I am against defunding PBS - perhaps this is a better solution.

[Locke11_21]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

 

[OKTexas]

I disagree, programs that have a sufficient audience can find a home elsewhere. There are way too many venues their programing can migrate to. They're obsolete and a waste of taxpayer funds, both on TV and the Radio.

.

 

[Mac-7]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

Nah

Just defund them and be done with it

 

[tahuyaman]

Government should not be in the business of funding media organizations.

 

[toobfreak]

I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch,

Well, thanks for most of the NOVA programs, anything with David Attenborough in it, and painting with Bob Ross.

That said, the network is disappointingly, intolerably political, and every program is hosted by a women; the only guys I ever see on any shows look like they don't even shave.

Perhaps PBS should just be turned over to a new group of people to operate it with a more balanced perspective.

 

[toobfreak]

Just defund them and be done with it

The old argument for their being privately funded was because they were commercial free. But anymore, every show starts with 5 minutes of advertisements, ends with another ten, then comes their donation drives where about 30% of their time is spent begging for money.

I came to the realization that I was watching as much commercials on PBS as anywhere else, just that all their commercials are from and about themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

The taxpayer should not be on the hook for what you or I would judge to be 'quality programming.' Other people could easily not share our tastes in that and shouldn't have to pay taxes to support our programming choices.

Either PBS should manage with its VOLUNTARY donors or it should sell advertising to support its programming as all commercial television organizations have to do, or it should close up shop. Any truly quality programming would simply move to another television venue.

 

[Innocynioc]

Defund the left wing propaganda machine.

 

[my2¢]

The ideal solution I see is for congress to refrain from raising the debt ceiling and commit to a balanced budget by lowering defense spending and eliminating PBS and a whole bunch of other crap. Raising the debt ceiling while collecting a windfall in tariffs to pay for tax cuts and an increase in defense spending is fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[Independent thinker]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

They have the same choice as planned parenthood does, comply or forget federal funding. That is especially true of PP, where they can provide zero abortions and get the funding they want for all other forms of healthcare for women. They choose not to comply with this. PP is responsible for not being able to provide healthcare to women. It is their choice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

I agree, lets make Alex Jones the main anchor for PBS News

 

[Scoutster]

Government should not be in the business of funding media organizations.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

While a majority of my watching PBS comes from recordings to watch when I have the time, they still get a rating from that. I donate to PBS once a year, in my opinion they have many quality programs to watch, not all of it is rabid left-wing bias. The majority of shows we watch on PBS are cooking shows, concerts, Lawrence Welk, and the kids watch some of their programs, too. There are many show on PBS where politics are not even mentioned. The only complaints we have is their heavily left-wing bias in regards to their news programs. However, nothing is worse than MSNBC (Marxists Socialists Nazis Bolsheviks Communists).

Maybe a better idea to bring more balance to PBS in their news related programming would be to do this. Calculate their total number of programs they have, then take a count of their news related programs. Divide the news related programs with their total programs and then deduct that percentage from their funding for a determined period of time to allow them to adjust the balance of their news related programming. If they have not done this by the determined period of time, then deduct that same percentage again. This might need to be done several times, but I like this idea far better than just completely defunding them.

Now where I would be in complete and total favor of a complete defund is for the ACLU, now that would be a great idea.

The public should not be giving tax dollars to what amounts to a private leftwing propaganda/indoctrination group who sit around and decide the best way to destroy Trump and conservatives all day long.

 

[task0778]

I see no reason why the gov't should be subsidizing any media outlet at all, regardless of content. If we are to consider it as an endowment to the performing arts then there must not be any associated political discourse. My understand is that PBS and NPR are allocated about $535 million/year in total. While that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the entire federal budget, IMHO it amounts to or could lead to gov't propaganda.

That said, if Congress funds those entities then I don't think Trump has the authority to deny such funding without congressional action to do so, unless there are requirements/conditions that allow him some leeway in determining whether they are met. No doubt this will be litigated in court, so we'll see how it goes. I am not sure what Trump is using for justification, i.e., where in the legislation does he have any leeway?

 

[Moonglow]

Government should not be in the business of funding media organizations.

When I was in college at University of Arkansass I worked at an NPR station on campus and was able to learn better ways of being an announcer.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

I see no reason why the gov't should be subsidizing any media outlet at all, regardless of content. If we are to consider it as an endowment to the performing arts then there must not be any associated political discourse. My understand is that PBS and NPR are allocated about $535 million/year in total. While that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the entire federal budget, IMHO it amounts to or could lead to gov't propaganda.

That said, if Congress funds those entities then I don't think Trump has the authority to deny such funding without congressional action to do so, unless there are requirements/conditions that allow him some leeway in determining whether they are met. No doubt this will be litigated in court, so we'll see how it goes. I am not sure what Trump is using for justification, i.e., where in the legislation does he have any leeway?

I could start some NGO "charity" with that kind of money.

 

[tahuyaman]

When I was in college at University of Arkansass I worked at an NPR station on campus and was able to learn better ways of being an announcer.

So what? How does that justify government sponsoring a media outlet?