Do We Still Need PBS?

I'm not much on public radio either, but my husband swears by it.

I listen to a lot of public radio and conservative talk radio. It's all part of a well-balanced diet.

i love public radio / NPR

Programs that once would have been on PBS are now on the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, TLC, etc.

Except NOVA, which is still, by far, the best of the breed, in my opinion. There are a few other shows that would be hard to replicate on other channels. Frontline is absolutely invaluable for in-depth coverage of an issue.

I'm sure our government spends less on a whole year of PBS than they do for a handful of contractors in Iraq (Blackwater, Halliburton or otherwise).

In fact, the percentage of our national budget devoted to the arts and education is embarrassing when compared to many other countries.

The News Hour and the Frontline specials are great and I love the sharp programming but maybe the medium has caught the programmers short. There have been so many advances in on-line technology, maybe it's time to figure out a non-government system of funding. I agree with the author in that this is the correct time for fresh thinking andprogramming. I dutifully send my check off to my local public radio ( shout out to my homies at KALW! ) but I can't bring myself to send a check to support the musty BBC comedies or another hour of Antique Roadshow. The programmers here have also made the odd decision of changing the programming during fund drives to self-help gurus; I'm sure there must be a consultant somewhere showing the big-wigs at PBS-TV the demographics that prove this is a successful gambit but it drives me away.

PBS is the only reason I'd consider getting a TV. Frontline is a fantastic program. Washington Week is fun, and The News Hour is the only daily news program on TV worth watching in my opinion (except for maybe the Daily Show). Austin City Limits rules!

I don't have one now, but I've had one in the past. :-) Luckily one can watch Frontline episodes online (though only in a rather annoying partwise fashion), and can listen to the NewHour and Washington Week via podcast. Still, I think it would be worth having a TV for, but only if I can get PBS with an antenna so I don't have to get cable.

I think that's one of the advantages of PBS is that you can get it without cable.

I'm going to give that a try!

I second that!

I third that!

No question.

I was raised on Sesame Street, Cosmos, Connections, Nova.

I now enjoy Austin City Limits, McNeil-Lehrer, Masterpiece Theater (i.e. "Mystery"), etc.

And don't forget Bill Moyers Journal, some of the best investigative journalism on TV!!
I heart PBS.

@4.5 YES YES YES YES! Bill Moyers is the best!

And don't forget Bill Moyers Journal, some of the best investigative journalism on TV!!
I heart PBS.

I almost forgot Bill! Another reason to get a TV. :-)

Heh...35 year old Bernstein Bears watcher here!

You are never to old for a good cartoon.

I was just about to post that! Great minds think alike?

I watch a lot of TV and I can't even IMAGINE what I would do with 300 channels ....... what can possibly be used to fill up that many channels?!

Anyway ....... I have enjoyed many concerts aired by Vermont PBS, everything from The Boston Philharmonic to Eric Clapton and ZZ Top. and I would hate to loose this valuable venue.

Please support PBS ... the little ones need Sesame Street and I need my 'Top.

I watch a lot of TV and I can't even IMAGINE what I would do with 300 channels ....... what can possibly be used to fill up that many channels?!

You know, I have no idea what's on most of them. Truth be told we only use the HD Tier (aside from the Daily Show and other occational basic cable goodies), which is about 20 channels, and even of those I most often watch PBS, Discovery HD (I think it's now named HD Theater), and History HD (along with the regular network shows I watch).

I look forward to the day that you can just order/pay for the channels that you actually intend to watch.

I still watch both!

yeah your missing a lot, i'm watching a nova doc right now.. some are awesome.

It's called the general welfare clause.

Please note: the airwaves of the United States belong to the people of the United States; in the Federal Communications Act. A bigger question would be is it right to license parts of the airwaves away to private profit; and should we charge them a license fee large enough to fund PBS?

In the UK and Ireland we've always paid TV licences

In the UK the licence funds the BBC which airs no commercials, aside from the hourly commercial for other BBC stuff, like BBC radio, and upcoming programmes.

