Should tax dollars support PBS?

PBS is non partison and actually fair which upsets people who want only their views presented. Those consumers buy or listen to that media which appeals to their bias. Commercial media also needs to satisfy advertisers or owners and promote graater revenue often at the cost of being fair and balanced! Recent history demonstates how media neglets presenting discenting opinion. PBS is one of the few sources of a fair media.

Many of the PBS programs have a liberal slant. Even those claiming a 'balanced' view tend to shade the content and presentation to the liberal side. "Media Matters", quoted in the Parade article can hardly be considered an unbiased source for an opinion of the value of PBS. Public dollars should not be used to support a particular political position.

Private news reportin outlets only publicize the news that the advertizers will allow. And due to the "souternization of the northern states we have "bible thumping" creeping into the radio stations here. Fully government funded public radio would be the least biased information to the public.

That's like asking, why does Parade publish Intelligence Report? I read the column because it contains thought-provoking, relevant topics. Asking, why are wrestling shows more popular than PBS programs, is like asking why do Americans eat french fries more often than broccoli? I would be deeply saddened if Congress decided that broccoli is not important in our diet...

PBS offers some of the highest quality programming available on any channel. Relative to the total federal budget, $400 million is a neglible amount and should be categorized under education.

The Bush administration tries often to silence any opposing viewpoints, and PBS is one of them. I often watch Frontline, because they show what is really going on over there. Recently there was an episode called "Bad Voodoo's Platoon", it showed a group of army reservists that are stationed in Iraq. The attitude of the soldiers was that the war was pointless and that they should return back to the states. With programming like this, it is no wonder that Bush wants to cut the support by half!

Once upon a time one did not always have to go to PBS for quality television. Today, there is little choice since commercial television programing has been brought down to the level of this new generation's taste for sexual titillation, foul language, and raw (toilet) comedy, to which no responsible parent wants his/her child exposed. Those persons whose values rest solely upon their political interests are missing the true value of PBS programing. Caring trusting parents, these day, are almost wholly dependent on the broad scope of PBS programing to satisfy every family member's intellectual age and taste.

The Fedeal government contributes about 15% of the total annual cost of public tv and public radio. A pittance when you consider the quality of these services.
Roper and other pollsters report that PBS is one of the most trusted institutions in the country and , of course, NPR and the public radio staions are national gems. The NYTIMES today reported that NPR's MORNING EDITION has a weekly audience of 12 million people.

Within the wasteland that most television has become, the only consistent quality programming is found on PBS. It is the only place where good in- depth news, classical music, science, and masterpieces of drama can be regularly found, In fact, it is the only place where most of these things can be found at all.

In everything it presents, commercial programming has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of sex and violence and boring pop music.
Please save PBS for us adults.

I would love to know where the so called "quality" programming is on commercial TV> I have yet to find it, and the adds get more , worse ,and louder
every day! God help us if bush manages to destroy it as he has been for years!

Many of the PBS programs have a liberal slant. Thats for sure, I can't believe the public can not see it, if they can't see that it is Liberal and slanted I will bet they are left wing LIBERALS. They have some good shows. But i Vote no for taxes paying for the liberals getting there views on the air with tax payers money!!!!

I watched Bill Moyers interview senator Obama last week and don't want any funds wasted on such dribble. What was learned from it? Most such programs lean left of center, not very balanced in my view.

In a democracy the press (including ardio and TV have the the function, or more correctly the duty, to question, challenge, and sometimes rebut the official government line. Thus when we have a conservative administration that spends a fortune promulgating its own ideology, we need media to present the opposing (liberal if you wish) point of view. Public broadcasting is such a medium. Only in totalitarian states do the citizens get a diet restricted to unchallenged official propaganda.

The present attempt to cut public TV funding is just one more example of the attitude, "If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger," or at least don't feed him.

PBS has a overly liberal viewpoint. But NPR is far worse. The secular progressive Darwinian pap that spews constantly from the NPR spokespeople should be denied any support except that of Bolsheviks, socialists, secular progressive liberals and the Dem. Nat'l. Com./Party....and probably the NEA.

This attempt by the Bush administration reminds me very much of the Nixon administration's attempt to keep "public affairs programming" off of PBS. Fortunately it failed, and we were allowed to watch the Watergate hearings -- and Washington Week in Review.

PBS offers the type of programs that provide a broad range of views on many subjects not provided by the private media because they do not result in big adverstising dollars. They include political interactions, classical music (operas, concerts, performances by the nostalgic musical groups, etc.) and many educational, scientific, and children's programs which encourage learning and interaction with their peers. I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. Quality, education, and entertainment is their forte.

PBS is clearly a leftist platform. Anyone who can watch Bill Moyers and his ilk and feel that it is not politically biased is detached from reality. Why should the taxpayers pay for a politically biased forum for either side of the isle?

If my tax dollars can support an ill advised and despised war, for the sake of an unknown future Democracy, then my taxes can support PBS and all of its thought provoking programs, whether they swing left or right. I'm tired of everything being catagorized as Liberal or Conservative. Very few of us are totally one or the other. So, PBS keep up the good work.

I'd rather my tax dollars go to PBS than the war, or some of the other nonsense our federal goverment supports and pays for. I enjoy the programming on PBS, regardless of its viewpoint. Its much more thought provoking and educational than anything you can find on cable television on any given night.

pbs does not need government funding. The "big bird" francise can support the whole francise on its own. And they can start running commercials. their fund raisers take up more time that a commercial would. small point. where in the constitution does it give the right of politicians to fund tv??

PBS does not need government funding. It was started many years ago with "seed" money from the government that was supposed to stop and it never did.

PBS likes to get its free money but it has done nothing but hurt the organization. As "ken donaldson" mentioned above Sesame Street alone could fund PBS as a marketing expense for the millions they make form the merchandising of "Elmo" et al.

PBS is not a viable entity because they never have had to operate as a real business - providing what the people (audience) want. There is no excuse for propping up an organization that fails to attract enough "customers" to stay in business.

The free ride should be over and PBS should be forced to support itself. If it can't it has no right to exist - especially in a world saturated with media options.

(I PBS can't survive on its own, maybe they should fire the useless people at the top in VA and throughout the network across the country. Those people make far too much money compared to the worker bees who keep the stations on the air.)

PBS does not need government funding. It was started many years ago with "seed" money from the government that was supposed to stop and it never did.

PBS likes to get its free money but it has done nothing but hurt the organization. As "ken donaldson" mentioned above Sesame Street alone could fund PBS as a marketing expense for the millions they make form the merchandising of "Elmo" et al.

PBS is not a viable entity because they never have had to operate as a real business - providing what the people (audience) want. There is no excuse for propping up an organization that fails to attract enough "customers" to stay in business.

The free ride should be over and PBS should be forced to support itself. If it can't it has no right to exist - especially in a world saturated with media options.

(I PBS can't survive on its own, maybe they should fire the useless people at the top in VA and throughout the network across the country. Those people make far too much money compared to the worker bees who keep the stations on the air.)

PBS does not need government funding. It was started many years ago with "seed" money from the government that was supposed to stop and it never did.

PBS likes to get its free money but it has done nothing but hurt the organization. As "ken donaldson" mentioned above Sesame Street alone could fund PBS as a marketing expense for the millions they make form the merchandising of "Elmo" et al.

PBS is not a viable entity because they never have had to operate as a real business - providing what the people (audience) want. There is no excuse for propping up an organization that fails to attract enough "customers" to stay in business.

The free ride should be over and PBS should be forced to support itself. If it can't it has no right to exist - especially in a world saturated with media options.

(I PBS can't survive on its own, maybe they should fire the useless people at the top in VA and throughout the network across the country. Those people make far too much money compared to the worker bees who keep the stations on the air.)

PBS does not need government funding. It was started many years ago with "seed" money from the government that was supposed to stop and it never did.

PBS likes to get its free money but it has done nothing but hurt the organization. As "ken donaldson" mentioned above Sesame Street alone could fund PBS as a marketing expense for the millions they make form the merchandising of "Elmo" et al.

PBS is not a viable entity because they never have had to operate as a real business - providing what the people (audience) want. There is no excuse for propping up an organization that fails to attract enough "customers" to stay in business.

The free ride should be over and PBS should be forced to support itself. If it can't it has no right to exist - especially in a world saturated with media options.

(I PBS can't survive on its own, maybe they should fire the useless people at the top in VA and throughout the network across the country. Those people make far too much money compared to the worker bees who keep the stations on the air.)

As ample experience is now showing us, profit-oriented education and "news" programming focuses more on the mundane than substance. PBS is one of the few places left where we have an opportunity to invest in something that returns on that investment for years to come. For a drop in the bucket relative to the cost of a month in Iraq, we can invest a small amount in America's children. People need to step back and look at the bigger picture of what gives us the best return on our investment. And, in that light, PBS is way ahead of a lot of other things that deserve funding reductions.

I can't believe we have to do this again...every few years, Congress or the president take aim at PBS, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR, etc. And every time, the American people overwhelmingly say, "Hands off." And that argument about cable is so tired and so not the point. Have the people who make this argument actually WATCHED cable TV? And have they actually WATCHED public TV? There is simply no comparison. The stations that were supposed to make PBS irrelevant have learned that producing and airing high quality shows doesn't fit their business model. A&E and Bravo started off trying to imitate PBS' arts and culture programming. What do they air now? Reality shows. Discovery, the History Channel, The Learning Channel, etc.--all these cable stations that started off as PBS wannabees have abandoned their original intentions when they found out it wasn't as easy as it looked. (If you don't believe this, WATCH. If you don't have time to watch, just read the schedules in your TV logs.)

Meanwhile, you can STILL get quality on PBS. Did you watch the series "Carrier" last week? Amazing. Frontline? (Frontline tells it like it is, and exposes the truth no matter who is implicated, on the left or the right.) Masterpiece? American Experience? American Masters? These are not "political programs, revealing any sort of left-leaning or right-leaning "bias."

And quality costs money...but it makes for a tough business model. That's why government support, though not the largest part of public broadcasting's income, is essential. There are plenty of other examples of things that make a society civilized require support from government funds. Why do we get so worked up about this one?

Public TV also has a strong local component that cable stations do not offer--locally-produced programs on the culture, history and other aspects of the community. Most stations also work in local schools providing teacher training and offering instructional programs (over and above the children's program service--Sesame Street, etc.).

For all this, the government gives public broadcasting a subsidy representing a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket that is the federal budget. They can have MORE, as far as I'm concerned. Hands off government support for public broadcasting!

Your comment about "funding Big Bird" is grossly misleading. To imply that the federal government is responsible for supporting Children's Television Workshop and the programs it produces is deceitful.

Sesame Street is a government-funded commercial for CTW's multi-billion-dollar merchandising empire.

It is a pleasure to view the programs provided on such a quality station. We often lose focus on what is important to societal benefit. The war we toss billions and billions of dollars at without as much as a flinch from our current leadership. That which is minimal in cost and helpful to masses, we question the necessity of it. Big Bird will survive without the funding, but I am a product of the quality media that has been provided by this station. I don't know that the others will. I would be a blow to the average citizen.

It is interesting reading the comments about PBS programming. Any news that provides open dialogue and unslanted perspectives seem, by a few, to be considered 'liberal media bias'. I appreciate PBS and the varied news programs made available. Since only 15% of the total budget is provided by the government, 85% is provided by other sources that do not have an 'ax to grind'. I appreciate the perspective that these government funds should be considered as part of the educational budget. Our Congress needs to continue funding PBS.

I cannot afford cable TV, so 10 hours of Carrier last week on PBS was fabulous!!

If I couldn't get a PBS station on my TV, I wouldn't bother to own a TV. Whatever its shortcomings may be, it's way ahead of whatever trails it at long-distance in second place ! Only PBS assumes its viewers have an attention span of more than 10 minutes, and has the courtesy to let us watch a whole program before giving over to announcements, sponsors, and the like. The current events programs are in-depth and intelligent, and a variety of viewpoints are aired. The screen isn't cluttered up with messages running across the bottom, the anchors and hosts are neither 'bright and breezy' bubble-heads or rude, loud-mouthed hot-headed bigots. The arts programming is wonderful, offering everything from folk and country to opera to fine international performances from around the world. And I have learned more about history from watching American Experience than I learned in all my years of schooling! In this time of running up public debt for making war, I am glad some small part of my tax dollar funds this oasis in the media desert!

Public funding for PBS should be a slam-dunk issue. We need the type of objective news reporting found on the Lehrer News Hour. No cable news source comes even close. It is also the only station remaining that presents cultural treasures in entirety, and makes these treasures available to the general public without cable.

Tax dollars should NOT be used to support PBS. With the likes of Bill Moyers spouting extreme leftist propaganda, it's reporting is suspect. If the reporting was balanced it might warrant government support. If it's to remain on the air, let it support itself through donations, or sell advertising.

The United States has reached a point where we need to assist our fellow Americans in ways other than public television. Most certaintly, we should be assisting those in NEED with heating and cooling home expenditures, gasoline, food and educating our population past high school. Personally, I see no difference in watching a paid commercial vs a fund raising program PBS seems to elicit far too frequently. PBS can continue their fine line of broadcasting but pay for it though commercial ads.

I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT AFFORD CABLE TV. BUT EVEN WHEN I COULD, MOST OF THE TIME I WATCHED PBS. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT ANTIQUES ROADSHOW? WHEN THE ROADSHOW CAME TO TOWN, THE REQUEST FOR TICKETS WAS TREMENDOUS. I WOULD BE VERY SAD TO LOSE PBS. I FOR ONE PLAN TO CONTACT MY SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE REGARDING THE FUNDING.

Media Matters is non-partisan?? Are you kidding me? Lynn Winik has crossed the line in outright lying about this group. Shame on her. Please check the WaPo and NY Times, who even acknowledge the Liberal backing and PAID for birth of media matters. Egads, enough. PARADE has truly been diminished in their latest round of propaganda.

Well I support public braodcasting but frankly their oft cries for money for 10 to 15 minutes or more are a heck of a lot more annoying than listening to a well crafted commercial or two.

Under no circumstances do I feel the Government should use its limited resources for Public Broadcasting. If it can't stand on its own, so be it. There are plenty of good no charge programs and this country is broke!

Arts should be supported by those that utilize it, not to ask some poor farmer in Appalachia whether he like PBS or not.

Democracy depends on an educated and informed populace. PBS provides the best programming for enlightenment by far.

This is one of the best stations we can watch. It gives us the best news available. It gives us excellent programs for both adults and children.

To those who say that decreasing the Fed's contribution is appropriate because "the availability of high-quality cable-TV shows, public TV is unnecessary," I say, nonsense! First off, programming on cable channels is rife with intrusive commercial breaks which have ruinined so much of the once good shows on A&E, History, Travel, etc. But more to the point is that it is unlikely that commercial cable channels will be willing to run the kind of programming seen in prime time even on PBS stations that we now have.

Further, in addition to the fact that vast millions do not have access to cable or satellite tv, the bulk of what would be considered "quality" programming on cable channels has now been pretty much relegated to the considerably more expensive levels of service. For example, here in the DC area, Comcast has been stripping away the good stuff from the (nowadays barely) affordable expanded basic service and moving it to the more expensive service, leaving unused channels and filling up others with more & more infomercial & shopping channels.

Without PBS we would not get a view which presents both sides of a story. It is the only station I watch for news. With government only providing 15% of the cost the American public is getting good returns for that money. The Bush administration does not want this country to hear opposing opinions, considering those opinions as UnAmerican. There are programs such as Masterpiece Theater, Carrier, Frontline which would never been shown on advertising dominated commercial television. Commercial television caters to the lowest common denominator in this country.

At a point in time when American culture and society --especially that of the media-- are coarsening on an almost daily basis, it would be a shame to lose one of the few television venues that still provides educational and entertainment content without pandering to the lowest possible common denominators. I urge EVERYONE who cares about PBS and the standards of our mass entertainment to write their congresspersons to support continued federal funding. Heck, let's buck the trend and INCREASE support by a couple hundred percent! There are certainly less constructive things being done with our tax dollars these days!

