Many of us grew up watching: Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, DragonTales,Arthur,Barney, Magic School Bus,Bob Ross, Julia Child ammng many others. These were all possible by one channel in America, The Public Broadcasting Service or PBS for short. In recent weeks and years the possible budget cuts and defunding of PBS and it's sister service NPR (National Public Radio). The Federal Goverment has somewhat supported the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since 1967 which along with The Ford Foundation supported NET (National Educational Television which was PBS' predecessor) and PBS since then. But why is PBS important? Why should it be looked at with the relevancy it is? Let''s take a look at some reasons why PBS should not be ignored.
Helped to introduce Educational Programs for Children
In the 1960's NET/PBS introduced Mister Rogers and Sesame Street to the US Television Audence. PBS was also one of the first networks to introduce the concept of preschooler programming which Nick Jr, Disney Jr, Noggin, Sprout etc... would all base their ideas off from. Later on through the years PBS introduced: Barney, Romper Room, Zoom, Electric Company, Arthur,DragonTales, Thomas TheTank Engine, Word Girl, Magic School Bus, CyberChase, and many others all to TV audiences and children in schools all over. Many of these TV series were based off Childrens books as well.
Introduced the British Comedy, Doctor Who, and many other British TV shows to the US Audience before BBC America existed
Yes Doctor Who was originally a part of PBS programming in the 1970s-1990s before BBC America aired it. Other British Shows on BBC introduced to the US by PBS include Monty Python's Flying Circus, Eastenders, Are You Being Served?, Teletubbies, Dowton Abbey, Call The Midwife, among many others.
Introduced Cooking Shows and Do It Yourself Shows before the advent of HGTV or Food Network
In the 1960s and beyond Julia Child's cooking program was widely viewed on PBS. She was truly the first Celebrity Chef before Emeril,Paula Deen,The Pioneer Woman, Guy Fieri, Gordon Ramsay, Rachel Ray, Wolfgang Puck,or Mario Batali. PBS was also the first network to air Do It Yourself home remodeling and gardening shows like This Old House with Bob Vila. Way before HGTV or DIY had the market cornered in US Television.
PBS has done many other ventures like air operas, symphonies, Memorial Day and Veterans day Concerts, introduce panelist news discussions, made Bob Ross a household name, Introduced Austin City Limits to a national audience and so much more. PBS I feel like can and will survive if congress agrees to ax funding for it. A major majority of funding comes through peoples donations and corporations. PBS only gets very little government funding but it still helps. But, I think it can survive without it too.
I do not think the US government, especially the current administration, wants to see people get educated, nor wants people to be exposed to a broader perspective or less biased news sources, which do not support their political agenda. I am sure they would be thrilled to defund it and see it go away.
The show is written in a way that can be highly entertaining for both children and their adult parents, which is actually rare for a lot of children's shows. And it uses a very warm and classic traditional-animation look, which kids are actually not exposed to much anymore.
The current administration is extremely disastrous and I dont think anyone will realize it until it's too late. It's extremely important that an unbiased news source keeps running.
Idiots tend to undervalue how education is. We could end terrorism if we made sure the next generation is educated but I don't see that happening with trump in charge.
853 opinions shared on Entertainment & Arts topic.
i just don't understand this president. he wants to increase the defense spending by $50 BILLION (increases the defense department and various secretaries of the different armed services say they don't need) but we need to slash $142 MILLION from the national endowment of the arts.
i want to say i'm ok with Trump. i want to get behind the president. but every day i find it harder and harder to believe this guy is anything other than a giant schmuck
Im not a US citizen, but we brazillians have a similar situation. We have a law that provides incentives for artists as a means of compensating for the poor population's lack of capital. The idea is that it would spread culture through the population. Truth is, only a good education spreads culture, and the money is used primarily to subside left-wing big-government-loving artists who defend governmental intervention with tooth and nail, as a means of using public money to keep their shitty work going. They know that the population will never pay that much willingly just to support an artist or to have some fun. We are still a very poor country. They need to leech on public money, otherwise they'd have to take risks in the market and compete with others, and they know they wouldn't come out on top.
TL;DR: public funding on arts is essentially funding big-government-oriented propaganda, and taxpayers dont have to accept that, specially when PBS doesn't need public funding.
@RedHood7 how do you know PBS doesn't need public funding? they are an entirely non-profit organization. they only survive on donations as they don't have advertising. not sure you've ever watched PBS but it is hardly propaganda. it has, and really is the only place, kids can find truly educational programming. they have very non-bias or at least fair news reporting. they air documentaries covering the entire spectrum of human existence.
and government funding is 12% of their budget so i think it's safe to say that they do rely on the government funding
"not sure you've ever watched PBS but it is hardly propaganda. it has, and really is the only place, kids can find truly educational programming. they have very non-bias or at least fair news reporting."
If your standard is biased, and you're human, so it clearly is biased, who defines what's unbiased? Plus, there's still the problem of a centralized group defining what kids can and can't watch. What if you disagree on any level, why would you have to pay for that?
"and government funding is 12% of their budget so i think it's safe to say that they do rely on the government funding"
"they are an entirely non-profit organization"
Maybe it's time for them to drop that entirely and become a normal channel like any other. If people love PBS that much, they can surely support it by watching it. PBS is full of grown-ups. They can handle themselves. Plus, losing 12% of your income isn't that big of a deal, and you can easily keep asking for help during the transition.
@RedHood7 when you become a channel with investors that's when you become a channel with agenda... see all the networks, CNN, FOX, CNBC, etc, etc.
when you are non-profit people make donations but do not dictate in anyway the content. again you have clearly not see sesame street if you think the government is dictated what it produces...
Simply put i think you need to actually see what PBS, WHYY, and CPB do before you talk about it because it seems clear you don't really know what is on those channels.
Whos ignoring PBS? I suppose you actually mean government funding. All i see on facebook is people supporting PBS. If that many people really do support it should be able to stand on its own.
You point reasons to keep funding it based on what happened in the 60's and 70's. Now there are so many different options for getting the exact same type of programming without tax money.
I watch pbs and want it to stay around just i think its time for it to stand on its own. I dont like that cutting funding is being made out to be something its not, ignoring, anti education, anti kids... or whatever.
Yawn, PBS can stand on its on. Letting insurance companies take the same tax write off that every other company gets isn't "buying" them anything. Anyway you should learn the difference between a subsitity and right off.
You should learn how to think. It's "write-off". Are you sure you know what you're talking about and do you even comprehend the article?
Health is not the same as a typical free market system. You can live without an iphone but you can't live without health. You seriously want a society where companies can take advantage of you because you're sick, have cancer or on the brink of death?
well typical liberal with no facts just name calling. I still haven't seen why PBS needs government funding.
Why dont you start your own post about heath care instead of hijacking this one. I look forward to hearing how raising costs to insurance companies will lower the cost or help consumers...
Read the article, it's about tax dollars being wasted to pay for CEO's jets and yachts, thereby leaving little left for programs that benefit all Americans, like PBS.
It may have been consequential in its day, when there were three TV networks and news and information was delivered on a stale one day cycle of limited value.
I personally don't see any problem with letting it go by the wayside.
PBS (programming by socialists) is a leftist propaganda tool. If it has any value, let it earn it's keep in the marketplace just like every other network. Please don't try to tell me it's commercial-free; it runs ads for itself and corporations all day
Sesame Street is a BILLION DOLLAR empire... they don't need our money.. . that is redunk U lous. We fund with our tax dollars as they get rich with all their toys? Give us a cut.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions