Save PBS. It makes us safer

[gavinpc]

To me, anybody who argues that PBS should be cut loses all credibility as a budget hawk (if they had any to begin with). PBS is an incredibly valuable public-private partnership. For every dollar the federal government spends, two or three listeners listeners voluntarily contribute a dollar of their own money, much of which goes to their local community. Other programs should be looking to public broadcasting as a financial model to be emulated.

edit Not to mention the lasting value created by the content.

[gingerbread-man]

From an ideological perspective, the idea of any state-run media is pretty dissonant with my views. Being opposed to the very idea of PBS or anything like it is a totally understandable position.

The case for PBS is a pragmatic one: it serves millions of kids everyday and supplies unrivaled public educational programming, for what most would consider a very reasonable public expenditure. I completely agree that other agencies should look to PBS as a financial model to be emulated.[1] But it's unfair to discount the validity of your opponent's argument just because the pragmatic counter-argument is strong.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/penta...

[67726e]

Not that I'm pro-cut, but to a budget hawk any spending is too much spending regardless of matched contribution.

Edit: Keep on downvoting, it's not going to change the opposition's persepctive.

[theparanoid]

PBS is in a dying industry. Television. Perhaps another equally good public-private partnership will arrive. The Khan Academy and Wikipedia are something like that.

[JakeAl]

I'd say PBS is no longer necessary thanks to YouTube, Periscope, Minds, Kickstarter and hundreds of other sources of content actually created by the public. And I actually know several VPs who work there. You mention the financial model to be emulated - that would be Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Patreon, etc. The best argument for why PBS funding should be cut is because the amount of government funding that goes to running their operations is small in comparison to the non-government funding. Defunding PBS is a direct shift of power from institutions directly to the people. People can still fund PBS if they so choose, or they can simply fund the projects they deem worthy through the many sites mentioned above.

[js2]

Fred Rogers testifying before congress in 1969 about why PBS should be funded:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetes...

[nightski]

The world has changed a lot since 1969. Many homes don't even have network television anymore.

[tptacek]

The President's budget proposal might tell you something about what the Administration is about, but it's not a serious legislating document; the budget is one of a few subjects that is entirely delegated to Congress. Meanwhile, PBS is a rounding error in the non-military discretionary budget (which is itself dwarfed by mandatory entitlement spending).

It's been said, most recently I think by John Dickerson, that conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding. As several people here have pointed out: PBS gets ~15% of its funding from the government and could easily make up the shortfall, but the GOP would lose a straw man to beat up. This particular straw man goes all the way back to Reagan. It was even a campaign issue in the 2012 election.

The point of Presidential budgets is to frame the conversation, not to enact changes.

[doktrin]

Without federal funding & stakeholders, what really distinguishes CPB / PBS from any other non-profit?

> conservatives benefit more from having PBS around as an issue than they would by slashing its funding

There's an implication here that if federal funding ceased, the conservative assault on PBS would somehow fizzle - but couldn't the opposite just as easily be true?

Cutting off federal funds is a form of de-legitimization, and we'd hear it cited for years to come as 'proof' that PBS and all its programming is liberal propaganda that can safely be ignored by one and all.

[yostrovs]

It's just not a straw man. PBS influences the decisions of millions of Americans, and steers them unequivocally to the left. If 15% of Fox news's budget would come from federal government you'd understand that the money is not a "drop", but enough to influence people.

[gingerbread-man]

Outline of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's FY2014 budget: http://www.cpb.org/files/aboutcpb/financials/budget/FY2014-O...

Out of a total budget of $445m:

~66% (292m) is distributed via direct grants to local public television and radio stations.

~17% (74m) goes to television programming grants.

~7% (30m) goes to radio programming.

~11% (59m) goes to system support and administration.

[jazzyk]

As a long-time (but now, former) financial supporter of PBS, I am of two minds here.

There is a lot to like - focus on the arts, science. serious topics, quality children programming.

But in recent years, the news and politics programming has turned - almost to a caricature level - unabashedly partisan and ideological. Not a single white male to be seen on the cast of NewsHour, other than a couple of low-level field reporters such as Jeff Brown, an obsession with stories like the abuse of women in southern Nigeria, while they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc.

It is their prerogative to set the agenda as they like, but I feel that a publicly funded channel should cover all points of view.