I do not feel taxes should support PBS - in this age of increasing hi-tech options for news, entertainment, documentaries, etc. it is unnecessary and our tax dollars should be used elsewhere. Even people of very modest means access the internet for anything they need or want.

PBS has been a springboard for the phenomenal success of Sesame Street. My family loved watching Sesame Street --- it has taken in many millions of dollars because of its popularity, brilliant PR, and skillful marketing of videos, books, albums, toys, movies, clothing, etc. It is hard to imagine the profit! Are any funds donated back to PBS? Could Sesame Street help to support PBS, thereby indirectly reimbursing the taxpayers who were in effect silent partners to this business? Big Bird should be renamed Midas Bird...

PBS provides some of the best comprehensive and unbiased news coverage available. They also provide good, educational programs uninterrupted by commercials. It's a breath of fresh air in a world polluted by greedy businesses.

In the current environment where almost all news is controlled by a few large and powerful corporations and honesty in news is squashed by pandering to financial and political interests, preservation of PBS and its funding is imperative. I've seen too many stories in the mainstream that should have been front page news, ignored because they detract from the chief sponsor of said news outlet. The pittance that our government grants to PBS is small compared to pork projects that go unquestioned, as well as Cheney's war.

Public Broadcasting is one of the finest stations we have in America. Let us not be so stupid to eliminate funding for this important broadcasting avenue. Each American has a thread of PBS in their "tapestry of life" - Sesame Street, Antiques Roadshow, K-12 educational programming, regional segments, .......... the list goes on and on. The small amount of funding that is allocated to such a National Treasure is small in comparison with the vast waste in government spending. Instead of eliminating such small budget items, efforts should be taken to address major wasteful spending areas. This attack is not about budget reduction, this is about content of programming and control. We must all contact our Washington Legislators and let them know that we support Public Broadcasting and recognize the enormous value that it plays in many Americans' lives.

"PBS has a overly liberal viewpoint. But NPR is far worse. The secular progressive Darwinian pap that spews constantly from the NPR spokespeople should be denied any support except that of Bolsheviks, socialists, secular progressive liberals and the Dem. Nat'l. Com./Party....and probably the NEA."

I thought for one brief moment that I had arrived late for a Eugene McCarthy hearing! Why is it that some Americans are so proud of being stupid? Of course PBS should be tax payer funded. PBS is the last refuge from the pervasive coarsening of our culture. Without PBS we would continue to be lulled into a collective stupor by American Idol, Survivor, Fox News and the like - but that's rather the point is it not? Were it not for Frontline and similar programs on PBS we would not even know that we are country at war! This type of quality programming is the accepted norm for most western countries but this spendthrift administration, whose televisions, I might add, are permanently tuned to Fox News, want to cut funding - amazing! All that "secular progressive Darwinian pap" must have them really discombobulated!

The quality of children's programming on PBS is outstanding. And free of commercials for unhealthy snacks and cereals. Plus, there are still many US households who do not get cable, either because it's not available in their area or they can't afford it. This is money very well spent.

PBS is a waste of tax payer dollars - their's nothing on PBS that isn't also available on the cable channels. And without the liberal bias (yes, folks, it's easily visible if you care to look).

Out of touch, way left, liberal and unobjective. If PBS was so great, they'd be able to pay their own way and not rely upon tax handouts. Instead, our tax dollars go toward partison opinion blowhards.

PBS is to broadcast journalism what Public Schools are to Education. Both serve to even the playing field for citizens regardless of social status.
The need to hear all options and opinions on the many issues facing voters has never been more crucial. Few sources provide the deliberate and thoughtful bipartisan progaming offered on PBS.

Most of these comments miss the real point: Is it a proper role of government to support a media outlet? Many here rail at Bush but how would you feel if that money were going to Fox?

If PBS is weaned from the Federal teat, it won't go away, they'll just find other ways to pay for it. OMG, run ads? Get your hands out of my pocket!

Since we are to go digital in Feb. 2009 why not fund PBS to include emergency broadcast on our hand crank and portable TV's in times of emergency? What are we to do just put them in the landfill? No one seems to be looking at this problem. In Fla after a hurricane there will be no power no digital TV signal. Only portable devices with no TV signal!

I do not have or wish to pay for cable or satellite. Also, I live in New Mexico. I believe that PBS funding should be increased, not reduced. With the transition to digital free over-the-air broadcast tv will be much more competitive with cable and satellite. There will be a need for much more high quality programing.

After reading all of the comments, I see that there are several people that know only one show on PBS and that would be Bill Moyers. And that seems to be the only reason they are dead set again Public Broadcasting. And that leads me to believe there are thoses of us that haven't really watched PBS. Tell the truth, now, have you really watched PBS or just read some or listened to "someone" on TV that has tirades about Public Broadcasting. Hummmm!!! The narrowing of a mind does not allow many to see the art of the world, the music of gifted people, the trips to distance places without leaving your home, the struggles of people in different countries, the greatness of our planet, and the depth of a human soul. There's more there folks besides Bill Moyers. Reality shows and pro? wrestling seem to be the norm with this ilk. It always, truly amazes me at the blinders that many people were born with?. Not only do I watch PBS and listen to NPR, I am, also, a member of both locate stations. Not only do I have a right to make comment, I can back it up because I believe in it so much, I pay twice. Supporting PBS with tax money is measly compared to what has happened to our economy these past 8 years. PBS and NPR is NOT the fault of the problems we face, before and after, and cutting the funding will NOT save us. I don't want my tax money supporting many, many things that we are now supporting. PBS is a breath of fresh air compared to much that is on cable TV and what comes our of this present administration's mouth.

I've read many objections to funding PBS. Yet we fund the commerical TV networks via federal financing of political campaigns. They then get to provide the slants and opinions they choose. PBS provides significant programming alternatives that are not driven by commercial viability or sponsorship agendas. If you don't believe you are indirectly paying for the big salaries of the network anchors and executives, you should think a little harder (you might if you watched PBS)

PBS takes on the challenge to produce and broadcast the kind of shows that stretch the mind and feed the intellect, and all without those obnoxious ads. I usually tape a regular broadcast show so I can fast-forward through the ads and view the remaining 40-45 mins. of an hour show. PBS is the crowning glory of American television!

My tax dollars are supporting $2 billion per week imperialism, an ever wealthier Administration of traitors that undermine the constitution, a congress of coconspirators that allocates excessive pay and benefits to itself, the wealthiest of corporations who receive billions in tax-credits while making even more billions in profits, etc. ad nauseum. In light of this, I have a right for the tiniest bit of my tax dollars to be spent for some thing I think is worthwhile and there is no more worthwhile expenditure than public radio and television and their unrecognized efforts in education and professional development about which so few Americans know.

I donate extra money to my local public radio so that they can get off the public dole. I also DO NOT donate to public TV as I find that their news and documentary content is an extension of the socialist agenda. Since I cannot stop my representatives from giving my tax money to PBS, I show my support or displeasure through my donations.

PBS is the only alternative to decent TV. Some say that it has a liberal slant on subjects that are discussed, but it's usually the truth and conservatives don't like to hear that. They want control of everything, and cutting the funding for PBS is another way of them silencing their critics. They think labeling people with the "L" word is the worst thing ever. Look at what Consvervatives have done in the last 7 years.

Public financing for PBS is necessary. Where else are we going to get quality programing, such as Masterpiece Theater, Nova, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Sesame Street and all the other wonderful children's shows, Nature, operas, ballet, Political discussion, Political debates that are run correctly, Ken Burns wonderful in depth programing. All this we get from PBS. There is nowhere else that we can get quality programing from any other programing! People who love PBS give what they can but the Government needs to step up to the plate to be sure that everyone is assured that at least on one channel excellent still prevails.
Jane Gilbert

NPR fair and impartial - I believe it's waiting on the second coming of Christ. Did I just type a naughty word, the current trend of todays media would designate as such.

Taxpayer dollars that come from ALL taxpayers should not be used to fund political propaganda from only ONE viewpoint, the liberal one. If PBS wasn't so politically biased, I would support it.

Bill Moyer- Non Partisan- Right. PBS will never get a penny from me--willingly.
Corrupt Congress will ensure PBS keeps getting its piece of the Pork.

Liberals believe that information presented with a liberal bias is not biased, but is actually "the truth". Conservatives believe that information presented with a conservative bias is not biased, but is actually "the truth". The fact that liberals believe that PBS is not biased, but is actually presenting "the truth" proves that PBS IS biased towards liberals. Taxpayers should not finance a liberal propaganda organization that only presents one side. Otherwise, taxpayers should also finance Fox, which conservatives believe presents "the truth".

I wonder how much they spend to give the iraqi people a television network?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/28/tv.war.ap/

PBS has the only educational/informative stuff worth watching on TV.
It's the only channel my kids can watch without being bombarded with
toy and sugar filled food commercials every 5 minutes.

PBS has become a mouth organ for the left, it's that simple. It might as well be run by Michael Moore or Hillary Obama, yes no typo they are one and the same. Truth, those at PBS are not hampered by truth or facts, it's just one big Bush bash.

Sorry, but PBS is in no way impartial. All that pro-conservative diatribe is revolting. Oh-oh, I think you're on to me. Ya' figure??

I find programs such as Nova and Frontline informative, in depth, presentations of topics that can not be found elsewhere. I suspect that those who say PBS has a liberal bias obtain their view of the world via Fox News.

Way back when, I seem to remember the pro-PBSers using the term "seed money" for public funding. Here we are, what, 40 years later still "seeding" PBS. Give me a break!

Considering the lack of quality AND GOOD TASTE in the major television networks, PBS offers thoughtful, tasteful,unbiased programs.

For example Bill Moyer's recent EXCELLENT interview with questionably motivated Reverend Wright

Although funding cut has eroded some of PBS quality programs, it still has maintained some excellant cultural, informative and ethical values in programming such as the Children's Television Workshop, Master Piece Threatre and Front Line, just to name a few. The few hundred millions dollars of tax payers money certainly are small potatoes compared to the billions wasted somewhere else.

Do not let the Bush administration halve the funding of PBS.

PBS is still on the air? Cut the funding now. Same with Amtrak.

If extreme liberal programs (Bill Moyers, etc.) were eliminated I would have no problem supprting PBS with tax money. If those very biased shows are good let them compete in the commercial environment. Those who say PBS is the only unbiased source need to open their ears and minds. The shows like, Materpice Theater, travel, etc. are great and should be available.

my children and I have enjoyed PBS for many years. Now the next generation is starting to watch. Cable is not available in our area nor do I want to pay for it so many of the channels are nothing but reruns. What is happening to this country, they want us to pay for TV and now Radio. Don't the wealthy have enough money. Keep PBS free I've learned a lot from the stations in our area.

If extreme liberal programs (Bill Moyers, etc.) were eliminated I would have no problem supprting PBS with tax money. If those very biased shows are good let them compete in the commercial environment. Those who say PBS is the only unbiased source need to open their ears and minds. The shows like, Materpice Theater, travel, etc. are great and should be available.

Several years ago a broadcast group offered to buy PBS, (a private corporation), for several BILLION dollars!!! PBS refused to sell, yet they continue to pick the pockets of simpleton taxpaying viewers with MOLDY, STILTED, BEGGING through their "telethons" and again pick them for FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS annually through taxpayers sudsidies, while offering their political messages through LIBERAL, AMERICA HATING ZEALOTS LIKE BILL MOYERS!!! Obviously the public trough is more lucrative than multi-billion dollar offers. LET THEM FUNCTION ON THEIR OWN MONEY! ! ! ! ! Or as an alternative "Drop dead!"

The in-depth reporting on PBS is so much more informative then the headline oriented, sensational seeking, abbreviated kind of reporting available elsewhere.
I don't agree with PBS at all times, but at least they give you the information to make up your own mind. This is so absent in the commercial media.
PBS is so much more that just the political news that some complain about. It is "real" news, special interest features, classic drama, and personal interviews.
Oh yes, I forgot. The absence of those mindless commercials for invented personal health problems is also nice.

Tax payers dollars shouldn't support PBS. If you watch PBS objectively you can only come to the conclusion that PBS is definitely political, and it is always extremely liberal and anti-American, Bill Moyers is the most flambouyant of the liberal political agendas found on PBS!!!!!

Radio/Television stations and any business should not receive any subsidies to start any business either. George Bush received one when he bought the Texas Ranger baseball team for $65 million paid no sales taxes to the governing bodies of the state then plowe these savings back into pay ing for the team. He sold the team later for $250 million. What a ripoff of the commoners taxes. He new nothing about running a baseball team but new the current laws through his attorney's to borrow from the government to build his wealth.

Public Broadcasting is just that, for the public. Not programs that are restricted to cable, which may be out of the price reach of some Americans. If you are watching during the year and cannot find $2 worth of value, you are probably still backing the Bush war in Iraq. Maybe you prefer to spend your taxes killing people rather than educating or entertaining them, I don't.

If you don't like the programming, don't watch it. If you can't afford the $2 skip half your next latte.

Public broadcasting bring pleasure to many people and is very much worth the pittance the government provides.

PBS is rare evidence that intelligent life exists on this planet.

It is time for the Federal Government to change. If the U.S. Constitution does not specifically authorize something such as PBS, it should not be funded. There is always a good reason for something, that is why our taxes are so high at the federal level. If our country really wants change, we need to go back to our history and have the government as it was originally designed.

PBS offers the most informative programming on TV. I always watch Nightly News Hour, Washington Week in Review, NOW, Bill Moyers and Frontline, plus other wonderful specials. My children grew up on Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers. Jim Lehrer and company offer the most in depth, unbiased news reporting on television. I'd much rather that my tax money be used to support PBS than pre-emptive wars.

Funding for PBS should be maintained, but not so for NPR. PBS airs much quality programming that would not likely be otherwise available. Politically speaking, NPR is blatently biased and should NOT be supported by taxpayer dollars.

Let's start with a simple premise, that the government shouldn't be in the broadcasting/television business unless it is promoting Democracy and the values of the United States of America - Voice of America.

The founding of PBS was done by the government in 1969 and the intention at that time was that the organization would fund itself and government money would not be necessary. What went wrong? Why do they 'need' government money?

Now I don't think that anyone would deny that PBS has produced some wonderful programming. Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, Zoboomafoo, and Masterpiece Theater just to name a few. But why can't the network support itself as was intended? Why do they need handouts? Could it be that once you get government money -easy money- you'll do anything you can to keep getting it? Could it be that getting money without earning it leads to lazy management?

The argument before us is should we fund an organization that can't support itself? PBS has produced wonderful, award winning programs. Programs that have returned millions of dollars to their producers (who were initially funded by PBS) from the sale of program merchandise. Why didn't PBS get a piece of that money? The broadcasting of those shows effectively built the market for the merchandising so any business person would say that PBS should have gotten "a piece of the action." But they didn't. Why? Because the knowledge that they would continue to get free government money every year allowed them to not think like business people and not worry about being or becoming a sustainable business.

PBS was never intended to be supported by taxpayer dollars indefinitely. It was supposed to be self-supporting or fade away.

If PBS doesn't provide programming the majority of people want and are willing to support individually (Opera exists without government funding doesn't it?) If PBS isn't smart enough to run its operations in a manner that allows it to be self supporting (show producers who make money from merchandising as a result of the free advertising the PBS stations provide by airing their shows SHOULD share the revenue from sales)... then PBS doesn't deserve to exist. The strong survive, the stupid (businesses) shouldn't.

It's really quite simple.

This continuing sponsorship of television shows by taxpayers should be terminated now and forever. It is just entertainment and if it cannot survive in that medium on its own merits it is not up to me and other taxpayers to support it. It is no different than NPR which should have been cut long ago too.

The tenor of these two mediums is mostly liberal and no one can claim its is anywhere near equal conservative or traditional. Bill Moyers? Nothing but a shill for the Democratic party. Did you see his interview with Rev. Wright??

