On Page 1 of the Sunday NYT Arts & Leisure Section there is an article/editorial from Charles McGrath asking the question "Is PBS Still Necessary?".
To me the answer is a resounding yes. Of course we still use an antennea to watch TV over the public airwaves. No cable guy. And we are doing just fine.
More below the fold..........
A week ago Will Easton did a diary on PBS funding.
PBS
Will states:
"If this seems like dejá vu all over again, well, it is. This is the eighth straight year that Bush has tried to de-fund public broadcasting...but this year the proposed cuts are the deepest ever."
Why I am not surprised. Even though PBS funding is a small fraction of the Federal Budget, some people think the easiest way to balance the budget is to eliminate the CPB and PBS. The Rs have been pushing this even before the current a**hole first entered the White House.
Some comments in response to Will's diary weren't that sympathetic to PBS. I am. I do not have cable - and I don't want it. I've watched CNN when I'm on the road and there isn't much there. MSM TV sucks. I do not want to watch 3 self proclaimed experts comment about the musical talent that parades in front of them. (there is too much good music out there if you go looking for it). Other than watching some sporting events about the only TV I watch is on my local PBS stations. The NewsHour, Frontline, NOVA, American Experience, History Detectives, Moyers, Austin City Limits, Nature and the numerous specials (such as the Mystery Series that broadcast the excellent Prime Suspect) and local programs like the Walking Tours of NYC that WNET puts on - I don't need cable. And it costs only the $60 I send to PBS every year.
The airwaves are public - but you still need funding to produce these type of shows. You still need to pay jounalists and photographers to fill the content of these shows. An there is still is a need for shows like the NewsHour who put on important "talking heads" with some effort at "fair and balance".
I went back to look at the small number of diaries I previously posted. Three were about segments of PBS broadcasts. About a one on one with Mike Gravel on The NewsHour. Where else would you see Mike Gravel being treated with respect, allowed to present his views on the issues in a forum where the interviewer isn't the "star". Or another diary about Bill Moyers talking about the selling of the Iraq War.
Don't Screw With PBS!
If you read Charles McGrath in the Sunday Times - you may get a different perspective. While Mr McGrath, a former editor of the NYT Book Review and now a writer for the newspaper, writes about the expanding audience for NPR which is a good thing, he comments about the "mustiness" of shows like The NewsHour, Nova and Nature, stating that they are in their third of fourth decade "and they look it". Sorry, I don't need my news and science full of pazzazz, dumbed down for the masses. He also comments about the occasional outbursts of "hand-wringing earnestness on the part of Bill Moyers or David Brancaccion on Now". Again, who else is doing the type of "earnest" commentary that Moyers does?
He mentions that cable is doing more of what PBS used to do so well, such as nature shows. He states that "public television meanwhile, more and more resembles everything else on TV. Since corporate sponsors were allowed to extend their 'credit' announcements to 30 seconds, commericials in all but name have been a regular feature on public television". Right. I'll take my 2 minute dose of announcements at the beginning of The NewsHour any day over the many, many commercials on MSTV AND Cable.
Can PBS be improved. Probably.
But, please, do not cut-off funding. I assume it will not be anytime soon. But, I for one would rather not deal with this every year. And I hope we won't have to after Sen Obama or Clinton enters the White House in Jan 2009.