OK. So how does that mean we need to cut out state funded sources?

To me your own logic would suggest that the more broadcasters, from the wider variety of funding sources would be beneficial. Which of course it is, because without it all we’d have in most the world is corporate rightwing crap shoved down our throats from the likes of Murdoch.

Only someone who fears informed political discussions would want to cut its funding.

Yup.  Exactly this.

The popular ones will live on regardless of the DC’s “benevolence.”

the best thing is to have lots and lots of openly biased and pointed sources.

But that’s not what we have.  We have only a few sources all of which claim not to be biased, and all of which in reality have the same bias.  CBS and CNN provide essentially the same bias and call it “objective reporting.”  The difference between that bias and that of FOX is only skin deep — the marketing and target demographic are different so the message is altered to suit a different set of values, but the ultimate bias is the same: an establishment bias.  FOX is no better with confrontational investigative reporting than any of the other big news companies. This is why I mentioned “independent editorial viewpoints.” The editorial viewpoints of the commercial news sources don’t seem independent to me. PBS doesn’t seem entirely independent either, but it seems more independent to me than these other outlets.

Can you provide some evidence that the federal government uses its funding of PBS to control programming and to force PBS to adhere to an establishment bias?  You seem to be arguing based purely on abstract principles whereas I’m actually trying to look at how these things work in the real world.  In the real world, CNN, CBS, and FOX aren’t fighting each other to present alternate views of reality, they’re cooperating to legitimize one (well, superficially two) particular views of reality and delegitimize any others.  I just don’t see the same tendency on PBS.

Say Hi to Rupert for me.

No, my point with PBS is that it is the reporting arm of the State – a powerful and dangerous state – and as such its POV is backed up by the most powerful military in the world – the most powerful and invasive police state here at home – agencies that control our lifestyles and constrict our beliefs within ever-narrower margins. The government should not have or pay for or control media – ever – on principle.

If our nation ran on charity, it wouldn’t run at all.

So the answer to the question, “What will you do to rein in the biggest budget deficit in history?” comes down to, “I’ll cut PBS, which is about one millionth of the federal budget, and some other stuff.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/presidential-debate-aftermath-mitt-romney-wins-all-important-bs-contest-20121005#ixzz290Ch4500

(*Edited for weird line breaks)

Cutting Sesame Street and other funding has been a banner issue for the moral majority wing of the Republican party for years. There are those that feel that Sesame Street is too focused on educating kids about touchy-feely feelings and not enough on being respectful of your parents and God. Him talking about cutting Sesame Street was a direct appeal to those voters. We need to stop discussing this issue as if it were about money and start discussing this issue for what it is really is, an appeal to the Christian right and an attack on liberal values.

If you want to hear more about the story.  I made this video about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euq4IJpPdjQ  Needless to say I don’t think Mitt should be bashing PBS without presenting an alternative.

We can increase the number of pennies we let the government spend, or decrease them.  My vote is for general decrease, and general efficiencies in the distant, removed, federal government.  Let the states and municipality (and churches and families and people) decide what they think is important to fund closer to home.

(I love PBS, but I think we need to really think about how much our federal government needs to do, and should really do–and how much of it is fluff.  PBS can find funding elsewhere, if people really value it.)

And if you think the “Learning Channel” or “History Channel” are good commercial alternatives to PBS, well. . . you haven’t really watched either have you?

Also, as a non American, I feel that my judgement on your differing news outlets is somewhat more unbiased because the outcomes of your politics don’t directly affect my life very significantly and I just wanted to add that PBS newshour is the most balanced and detailed TV news I’ve seen that comes out of America. It’s the time they give to the individual stories, the balanced political discussions which take place (with guests who generally aren’t flag-waving idiots), and the international focus that make it stand out from the rest. Only someone who fears informed political discussions would want to cut its funding.

This is an ideological war.  Government must not serve The People only the Plutocracy/Oligarchy. The People in turn must be made to service them.  

They really are The Borg… 

The federal government doesn’t even actually fund PBS; we fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  PBS is funded both by the CPB and by member stations; my member station, OPB, is currently in the middle of their fall pledge drive. And finally, member stations purchase programs from NPR, APM, PRI, PRX, etc.

Look at my list penguinchris – that list of radio programs was just off the top of my head. 7 programs I enjoy on my local public radio station, and how many are distributed by NPR? I count 1.5 – Snap Judgement is distributed by both PRX and NPR.

BTW, my wife and I do not let the tv babysit our two year-old, we watch with him.
Just this week, our boy pointed at my 8″ Dobsonian telescope and started “Twinkle twinkle little star…”
That does NOT happen with kids who watch Disney and Cartoon Network.
Channels like Sprout should be available to every boy and girl, a bit of tax dollars in that direction is the right thing to do.

PBS can stand on its own in terms of quality and value, as per your OPB link. I do think that with more funding they could do even better (wouldn’t it be nice to have an actual equivalent to the BBC in the US?)