Anyone who claims that cutting funding is all Bush's fault still thinks we went to Iraq for oil while we are paying $4 a gallon for gas. Just reading the comments today by the supporters of PBS will tell you where they come from.

PBS is the best thing on. Once they start a program, unless they are in fund raising, there are no commercial breaks. Their programing is intelligent, varied and high quality. The news is thought provoking and fair. Children's shows have always been the best on TV. The cable is just more junk TV as are the national networks. If my husband and I are watching TV, it is PBS 90 percent of the time. We are down to the most basic cable we can get because it just isn't worth paying for and we would be off cable completely if we weren't restricted in our neighborhood to no antennas.

We enjoy some of the finest programming on television today on Iowa PBS. Without this station we would not only be disconnected but culturally deprived. Granted, we dould live without the Red Green Show, but not Big Bird and friends or Masterpiece Thearter. Oh! Let's not fo9rget the wonderful comedy, drama and mystery that entertains and delights! Please excuse typos and lack of paragraghs. Let's hear it for Jim Lehrer!

If it wasn't for PBS we wouldn't have HD television today ! They are not only the trail blazers in television technology, they set the standards in quality TV programing. It is the best investment of our tax $'s.

I would rather have the Choice of PBS than have no choice over the spending of tax money in Iraq. Unqualified YES to tax dollars helping to support PBS. With all the hubris of 24/7/365 talking heads promoting their own or their sponsors agenda, PBS's thoughtful, detailed insights are a welcomed relief.

WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC BE FORCED TO SUPPORT PBS....WHY CAN'T THE GOVERNMENT HELP WITH THIS. IT IS ONE OF THE ONLY CHANNELS WHERE YOU CAN WATCH INTELLIGENT PROGRAMMING AND WONDERFUL MASTERPIECE THEATRE PRODUCTIONS. AS ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTORS POINTED OUT.....COMMERCIAL TV HAS BECOME A CESSPOOOL WITH THE LOWERING OF STANDARDS AND I , FOR ONE, DO NOT APPRECIATE HEARING THE FOUL LANGUAGE, NOT TO MENTION PEOPLE THROWING UP, GOING TO THE BATHROOM, BURPING, FARTING AND OTHER BODILY FUNCTIONS THAT BELONG IN THE PRIVACY OF THE HOME OR THE BATHROOM..........PULEEZ!!!!! GIVE US ALL A BREAK FROM LOW-LIFE TV.

At one time we donated to pbs but not any more . the only time you have good shows is when you want money.now you have bill moyers.I have yet to talk to any one that likes his show.

Bush justifies his proposal to half funding for PBS with the statement that there are adequate cable stations. We hardly ever watch TV and cable for us would be a waste of money. We would rather donate to public TV and radio, where we know the information is not biased and where we get the full story. It would be unconscionable to eliminate a form of media that is not controlled by the almighty dollar of big business.

ABSOLUTELY! The arts need all the funding we can give them, and we need the arts! When I think of all the great programs I've been fortunate enough to enjoy on PBS I am SO grateful the exist!

P.S. Public TV is free from the violence and sexually explicit programming that is commonplace on the regular channels. Furthermore, I watched Oprah for the first and last time recently. The advertisements not only constantly interferred with the topic, but also were longer than the time with Oprah. Her main statement was, "We'll be back in a minute." I timed one advertisement break and it was more than seven minutes long. Ugh!

FOX news says of itself "Fair and Balanced", it's really fair and balanced, but with Rupert Murdoch's thumb on the Conservative side.

I love PBS, and I'm NOT a liberal. There is no other place for quality programing. I pay huge taxes and this is a good way to spend them. Children have no other choice for quality, and people who can't afford cable have nothing else either. Only a small portion of PBS is government funded, and PBS actually deserves more. Stop kidding yourselves, almost all business have government handouts, be it tax deductions, subsidies or some other sort of interference. Surely, if you are a conservative you can weather the liberal bias shown occasionally. If not change the channel to a reality show, that should cure you. TV is truly now a wasteland and PBS is its only oasis.

Those of you who do not wish your tax dollars to support PBS,
divide 130,728,360 (individual tax payers) into the $400 million budget for PBS then deduct your amount from your income tax. Then shut up and leave us to enjoy OUR programming.

My brother in law has worked all his life for the government in defense. He likes to joke, "this is the only job where they pay you to blow things up". In the meantime, folks (including myself) are being laid off. On top of this, watching "carrier" on PBS just shows what an enormous amount of money this country wastes without any criteria on whether this brings any substantial benefit. After the trillions spent on defense, homeland security, etc., I think the government can easily afford $400 Mio. for PBS.

Public T.V. and Radio are so worthwhile. My husband and I have supported them since we came to the U.S. in the 60's.

Why is it that the Government wants to continue with the "Dumming of America", which is certainly the case with the networks!

We feel that that it is so important for these programmes to continue in the hope that some young people will discover what a wonderful opportunity they present to learn about so many interesting topics.

We hope that the funding will continue indefinitely.

PBS consistently makes available high quality programming that commercial stations cannot afford or will not produce. These include such programs as Masterpiece Theater, Austin City Limits, Nova, Nature, Bill Moyer’s Journal, Frontline, New Yankee Workshop, Ken Burns documentaries, In addition, it provides a window to the international world that US commercial TV is uninterested in exploring, and provides such delightful British and Canadian tidbits as the Red-Green show, Monty Python (ok this was awhile ago), and Prime Suspect.

PBS provides programming such as Independent Lens, something you would never see on commercial stations of any sort. This provides a point of view that few Americans would every witness otherwise. While home improvement shows attract commercial corporate sponsors, only nonprofits will support programming examining the various topics seen on this show. The science related programs Nature and Nova are incredible. Again, there is no big money interest willing to support the cost of this type of programming.

PBS is truly free to most Americans. Those of us unwilling to shell out money for the poor quality entertainment available on cable and satellite stations are blessed by this station. Whenever I stay at hotels during travel, I always look forward to scanning the seemingly hundreds of stations available. However, with a few notable exceptions, I’m typically seriously disappointed. Why pay if you have broadcast reception, as you do in most major metropolitan areas.

PBS programming is highly informative and typically reliable. I depend on the fact that PBS lacks the strong potential for bias and censorship that commercial stations contend with. When reporting on issues that would potentially damage the corporate interests of the parent company I do not trust the commercial news to tell the whole story. While PBS may have to answer to the President or Congress when producing controversial material (WWII documentary initially featured primarily white veterans), it is unafraid to tackle issues (such as the farm bill) that mainstream media steers clear of. Certainly, there are cable shows that buck this trend. But these influences are strong in most commercial media. Then there’s the gee whiz aspect of the science programs, which usually delve beyond the surface to really explore the way things work.

The amount spent on PBS is dwarfed by things like farm subsidies to rich farmers and persons owning arable land, subsidies to the oil industry, support for military operations, etc. One of the things that makes a country great is a commitment to bettering itself and it’s people. In 2007, PBS cost the federal government $119,772,000, less than one thousandth of the cost of the house version of our current farm bill. This money goes to acquisition of programming and various types of support for local member stations.

PBS is one of the few places that I can go to for international news. Most stations here in the US concentrate on national news and BBC is not readily available to most of us.

The Federal government has absolutely no business producing audio/video entertainment with our tax dollars. Public funded radio and TV programing should be splely funded by those who patronize it, period. The same people who insist we need more PBS/NPR are the ones who cry that we are underfunding health initiatives, help for seniors----put those entertainment dollars into legitimate service programs. I like Garrison and Car Talk as well as anyone, but the government should stay out of such areas.

I can't say it any better than - Frank Johnson, Lonnie Beasley, Dee Jackson, Joel Powell, Frank Hargreaves, Joe Collins, tom and Rosemary Morris,, Fred Miller ,Robert G. Hedenberg Jr., Russ Cagnon, Jerry, & orthers. Mary Wataru says it best.

PBS is nearly the last stand for good TV programing! History chanel and national Geographic are good too.

With a very few exceptions, commercial TV is nearly 100% filed with 20 something's acting like sex crazed 16 year olds!

PBS makes a valiant effort to educate the public on a really vast number of issues which impact their lives and futures. This is not an easy task in view of the unremitting onslaught on the public school system in the nation since the '80s (devise your own school based on protecting your children from any free thought on anything or home school them for the same reason).

They inform us about the natural world in a manner far superior to Discovery, Animal Planet, etc. and about the rest of the world and the past better than CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, History Channel, Travel Channel, Outdoor ",

Why do I support public tv? Because the programming is educational for the most part. I have cable with about 150 channels , perhaps 20 are worth watching. My favorite PBS programs are Nova and The American Experience and I think these two alone, not to mention all the other great PBS programs, make public funding a good idea.

Compared to the supposedly "educational" programing for children provided by cable networks, PBS provides the only high quality shows that my child watches. Free from relentless marketing targeted at children, my son is able to enjoy age appropriate and tasteful TV. The goal of PBS children's television is to entertain and "educate" (although I use that term lightly, it is TV after all), not sell something, provide a hook so your child will watch three other shows on the network, or segway into the TV habit. My son can sit and happily watch a 15 minute program and then move on to something else. I proudly sponser public broadcasting and think it is a priority to continue to support institutions that are not all about making money.

Isn't "high-quality cable-TV shows" an oxymoron?! Other than some Discovery shows, there doesn't appear to be much quality programming for children on cable. Along with the forced change to digital televisions, it seems there is an intent under way to force everyone to pay for cable. Network TV isn't the answer either. What a sad commentary on our country that twice as many people prefer the idiocy of pro wrestling. The government should do everything it can to support forums for intelligent programming on PBS and NPR.

PBS consistantly has finest programing due to its independence of profit or political influences. Which is why this adminintration is trying to eliminate it. The best shows through the years have always been on PBS. Additionally, you never have to be concerned about content with the kids watching their programs.

How can anyone consider this proposal to cut PBS money,with all the billions going to the war, legislative perks, propaganda, space travel, etcl? We should get our priorities straight. I cringe when I think about what we are leaving our kids and grandchildren. We should be ashamed of what we have let the current administration do to this country and our future. Get out and vote and let's get on with molding our policies into something we can be proud of.
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING US!

We need the programs that public broadcasting gives us. There is no other place to get them.

Unequivocal support.

We do not have cable TV, for it is not any better than the other commercial stations - but PBS has quality programs. We almost exclusively look at PBS, where you get both sides of a subject, where you can see NOVA, American Experience and Bill Moyers among other great programs. We have been supporters of our local PBS station for years - and that is money well spent. What would kids do without Sesame Street and the other great programs?

Too mny PBS stations. Should be limited to one/city. PBS gets enough money via donations so govt handouts are not necessary. What is really more absurd is the waste of money given NPR.Save the taxpayers support of this unnessary radio station. There are radio stations throught the counrty people can listen and learn from without having a govt. spend money on something so stupid as a federal radio station.

Government spending needs to be cut period. If you love the programs on PBS and NPR, pay for them but not with tax dollars. Quit complaining. People freely spend huge amounts for cable TV monthly but the government is supposed to pay for PBS. Ridiculous! If you want it pay for it!

I believe our tax dollars should support Public Television. The mass media is owned by people interested in making profit and they do not have our interest in mind. We need independent voices reporting the news and doing documentaries even when they do not agree with the politicians or the lobbies that support special interests in Washington D.C. I watch PBS regularly because I want the truth about what is going on in this country, not the slanted versions from ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox. If tax dollars continue to support PBS we will get balanced coverage that we can believe in.

PBS is my favorite station. The NewsHouse with Jim Lehrer, Washington Week, plus music, drama. I can't stand the lurid trash on commercial TV and cable. I contribute to PBS; I believe in its importance for the viewing public.

PBS is my favorite station. The NewsHouse with Jim Lehrer, Washington Week, plus music, drama. I can't stand the lurid trash on commercial TV and cable. I contribute to PBS; I believe in its importance for the viewing public.

The government is taking my money and giving it to PBS whether I like it or not. If those who like/enjoy watching PBS want to voluntarily donate money, let them do so. I do not, would not and resent being forsed to do so.

Public means for all regardless of status nationwide, so should be funded by all tax paying citizens, thus allowing every person access to knowledge through this medium.

PBS is the only television channel which combats the continuing "dumbing down" babble on the so called regular channels. Even CBS, NBC, ABC have the same news , little analysis, no real discussions of opinions which do not please the masses. Bill Moyers, almost universally demonized, Gwen Ifill, the Newshour, Charlie Rose, to name a few who actually stimulate thought. Take a look America at the last 8 years. What have you learned if anything?

Let George Soros fund PBS.

Please I am taxed enough--make it pay for view for those who want it. Also send Bill Moyers back to hte grave!

PBS has taken a stand on political issues. For a tax suported media they need to mind their own business and keep it down the middle of the road. But, the liberal media just can not do that. I do not donate to local PBS during their fund raiser or at any time becqause of that. Thank you.

PBS has some good programs,but they also have some liberal programs that I do not support. You (Parade) are showing Big Bird and not all the liberal stuff and that is misleading. I think the budget should be cut because it does not show the more conservative view point and America is more conservative than liberal.

If PBS goes, I will turn in my TV. I feel this strongly about the station. The reasons I feel this way would take more than the allowed charactors, so I'll skip the details. Where else can I hear and see such a variety of excellent programs. Without this program, I would listen to my radio only.

PBS just needs to finance themselves. They are only 15% short. Surely the people who watch it can tighten their belts up just a little more. If you put together all these little pieces of the pie, they add up to even more debt that this country doesn't need. Amtrack is another one. If it can't survive on it's own, let it wither away. In both cases employees could take a cut in pay and benefits to keep it running.

CUT IT IN HALF. 2 - MIL SHOULD BE ENOUGHT

PBS absolutely deserves public funding. The round table debate format, for example, forces well informed guests to support their arguments regarding politics, finance and events. This is marvelous for stimulating our own critical processes. To learn, watch PBS. To garner a cheap chuckle at the water cooler, parrot a two-liner from a FOX network program. An interest group which may be threatened by an educated population will certainly try to undermine PBS' public funding. PBS (including the history, home- and personal improvement, drama, arts, comedy and kids' programming) is the envy of the rest of the world.

I can't say that I watch PBS all that often, but it is on at my house almost every day because the cartoons and children's shows are so much better for my children than those on cable networks - they are fun and educational and my kids LOVE them! I would hate to see these wonderful shows go away because of a loss of funding!

PBS has some good programs,but they also have some liberal programs that I do not support. You (Parade) are showing Big Bird and not all the liberal stuff and that is misleading. I think the budget should be cut because it does not show the more conservative view point and America is more conservative than liberal.

If Congress can spend our money on earmarks like bridges to nowhere...that benefit no one, or turkey research...then for those of us who don't watch the mindless garbage the other stations are putting out....for those of us who actually enjoy educational/informative programs that are not yelling at us...Hell yes, my taxes can support PBS. And when PBS programs expose our governments waste....and waist comsumption size....then, please use my taxes for PBS.

PBS has some good programs,but they also have some liberal programs that I do not support. You (Parade) are showing Big Bird and not all the liberal stuff and that is misleading. I think the budget should be cut because it does not show the more conservative view point and America is more conservative than liberal.

PBS has some good programs,but they also have some liberal programs that I do not support. You (Parade) are showing Big Bird and not all the liberal stuff and that is misleading. I think the budget should be cut because it does not show the more conservative view point and America is more conservative than liberal.

Sesame Street makes a MINT in merchandising. Tax $$ can be better spent elsewhere. And to the person who thinks PBS is not partisan, I have a bridge I'd like to sell ou.

I voted, for what little it is worth. This batch of elected officials have shown they do not care what the citizens think, want or need.