I feel the same about Planned Parenthood. Even though, personally, I am pro-choice, I can understand that people who are opposed to it may have a problem with their tax money used to fund it.

[tofupup]

"they completely ignore white male citizens of the US are left to rot (and die from opioid abuse and suicide) in West Virginia, etc." :

A simple google search yields :

- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioid-abuse/ (1 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/tag/opioids/ (7 stories) - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/deaths-despair-cutting-life-s...

West Virginia - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-west-virginia-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/west-virginia-school-caring-s... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/early-results-of-w-va-to... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sobering-stories-drug-addicti... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rural-west-virginia-schools-h... - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/schools-rural-west-virginia-a...

[the next statements are made with the hope of furthering dialog] Yes, they could do better as far as content, what worries me about your post is your statement "completely ignore" seems to differ from reality.

[alphabettsy]

I've personally seen tons of stories about the Opioid epidemic on PBS especially on News Hour and including an entire episode of Frontline called "Chasing Heroin". As far as abuse of women in Nigeria, I don't recall hearing about that at all, I'll have to look it up.

I personally turn to PBS coverage because I find it far more balanced than something like CNN, CNBC or Fox News. I have noticed that it was pointed out that they have primarily female anchors, and it's certainly different, but I can't say I have a problem with it. I also like the fact that they don't seem to use commentators and "expert" consultants as often, but rather the Government representatives or organizations actually involved.

[d23]

Those problems should be addressed, not the entire thing defunded.

[barsonme]

For more background on the author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

(I had to look him up, might be useful for other people as well.)

[justaman]

Keep PBS on the air. Consider donating today.

http://www.pbs.org/donate/

[doktrin]

Agreed. I signed up for recurring membership (in the past, I only donated intermittently or during drives). This is something worth keeping.

[ahallock]

Why can't people just donate directly? I set up recurring payments for donation-based channels I watch on Youtube, so not sure why this can't be the same.

[helthanatos]

PBS doesn't have commercials? Because I'm pretty sure it does.

[tofupup]

I personally would be happy to give up a few dollars of the $1,859 [1] I spend on bombs every year. That is 6 weeks of work if you are working minimum wage. The blah blah budget hawks is b.s. to remove the few elements the benefit the general public and reshape the U.S. into a developing country where we fight over scrapes. Matthew 25:40 : what you do unto the least of your brother ... if we don't start taking care of one another as a family you won't have much left.

[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

[randyrand]

How come PBS cannot fund itself? And make profit and revenue? Just curious.

[knz]

It probably could fund itself and make a profit. But the whole point is that the country is choosing to invest in providing quality media content in the form of high quality detailed reporting and educational content because it's critical for the success of our nation.

I think even the most partisan American would have a hard time looking at commercial media and declaring it a resounding success - educational channels like Discovery/History Channel are more of a meme than source of quality media these days and "news" is now a mix of entertainment and partisan opinion pieces between a deluge of advertising.

[vinay427]

In my opinion, this will ruin the editorial standards of the PBS by eventually favoring monetary interests to keep itself alive. One of the benefits of an organization with guaranteed funding is that it doesn't need to change its activities to pander for money, and can focus on its actual published mission.

[dragonwriter]

> How come PBS cannot fund itself?

Public television largely does; only about 20% of public TV funding (PBS and local station) comes from federal sources.

[bsder]

I think Discovery Channel and History Channel are really good counterarguments nowadays to the idea that quality educational TV could be done for profit.

Edit: beaten by everybody in the universe ... :)

[goatlover]

Because making profit isn't the goal of PBS.

[maxlybbert]

PBS has been facing funding cuts for a long time. Unlike other groups, PBS has actually made significant changes and no longer relies on federal money as much as it used to.

[panic]

How come Hacker News can't fund itself? Not everything has to make revenue.

[matthewmcg]

Interesting.

It always seemed odd that PBS is such an frequent target of Republicans while the Voice of America seems fly under the radar.

VOA is fully-taxpayer funded to the tune of $260M/yr.

[clarkmoody]

> The federal appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — about $445 million annually — supports more than a thousand television and radio stations at a cost of about $1.35 per citizen.

a) It easily could be funded voluntarily

b) If it is so important (as the article argues), why is it such a small portion of the budget?

[JakeAl]

And I have yet to hear an argument regarding exactly how PBS is still necessary. Once it was, but not since anyone with a cel phone can record and upload content accessible to the entire world.