Growing up in rural Kansas, I learned one of the few constants in life is public television.
    In the days before satellite TV, our house could pick up maybe three or four channels on a good day. And if it rained? Well, we were stuck watching PBS, which always seemed to come in no matter what. We finally got satellite the day my dad came home from a long day of work, and the only thing to watch was the symphony orchestra on Channel 3.
    Like so many other government endeavors, PBS falls into the long list of programs that have outlived their usefulness. Public broadcasting was created in 1967 to provide diversity to television at a time when it was dominated by the three broadcast networks.
    But in today’s world of 6,000-channel cable packages, there is little need for more diversity. Science, cooking and home improvement shows — at one time exclusive PBS undertakings — now have networks of their own.  Slashing the budget for public broadcasting is a favorite pastime of Republicans in Congress and the White House.
    Starting with Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and continuing to the current president, it is almost a yearly ritual for the proposed budget to greatly limit PBS funding. Yuppies everywhere protest loudly, and the $400 million or so is begrudgingly put back into the federal budget.
    The problem is that those who protest cutting spending don’t seem to be actually watching. As the New York Times noted, “the highest-rated shows on PBS barely garner half the ratings of the wrestling show ‘Friday Night Smackdown.’”
    Defenders of public television point to children’s programming as one of the main reasons for keeping PBS around. But are Barney and the Teletubbies really worth $400 million? Without PBS, the popular children’s shows would be gobbled up by Nickelodeon or Disney, who could afford to expand them significantly.
    PBS only gets the largest portion of its funds from the government; the rest come from private donations — “viewers like you,” as the saying goes. The network is in a constant cycle of pledge drives in which regular programming is interrupted so PBS executives can beg for money.
    These drives usually take the forms of either threats, like “Send $100 now, or we’re going to cancel Barney!”, or bribes  like “If you upgrade to our $1,000 donor level, we’ll send you this fabulous canvas tote bag!”
    Public television is based on the assumption that such a thing as “high culture” can be defined. Based on the current programming of PBS, high culture means watching 10-year-old British sitcoms and rich people sell their junk.
    Culture can’t be defined; it is whatever people choose it to be, based on their own interests. Shoving large amounts of Shakespearean adaptations down our throats is not going to change that.
    It’s time we cut off the funding for PBS and spend that $400 million on something useful.
    Besides, if you want to listen to classical music, take your $100 donation and buy a Mozart box set instead. They might even throw in a tote bag for free. 


Tim Hadachek is a junior in political science. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Comments

2 comments

M. P. B.

Wed Nov 19 2008 16:21

You need to learn the diffrerence between PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. PBS does not receive $400 million from the federal government. And you should do a little bit of research about the portion of PBS and station funding that comes from the federal government through CPB. PBS has its problems. But if you want to be critical you should at least be informed.

Your name

Wed Nov 19 2008 07:33

Sesame Street would be proud....

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out