The argument about the plethora of cable channels available is only half accurate. Yes, there are plenty of cable channels to watch. However, if you compare the offerings of the cable channels today with what was available in the pre-cable days, you can put all of the shows and channels together as mind-less refuse. At least PBS offers thought-provoking and educational programming that expands your view of the world. I thought the comparison of viewership of PBS as compared to wrestling interesting. That is the prime example what I am referring to. And this from a wrestling viewer from 25 years ago. Because of the language, inuendo and violence depicted in this and other shows, a majority of my television time is spent watching PBS. I am not totally against cable as I do enjoy the offerings of some of the channels. But the first place I check for programs worth watching is the local PBS station.

With the amount of waste and pork this administration has not only tolerated but promoted, not to mention the war budgets, how can they possibly rationalize cutting PBS funding!!! Talk about idiotic ideas,mismanagement and hypocrisy! TK Erie Pa.

I have always supported PBS and their programing in the past. My children grew up with "Big Bird" and loved them. I cannot, however, continue to support them until the do away with their political slant in the news. Bill Moyer is so far over the hill that it is crazy.

It is very costly being the one remaining superpower. The U.S. has 700 bases in 120 countries and more firepower than the rest of the WORLD combined.
What kind of narrow minded people begrudge the pittance that PBS takes from the bloated U.S. budget?
Frontline, Moyers, Now, etc, report on things that show up NOWHERE on Corporate TV. I recently heard a phrase "low information" voters. It is not an accident that main stream media gives us "celebrity" news and does NOT report at all on things that are extremely important. Democracy will not function properly without an INFORMED electorate. We do not have that now.

I have cable so have access to many channels. Most of these channels are rubbish. Indirectly the public supports all programming--who do you think really ends up paying, whether taxes or the advertising budget of the companies that make the items we purchase? PS shows a lot of educational and interesting shows. I am willing to pay taxes to support this type of programs.

The cost of PBS is negligible relative to the entire United States budget. Studies have shown that PBS is excellent value for the money. I am not surprised to see that the vast majority of your readers support continued funding for PBS. The network offers a staggering diversity of programming of exceptional quality. PBS showcases the work of independent producers, providing a variety of perspectives. PBS also supports quality local programming, something that few local commercial affiliates of other networks offer any more. I am also tired to hearing that other cable channels offer similar quality programming. Not true! There is no comparison between the depth and analysis offered by PBS and the superficiality of treatment on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. PBS goes to primary sources and provides unique insights. In contrast, the History Channel relies on experts and secondary sources. PBS programs always probe issues more critically, something sorely needed by the American viewing public. The government should be increasing funding for PBS, not cutting it.

YES TAX MONEY SHOULD SUPPORT PBS.
PBS programing is available to ALL, regardless of income, social status, political opinions, etc. If you can't afford Cable or Satelite TV, you can
still access programs on PBS. It is the only TV station devoted to the
common good instead of the almighty bottom line - who pays the most $$$ for air time. Maybe not perfectly neutral, but striving for fairness.
AND, the quality of other programing available is questionable.
I watch more shows on PBS, and give PBS the biggest portion of my charitable budget.

I hate to think of TV without PBS. I have heard some folks say that they think it is slanted to the left. Maybe yes, maybe no, but it IS slanted to the civil side of discussion. On PBS you will not hear people shouting each other down, calling names, and being rude in general. The same is true of NPR. Civil discourse is the order of the day. Give me that anytime. Additionally, where else can you find such high quality drama, comedy, nature, science and other kinds of information and entertainment. Certainly not on commercial broadcasting where we are inundated with tasteless commercials, so-called reality programing and very little else.

The federal government gives money directly or indirectly (tax deductions) to U.S. oil companies, such as Exon-Mobil with its billions of dollars of 'quarterly' profit, because of oil connected friends like Bush, Cheney, & some legislators. If they can subsidize the billion dollar oil companies, they can help Public Television. If there is not enough money for both, take it from the oil companies & let the oil companies fend for themselves because they are some of the richest companies in the world.

Where else as a teacher can I get Reading Rainbow, or any other
intelligent programs. PBS saves us from all programs on other stations.
Please more language classes, child development classes, and excellence
of Masterpiece Theater.

i enjoy watching programs that are informative and in good taste. enjoy watching antiques roadshow and collectible items shown.

I think that of all the places our tax money goes that PBS is among the best destinations, I hope that the decision is made to keep tax dollars going to PBS.

PBS was created to ensure that TV(media) programming is shared
between public and commercial interests. PBS was designed to be
'neutral', meaning it must show balanced programming and not lean
exclusively towards the left, center, or right, rather to show all
three in a balanced way. PBS ought to be completely independent
of government and commercial interests, to operate independently,
and to follow the same rules as with every media outlet organizations.

What seperates PBS from others is simply its indepenence. We have
seen that corporate organizations are not truly independent, they
are driven by policy makers, sponsors, government, or special
interests. These organizations have very different objectives. Do
we truly have an independent media outet for public interests,
completely unaffected by those who wish to drive objective knowledge
into the ground so that the masses are truly dumbed down?

And here is where PBS comes in, to provide an alternative, balanced,
fair and more importantly, an independent media outlet for the masses
to those who which to... aquire knowledge and to think objectively!

My position is clear, keep the independent PBS organization!

Almost of all of entertainment and "news" media are driven by corporate interests. This makes it almost impossible to find real educational programming, especially that for children, which is not focused on selling something.
These are public airwaves that we are talking about -- they are NOT owned by the licensees. PBS and NPR are the only organizations that are truly working in the public interest. The FCC has been almost completely undermined by appointments that have the foxes guarding the henhouse.
The amount of money necessary to insure the presence of impartial media sources is a mere pittance compared to the amount of money added to the cost of retail items due to advertising that supports "free" media.

Whether or not to support PBS should not even be questioned. PBS presents most of the intelligent viewing on television. Without PBS, we may just as well throw out the television set as most, if not all, of the sitcoms are garbage, and the cable so called news channels are so right wing biased with the exception of MSNBC, that the only truly fair and balanced news and political coverage can only be found on PBS. No Masterpiece? No Mystery? No British telly?
Perish the thought.

I am proud that a portion of my taxes supports PBS. I also contribute an extra amount for their excellant programs. It does require a bit of class and intelligence from its viewers.

PBS remains one of the few good reasons for owning a TV! And yes, we support PBS with our donations and will continue to do so.

I have been a supporter of PBS & NPR for decades. These days, my absolute favorite thing about these media is the lack of advertising. Our loud, fast-paced, uber-commercial, consumeristic society is vexing. I prefer a calmer, more sane approach to my news and entertainment and feel that every citizen in America deserves the option of "opting out" on advertising overload.

Many of us on fixed and very threatened incomes simply cannot afford the current high fees of cable television, nor the higher digital fees to come. We deserve something decent to watch over the public airwaves. I have a six-year old television set which will not be replaced with a newer digital model,and I have only basic cable service which, at today's rising costs for food and medical care, may soon be a luxury that has to go.

Many of us on fixed and very threatened incomes simply cannot afford the current high fees of cable television, nor the higher digital fees to come. We deserve something decent to watch over the public airwaves. I have a six-year old television set which will not be replaced with a newer digital model,and I have only basic cable service which, at today's rising costs for food and medical care, may soon be a luxury that has to go.

I mostly watch PBS because of the quality of programming - it doesn't talk down to me or pander to lowest-common-denominator interests. Shows like "Antiques Roadshow" aren't political in the least - just informative. A Show like "Simple Living" gives tips on living a more fulfilling life - again, having nothing to do with politics.

Compared to all the other wasteful things that our tax dollars are spent on (the bridge to nowhere, etc), the quality of programming and of thinking should be supported to a greater extent than ever before so that we as a nation don't drag ourselves into more wars or environmental messes that are difficult to overcome.

People! If you personally like PBS and its programming then support it with YOUR dollars not the public's. There are arguments up and down this page that PBS programming is wonderful and saintly and deserves to be supported with tax dollars. I won't argue the value of PBS' programming - it is good. The issue is that it should support itself or fade away. Are we fighting a war right now? Yes. Does everyone like it? Obviously from some of these comments the answer is no. The spend-happy politicians LOVE to use our money to keep themselves in office. We're taxed far too much for bridges to nowhere, studies of animal behavior, and anything else that endears a politician to some group that will keep him or her in office. The madness must end! Tax and spend doesn't work in the long run.

As mentioned, if you like PBS then use the money you would have spent on a concert or tickets to some professional sports event and give it to PBS. That's their business model. "Viewers like you" should pony up to the bar and pay for all the stuff you love to watch. Why O why do I have to pay for you to watch TV?!? That's what you're arguing - you won't pay for cable - show me your membership card and the amount you paid to watch NewHour, etc. I bet you aren't members and aren't paying your fair share. Like PBS you just want to leach off the government and take a free ride on the backs of all the honest, hard-working Americans.

PBS has lately turned into partisan propaganda tool for the left.

Yes, they still produce some fine shows. That still doesn't justify spending of Tax Dollars on PBS.

Government should not subsidize anything or anybody: Farmers, Oil companies, or PBS.

Instead of funding money for the so-called quality entertainment for some, the money should be funnelled to the COLLEGE education and research at the universities for the betterment of all of us.

We are facing enough of the problems: Deseases, Energy shortages, Global Warming, environment,...
When the tax Dollars are finite and problems we are facing are plenty, one should prioritize the allocation of money; entertainment should be the last thing on that list.

No. The government should not be supporting any kind of private business for any reason. CTW and Barney make millions of dollars selling their toys to kids all over the world. Why are american tax payers subsidizing these organizations? If the other programming on PBS is commercially viable, let them sell advertising like every other television station. We need to get the government to stop underwriting all corporations.

Public broadcasting is higher in quality than anything else on TV. The lack of commercials to interrupt (or to dictate policy) adds to the pleasure of watching it and listening on NPR. I contribute personally to both PBS and NPR stations but would find it difficult to provide the support needed if government is cut.

I would rather my tax dollars be spent on PBS than some of the other things, such as gas guzzling cars provided for Congress, a war that kills our young men and women, the other things are too numerous to mention. At least we learnenjoy and laugh at unoffensive material. I am not usually afraid to let my grandchildren watch. Please do not cut funds for PBS.

Keep your hands off PBS's funding!!!! Yes, private contributions from PBS's viewing public fund most of their programing BUT that funding is drying up in today's economic conditions. So you don't like Bill Moyers---so what - don't watch it---no one is holding a gun to your head and making you watch it! Where else but PBS can you get commercial-free programs such as NOVA, Andre Rieu, Live from Lincoln Center, Andrea Bocelli, Masterpiece Theatre, and the Memorial Day and 4th of July concerts from Washington D.C. FREE??? What high-quality cable TV shows? Cable doesn't even come close to the informative and entertaining programs that PBS offers. I refuse to purchase cable because I refuse to PAY for the "privilege" of watching TV.

How can ANYONE call Bill Moyers non partisan?

I prefer PBS to any on the other networks, because it doesn't try to slant the news. I noticed in the comments that it is the right wingers who claim that PBS is liberal. I'm can't remember PBS or Bill Moyers ever having to backtrack because something they said wasn't so.

If I want to see what is happening in the rest of the world, PBS is the answer. The American networks do a poor job of reporting on what goes on overseas.... unless it directly affects this country.

Frontlline does an excellent job of reporting what goes on in this country and the rest of the world... much better than, say, 60 Minutes, which has been called to task in one case I know of for presenting erroneous and slanted information.

Support for PBS is one thing government gets right. It should be maintained and given more support.

PBS should have MUCH MORE government funding. Its existence is owed to earlier, wiser govemments. Lately, devoted viewers (including my family) pick up a large part of the tab, because PBS gives us the content which makes a tv worth having. Ditto for NPR/radios.

john says no support for pbs because cable provides the same coverage and pbs is biased. Cable, which costs much more, doesn't provide anywhere near the quality and diversity of coverage provided by PBS. PBS provides excellent theater, other drama, music, travel, how-to, history and best of all unbiased news. Support for PBS is one of the best buys our tax dollars provide.

It's worth watching PBS just to get away from ads! Watching a movie on commercial TV drove me crazy - 5 minutes of movie, 5 minutes of commercials. An English program that runs half an hour in UK on BBC runs for a full hour over here on commercial TV!

PBS offers the best programming available on both radio and television. I put my money where my mouth is and contribute $400/yr to public television and $225/yr to public radio. I want my tax dollars to support PBS as well.

PBS will not go away if the taxpayers don't fund it. They should be audited to just see how much money they raise from donations. If you want to keep it, donate to it. EWTN stays afloat strictly from donations. As a taxpayer, I don't want my money to support PBS. We have got to start cutting expenses that do not contrbute to our citizens' well being.

I am against pulling the funding. As mentioned above, it is only 15%. Cable television is constantly going through price increases and there are many who do not or, more importantly, cannot afford this. It is bad enough that people are going to have to either sign up to cable or pay for boxes when all signals go digital. Many of the above say take the money and fund something else but there are many other overfunded projects that can afford to have their funding (or tax breaks) lowered while allowing PBS to continue. Between the national, international and local programming, PBS is an institute in the country. Too many of the prior "good" cable channels (A&E, Bravo, etc) have gone the way of tacky and reality based idiotic shows.

I'd rather see MY tax dollars go to PBS than go to those clowns in Congress.

If PBS is so wonderful and so essential and so unique, then why can't it compete with commercial venues without the taxpayers' help? Surely with "producers, viewer donations, private foundations and corporations" providing funding, they don't need tax money. A number of those commenting blame the Bush administration for trying to shut down public broadcasting. It is the leftists in Washington who are trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," seeking to shut down talk radio which has succeeded beyond all expectations on its own merit in the free market without the help of taxpayers. If PBS is so good, then level the playing field and let it compete in the market with the rest of commercial programming.

Besides the indepth stories and kids programs that are carried on PBS, if this country can spend an absurd amount of money killing others in their country, then this country can afford to spend a pittance in comparison on quality public programming.

Democracy cannot exist without an informed population. . Why would not any democracy-loving individual invest .01% of their tax dollars in information. Please scrutinize what the other 99.99% of your tax dollars are used for... and don't watch PBS if you don't want to! But then, don't vote either!

I love PBS-good children's shows, good informative shows, and good literature programs and only commercials for the next good show. Yes, I think my tax dollars should be used for public broadcasting instead of some of the wasteful directions the money goes towards.

YES -- Tax dollars should support PBS.

Quality should be available to viewers who still want it - many of whom constantly support the fund-raising efforts to keep it available.

We still should continue to have quality available as an alternative to commercial programs that foster brain-dead entertainment and depend on big corporation advertisements, and ratings of viewing based often on sensationalism appealing to the lower instincts of human nature.

Our society needs higher standards of credible and accurate presentations, educational programs, and entertainment.

Unfortunately, the politicians, including the president who is supporting cutting the funding and the life of PBS, do not appear to have such a background and appreciation for choice of viewers to have access to quality viewing.

If we must allocate federal funding based on the high viewership rating for popularity of such entertainment of pro wrestling, America will continue to sink to the bottom, along with health care, etc., in the arts as well.

Why not encourage the viewing population to raise their standards instead of "dumbing down" to the lowest common denominator?

If PBS were in Iraq, Bush would pay for it in a heartbeat.

Our Bill of Rights clearly states that: Government must provide welfare to a new-born baby because the parents are unable to care for it;
that baby has a right to free education;
if government does not provide the health care for that baby then who will!!!! The baby has a fundamental right to commercial-free enterteinment.
IT IS TRUE! DON'T BELIEVE ME! Open your US History book and read the page titled "Bill of Rights".
Amazing, these are the descendents of those brave and hard working Americans who built a mighty USA that we are today.

My PBS broadcasts are just about the ONLY tangible, positive,
pleasurable benefit I receive from my tax dollars. The American public does not confuse cable's mindless pap, hour long commercials for interior decorators, cruise lines, realtors and pharmaceutical companies, endless violence, and political banter and babble and chatter with shows that we are proud to have our children see, and that enrich our minds and spirits. We know that it isn't our tax money Bush is worried about. Good God, look where he wants our money to go. No, Bush is worried about ideas, not taxes. He worries that we will think, think, think, and not shop, shop, shop.

