let’s support NPR and PBS. Let’s dump Fox News instead - our family calls Fox News “False News” because it’s not even news.. just a bunch of right-wing propaganda and lies.

By null

March 21, 2011 11:45 AM | Link to this

I say let’s support NPR and PBS. Let’s dump Fox News instead - our family calls Fox News “False News” because it’s not even news.. just a bunch of right-wing propaganda and lies.

By Raoul

March 21, 2011 11:55 AM | Link to this

Love Dayton, I admire you for your willingness to serve as the poster boy/girl for all of the points conservatives make about liberal elitists. You really take the cake. But I will give you a chance to prove how intelligent you really are. Where in the Constitution does it state the government must fund public airwaves? I have no doubt many liberals are intelligent and read a lot. I just don’t understand how they can lose every argument and still think they are smarter.

By Love Dayton

March 21, 2011 12:06 PM | Link to this

Do your research, Republicans!: CPB was founded by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, with the support of President Lyndon Johnson and most of Congress. The Act set up the CPB as a government-sponsored corporation whose funding came through the Department of Housing, Education, and Welfare through the Office of Education. The CPB was allowed to make its funding requests directly to Congress. Because it was not set up as an independent agency or given long-term financing, the CPB was required to continually approach Congress for funding approvals—an arrangement that has influenced much of its history. Under the terms of the Public Broadcasting Act, the CPB set up a fifteen-member board of directors that was appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. This board could not have more than eight members from the same political party as the president, and its members were forbidden from engaging in political activity.

By Tucker

March 21, 2011 12:20 PM | Link to this

Not all but a lot of the Content on PBS is good, NPR has a one sided agenda, so does the Ohio Channel. I think they have all been getting fed by the tax payers for way to long. They have grown up enough to stand on there own two feet or fall by themselves!

By Steve

March 21, 2011 12:22 PM | Link to this

PBS is an excellent source of educational material for both children and adults. A lot of the t.v. viewing in my home is on PBS. My kids watch it before school and when they get home before supper. Shows like The Electric Company help them with their reading while my wife makes supper and I’m still at work. I know it helps because my 5 year old is reading at nearly a 2nd grade level. Funding for these types of programs should not be cut entirely if at all. The benfits of them are too valuable.

By Raoul

March 21, 2011 12:58 PM | Link to this

LD, in your thoughtful, intelligent, tolerant world of liberal elitism, what happens when you are confronted with painful truths that shake the core of your beliefs (other than eliciting insults and name calling)? For instance, when virtually all of the so-called icons of Evolution theory are proved wrong, would you still be teaching it to our schoolchildren? Would you tell the millions of starving Africans that banning DDT was the right thing to do? And when scientific studies show surprising results that exposure to radiation in levels previously thought to be fatal might actually help the body fight a winnable defense against it, would you still carry a ‘No Nukes’ sign? If you were provided with poll results from independent sources that show Conservatives give much more to charity than liberals, would you continue to call them racist, intolerant, selfish? I guess the point is, it’s not who has the most knowledge, it’s how the knowledge is applied. By that standard, conservatism wins by a landslide.

By NCF

March 21, 2011 1:28 PM | Link to this

Hey, you know it’s come up a lot in discussions with liberals… By what measure do you consider someone to be “well read”… or, as “Love Dayton” put it “better read”? Naturally, we all think ourselves to be “well read”, but does one really need to have read, say, “Catcher in the Rye” to be able to have a discussion with someone who’s a political liberal? Is anyone’s opinion on a subject automatically invalidated because they haven’t read this or that irrelevant book, or gone to this or that country as a gawking tourist? NO, of course not. That is a standard ad hominem ploy by the Left, used to derail a discussion that has clearly gone to in favor of the Right. You’ll notice that people on the political Right don’t much care which off-topic books you’ve read, but the Left always try to use that to make condescending hay. Well, people on the Left, how may we accommodate your need to converse with people who are “better read”? There are many of us who would likely already meet your requirements, and then we can continue discussing this as equals, n’est-ce pas?

By Anon

March 21, 2011 4:07 PM | Link to this

There is no reason for taxpayers to be paying for any public broadcasting. If there is a market for these channels then they will do just fine on their own. Government is now a runaway train and we need to start cutting in a major way - this is not sustainable and the whole PBS issue is a symptom for all that is wrong with Washington.

By Anon is an a**

March 21, 2011 4:56 PM | Link to this

PBS is a symptom of what’s wrong? So your kids WATCH PBS, you just shouldn’t have to pay for it? You will find “books” in a “library”, unless you have closed all of those as well. It doesn’t bother you at all that the right keeps attacking the sound pieces of the “left”? What generation will be taking care of you in your old age? It is the younger generation, and we need to start leaving them something substantial. YOU are what’s wrong with America, you pathetic loser. Waaah, we can’t afford PBS, waaah.

By JPM

March 22, 2011 9:54 AM | Link to this

If PBS had been confined to shows about home improvement, cooking, travel, gardening, science, Big Bird, etc. there would be no problem and we would not be having this discussion. It is the shows about current events and politics, where undeniable left wing bias invariably creeps in, that is at issue. Government-supported media has a built-in conflict of interest. It will tend to reciprocate that support by promoting the political views and agenda of “big government”, which is most closely associated with the Democratic party. Supporters of a big government solution to every conceivable problem undoubtedly think that a state-supported media is the best of all possible worlds. But it is unreasonable for them to expect those who do not support their left-wing agenda be made to pay for its dissemination.

