Jim Johnson said:
http://www.janson.com/media/2010/12/13/pbs-audience-demographics/
I was surprised that we subsidize CPB/PBS to the tune of $445M for 2013. To me that is no penny ante amount. Why should we subsidize public television? The demographics confirm what I knew from experience - much of PBS/NPR's audience are college educated and making a nice income. With the advent of cable, satellite, Internet, etc. the need for public broadcasting is over. If any shows on PBS have a good following, they will be picked up by the plethora of cable channels. PBS is no longer the only source of documentaries and nature programming. CBS, ABC and NBC can fill the need for liberal news. Let PBS accept advertising. Though I do appreciate PBS bringing me Monty Python.
What say you? I bet I can guess the right-wing's stance but what about you moderates and liberals?
Jim J
We are over 16 trillion dollars in debt and we're clearly are going to have to make cuts to pay for it. Doesn't it make sense to get rid of the stuff we don't need, like TV programming, before we start on the stuff that we do need. PBS has/had some great stuff. But it was originally funded when we had a total of 3 choices of channels to watch. The question is, why are paying for it with tax dollars, when it can join the rest of the over 200+ channels available? It's not like it couldn't survive without federal funding.
If democrats can't live without TV, what the heck will they agree to cut? Clearly, PBS is small amount of money in the big picture, but cutting the entire defense budget won't solve the problem either. I barely watch TV as it is and I can't remember the last time I watched PBS.