I am plenty "rich" enough to afford cable TV but not everyone is. I think it is an incredibly insensitive and arrogant argument, akin to "Let them eat cake", to say since there are so many cable shows available, PBS is unnecessary.

Not one red cent of any tax dollars should be spent on PBS. In my TV market for example, there are three local PBS stations all wasting tax money. There could be a consolation of resources if it is so important. Even though PBS produces some good programs, people are being forced to pay for opinions that they may or may not agree with. Any objective observation of PBS's content would have to agree that it presents a very slanted point of view. It can in no way be fair to force people to pay for ideas that they disagree with.

P.B.S. is so liberally skewed that it often makes even the left leaning mainstream media channels look almost unbiased. With over 90% of all journalists in television and newspaper print media self identifying themselves as Democrats in poll after poll isn't it amazing that there are people placing comments on here that say that they think it is alright for tax money to be used to further a liberal viewpoint. I could not disagree more, and those same folks would be the first to complain if the opposite points of view were ever shown on P.B.S.!

I have supported 2 local PBS stations for many years and will continue to do so. Many of the hight-quality enteraining and thought-provoking programs cannot be found on other local or cable channels, Since PBS is commercial-free they depend on wqtchers' contribuitons, but those contributions alone are not sufficient to fund this excellent work. Taxpayers' support (via the NEA) help to make up for all those consumers who enjoy the programs but do not contribute their own money to help.

We support PBS 100%. Even though we have Cable with 100+ channels, we aren't into Sports, Reality,etc. so we automatically turn to our local PBS channel and NPR on our stereo for news and quality entertainment.

What is wrong with being Liberal? The dictionary definition of the word says that it is having and expressing views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power to promote social progress. The present administration is sure short on these three things. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be mired in Iraq, but would be spending our resources for the necessities our citizens need for a quality of life.

The dictionary definition of conservatism is the disposition in politics to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change. By the way, the conservatives in this country adhere to the principles and practices of the Conservative Party in the UK. And we know what the rank and file in that country think of their Conservative Party. They are regularly booted out whe n the people realize that the C. Party doesn't have their best interests at heart.

Go civil liberties, democratic reforms and social progress.

I'd rather see a little pittance of my tax dollars go to PBS than to those clowns in Washington who don't have a clue and don't care how poor folks have to try and make ends meet. It would be a whole lot smarter to insist that the 'big boys' in PBS's system have their salaries and bonus' cut back to normal.

PBS serves a national public with very high quality programs. Little in the way of the type of propaganda we see fro national news media.

PBS offers the American public so many opportunties in its programming to be informed about the world in which we live. It helps us to understand what is going on in our world in various and diverse ways and helps us to cross boundaries which we would never know. Without PBS, our world would be much smaller and more insane! Yes, emphatically, to our tax dollars supporting television programming that reaches so many people who do not just see things in black and white, but like the colors of the rainbow! I know that I will continue to lend my support.

This is just another attempt by Bush and his supporters in the religious right to silence rational dialogue in the public arena. Since I live in Alabama, it does no good for me to write my congressmen, all of whom are right wing extremists. As a result, this is one of the few channels I have to make my voice heard. Thank you for the opportunity.

Socialized TV? Heck no!
I'll never make a contribution to PBS, as long as they already take my money by force.

PBS is the best thing there is on television. I see the comments about the liberal slant. Have you watched the Science programs or the Nature programs? What about Masterpiece Theater or Mystery? How about Antique Roadshow? Sesame Street? PBS is what I watch, what I pay to support and what I hope the legislature will continue to fund.

Fund high-quality, unbiased, intelligent programming versus give tax breaks to oil companies, drug companies, and corrupt war machines? You bet! At least, you can turn the TV on or off, unlike a failed administration.

After seeing the statistics of 73% for PBS it restores my hope in the American public. I find PBS a welcome source of entertainment and news that takes a look at both sides of an issue. It does not surprise me that the Bush administration wants to cut funding to PBS as they probably need the money to attack another country and have Fox and talk radio explain why it's the right thing to do. To those in goverment please listen to the people and keep funding for such a valuable service.

PBS is the only television I watch regularly because of the diversity of topics covered in an objective, interesting, commercial-free, fair way. The documentaries are well-crafted and informative, and I love the myriad of concerts available. Rather than cutting funding, Bush and his administration should be increasing funding for such a valuable asset.

Yes I believe the goverment should continue to help support PB. A lot of us on fixed incomes cannot afford cable unless we give up something like food. So before the fortunate ones get all self rightous, remember this is the only place we can get unbiased news and entertainment and watch something besides sex and violence.

The people, through it's government should provide unweavering support for PBS.

PBS should never have been tax payer funded. If the programming is so good as proponents say, then let it sell ads. It already does to an extent. They can have bake sales. I'm not going to argue about whether they are fair in many political shows. There are as good and better quality shows on The Learning Channel, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and more. And no begging for funds.
So, a resounding NO to any more taxes to PBS.

Absolutley! without a doubt we should continue our support of PBS.
As a matter of fact, we should increase the amount to something closer to an amount that would really help.
The amount of money that goes to PBS, is a pitence, in the big picture of things we spend taxpayers $$$ on.
Why would anyone pick on something that does so much good? Our country throws billions of our taxpayer $$$ at things that do absolutley no good for the American Public.
Corporate welfare comes to mind; farm subsities to wealthy conglomerates and businesses, , cleaning up after industries that pollute our planet and leave its mess for the taxpayers, billions to oil companies, even while they rape us at the pumps, and so on and so on.
I don't believe taking funding away from PBS has anything to money and everything to do with politics, from those whom fear truth.
At least the taxpayer is get something very worthwhile, including information untainted, and in many diversified areas.
To stop that would be just one more sign of this country moving in the wrong direction.

Why should people's tax dollars support liberals' views?!

I don't believe it's a question of airing "fair & balanced" reporting. I don't believe it's a question of "quality" programming. It's a question of whether the government should be in the business of television & radio broadcasting. At one time there may have been a need for "competition" to the few commercial channels that were available. That argument can no longer be made.
In every fascist or dictatorial country, TV programming is the source of controlled news. Why is it automatically accepted by so many posters here that government paid programming should automatically be trusted?
It may "only be" $400 million in a bloated federal budget, but every $400 million counts. Eventually $400 millions add up to billions. Budget cuts are necessary in EVERY federal program, not just public broadcasting. Every federal program needs to be looked at from the perspective of whether it competes with private business, and if it is any concern of the goverment to be involved with.
From this perspective, not only would public broadcasting be drastically cut or eliminated, but so would many other federal programs. The overall federal budget would then be at a more manageable and appropriate level.

People put their money where they want to. That should be true for "public" t.v. and/or radio. If it is good, then those who like it should pay for it; otherwise, let it sink or swim!!
If I produce a product for public consumption, if it is good, it will be profitable; if not, I will fail.
The folks who like it should pay. Those who do not like pay-T.V. don't buy it by NOT watching it!
Methinks that a review of the pay scales of the "higher-ups" in NPR and PBS would surprise a lot of folks. (Please publish them)!!

PBS gets 400 million. NPR has an audience of 10 million; that is less than one buck a week per person; so, please: "give us a break"!
If they want it, hold more public audience fund-raisers!! Get out of the captive contributions of MY tax dollars. Think about it.

PBS is the best high quality programming on TV ! Dealing with news, drama, music ,or special presentations the viewer can always depend on first rate programming I absolutely insist that my tax dollars be used to support PBS

Dumbed down America can watch the trash sponsored by big business but literate America is entitled to something superior. The government owes that to the people because God only knows we get little else from them. Long live PBS.

PBS is the only station that children can listen to and learn from without being subjected to violance, inappropriate language, and sexual content. Many families who learn from PBS cannot afford cable and pay extra for Disney channel which is inappropriate for most younger children. Whatever it takes, we cannot afford to lose PBS.

PBS has great programming and along with the foundation and viewer contributions it should get some of my tax dollar. We spend billions of tax money on an unjust quagmire of a war. We subsidize oil companies that surely don't need the money and give farmers money not to grow crops! Yes PBS should get money.

Our local PBS is great for starting a show, then half way through, someone hits the wrong button and comes up with a different program. They are too "Left Leaning" on most programs for me. They get tons of money from "Corporate Sponsers" and I don't think I want my tax dollars going to them or NPR.

It seems to me that if the people that supported PBS funding were asked to come up with 400 million dollars out of their own pockets they wouldn't be so quick to insist that .4 of a billion dollars isn't that much money. As with all liberal schemes they want to MAKE you pay for something that THEY WANT. Why would public funding of any medium that can't make it on its own EVER be a good idea?

This President would get rid of anything humane and decent. PBS has the PBS is the only news show left in town that clearly shows and defines the events of the day unlike the horrible cable and local news shows which only show rapes and shootings. It also shows marvelous documentaries, Nature, Bill Moyers, Masterpiece Theater, Ballet, the events at the Kennedy Center, etc.

I think the President will fail and I am going to contact my senator, congresswoman/man and the ACLU if this happens. Enough already with the pap that passes for entertainment/news today.

I agree with the people who want to support PBS: "Masterpiece Theater or Mystery? How about Antique Roadshow? Sesame Street? PBS is the only station that children can listen to and learn from without being subjected to violence, inappropriate language, and sexual content...PBS is the best high quality programming on TV!...dealing with news, drama, music ,or special presentations"... is not left leaning. I suggest those who see a left bias in everything just put on the fox news program. And stay there. They won't learn anything new, but they obviously don't want to...

It looks as if the Bush Derangement Syndrome people just don't get it! They try to go after talk radio using the censorship of the so called "fairness syndrome" to take away shows that aren't just self supporting but the most popular on the air. But when too few people listen to the liberal crap that is often spewed out by people like Bill Moyers - (last week he was busy throwing underhanded softballs to Obama to help him out in the election using tax money, BUT, that pesky nutjob Reverend Wright just wouldn't keep his mouth shut and the man that Obama would no more disown than his own black community was suddenly... disowned! Bwaahahahahahahah) they want everyone to be taxed to pay for the unacceptable content that people using their freedom WON'T PAY FOR. What great folks these liberals are.

I would only offer this, if we are giving tax dollars to PBS then we should be giving tax dollars to every political group who has a message that is political! I know it will never change because the politicians in Washington haven't the backbone to vote against it anymore than they have to vote against the annual "pet pork projects" even though we learn about them every year! And they increase each year! Oh they have the solution, raise taxes! Neither party has ANY leadership in Washington and therefore we just limp along with the same outdated old fogeys that are only there to keep their chair warm! It is a sad commentary that there is so much dead wood in Congress but long ago I gave up on any thought of any accomplishment that may come out of the Congress! Try to think of anything positive that has come out of Congress that has been a benefit to the population! There is nothing at all! We all have to tighten our belts EXCEPT Congress!!

Anyone interested in this issue should examine the FAIR.org web site.
It is evident that there is, within commercial media, increased concentration, decreased coverage of critical news, especially in the foreign arena, and less diversity of opinions. The airwaves are property of the American people, yet they, under the FCC regimes of the last decade, are increasingly the fiefdom of the upper 1-5% of political donor pools.
As one of many veterans of Kuwait and Iraq, it pains me to look back on the pre-war coverage by FOX, CNN, and major networks and their failure to include opinions that diverged from that of Don Rumsfeld. We are paying a severe price as a nation because, I believe, the media failed to serve as reporters, rather than as White House/administration stenographers. PBS is by no means perfect - they too included a preponderance of "go with the flow" policy makers and those of influence - while rarely including patriotic dissenters. However, compared to, e.g. the Fox "news" network, they provided far more thoughtful discussion.
Now, during a critical election period, we can either see petty, unsubstantive questions by moderators such as Stephanopoulis, or hear important policy questions asked by Jim Lehrer on PBS.
Sincerely,
K. E. Hayashi, MD, MPH & TM
CAPT(Ret), MC, United States Navy

Unfortunately PBS is not "Public". It represents a fairly narrow PC mid-left point of view. Those who subscribe to that point of view are more than able to support it. Conservatives support National Review; the far left supports Pacifica. Works better that way.

The argument isn't if PBS has good programming or bad, if it's biased or completely neutral. The issue is - should all Americans pay for something that the ratings prove only a fraction of the population consume. Some here have complained about funding the war, about supposed subsidies for the oil companies and real subsidies for farmers. America is supposed to be a capitalist country thus we shouldn't be subsidizing anything... especially organizations that compete with other businesses in the marketplace. And if you don't like the other networks then complain, it works you know. Just step back and look at how the Super Bowl half-time show has changed ever since they allowed MTV to go just a little too far with the Ms. Jackson "wardrob failure."

If PBS is so wonderful it shouldn't need government money - everyone here who proclaims their love for it should PAY for it by becoming members by giving them YOUR money - not my money through taxation - and as Senator Clinton has said, "redistribution of wealth."

While PBS provides some wonderful programming that the majors rarely approach, it should not be funded with tax dollars as long as Moyers et al continue to provide only a liberal slant to news and commentary. Do away with all politics and then I would support tax money for PBS.

I see that some people claim that Fox News is biased to the right. Every time I watch it they are busy trying to balance 1 or 2 conservatives with 1 or 2 liberals. How many times do the other networks EVER do that? But the point isn't that PBS is goinf to offset their left wing opinions with the real or imagined opinions on FOX but rather that FOX operates based on its self suppoting revenues from ads, and PBS isn't being held to do the same. I believe that PBS WOULD SURVIVE if it didn't have taxpayer funding, but if it can't it has no more right to federal funds than any other advocacy group does.

In todays Parade Magazine there is a report that the U.S. government is looking to cut in half the amount of public funding that PBS receives for programming. The current figure is $400 million annually. If the government can spend billions of dollars for pork barrel projects and earmarks put into law without any scrutiny, surely the funding to help support a public treasure like PBS should continue.

I have contributed to PBS/NPR stations (3 radio, 2 TV) for years. My children, my nephews and nieces, their children, now my granddaughter, and myself have been educated and entertained commercial-free by Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Electric Company, and their ilk, as well as the unparalleled adult fare offered by PBS/NPR. For instance, I rely absolutely on NPR for objective reporting of the news in the morning and evening on Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Hyped network and local news and the overtly biased cable news programs are insults to journalism ... and Americans. Shows like Car Talk, Diane Rehm, and This American Life, which have no equal in commercial media, only support my commitment to PBS/NPR. It would be a shame if government support were cut for something that America and Americans can be truly proud, and which reflects the America we want to be and should be.

It seems that there are many leftists on this site as willing to spend other peoples money as they are to redistribute peoples own hard earned money!The problem that the Public Broadcasting System has is that it isn't the PUBLIC Broadcasting system. It is a left wing liberal advocacy network that can claim no great programming that would support itself if taxpayer money wasn't used to shore it up! It might, just might, be forced to be more friendly to viewers (other than Bill Moyers) if it had to operate in a free market like all the other broadcasters. If it didn't listen to its viewers it would fail as fast as Air America, or fall like the New York Times subscription rates, and that is just what a free market is designed to do.

I support tax dolars to PBS as Best use. I wonder how many of those who opose tax money for PBS are aware that over 3 million of our tax goes to Radio Free Cuban and I understand that money is not audit or accounted for. It is time to stop it. So why not PBS, what do you have against PBS. Your article w0ke me up. I will write congressman and my 2 senators to ask for more support for PBS.
Thank YOU

You go to Media Matters as your non profit media watchdog is a joke! You should vet your source. Stared by the ultra Liberal Hillary Clinton, she admits it, as ways to protect her and her husbands wrong doings.
Tax dollars should not support PBS nor NPR, they give a far to Liberal positions on subjects.
Next we have to be careful that the fairness doctrine will be reinstated and all Conservative voices will be lost.

I find myself watching PBS on a regular basis and have enjoyed many of the programs. That said, I think that the huge profits that some of their programs make on the open market can more than offset the monies that the government gives to this corporation. Cutoff the funding!

I think the government of the richest country in the world can afford what is "small change" to support television which offers, at no direct cost to the consumer, quality art and educational programs - blessedly free of commercial interruption. Anyone who watched the recent series "Carrier" would have to admit that not only was this a well-balanced and sensitive representation of the work of our armed services personnel, but that there is no way all those hours of it ever would have made it to commercial TV. Some of us choose not to pay to watch commercials and will not subscribe to cable - PBS is our only option for quality TV.

I cite just one recently revealed fact that justifies continued funding: The commercial, cable and "free", networks' military analysts touting the Iraq occupation are in the pay of the military and industrial complex...and neither the networks nor the analysts were principled enough to reveal their prostitution. None of the above were willing to tell about that "little shortcoming" in their news sources, but, ignorance IS bliss!

How can all these people vote against Public TV? These stations air the most quality TV programs available for watching these days. Seems like cable TV stations are mostly intent on showing violence, sex and sick comedy that isn't even funny, just disgusting. The regular cable TV has deteriorated to a vast wasteland that I'd be ashamed to have my children watch, since there are no shows that instill any family values, intelligence, or even entertainment, just stupidity. We need to keep funding Public TV so these entertaining and cultural shows can continue.

Besides broadcasting the most intelligent programs on TV today, where else can you go to see a program without being interrupted every few minutes by idiotic commercials? Commercials are getting close to taking up the same amount of time as the actual programs. Why isn't the American public bothered by this?!

PBS is the only TV service that is not completely controlled by the corporate complex Which has sucessfully censored news to the point that the American public does no longer know what is going on in the world. PBS offers a small window that allows a very slight glimpse into world reality. The sucess of our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Please do not take away or limit one of the last sources of information that a citizen can depend on.

If you think cable offers alternatives to PBS, you haven't watch PBS. Shows like NOVA are the only real science documentaries on television. Similarly, the recent miniseries "Carrier" was a wonderful portrait of our navy giving a better sense of live aboard an aircraft carrier than anything Discovery, History, Nat Geo or the other junk cable channels show.

I for one am deeply disappointed with the lack of quality in the cable channels.

The Bush administration has done a FINE job of destroying this country in many ways. He would rather spend money on torture of prisoners then on educating our people. If you educate people they may ask hard questions of stupid leaders. This man should be arrested tried for his war crimes and so should his v.p. cheney, then be put to death when found quilty. Why do we keep listening to any of his wants and opinions regarding anything, especially eduction?

We need PBS now more than ever.

Commercial TV is unbelievably awful! Not everyone can afford cable, and not everyone wants cable. PBS has long been a source of wonderful programs, the likes of which are NEVER seen on commercial TV. The news programs are thoughtful and informative: again, something you do not see on commercial TV. There are wonderful nature, science, music and arts series.
The federal budget amount of $400 million for PBS is a pittance compared to what the Bush Administration is spending on many other useless and/or illegal programs, not to mention the obscene spending on the fruitless war in Iraq.

Since most of the cable news networks like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC are falling all over themselves trying to outdo Fox News in its right wing stance, Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio are the only sources that offer respite from these tired, old elitist concepts. The Administration knows this and wants to stifle any opposition to its ultraconservative world view.

I would rather have my children watch PBS than any other alternative . Hands down, the most sensitive, entertaining and educational media available in any form today. And together we watch Nova, Secrets of the Dead, Rick Steves' Europe and a variety of cooking shows. Spectacular uninterrupted programming.

It's same the old fried, incompetent artist's excuse that their product wouldn't suck if only they had enough government funding.

Where will all the hippie burnouts like the Dan "fake memos" Rathers , angry Billy Moyerses, Judy Woodruffs of the future retire to after being fired elsewhere should the gummint teat be retracted from PBS? The least Congress can do is delay defunding until CBS fires Katie Couric so that PBS can give her a make work job for pimping the Socialist cause.

PBS has become the proverbial welfare queen of broadcasting alongside NPR. Bloated , lard-arsed, and parasitical. Like some troubled teen demanding a bigger allowance / ransom from the parents for a promise he'll try to stay out of prison next weekend. "If we give him more money, dear, maybe he'll finally grow up.

Not bloody likely if one has seen obvious political shill Billy Moyers' various tantrums! All he needs is Khrushchev's shoe to bang on the table before driving home DUI once the camera switches off. Make him and similar PBS ilk have to earn their keep and they'll have little more than Mao's Little Red Book to console them.

For those of us who don't have cable and are not interested in paying lots of money for it, PBS is indispensable. Regular TV has some good shows, but each day there are more violent and sexually explicit programs that are not family oriented. If you don't have cable, without PBS, there is not much more you can watch on TV.

PBS offers the best of inter-generational programming, even for people who have cabel. It is a jewel that should be cherished.

PBS is the only source of news without bias (pay attention, Fox lovers) and the only station where violence, filth and crudity is not its everyday fare. I am not a far-left liberal nor a right-wing neocon. I am an average American who is sick of the trash that is television on broadcast and cable stations. Anyone who would stop funding PBS is a shortsighted, scum-loving idiot.

Isn't "Media Matters" quoted in the Parade article actually a political action committee for angry Hillary. Let's have full disclosure on the sources cited please lest Parade look like NY Times having given moveon.org the family discount with their infamous "Betray-us" (antil-Petraeus) political hit job advertisment.

When I read the 60s retreads' anger at FoxNews it makes me laugh. How dare a private company deliver a big ratings product to paying customers, who have a life. The network has hired Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Mara Liasson, Chris Wallace, Greta van Susteren, and Geraldo Rivera. All big Lefties!Pretty much the opposite of CNN after Eason Jordan and James Carville took over. CNN's jealousy often seem nearly as annoying as public broadcasting's sense of entitlement. FoxNews dey makes me so angwy!! LOL Silly hippy!

Everyone likes waffles but most aren't interested in paying lots of money for waffles therefore the government should give us all waffles? How about cars too? Shoes? Toothpaste? How about getting off the couch and paying one's own way.

If PBS can stay afloat from private funding and peddling Sesame Street merchandise and cookbooksthen let them stay on but get their hands off my wallet until the blatant political hacks and DNC stepandfetchits like Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, Dan Rather and Chris Lehrer etc. are gone.

Uhhh, the comments from the leftists indicate that we must continue funding PBS because; 1. Bush lied to us about something or another, 2. I can't afford cable and I don't want to watch all the free channels, 3. Everyone else is in the employ of the evil military industrial complex run by SMERSH 4. The only good shows on television are done by Bill Moyers and the only good music is by Lawrence Welk. I think that all the socialist nutjobs should simply pool their money and pay for it themselves instead of always wanting the taxpayers (which NONE of them are, obviously!) to pick up the tab. I'll watch TLC thank you!

If any citizen wants an unbiased flow of information concerning government, regardless of the controlling party (s) at the federal, state or local levels, then government support is fully justified in supporting our freedom of speech.

Without it, citizens would be left to whatever viewpoints are most attractive to commercial interests, industry lobbyists and political groups in power. Spin would reign supreme over factual accountability in the public interest. That the Bush administration and the Republican Party want to reduce the gov'ts support Yet Again (this time by half) should come as a surprise to no one. Stupid us if we let it happen.

Almost all commercial TV has sunk to the level of those who primarily enjoy sex, violence, car chases, etc. Only on PBS can one expect to find intelligent programming which can be very valuable for a democracy. PBS cannot rely on advertizers for its money because advertizers always want to reach the largest audience. The large audiences support the garbage that composes the programming of the other stations. What many people see as a liberal bias on PBS is simply the lack of the loud voices shouting conservative issues.

Oscar Moyer makes a good point. The Socialists tend to peddle PBS as necessary compensation from those self-sufficient non-Liberal meanies who don't buy into dear Karl Marx's or Uncle Joe Stalin's wacky ideas. An owed something mentality by the Left much like Obambi's huckster Revrum Wright's shell game of perpetual victimhood.

What's amazing is the Leftist moonbats seem to have gone an entire thread without blaming Karl Rove for something! Kumbaya or something like that!!

Freedom of speech and some imaginary entitlement or handout to MAKE the public hear you are not the same thing! Those who demand government to provide their free speech usually end up with Leni Riefenstahl or Comintern. PBS now suffers the same problems from political inbreeding, free-ride mentality and total lack of quality standards and accountability usually provided for by market forces. Whether the silly Marxists blame Bush or the fact that their tin foil hats are on too tight they apparently cannot fathom the concept of paying for things out of their own pockets. Lazy tightwad socialists blaming President Bush for PBS's now lackluster political prostitution and dismal ratings is no different than Teddy having blamed the Chappaquiddick Bridge and Oldsmobile for the dead girlfriend.

Even as someone who has been registered as a Republican since 1950, NPR is virtually the only radio I listen to and PBS makes up more than half of my TV watching. I'd hate to see them lose the small amount of tax dollar subsidy they now receive.
There are a lot of rednecks around!

I watch antiques roadhouse err Roadshow sometimes, so you'all should just pay the 400 million dollars and shut up! We don't need no militayr cuz we got that there PBS to straighten out our emenies!

I have lived in another country (Chile, for 12 years) where public television is forced to compete according to market forces--the quality is pathetically low. Now back in the U.S.A., I see that Americans have much to be thankful for in their PBS. You may feel uncomfortable with the perceived slant but nowhere else on tv can you find such well-conceived, well-developed programs (mostly uninterrupted, another plus) as "American Masters", "American Experience", "Duke Ellington's Washington," "Liberty! The American Revolution," "Mister Roger's Neighborhood," "NOVA," "The Perilous Fight: America's World War II In Color," "Reading Rainbow," "Second Opinion," "Sesame Street," "These Kids Mean Business," "Tesla: Master of Lightning," and "Voyage of the Odyssey"--just to reference a few--most all of which are accompanied by classroom packages for young people! Save the carping for other issues; appreciate what PBS does offer!

The GOP and right wing nincompoops have been trying to kill off PBS since it's inception. (Just like Social Security and Medicare.) $400 million dollars is a drop in the bucket when compared to dubbia the incompetent's war to steal Iraq's oil.
There arfe several programs I watch on PBS..notably, Washington Week in Review and the Nightly Business Report. It would be a shame if this was cut out.
My son and daughter grew up watching PBS when they were pre-schoolers. My daughter has a phD in Chem. engineering and teaches Math at the University of Idaho. My son has a degree in clinical chemistry and computer science. He is a manager for Qwest Diagnostics. DON'T KILL PBS. OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN NEED IT.

Our local PBS station runs nearly as much advertising as the real stations. If they're going to mooch off advertisers they may as well do so legitimately without the phony disguise of being non-profit. Same experience for the typical and frequent broadcast errors where the tape runs out mid-program while the techie naps or is across the street buying donuts. Do not adjust your television. PBS government employee at a.) sleep b.) work c.) both.

The local PBS fundraiser's can be a hoot in a Pink Floyd video sort of way. One's a schoolmarmish Woodstock survivor (barely) who acts like she's going to swat you with a yardstick if you don't fork over some evil capitalist cash, pronto. Sorta like a watered down teamsters's proposition to pay the protection money or else she will keep looking down that pointy nose of hers with crazed bloodshot eyes until you do. Another one's equally blow hard who unlike Bubba will probably admit that he actually does inhale before going on air. Ole Purple Haze and the schoolmarm's circus for keeping the directors of PBS and CPB's limos well polished. A fairly good indicator that those running the, er, show probably go through taxpayer money faster than stoners buying acid hits at a Dead concert.

I'm in agreement with defunding PBS and NPR. Let them pay their own way or find a private, shall we say," john" who'll boot the bill for those shameless political one night stands called Moyers interviews. If one looks at what central planning has done to the public schools and compares it to what central planning has done to public broadcasting it's no wonder why both public education and public broadcasting have become substandard monuments to government bloat.

I'm appalled to see the poll running 25-75% against tax payer funding for PBS.
We watched the "Carrier" series this week and saw 20 hours of true reality TV. I gained much knowledge of how an aircraft carrier works as well as a good deal of respect for what the Navy can do with its raw recruits to create a reliable workforce out of young people who aften have no idea what to do with their lives.
We watch as much PBS as we do cable and network TV and are so grateful for it. Without it, there's so little of value on TV. PBS offers just about the only programming that isn't geared to sex, violence, scandal, or inflammatory and biased coverage. The "dumbing down" of America is largely due to our devotion to TV with poor content and no requirement for thought or consideration. If our corporations weren't so afraid of sponsoring programs that are intelligent and informative we could have better TV, but thay aren't. Only on PBS are amny things covered that no company will touch with their advertising, because they might offend someone. How very sad.
I'm encouraged that 25% of the viewers that responded see the value of tax payer supported PBS. Perhaps this number will increase as we face our current problems of economic downturn/recession, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the changing climate, the need for alternative fuels, the election, etc. These are all addressed on PBS, and have been, long before they were seriously treated on cable and network TV. Where else but PBS can you find reliable, complete coverage of these matters? No where. We must continue to have this coverage available to all without cost. Not everyone can afford cable, but PBS is free and available to everyone. It must remailn so and we must support it.

It could become a more honest and less prejudiced service if Moyers were
replaced at PBS. I don't remember the figure with any degree of accuracy, but when I saw the amount he was being paid several years ago, I was very shocked at the amount which seemed grossly excessive.

With the cable news networks only giving the American people the barest details (over and over) of news stories, Rupert Murdoch buying up stations to plug his views, and the right-wing nuts having commandeered radio, the preamble to the Constitution virtually demands public TV and radio: promote the general welfare. The transfer of unbiased, in-depth reporting of information to the public is certainly a legitimate government expense, as long as the safeguards that prevent the party in power from using the airwaves as a platform for propaganda remain in place.

In the current proposal to reduce funds to public broadcasting, President George W. Bush states that there is plenty of quality programming on cable TV. He is right. We have many of the niche channels like Home and Garden, History Channel, Discovery, CNN/Fox News, etc., but without Public broadcasting, who will spawn the next generation of intelligent programming?

What's even more imperative, how will impoverished Americans (a number which might still be growing) gain access to our culture? We, as a collective nation, know that poverty brings violence and crime and the only way out of poverty is knowledge and hope. PBS brings knowledge to our citizenry and it is taxed because we want those who can not pay for it themselves to have access to it.

And really, do we want American Arts be reduced to money makers like "American Idol?" Will current events be left to CNN and Fox News? If you think Public Braodcasting is great or if you think it is biased, you should know that it is important as a "balance" to our market driven media.

Some people who have made comments here about PBS wastefulness should research the facts for themselves - without anger. According to several non-partisan Non-Profit Watchdog groups, these radio and TV stations are the most efficient NPOs in our nation. They are virtual models of efficient buisiness.

Everything has bias. Be smart and stay informed from a wide variety of sources - and let Public Broadcasting be one of them.

The site has been "hijacked"!!! Please document the attack with the FCC so they can track down the culprits, and please publish the results as they stood before the attack happened (75% for, 25% against!...)

I do not want cable TV, nor do I want to pay those prices for TV. The quality of the programming on public TV is excellent, we watch many programs. Commercial TV is to violent and too much cheap reality type programs. Studies have shown the programming is fairly presented. Congress has a lot of nerve trying to cut funding for public TV yet spending/watsting milliions on their stupid earmarks, so let them cut those and not the funding for public TV.
This is something the public needs, and should have, like our national parks.

For TV service in my rural area, one can purchase a dish or watch free-to-air stations (3 on a good night's reception)--no cable service available. PBS is always our choice as it provides subjects pertaining to life and world views that my family can discuss and entertainment that promotes inspiration. Thanks goodness PBS exists! And, yes, I donate to our local station's pledge drive. But, those who live in my rural area can't afford to support the station singlehandedly. Parade Magazine, thanks for the head-up on what the current US administration is planning for US citizens--They need to cut out/reduce an international program with the same worth because the USA can't support the world. Anyways, who had the extra bucks these days to subscribe to TV?