By Raoul

March 22, 2011 10:14 AM | Link to this

Well said, JPM. It’s interesting to note that despite reasoned efforts to explain why, even though we like much of PBS and NPR, we conservatives object to them being funded by taxpayers, the opposition construes it as a means to shut them down. Huh? Nobody wants them to be shut down. We just want them to stand on their own. But I guess standing on one’s own is no longer an acceptable American characteristic. And the liberals think conservatives are destroying the country? Insanity rules, at least on the left.

By Charlie Rose vs. Charlie Sheen

March 22, 2011 10:28 AM | Link to this

Facts are non-partisan. I realize that fact-checking is “hard” for Fox News followers. PBS belongs to us, and it’s independent of commercialism for programming. It’s also been demonstrated that the PBS funding process is painstakingly non-partisan.

By NCF

March 22, 2011 10:59 AM | Link to this

I just noticed another of the standard liberal ploys is being used here: hiding behind ‘the children’. I don’t think there’s been any of us on the Right casting aspersions at the quality of educational programming offered through the CPB. In fact, I think the majority of us would agree that the programs for children are good enough that our children will watch them without our prodding them. Yet even going back to Mr. Rogers’ appearance before Congress on May 1, 1969 (as cited quite prominently on the CPB website), the taking of taxpayer money to fund the entirety of the Public Broadcasting is presented in terms of “…but think about the CHILDREN!” Well, OK, then. Let’s think about the CHILDREN, and have PBS only run kid shows, on only one digital frequency, and stop broadcasting as soon as bedtime rolls around. And as I pointed out before, the entire network could probably fund itself on the licensed merchandise alone. That would be easier, since they wouldn’t have to pay for all of those other shows, plus it would be “greener”, since they would only broadcast about 14 hours a day. I think Fetch! would really benefit from taking over Charlie Rose’s budget. After all, the children aren’t really being served by watching Are You Being Served.

By mike

March 22, 2011 2:03 PM | Link to this

It’s funny, everybody agrees that spending is out of control but nobody wants to give anything up. I enjoy PBS and I have no problem paying for it. Does anyone really think that most of these shows will go away? If Sesame Street gets cancelled Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network would scoop it up in a second and that’s true for most of the PBS programming.

By Raoul

March 22, 2011 2:07 PM | Link to this

Charlie vs Charlie, just who do you mean by “PBS belongs to us”? If you mean “Democrats”, then fund it yourselves. If PBS was run by conservatives, and instead of Moyers they aired “NOW with George Will”, your side would be picketing on the Capitol building steps. Why should conservative taxpayers be forced to pony up for a large, Democrat party loving network? And who’s talking about Fox News? Quit diverting attention from the issue.

By Celia

March 22, 2011 2:38 PM | Link to this

So where in the constitution does it say I have to bailout the oil companies to the tune of tax breaks to companies making billion dollar profits?????? The free market only goes to Republicans who chant free markets and would have let GM and Chrysler fail, then would have blamed Obama for the loss of jobs. This pay no tax brainwash the Republicans have pushed will come back to haunt them.

By Celia

March 22, 2011 2:45 PM | Link to this

I forgot …Where in the constitution does it say I have to pay farm subsidies in the millions. Many in the congress and senate have enjoyed their families getting huge pay outs and then turn around and complain about someone taking a dime. The family of Michelle Bachmann is a Tea Partier and had one of the biggest hand outs of them all!!!!! Though there are many more members taking a hand out. It is kinda like politicians telling us workers are way over paid….but I have not seen one of them come forward and take a big fat pay cut. You all are a bunch of swindled fools.

By NCF

March 22, 2011 4:15 PM | Link to this

mmm… Don’t ya just LOVE the taste of Red Herring? Yummy!

By 460 million

March 22, 2011 8:13 PM | Link to this

This country can’t afford 460 mil for PBS? Bullshit. It is undeniable that PBS provides quality programming that no one else is providing. It could be that a lot of things have changed since PBS was started, but I have spent the last several years watching cartoons and TV w/ kids, and I can tell you that there is a lot of crap out there. I also know several people who do not allow their kids to watch Spongebob, and they watch PBS educational programming. It is especially good for preschoolers, and then older folks who like informational programming w/o the spin. My parents even watch those stupid British shows. If you think PBS is “pinko”, prove it, or else readjust the aluminum foil on top of your head so the government can’t steal your nonexistent brainwaves. Planning for the future is actually hard work, and you are obviously willing to do none of it, so STFU.

By Hesoubloola

March 30, 2011 4:19 AM | Link to this

It is all true, but as for me if there are visitors to the sites, there are no comments since everyone wants to participate in the discussion passed a topic, thereby to shine in a circle of bloggers, so I believe in direct proportion to the number of comments depends on the number of visitors .. Well of course we do not take spam

By Bob540

April 15, 2011 8:58 AM | Link to this

Man, I wish I’d seen this column earlier. For those who “don’t want to subsidize public broadcasting”, you have to know that other things get subsidized by segments of the public that don’t give a hoot about them. For example, professional sports. To keep teams from moving, municipalities pay to construct ever-larger stadiums for them, passing tax levies to help pay for it all. Taxpayers who couldn’t care less about the sport/team still have to pay those higher taxes. And cable sattelite systems require everyone to pay for channels they don’t want, including sports channels like ESPN and Big Ten Network. I’m a big sports fan, but I have friends who have no interest in sports and who complain that they resent having to pay higher cable fees to support those channels. So, it is not just PBS and NPR that get subsidized by public dollars. (PS I think this young lady did an excellent job at making her points)