4runner wrote:
NPRPBS wrote:I am torn.
The gov't has a legitimate interest in many of PBS's activities, including educational programming.
As for reporting the news-- it is probably a relic from a time when news was expensive to produce. It may however become more important if newspapers keep dying out.
I'm more concerned about things like the NEA and gov't sponsored arts. The gov't shouldn't be the sole or even overwhelming source of arts otherwise the arts become a gov't mouthpiece. That said-- it would be a shame to lose things like government sponsorship of dance troupes/orchestras/marching bands/et al.
So, it is not okay to fund the arts because they could become a mouthpiece for the gov, but it is okay to fund radio and TV stations?
The school newspaper at Georgia stopped accepting student activity fees because it could not report fairly on the university if it were receiving funding from it. If it reported on the bad things the university was doing, it would be threatened with losing money; if it did not report, then people would think "they are paid for by the university". So it became an independent newspaper. Those college students at the time had more scruples and ethics than the entire NPR/CPB structure.
In today's market of hundreds of TV channels, internet, radio, etc there is no need for taxpayer money to be funding any program. At one time that was not the case, but there are plenty of educational, artistic and historical outlets that PBS once was the only place. Heck, we get BBC-America for culture now!