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

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


I was waiting for someone to say this

This is WHY public schools are alive. Quite a big percent of children dont even attend school even though its law. Do you think they would if they knew they would have "no consequences" if they could get away with it?

Not to mention government funding, of course

I'm not even too sure what your point is, Tass, but it still doesn't obviate the fact that it remains a bad analogy which does nothing for or against your position.

[GePap]

Yes, yes it is.

So to return to PBS:

Things like the History Channel, TLC, Discovery, National Geographic, Animal Planet (add Bravo and the Fine arts channel, Food network, Nickelodeon) all together still could not make up for the end of PBS, specially in places like informing the public of current, no history, non-cop, hostipal, dinosaur related events. None of these channels (nor the "news" channels, or the netowrks) offer anything like Frontline, NOW (though some probalby find it stilted), the News Hour, or big event series that do cost a lot to produce. Even PB had been forced to add more 'popular' programing, like "fronteri house', or "1900 house" (from england) to get more viewers.

but again, just think, to get the same things as you get from PBS you need to have TLC, discovery, History Channel, Food network, Foine Arts Channel, Animal Planet and so forth, which will cost you minimum of 30 bucks a month, at the possibly cheapest place you can in the US for cable. All the while, each taxpaying unit spends little more than 2-4 bucks a YEAR on PBS.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by GePap
which will cost you minimum of 30 bucks a month,

Here, its 45.

Let us compare costs

540 vs 4.

You save 536 a year

[Al B. Sure!]

only 2-4 dollars a year?

though i think the idea of pbs using tax payer money is wrong, that's very little money so i got no problem with pbs getting gov't funding...

[Edan]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
to add onto what Imran said considering military technology, the United States Air Force is not as far ahead of the rest of the world as you would think... The Su-31, Mirage 2000, the Eurofighter... all these aircraft are just as capable as our F-15's, F-16's, and F/A-18's...

If the military technology of any other country can match the military technology of ours, than something is seriously wrong with out military, since we're spending far more on the military than any other country.

[Al B. Sure!]

and you know what... i had got free cable... so i would rather pay nothing...

[Edan]

Some facts about PBS worth noting: (admittedly from a possibly biased source )

http://www.pbs.org/insidepbs/facts/faq1.html

The public TV audience reflects the social and economic makeup of the nation.
70.9% of all American television-owning families - 75.7 million households representing 143.6 million people - watched public television in October 2002, with the average home tuning in for over seven and a half hours during the month.

Public TV Funding

Public TV's total national, regional and local revenue in FY00 totaled $1.6 billion, according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Leading sources of revenue: members (23.5%); state governments (18.3%); CPB and federal grants/contracts (16.4%); businesses (16.1%); state colleges and universities (6.5%); and foundations (5.5%).
4.5 million individuals and families contributed $380 million to public TV in FY00.
PBS Budget

PBS' operating revenue has grown from $262 million in FY98 to a projected $324 million in FY03, a 24% increase in just five years, largely from non-member revenue sources.

So about 35% of 325 million is paid for by the (state and local) government, or about $110 million (give or take)

So the 1-2$ is right (if not an overestimate)

[GePap]

Hey, I was right! Woohoo!

Basically, the money spent on PBS des not really take funding away from anything else (110 million, that;s what, 1 F-22?). And I do think that is is worth it for thre gov. to help give the people a TV channel that reachs all and is worth watching.
Without PBS, there would have been, for example, No Mister Rogers, or Sesame Street. Or Frontline!

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Without PBS, there would have been, for example, No Mister Rogers, or Sesame Street.

And I woudn't have been intrduced to British sci-fi, drama, britcoms, or Mystery! until a far later age (if ever). Gads, what a horrible thought.

[JohnT]

My house probably watches about 1-3 hours of PBS a day. It is the channel of Barney and Sesame Street, after all.

[cia]

If those statistics are true, then PBS should be easily able to attain corporate sponsorship for commercial time.
Too bad they don't play any specials on the Constitution because then some of you might see why the government should NOT be funding them.

[GePap]

There is nothing in the constitution that stops the government from funding the arts, or any other medium, unless you are reading some "other" constitution we know little about. That must be it.

if anything, news coverage on PBS is more turstworthy and less partisan than on any of the private news sources.

[cia]

Please tell me then GePap, where it says in the Constitution where the government CAN fund the arts? Which amendment or article? Last time I checked one of the only things they were supposed to do was national defense.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
There is nothing in the constitution that stops the government from funding the arts, or any other medium, unless you are reading some "other" constitution we know little about. That must be it.

Unless he thinks that it has to be explicitly stated in the constitution - in which case funding for highways, the air force, etc, would also be unconstitutional.

And, of course, if legal scholars really thought PBS was unconstitutional, itwould have gone to the courts...

if anything, news coverage on PBS is more turstworthy and less partisan than on any of the private news sources.

Here I'm affraid I have to disagree with you. I think, in terms of news, pbs can be just as biased as the major networks when it comes to the news (although I admit that some of the other news networks have probably been becoming far more blatent in their bias in recent years), although they do tend to show sides not always covered by the other networks.

Just another piece to the puzzle...

[Shi Huangdi]

GePap: If PBS is so good, it should be able to draw a sizable audience, hence it should not need government subsidy.