In Ireland we pay the licence fee, but there are still commercials between and during shows.

-Dave

yeah as there were tvs back when the constitution was written.
So basically you are saying the governmnet shouldnt be funding video based education?
or communication that isnt controlled by corporations? It is a public park in middle of a commercial zone.
and i support it.
The actual stations are needed less and less with the net growing larger and larger.
But dont bee fooled the people who hate pbs, only hate it for it's corporate and government documentaries that often have unflattering info in them.. they call it being tooo liberal.
It has nothign to do with it not beign in the constitution and besides for that , we pay for schools, roads, and gps sattelites all of which arent int he constitution.
teh constittuion lists the rights of the citizens and the powers of the governemtn over those citizens.
One of the powers our governemtn has is to levey taxes, it does NOT say what those taxes will be used for. It doesnt deny the government the right to create thinsg liek pbs and the dept of education. It denys the government the right to do things to indiviuals, btu doesnt deny them the right to use your money to form silly departments. These ideas have been settled many times before in the supreme court.

Do you support public radio?

No.

I really believe the Federal Government should operate within Constitutional limits. After all, this is a government of LIMITED powers, and those powers are those specifically granted to it by the Constitution. If the power is not given to the Feds, it is reserved to the States or the People-- so says the 10th Amendment.

The General Welfare clause IS NOT a blank check for the Federal Government to do whatever it wants. The terms of the constitution itself REQUIRES that a power be specifically granted to the Feds, otherwise it is a State obligation if governmental, or citizen if private.

As the Constitution is written, the Federal Government should be pretty small-- national defense, trade between the states, and International treaties. State governments should be pretty powerful. But, after FDR, it was totally reversed. Too bad.

We should never have had PBS. It's an inappropriate function of the Federal Government to pay for a TV station.

Where does the Constitution support this idea? Nowhere.

They are using public airwaves, owned (in general) by the government. Part of public airwaves is a certain amount of each kind of programming, such as educational (theres a patent reason why abc, cbs, etc, play kids shows in the morning. Its sure as hell not for ratings). They're a part of the safe harbor act, etc. The government regulates it, the government helps fund it. PBS more so than other public airwave channels, because PBS is considered public access broadcasting.

Try doing a bit of research before deeming something "inappropriate".

Also, Bush cut funding for PBS in half this year (the very very little it gets anyway) because you know, we can't waste money like that. We can't possibly spend 2 million on PBS, we have trillions to throw at a war.

Try doing a bit of research before deeming something "inappropriate".

As a Constitutional attorney, I'm quite confident that I've done sufficient research. The idea that the Federal Government "owns" the airwaves is another area of over-reaching.

As a graduate in the study of radio and television, you might know your Constitution, but you obviously aren't familiar with the laws governing the airwaves.

As a Constitutional attorney,

If you are a Constitutional attorney, you know full well that your opinion that PBS is unconsitutional is not shared by the Supreme Court, is not an accurate statement of the law, and any lawsuit filed under such a theory would be dismissed and potentially subject to sanction as frivolous.

I'll have to do a little "research" but I'm thinking it will lead to the conclusion that there was not TV or even the concept of "airwaves" when the constitution was written.

I'm not an attorney, but I kind of lean toward the Government "owning" the airwaves in the interest of national security. I believe there were some laws passed around the time of the WWII to regulate the airwaves specifically for the purpose of preventing espionage. (Something like what is going right now to monitor the phone lines to prevent terrorism)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm well aware that there are laws which govern the use of the airwaves. My point is that there shouldn't be such laws, at least not at the Federal level.

It's an issue of ideology-- I lean toward Libertarian ideals, which I believe is fairly consistent with the founding fathers. They were all in favor of States rights, and heavily favored a very limited federal government.

