How one of our public broadcasters uses my taxes

[Dinner]

We can disagree on that. I was amazed at how many people I saw at the library the last time I went. That is the only source for books for quite a few people.
I can't say the same for PBS. Even with broadcast digital there are so many additional channels that are providing alternate and more focused options.

Public broadcasting really does do in depth stories which the commercial outlets can't/won't do. I find that extremely valuable as having an educated populous is key to any democracy and, yes, I will continue to not vote for any candidate who refuses to honor that commitment. It really does serve a public function just like public libraries do.

[rah]

You find it extremely valuable and you can afford to personally support it. I would be willing to guess that our lowest income population isn't turning on PBS to watch more in depth reporting.

Even though I believe that public libraries are more valuable than PBS, I still see a day, in the not to distant future, where libraries as we know them won't exist.

I will continue to support PBS with cash contributions, but I don't see why the taxpayer should.

[Nikolai]

Re: the OP: Not sure I want to play the video...

[rah]

It's much better to just use your imagination.

[Alexander's Horse]

PBS and HBO

I also like TBS (very funny) except when Conan comes on and ruins my enjoyment of the endless repeats of The Big Bang theory and The Office.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

I will concede that Downton Abbey or Sherlock would be able to be picked up by other broadcast channels if PBS didn't exist - but one wonders if PBS didn't bring them to the US shores in the first place, would they?

Why exactly do we need PBS to rebroadcast BBC shows in a world with Netflix?

[Alexander's Horse]

PBS is one of the few US channels worth watching.

[molly bloom]

why don't you actually learn wtf you're talking about instead?

I'm fairly sure PBS has had programmes about the Spanish Civil War and the Viet Nam War in the past. Just imagine what he might have learned and the mistakes he might not have made.

On second thoughts, it's much more entertaining if he doesn't watch PBS.

[molly bloom]

Different cultures. We Americans can be such prudes.


What would you have done in that situation?

Say, 'Reminds me of the time I was in ...(name a famous American museum or art gallery).' You can see the whole vajazzle in prestigious art galleries all over the world (or in the Sistine Chapel) - except for some Islamic countries, obviously, and I for one could not understand the fuss in the U.S. over Janet Jackson's clothing malfunction- SHOWBIZ WOMAN HAS REAL BREAST? WITH NIPPLE ? THE HORROR !

And does it not seem odd that a country with a huge legal porn industry has such a hard time accepting perfectly casual displays of ordinary body parts on commercial television ?

Reminds me of a friend who was staying in Provincetown and heard a lesbian on the beach being asked to cover up her breasts or face a $100 (?)fine. She sassily replied- 'What about one tit ? Is that just $50 ?'

[Alexander's Horse]

I particularly like the antique roadshow on PBS.

[snrjefe]

It's not "viewers like you"...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ef7cTuVUiWs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Def7cTuVUiWs

[rah]

I particularly like the antique roadshow on PBS.

In the old days, that show probably wouldn't have existed without PBS, but that's not true today. Think of all the narrow audiences watching logging shows or all the house hunter type shows let alone all the reality based shows.

So except for the news aspect, I don't think PBS provides anything that couldn't be found somewhere else. I'll concede the poor people don't have cable part of the argument but even that is minimal. The penetration of cable is rising (will never reach 100% due to newer alternate delivery methods). And I'll bet the average PBS viewer is above the average in terms of income. Also with the proliferation of new channels available on broadcast there will more bandwidth for alternate programming.
And since PBS doesn't rely on the Government for much of it's fundings, does it really need that. A few commercials or sponsors for a few popular shows would easily replace what little the government funds. Considering how often they beg for contributions, I really don't thing the no interruptions argument holds water anymore.

[Alexander's Horse]

I hear you, although one of the roles of public broadcasting has been to pioneer new shows or formats that are picked up by the commercial stations which have a notorious tin ear when it comes to quality or specialised programming that will be popular. I can think of many cross-overs.

One worrying trend with the sponsorship is some of the messages that come with it. The PBS station in the SF bay area we were getting on "island cable" was flogging vitamin supplements, miracle energy drinks and terrible financial advice, like don't invest in stocks - buy life insurance - in its "infomercials".

[The Mad Monk]

All the time, or just during its fits of tin cup rattling?

[regexcellent]

I hear you, although one of the roles of public broadcasting has been to pioneer new shows or formats that are picked up by the commercial stations which have a notorious tin ear when it comes to quality or specialised programming that will be popular. I can think of many cross-overs.

One worrying trend with the sponsorship is some of the messages that come with it. The PBS station in the SF bay area we were getting on "island cable" was flogging vitamin supplements, miracle energy drinks and terrible financial advice, like don't invest in stocks - buy life insurance - in its "infomercials".

Buying an annuity as opposed to stocks is sensible.