Don't worry too much about the poll numbers there LM. Howard Dean has probably alerted the unemployed Kos kids to try to fix the deck (currently down by 7,000 votes) overnight. Expect even more attempts when PBS employees log in later in the morning to keep their gravy train rolling. Typical fare of polls nowadays especially in old media network news where the reporters would rather shape opinion than report.

When I read earlier the poor sap who states that Rush Limbaugh "commandeered radio" one has to laugh at such ignorance. The framers of the Constitution chose not to subsidize newspapers then so they probably would pass on public broadcasting today. Ensuring domestic tranquility means cops and soldiers not making Charlie Rose, Tickle Me Elmo's merchandisers and Big Bird wealthy. Limbaugh created, or more specifically revived, a market which had largely faded out in the Carter years, replaced by bubble gum rock stations and the tiresome Larry King and a few other hours-filler hosts. Whether one agrees with Limbaugh or not should be less the point than the fact that he accomplished what he has largely by himself and with no need for handouts along the way. That is what most responsible Americans do every day. That explains his huge audience and valuable advertising time because his listeners have not only the time to listen but the income to spend for his advertiser's products. Compare that to tax dodging Al Franken whose Air America looted the Gloria Wise Children's Foundation for 800k to keep the lights on and the reasons for Limbaugh's success and Franken's running on fumes becomes clear. Add to that Limbaugh's ability to transform Harry Reid's stupid censure letter of him into a big fundraiser auction ($2 million plus for veteran's charities) and one can see why the Socialists despise Limbaugh so much. He's beaten them at their own game and laughs at those weaklings in broadcasting who vainly throw mud at him. Another dim Leftist pol called for Clear Channel to fire Limbaugh a few weeks ago! Limbaugh is self-employed and employs Clear Channel's services not the other way around! Clear Channel distributes the signal to many, many subscriber stations. A high percentage of Liberal radio talk show hosts have failed because they've felt entitled to the market, distributorship and audience. Buffoonery at PBS and NPR where the idea exists they're somehow entitled to free money. Same old. Same old.

The Left desperately needs PBS and NPR because Howard Dean isn't getting the job done. CNN is small potatoes. NY Times is barely above junk bond status so they're wheezing while they shedding employees Left and Left. See-BS news is teetering on the cliff edge. When Obama's pastor gets revealed as a nut case PBS Moyers faithfully steps up for damage control. When Hillary makes a gaffe or gets caught answering staged questions (e.g. Chris Matthews) first on the circuit are former employees of hers like Stephanopoulos at ABC or some more softball questions at PBS. CNN dropped the ball with their staged questioners for Hillary.

So, don't be surprised if the poll on this web site (75 percent voting against funding for most of 05 /04/08) If the number shifts significantly overnight then it's probably several of those "non-partisan, non-profit watchdog groups" busy at their partisan, for profit Lefty hypocrite keyboards not merely to keep PBS suckling at the nipple but their phony watchdog in name only puppies as well.

Commecial television broadcasts programs aimed at such a low mental level for the most part that PBS stations are the only place to go to find consistantly good programming if one does not have cable. I would rather see tax monies spent on supporting PBS thus offering children and adults quality shows than wasted on some of the things for which it is currently being used.

A democratic government is not obligated to entertain the populace, but it has a vested interest in keeping its population informed and educated. Much of the quality programing offered on PBS could find a home on specialty cable networks, but cable or satellite programming is not affordable for every American - especially as rising grocery and gas prices force more families to consider whether to cut cable or satellite service in order to meet monthly financial obligations. Reducing or eliminating PBS funding will further widen the gap between rich and poor in this country by cutting funding to the network that helps support literacy for our youngest and most unempowered citizens while providing an alternative source of news and information for anyone that chooses to watch that is not beholden to corporate sponsorship to the same degree that commercial networks are. Think the NCTA, the NAB and individual networks don't pay lobbists to promote and protect their interests in Washington DC through rules and regulations that are funded indirectly by taxpayer dollars? If you believe that, you watch too much American Idle....

PBS is the most watched and listened to broadcast in our household. There is an overabundance of drivel on commercial stations. $400 million is a tiny drop in the bucket when compared to paying for the Iraq invasion. How about an audit of Bush's private account where he doles out, unaudited, hundreds of millions of dollars to programs he initiated under executive orders such as faith based initiatives. Absolutely, the government should keep on funding PBS!

The Bush administration should be ashamed. With only 15% of its budget funded by the government, PBS raises 85% of its budget from the public and underwriters. The cesspool that is regular TV programming, for the most part, is coarse and barren of content, appealing to the lowest common denominator. And can you imagine raising kids without having options like Sesame Street and Curious George?

The site has been "hijacked"!!! Please document the attack with the FCC so they can track down the culprits, and please publish the results as they stood before the attack happened (75% for, 25% against!...) LM- May 5, 2008
Why am I not surprise that something like that happened.
PBS gives one the possibility to think and question while the majority of other channels feed us what the politicians and media moguls want us to hear.
For the most part, television is a waste of ones' precious time to watch.
Hopefully Congress will not cut their funding.

The statement "With the availability of high-quality cable-TV shows, public TV is unnecessary" was the most ludicrous one I have seen in the press for a long time. The amount of high-quality cable-TV shows on commercial TV is practically nil.

I have been supporting public television for more then 25 years. I have tried cable TV and sattelite TV. First of all, why should one have to watch all of the commercials for pay TV? And the commercials on pay TV are just as numerous as on network television. Most of all, the content on public television is so powerful! Whether you agree or disagree with whatever subject is being presented on public television, you know that it will never be a once-over-lightly program. I like to be entertained. Public TV has many programs that are fun to watch. It's great to see our federal goverment support public television and all the while, watch programming that critisizes our goverment's many shortcomings. I am so much better informed on so many topics directly because of public television. I would like to stop contributing to public TV some day. Who knows when that will happen. Public TV's programming keeps getting better and more entertaining while cable, sattelite, and many network programming continues to pander to the darker side of our nature.

I can't believe these poll results. Can the American people really be this stupid? PBS is the only oasis in the television desert!

I depend on the fair and balanced reporting of events by NPR morning and evening. I also support our local NPR affilate with my donations several times a year besides the support from my taxes. NPR is clearly head and shoulders above anything else on cable or the networks. It is a national treasure and should be supported as previous generations have supoported it with federal dollars.

We need to fund PBS with tax money because it is in the same category as public libraries and public parks. These 3 are the last vestiges of things available free to rich and poor alike. Not everyone can afford cable; and even when they can, cable TV networks are not public service. They are privately held companies with agendas. Where else are poor people going to see the world, BBC; fair and impartial reporting, The News Hour; and no cable channel is going to allow a liberal format for shows such as Now and Bill Moyers Journal. Do not let the information squelchers close yet another window. Knowledge is power. Let's continue to allow all viewpoints which can only be possible if we continue to support PBS.

PBS offers great programming for folks who cannot afford cable. And believe it or not there are people who cannot afford cable.

Is this all about politics? What about the children that depend on the programming presented on PBS? We need PBS to hold back all the "right wing" retoric from the main stream media.

Is this all about politics? What about the children that depend on the programming presented on PBS? We need PBS to hold back all the "right wing" retoric from the main stream media.

The thing to remember with PBS is that there is so much more that the public gets than just good programming. There are outreach programs that educate young children that NO ONE else would bother with. With the "dumbing down" of the American public I think it's great that there is a place that children can watch television that educates them as opposed to other commercial programs that don't teach children a thing. How many kids benefit from programs that PBS stations produce every year? More than you can count. They don't stop when they are children. Many teachers use the programs in schools to go along with what they are teaching.

I want my tax dollars to go to quality education for all and quality PBS television. Commercial television, more and more, panders to the lowest common denominator, with little that I or my children can watch, even stomach. That so many deem it unimportant to support PBS upsets me greatly, about the direction (into the dumpster) American minds are taking.

Former PBS Head's, Pat Mitchell, Response to George Will's column in the Washington Post– March 3, 2005...the last time this issue raised its ugly head. Her response is a solid defense of PBS.

To the Editor:

In a recent column in your pages, George Will once again cites a familiar litany of cable channels to recycle the argument that public television has been replicated and is no longer necessary. A random check of his own local listings on the very day his column appeared would quickly suggest there are serious holes in that theory.

On the night that his column ran, Mr. Will could have tuned into his local PBS station for a special report on evolving technologies and treatments for cancer, the most serious health crisis in America. If he thought he could get more intelligent, in-depth programming on one of the cable channel options he listed, his choices would have included the following:

On A&E, he could have watched “Presumed Dead,” the true story of a woman’s body hidden in a refrigerator. The Discovery Channel offered “Human Cannonballs,” revealing that the most common cause of death for human cannonballs is landing outside the net. Bravo would have given him “Celebrity Poker Showdown,” while The History Channel offered the history of “Engineering Disasters.” All of this was in addition to the networks’ offerings of “Extreme Makeover” and yet another version of “Survivor.”

Beyond his premise, which is undermined by the actual comparison of programming between PBS and cable channels on any day or night, Mr. Will relies on several inaccuracies to argue against the federal funding that makes up about one-fifth of public television's budgets. The first is about the size of our audience- PBS' is larger than any cable channel on any night, making PBS the only broadcaster whose ratings are actually rising, not falling.

Next, our children’s programs are the number one choice of parents anywhere, and are, most importantly, the only free children’s programs outside of the few that are still offered on Saturday mornings. And those programs are offered commercial free, with many targeting the underserved audience of younger children.

While Mr. Will rightly notes that 62% of poor households have cable, that statistic begs the question of the remaining almost 40%. Many of those homes have children at a crucial developmental stage when educational, literacy-based television like PBS can make significant improvements in school readiness.

Finally, Mr. Will dramatically implies that the public may no longer value PBS. A Roper poll conducted just last month tells us emphatically that they do. Americans cited PBS as the most trusted national institution in the country, and ranked public television as the second best value for their tax dollars, behind only military activities.

Of course we don't always disagree with Mr. Will. A few years ago, he wrote of Ken Burns’ landmark documentary Civil War which appeared on PBS, “If better use has ever been made of television, I have not seen it.” Spend more time with us, George. There's more where that came from, every day of the week.

Sincerely,

Pat Mitchell

The results so far are very depressing (72% against). There is no other channel (cable or otherwise) with the quality and varity of programs. It should be totally funded by the taxpayers as is the BBC. Many of the great programs shown in PBS come from the BBC. Public radio should also be totally financed by taxpayer dollars.

Not only should tax dollars subsidize public television and public radio, we should reverse the allocations between these and the oil companies - let's see what Exxon and Shell can do on the PBS subsidy and what PBS can do with the tax dollars that ordinarily go to big oil.

While I am a "cable" subscriber now, I may soon let it go due to the effect of higher fuel prices and the ripple effect that has on groceries and other necessities. Without the free, over-the-air signal offered by my local public broadcasting station, I might as well then turn off my television forever as there's little on the network stations that I value or will let my child watch.

I also know that my local station is continually looking for ways to ensure its financial survival without government funding and pledge donations from viewers, although doing so within the confines of rules governing public broadcasting and not-for-profit organizations is often difficult.

Politically, I am neither Democrat nor Republican, Liberal or Conservative -- I am a college eduated moderate who makes decisions based on research and facts. That said, I've found that some public broadcasting programs reflect liberal views at times, and conservative views at others. I've never found that the programming is biased in one direction or another.

I'd much rather have my tax dollars support this effort than the conflict our country has engaged in the Middle East.

Without PBS, I have no need of a TV. PBS is the only place on TV where I can view any educational programs.
The technology may be improving for all additional sources, but the quality of the programs sinks lower almost weekly.

As commercial TV program drags America to the bottom of the barrel in its pathetic quality, its lack of educational or inspirational value of programming, and its superficial news coverage, thank goodness PBS programming provides a higher level of material. It lifts us up rather than drags us down.
What a tragedy it would be to make it more difficult for this national treasure.

So typical of the Bush administration -- everything the government does well, it tries to unravel.

PBS is a lot more important than giving tax breaks to the oil and automobile industry and the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

My tax dollars are already being wasted on pork projects and gov. programs, which I do not wish to support. When PBS dumps the "leftist" programs such as Moyers and NOW, just to name two, And the commercials they run on that network, then they have my blessing to use my tax dollars.

I started watching PBS in NJ in the mid-60's, learning Spanish from Gloria Rojas on WNET. From there, I was the beneficiary of many, many programs --ranging from Wall Street Week with Rukeyser, Firing Line with Buckley, NOVA, Frontline, Washington Week in Review starting with Martin Agronsky, Paul Duke, and now Gwen Ifel, to the cultural Upstairs, Downstairs --a classic, Monty Python, all the education, culture and science, politics. If we, the taxpayer had not paid for that, I would be much less the person I am today. All this "leftist" criticism is a smokescreen for those who are doctrinaire, dogmatic and rigid. PBS "stimulates" and "promotes" argument, thought and information, which can be challenged, not merely accepted by the mob. I wrote to my then Senator Santorum, who was voting to freeze the 300 million two years ago for three years. I told him if he did that, I would vote him out of office, and the rest is history. If Bush is allowed to cut or eliminate funding, it would be yet another black mark on one of the worst presidencies in the history of this country, and another reflection of a Congress with no backbone. Please, for the sake of sanity, Mr. Bush --don't do it!

And just for the record, I have no problem with shows such as Bill Moyers show, if it is followed up with a broadcast of the FOX News Channels "Factor", or something like it. I can not afford cable, so I rarely get to view the "Factor". Let's talk fair and balanced when PBS sticks it's hands into my pocket.

PBS provides high quality, reasonably unbiased, information that's currently unavailable on broadcast or cable channels. Their news programs provide content that is not found elsewhere. I get tired of always hearing about what one or another misbehaving starlet is up to now while real news (particularly international news) goes unreported.

I could not believe what I read in Parade yesterday morning. Who in their right mind would mention the words, pro wrestling and PBS in the same artical. I am a retired Kindergarten teacher. Sesame Street, is and for many years, has been a very important learning (teaching) tool. My children and my childrens children grew up with this wonderful show. I look forward every Saturday night to watching the Brit. Coms. What great, clean entertaining fun. So now someone wants to cut the tax support to PBS...Shame,shame, shame on you.

If you don't want to pay for PBS, then you can pay for the war with your tax dollars and I'll pay for PBS with mine, I''ll take that bargain.

It is interesting reading the comments. Unfortunately, it is nothing I haven't seen before, either locally or in other areas.

The pro people discuss issues, the anti people throw names like "liberal" and "secularist." Oh my, to be branded by such names. Soon, some will be forced to wear a scarlet "t" on their forehead, meaning "thoughtful," truly a horrible trait for those promoting a monothought process.

I would rather my tax dollars go to PBS than to support a never-ending, costly war (LIVES and money) that never should have been! News of the war, lives needlessly lost and money spent on it when we have so many needs right here at home just make me sick.

Funny how most of the comments I read seem to be supportive of PBS funding, while the clicks are weighed heavily in favor of eliminating it. Perhaps this shows an engagement with the world as it really is, in all its discursive complexity - a hallmark of a liberal worldview - rather than the unthinking click of the dogmatic.

I would support public funding of PBS at a 50% level with the balance being paid by viewers. With a few exceptions, the reporting on PBS has been "pablum-ized" due to corporate pressure and self censorship. As a result PBS seldom covers controversial issues. 50% public funding would free PBS to be more creative in its programming.

PBS should have more support, not less. It offers the only non-sensationalized news, the only children's programming that truly has the children's best interests in mind and the only programming in general that aims more at the audience than at commercial benefits. Democracy requires citizens that are open to listening to both (or all) sides of any issue. Only PBS makes a genuine effort to provide that.

As a non-cable and non-satellite household, our family chooses not to support all of the "quality" programming from these services. We are more than willing to support over-the-air PBS programming through our tax dollars.

With all the simple and sensationalist programming on the commerical channels; someone has to provide intelligent, witty and thoughtful offerings. Increase PBS and NPR funding.

