G
It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't taxpayer funded.
When NPR and PBS were created, there was a perceived need for this type of programming.
Now with cable, the internet, etc. the same types of programs on these networks can be found elsewhere, with channels that have advertisers pay for them. Simply put, if the listeners of these shows want them to continue, they'd have to purchase products sold by advertisers trying to market to them.
It's high time to cut NPR and PBS loose from the public payroll and let them sell ads to remain afloat. If the channels are viable and enough people are interested in their programming, then they can sell ads and bash conservatives all day long, provided they keep their ratings up high enough for the advertisers to continue.
If they can't sustain a high enough level of rating, then they ought to fold or sell just like all the other signals on the dial, those who don't have the luxury of taxpayers paying their bills.
When NPR and PBS were created, there was a perceived need for this type of programming.
Now with cable, the internet, etc. the same types of programs on these networks can be found elsewhere, with channels that have advertisers pay for them. Simply put, if the listeners of these shows want them to continue, they'd have to purchase products sold by advertisers trying to market to them.
It's high time to cut NPR and PBS loose from the public payroll and let them sell ads to remain afloat. If the channels are viable and enough people are interested in their programming, then they can sell ads and bash conservatives all day long, provided they keep their ratings up high enough for the advertisers to continue.
If they can't sustain a high enough level of rating, then they ought to fold or sell just like all the other signals on the dial, those who don't have the luxury of taxpayers paying their bills.
PBS still has some quality programing, never listened to NPR so I cannot say anything about them.
PBS does have some form of advertising, this show is sponsored and brought to you by <insert company here>. For me, I think it's nice to watch TV with out commercials interrupting the show or product placements. Not too many networks have educational shows, TLC (The Learning Channel) went to the dogs all fashion and reality based shows.. Discovery is still decent once in a while.
I don't think PBS would survive on it's own.
PBS does have some form of advertising, this show is sponsored and brought to you by <insert company here>. For me, I think it's nice to watch TV with out commercials interrupting the show or product placements. Not too many networks have educational shows, TLC (The Learning Channel) went to the dogs all fashion and reality based shows.. Discovery is still decent once in a while.
I don't think PBS would survive on it's own.
Then it's not a viable channel.
If there's a demand for the types of shows that they currently air, that demand will still be there, even with commercials, above and beyond the sponsorship announcements.
I have nothing against their shows. I just oppose tax dollars keeping afloat when other broadcasters, doing much the same thing at times, have to sell ads and rely on ratings high enough to placate those advertisers.
It's the principle of the thing, that's all.
I can agree with that John. If there isn't enough viewer base to sustain the network it should be shut down.
For my own selfishness, I hope PBS doesn't go off the air or to an advertiser based model anytime soon.
BTW you ever catch the oldies show on PBS? It's awesome!
For my own selfishness, I hope PBS doesn't go off the air or to an advertiser based model anytime soon.
BTW you ever catch the oldies show on PBS? It's awesome!
I like PBS for it's kid's programs. I'm glad that my daughter was/is able to watch Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, etc. However, Teletubbies is the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen with almost no educational value.
The rest of their programs definitely lean to the left, which shouldn't be the case with a government funded TV station.
The rest of their programs definitely lean to the left, which shouldn't be the case with a government funded TV station.
The government funding, is there to keep it neutral (balance, so to speak).
When some have to look left to hear Rush, then they would think anything short of dictatorship is liberal...
When some have to look left to hear Rush, then they would think anything short of dictatorship is liberal...
Neutral? Rick, you're smarter than that!
People wanting to hear Rush have to find him on a station that carries his show and sells ads to pay for the feed.
People wanting to hear Left Wing slanted shows can tune in to their local NPR or PBS station and see it all over the programming day.
Rush pays for his program using good old fashioned capitalism.
NPR pays for the programs using good old fashioned Socialism.
Used to listen to public radio back in the '70s and 80s. It was nice 'cause of no commercials. Back then, they played music. I don't know what's on NPR anymore.
I kinda left it due to all the talk programming. No issues with discussion topics ~ I just figured they'd traded no commercials for chatter. Wolfie don't listen to radio to hear chatter. I likes me music.
I kinda left it due to all the talk programming. No issues with discussion topics ~ I just figured they'd traded no commercials for chatter. Wolfie don't listen to radio to hear chatter. I likes me music.