And yes, I'm aware that when the Constitution was written, there was no issues with radio waves. But, the Government shouldn't just declare that it can regulate them. The Federal government is a limited powers institution, with those powers being granted by the Constitution. If you want to give them the power to regulate in that area, you can always amend the constitution.

Finally, if the STATES wanted to license the airwaves, the can do so.

Airwaves don't stop at state borders. Who regulates the airwaves in St. Louis, for instance? Airwaves are precisely the kind of interstate issue the federal government is supposed to regulate.

Who regulates the airwaves in St. Louis, for instance?

The Missouri legislature.

If someone does something with the airwaves that actually affects interstate commerce, then you'd have something for appropriate Federal involvment. But, it should have to ACTUALLY affect the commerce, not just have such "de minimus, tangental" connection.

In the example of St. Louis, the utiliziation of the airwaves for radio would be chaos and unusuable if the neighboring states did not agree.

Now there are other examples where the commerce clause has been stretched, this isnt one of them. It does ACTUALLY affect commerce, perhaps your definition of commerce is what the problem is, since commericial radio IS commerce and not merely tangential to commerce.

Furthermore, the power of supporting PBS is for the "general welfare" is given in the Constitution. Saying something in your opinion is a bad idea, is NOT the same as claiming that is unconsitutional. Some bad ideas are constitutional and some good ideas are not.

They were all in favor of States rights, and heavily favored a very limited federal government.

Some did more than others. Some saw states rights differently than others. They also learned from the failed Artifcles of Confederation. They also "heavily favored" a functioning government. This is one of the reasons that a more limited version of the 10th Amendment was expressly rejected. They certainly could have left the General welfare out of the power of congress, they did not.

Ah, actually I meant Kansas City. Sorry for the brain fart.

But, it should have to ACTUALLY affect the commerce,

can you tell me how we figure that out?? with the spinners on teh vine, you dont think we could spin it that it does actually factually effects the commerce across state lines?

Do you know what chickens, you are raising to eat for your self have to do with the commerse act?
(hint even chickens you never put on the market are regulated by the commerse act)
in this country, who decides ultimately if somethign is constitutional?
are there differnt ways of interepting it?

And the US gov DOES NOT own the air waves, the US gov doesnt own anything, the people do.
And this is education over the public airwaves.. and a majority of the public still agrees with PBS.

i'm no accountant but i doubt they require the same funding, but i do feel that the govt owes it to its citizens, for whom it is regulating and crafting an entirely profit-driven and self-serving media environment, to provide at least one channel on the tv and one station on the radio via public funds. i guess i feel they should both be fully funded as a public service. whether one gets more than the other isnt as important, to me.

personally, i watch a lot more pbs than i listen on the radio to it. but i dont listen to hardly any radio, if i can help it.

children's programming aside, pbs still offers great tv and is, in many markets, the only essential radio station. nature, bill moyers, nova, independent lens, soundstage, tavis smiley — all great programming and still cutting edge.

I agree with this.

I also have seen a few great concerts on PBS. Probably they can be seen elsewhere, but I have a friend who loves this channel and will call me to say someone or a group is on. I do not listen to public radio. I actually do not listen to much of any radio.

PBS needs to stay on. It meets the needs of the a diverse people and a wide generation of multiple ages. It is a good thing. :-)

I had not considered the rural/local aspect to PBS. Good point.

yeah, KET rocks - they also have KY Political coverage - shows with pundits, call in shows, and recaps of legislature activities. our city council is relegated to a city government channel on cable.

My mom is a librarian at a middle school and a good portion of her video section comes from PBS.

Exactly.
I miss The Magic School Bus :)
PBS educational programs aren't even close to limited to only Sesame street and shows for children under 5 (though most people never remember all those vids they watched during elementary and middle school).

I need PBS everyday. Some of us cannot afford cable.

It is if you love celtic music. It is awsome.

How could WBAI do so much programming, say compared to KQED in SF which, as one of the richest stations in the country, never really could produce anything, except larger and larger battles with the local political community that was excluded?