Isn't PBS an example of "the government" doing something better and cheaper than commercial TV?

[K8-EEE]

The excellent programming on PBS would never be funded by any network....and production costs are a fraction of big budget television.

Isn't there a place for both?

[liberal_at_heart]

1. they want to completely get rid of everything they disagree with

Whether it's Acorn, planned parenthood, PBS, NPR. You name it. I heard someone on the tv a couple of days ago. I think it may have been Chris Matthews say that the republicans want a monarchy where they are the ruling power and democrats never rule ever again.

[badtoworse]

2. Taxpayers don't pay for commercial TV; sponsors do.

That's the issue.

[K8-EEE]

4. It has some government funding

But the point is it is PUBLIC television....an idea which upsets R-money.

[badtoworse]

5. I don't see why the public should be forced to pay for it.

It should get by with voluntary subscriptions. If you watch it, you subscribe. We're bleeding cash and have higher priorities than PBS.

[K8-EEE]

6. TOTALLY DISAGREE!

There is definitely a place for public television, the investment is very miniscule and the advantages of having it enormous! This is like a the libertarians saying "we can't afford" public parks, public beaches or public education for that matter.

[cali]

3. Most funding for PBS is private.

that doesn't mean that government funding isn't vital, it is.