Can someone tell me why PBS no longer recieves government funding?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

By that merit, lets cut all public education funding period. All of it.

Because that's EXACTLY what I said . Because public schooling and publically funded television are the same.

Again, if theres a market for it, then it will survive. If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink.

And PBS and public schools serve the same purpose. THEY TEACH. So if you say "Well, PBS can't be funded cause they don't have enough viewers" can easily be applied to public schools.

Bottom line: If students dont want to go to school, then public schools will fail. If people dont want to watch PBS, then it will fail. They both are educational, thats their primary reason for both of their existences.....

Tassadar, when you've run out of arguments (as you just have) and start putting words into the mouths of others (ditto), then you've lost the debate .

Attempting to downlplay your opponent through the standard "victory" speech is a red herring which is a debate fallacy.
Oops I won't mention that debating fallacies usually dilute someones arguement and cause them to lose.

[Shi Huangdi]

"We all know Imran and Shi love Reality TV. and sitcoms. God Bless the market!"

Ah GePap, always going into a condescending fury whenever he hears something he doesn't like. I don't watch TV, except for when I watch CNN in the Student Union waiting for class. I however, don't demand the government subsidize putting on something I would want to watch.

We already do have educational programing on TV which can survive the Market, check out History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. The government does not need to subsidize educational TV.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm for public spending of schools. It creates skills for high-tech jobs. I'm also for public spending for libraries, as that, as well, is used by many and also serves a purpose of helping people in business.

I'm AGAINST public spending for a television station which every cable company must carry.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm for public spending of schools.

From one post of yours, I thought you were against public funding of schools because it was the same as PBS (or maybe was it a post from Tass - I am tired and your avatars are just too similar for my tastes ).

People who are against public schools generally rank very very low in my book.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, if theres a market for it, then it will survive. If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink.

Once again, putting words into someone else's mouth indicates you've lost.

This is why leftists will never win. They have such a simplistic view of things, they don't realize that public education and publically funded television are two seperate things .

And PBS and public schools serve the same purpose. THEY TEACH. So if you say "Well, PBS can't be funded cause they don't have enough viewers" can easily be applied to public schools.

Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule.

We already do have educational programing on TV which can survive the Market, check out History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. The government does not need to subsidize educational TV.

Ah, thank you .

[David Floyd]

People who are against public schools generally rank very very low in my book.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule."

[Nubclear]

I just cannot comprehend why ANY person would advocate the eventual elimination of quality education from the market.

It's very cheap for every taxpayer, and provides so much in return. Because if it helps just one child....It's accomplished its job. And plus, it takes away from the war on Syria/Iran/China/Russia/France/Germany/Finland/Australia/Some other country.

And thats a very good thing

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you were against public funding of schools because it was the same as PBS

No, because schooling for everyone (which is required for a functional economy) is something that the market cannot provide satisfactorily. It can do so for the upper classes.

However, educational tv is something the market CAN provide and has provided. Furthermore, I don't see why it is required at all. Because it teaches? Yeah, so? The dramas on TV probably teach some people (such as cop shows), should they get an educational grant?

[David Floyd]

It's very cheap for every taxpayer, and provides so much in return.

It doesn't do **** for me, and I don't consent to paying for it, and the price isn't really the point anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

and provides so much in return. Because if it helps just one child....It's accomplished its job.

So much in return? In what sense? I mean, really most kids usually just watched Seseme Street and Mr. Rogers and that was it. Those shows are extremely cheap. Why should I pay for the channel to show operas and foriegn films? Who does that really teach?

[Shi Huangdi]

"It doesn't do **** for me, and I don't consent to paying for it, and the price isn't really the point anyway"

It does do **** for you. It is getting you a university education at a reduced price to what you would pay for a private university, and then still taking away costs for you with the scholarship you have.

[Nubclear]

Once again, putting words into someone else's mouth indicates you've lost.

This is why leftists will never win. They have such a simplistic view of things, they don't realize that public education and publically funded television are two seperate things .

We can't even debate the subject, so were resorting to "Well......You lost! Nya nya nya nya nya nya!!!". A red herring, a debate fallacy Thats ok Imran. I'm always really nice so I'll just let you off the hook. Come back if you want to debaet it.

Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule.

Ok, then REFORM is needed. But to simply cut it off is NOT the thing to do.
Though I will admit, I haven't seen too much opera there....Maybe I just dont watch it at that time

[GePap]

The History Channel, TLC, discovery and so on do not compare to PBS:

first, the overall quality of porgraming is lower (Nature, Nova and other regular PBS science series are better) and only untl recently have they had the budgets to make anything as expensive as somehting like, lets say, Ken Burn's The Civil War. In fact, they still don;t have the money to do so. And as i said, on issues of news and things like Frontline, none of those channels come close. plus, there is the fact that PBS is free to all, and not costing 40 bucks a month to see.

The "school's" argument is a red herring. As i said, the Us spends more than any other industrialized state PER STUDENT (for example, NYC alone spends well over 2 billion on schools a year, while the most PBS ever got from the gov was maybe 500 million). The problem with public schools is not the amount of money, but how money is spent by the system. Add to this the nice little fact that money for public education at the elementary and secondary levels are all from state budgets, NOT FEDERAL< while PBS funding is FEDERAL, so again, the "public school's" argument is a red herring.

[Spiffor]

Why should I pay for the channel to show operas and foriegn films? Who does that really teach?

Foreign languages and foreign worldview.
IIRC, the US is very poor when it comes to foreign movies (except the British ones), and most are dubbed anyway. This lack is a very sad loss. If PBS helped to compensate it, it was doing a good job.