PBS produces quality shows that I hope my children can experience as I did. There are so many people here saying that PBS is "liberal". How? Is it because they discuss issues that affect the world and people of a class other than the rich and not big business or the highest classes? Whether you believe PBS has a progressive stance or not, there are only a few shows that actually deal with any news anyway! The majority of programming is for children or is about science or nature or history! These shows are much better for children (and adults!) than most of the crap on mainstream TV now! I say YES to our tax dollars going to QUALITY programming!

We find that the above comments that agree with supporting PBS with tax dollars make much more sense than the negatives. The quality of PBS programming is far superior to that of any other channels, viz., "Carrier," "Crandon," and on and on. Our tax dollars are certainly better spent on PBS than on an unnecessary war.

PBS Needs to go on a Diet !!!!!! It does not need a 6 fiquire General Manager and Program Director at every TV station. PBS needs to take a lesson from the Canadian CBC network Lots of transmitters little Management. I support the programing on PBS but it's Network is bloated with upper management . Each State should have its local operation to produce local programing and to run all of that states transmitters. No need for a general manager , program director, chief engineer, fund raiser manager, etc at each station.
I have no problem with Tax dollars to be used for PBS but PBS needs to get into the new Millenium in efficiancy!

My husband is a history professor and I am a stay-at-home mo. What allows me to stay home is our very frugal spending and cutting out non-necessities like cable. What allows me to keep my sanity is quality programming from PBS.

..And how much taxpayer money is going to occupying Iraq?

How many pet private contractors are gouging the taxpayer and the citizen in Iraq and at the gas pump?

To fully fund PBS would cost one day in Iraq.

If you love our Republic then you would support diverse perspectives. Monoculture = fascism plain and simple.

The only times I watch television is when a PBS program is on. What more is there to say?

All the comments are interesting to read, but when it comes right down to it, I don't care~ "liberal","left", "right", etc. The material that so many of us receives from PBS is far different than ANY commercial station. Can you really see a commercial station signing up for the likes of Bill Moyers, Frontline, etc. How I look forward to seeing a program unbroken by commercial breaks-enjoying a Brit com or drama uninterrupted-hearing complex ideas presented without regard for the "soundbite". If you want to see Fox news, then turn it on. My dollars go to support PBS; its fine with me if tax dollars are used also. What a pittance for PBS compared to the billions spent on this current war, or the pork-barrel projects, or the earmarks.

I don't know about you but, our cable TV is filled with constant re-runs; gobs of commercials; and low quality programs. They misuse our airways with impunity because they are minimally regulated.

PBS = Fairness and quality.

Democracy can only survive through fullness of information and extensive discussion. True conservatives and liberals seek consensus. Extremists, either left or right seek the destruction of the US.

Yes, public broadcasting should continue to be supported, it is a most excellent value for the money, informative, and trusted. The wonderful programs which are being produced for non-public television are being produced for commercial appeal, and are not always available without cable or some kind of subscriber service. For Americans to have access to top quality information such as Nova or Frontline, it is ESSENTIAL that the US continues to make it's paltry investment. We pay quite a bit each year ourselves to be sure that we can continue this wonderful service.

PBS has been part of my educational life for over 40 years. It's programming without bias. I happen to be a conservative who believes in less taxes and more freedom. Educational funding should not be reduced nor should educational stations like PBS. Our children become America's future. Lets not take a way a valuable program like PBS. PBS does not mean Pork Barrell Spending!

Compared to the garbage on commercial TV, PBS is a breath of fresh air. Quality programming, in depth news, meaningful drama, & worthwhile children's programming. Increase the funding instead of cutting it!

Yes, PBS is worthy of federal dollars, much more than what they get. Did anyone else notice the abrupt swing in favorable versus unfavorable votes yesterday afternoon? Seem like within a very short time period 9000+ unfavorable votes showed up to change what was a steady 70 to 30 split for funding to 80-20 against. ???

I'm low income, on disability & the few x-tra dollars I might have left after bills/food etc. I support PBS. As others have pointed out; PBS offers a wide variety of programs which I watch more than the 'standard' stations offer. I too am a cable/satallite 'free' home. Even if I could afford cable, I wouldn't waste my money on their mundane programs. PBS needs all the help they can get - as w/alot of other things in this unfair world we live in. I say 'why not' have the gov't. pitch in a little...Thanks

Among all of our media choices, PBS alone does not depend upon advertising for what it chooses to broadcast. The result is remarkably different, and usually far better programming content that serves to *inform* as well as entertain. Americans need this now more than ever, with the consolidation of (other) media outlets into a handful of corporations driven by shareholder (and not public) interests.

As a 45hr. caregiver to a 2+old grandchild,I thank God for the excellant programing that PBS creates for that age group.

PBS can survive as a non-profit and raise funds like other non-profits. Though philanthropy and other fund-raising opportunities, people that can't afford cable can donate their time in fund-raising activities to support the station. I will continue to support and will hopefully be blessed to give bigger amounts in the future.

I appreciate the programs that are found on PBS and no where elese on television. I think the cost is very minor and it would be sad to loose the great programs on PBS.

Sinmcerely,

Clyde H. Fendley Sr.

I appreciate the programs that are found on PBS and no where elese on television. I think the cost is very minor and it would be sad to loose the great programs on PBS.

Sincerely,

Clyde H. Fendley Sr.

Speaking as someone who loathes tv commercials & who can easily go weeks on end without watching any tv at all, I do see the benefit of noncommercial broadcasting. An evening with Masterpiece Theatre is a treat.

However, even if the quality of everything were that good, I fail to see why that means the government should be involved in supporting it. And the quality is generally must lower. The breathless excitement of supposedly objective NPR journalists in covering the latest Obama speech is but one of many clues that US public broadcasting is pushing an agenda not far behind that at the BBC. Anyone failing to perceive that has already taken the bait.

How about a simple 364/1 plan. Since the $400 million the government sets aside to support PBS amounts to the money we spend for ONE DAY of the Iraq war, I'd vote to suspend hostilities for one day a year in order to keep supporting one of the few remaining voices of reason and purveyors of quality broadcasting for all tastes and viewpoints. Heck, let's get really bold and fight only 363 days a year so we can double the PBS budget. Take a week off from the war and we might be able to fix a bridge or two, or support arts and athletics in school. I'd even be willing to discuss a 1/364 plan, but, hey, one step at a time. I'm sure there are those who'll say that it's time to get PBS off the government dole, but the funding for public broadcasting pales in comparison to the public subsidies that the giant oil companies put in one pocket while their record profits from the pump pour into the other.

Other than Big Bird babysitters, at least PBS has intelligent programming that is not ordinarily found on commercial, cable, or satilite t.v. Smack Down, and reality programs don't promote intellectual thinkinging, where as programs such as BBC World News, Nova, American Experience, and Charlie Rose at least elevate some of us above those plebeians who fit into 68% of the Guassian Curve. of which I am one. (Sorry if I am not a good speller!)

I think anyone who has children KNOWS the benefits of PBS. Being a WORK at home Mom we use several of the children's shows as lessons in our home daycare AND get many frugal craft and activity ideas from some others. The programming available on PBS is invaluable and should definitely continue receiving support from the government as well as EVERY business and viewer out there!!!

PBS is the one place where you get the news that is not biased and hyped so much as to make it entertainment instead of information. On PBS we get informational and quality shows that are truly educational for small children to adults audiences. Full time Cable News is mostly entertainment. Unfortunately that is what seems to sell now days. I am strongly in favor of our tax dollars supporting PBS.

Without PBS there wouldn't be much point in having a TV (except maybe for sports). I dont have a problem with PBS being partially funded by my taxes. I'm very disappointed with the poll so far which shows that twice as many people who responded voted for no gov. support. With all the monies squandered by government, this is a no-brainer. MJO

Are 2/3 of Parade readers nuts? Not support PBS? I suspect that these are many of the same people who support Bush's illegal war in Iraq, to the tune of approaching a trillion dollars.

Some speak about fairness. Others about PBS liberal slant. How quickly they've forgotten how funding for PBS was cut originally by grenade-throwing Newt Gingrich, a right-wing Republican extremist. Nothing fair about Newt...

Federal funding for PBS? You bethcha! During the next administration there will be many, many things that will have to be corrected from the damage done by the Bush administration. Restoring funding for PBS does not need to be one of them.

I think that PBS is one of the few things that our government supports that is not wasteful like earmarks. Cut out the practice of supporting our enemies, welfare to illegals, medical care to illegals, excessive fraud and waste in our Social Security and especially our medicare system, military procurement and items like these that cost taxpayers billions for the financial gain of a few. PBS is worthy of any aid it recieves from the government. It is clean "G" rated network (not like some of the so called art, that is pure trash), that is government supported and I contribute to and support them all that I can. I think it is bordering criminal to cut funding to PBS and at the same time furnish financial aid to some of the outrageous things that our government (not us), supports.

It is imperative that Congress continue funding PBS. The cost is minimal versus the benefits we receive. With the hundreds of channels now available to us, nothing compares with PBS. It is thoughtful and educational. It is a forum that explores ALL sides, rather than the pundits on most channels. Even nightly news is slanted. PBS gives us IN DEPTH news (what a concept). More that what happens in our backyards. It gives information about the WORLD: possible causes and effects. I cannot imagine a world without Sesame Street. So many children's lives have been enriched by this program. The other "educational" programs on cartoon networks are not as creative nor as effective. PBS MUST continue to be funded. It is a final haven for thoughtful people.

I feel that comments made about PBS being non partisan is part of its problem. I have issue with my tax dollars going for one more FREE thing. I'd like to see my gas bill go down, get more tax relief or at least be able to afford to complete my college degree. The old fashion way of getting it from the government will end sooner or later. I hope….

I'm
for recycling and anti-wastefulness, but PBS is too unbalanced when
dealing with GREEN issues. Mankind is not causing the earth to be
warmer. There have been almost no sunspots for a year and we are
possibly going into a cooling cycle. The price they want humans to pay
to preserve some aspects of nature are too high. God allowed species to
become extinct before man came along. We should not try to outsmart
God; rather, we should trust in him.

Boy, I agree with Ron Whittum who compared PBS with Public Education. Unfortunately he lept to the wrong confusion when he thought that was a good thing. And yes, Christine, I still watch Clifford, Mystery and a bunch of excellent programming. Then I send a donation to support my local station. I don't need my tax dollars going to support the rest of the liberal bias. Drats! I find myself on the opposite side from Ward Churchill again.

The question is not that you would be depriving some people of what cable offers (because they can't afford it.) Cutting PBS would be depriving people of the totally unique quality of many PBS productions, as well as eliminating programs that are of vital interest to smaller constituencies that could never support a commercial interest. Where will we find opera broadcast? Where is the consistent equal of NOVA in matters of science? Many public televsion stations produce programs and series that are strictly regional or local in interest. With the exception of "news," small local commercial stations generally do not produce for the local market. What will become of these programs that serve a localized constituency? You know, I think all of this costs us about a buck a year. Come on!

My tax dollars should not fund PBS, because it spews the poison of liberal bias.

PBS is all we have that is available to most everyone and includes clean, educational fare for children of all ages, educational programs for adults, thoughtful and unbiased (especially compared to other networks) news analysis of all. It would be a great loss not to have the arts supported by a measly 15%, since we do so little, especially in our schools, to finance the arts in this country. We get wonderful programs from the Kennedy Center, patriotic programs on July 4th, from D.C., Masterpiece Theatre, Antique Rd. Show, classic movies without obnoxious ads for personl products, and fabulous Science and Nature programs. We support Public T.V. and Public Radio both, because we want to continue our education. Our family hopes the Gov. won't cut this vital broadcast option. There is little else worth our time in coparison.

The most trust news and information!! Great programming for such little cost! This is one of the governments few success stories. Cutting funds to this great success would be terrible. I don't see a liberal bias, I think it stimulates people, causes them to think and maybe even get involved. This scares people who like to control a population using scare tactics.

I wonder how many of the people that don't see a bias voted democratic in the last presidential election and how many that do see a bias voted republican?

The idea of cutting funding for PBS is yet another example of the misdirected priorities of the govenment and the nation in general. PBS provides some of the best programming available on television which in general is a dreary wasteland.

Of COURSE PBS ought to receive public funding! Because it presents coverage of issues from the position of those who are out of power (sometimes) it gets seen as biased. I actually think most news coverage is biased to the right or at least in the direction of "guys in ties" that hold power.That is so common that it is seen as UNbiased. WHO ELSE is going to bring us the voices of the soldiers (all of them, not just the ones supportive of the war) or of immigrants, or of ANY of the members of society that are being >(&()&*ed by our governments' current policies. I am a strong supporter of PBS and I pay taxes, and I want them to continue to fund PBS.

I am astounded by the no votes. PBS has great programming for all - not just children. It introduces the arts to the masses. This is especially important to those of us who can not afford cable. My 5 year old is more worldly watching all of these wonderful children's programs. She is starting to become interested and enjoys the nature programs as well as the arts to include ballet, opera and ballads by american and interntaional folk singers and dancers. I pray that the funding will continue so she can watch quality tv and not just the network's offerings of corporate sales influences.

For those that can't afford cable, PBS is a nice alternative. And next year with the 2/2009 digital convertion, the government is offering coupons for those without cable to buy a converter box that changes the analog signal to digital. I think funding PBS falls into the same line of support.

I do not care what administration is in office . . . PBS seems to want to control the public's mind. They offer little "both sides of the story" and should NOT be supported with MY TAX DOLLARS. I have complained about this for a long time and will continue to do so. Lets put the tax dollars to better use for pete's sake!!

If you accept government dollars you accept government oversight. You really want an official government channel?

I'm reading comments here to the effect that PBS is "balanced". Ok, well I happen to think Fox News is the ONLY news outlet that is even close to balanced - everything else, including PBS, has a definite liberal, left-wing slant. Just because a bunch of liberals here perceive PBS as "balanced" does not make it so. I should not have to spend one dime of my tax dollars supporting something I don't ascribe to any more that you liberals should have your tax dollars pay for, say, Rush Limbaugh 's show. Here's an idea - let people CHOOSE what they support.

A few years back one of my right wing friends was talking about left wing bias on PBS and I asked how you explain eight years of Louis Rukeyser mocking Bill Clinton fit into that leftist plan? And the NewsHour he admitted was pretty balanced. What it came down to was the slew of docs on issues like poverty, health care, gay rights, the evironment -- so gawd forbid anyone should cover these thorny issues. But its worth my one tax dollar for children to have something educational and coverage of issues and stories about my state and our elections because no other station is doing that.

Are some of these people kidding, that there's nothing on PBS that isn't also available on the cable channels. One example, there's Saturday night with 'The Lawrence Welk Show,' Rick Steves travels,' Globe Trekker,' and the British Comedies' (all clean, decent programs, with none of the foul language, sex and nudity of the American ones). What is wrong with the mentality of the American viewer who think we don't need PBS? Oh yes, and there's 'European Journal,' no American program gives us this insight into the European people.

Our local public access channel ran a racist show for a while. It was mostly anti-African-American. The show as I recall, was produced in Florida. A local Jewish group produced a follow-up show, which ran in the time slot right after. If PBS is going to continue to use my tax dollars to run NOW, Moyers, and some of the other shows on thier line-up, they need to follow with programming from the opposing view. PBS has also gone commercial. It's time to see if between the commercials, and public support, if the network can make it without tax dollars. If not, replace the funding. But they need to present both sides if they are to continue with tax dollars.

What does it say about the mentality of the US with the comment that there is double the viewership for pro wrestling on an average night than for PBS broadcasting. Cutting funding for public broadcasting is similar to cutting funding for the arts. How dumb do we want to be ? Better yet, how dumb do we want to appear in the eyes of the world? I don't believe we are looking too bright at the moment.

I believe the government should support PBS with my tax money. It is practically the only station that presents facts, not partison politics. It is family oriented and has extremely likeable programs and wonderful educational ones. I believe this administration is upset because it cannot control the programs. Thank goodness PBS has been able to stay free of their pressure and present such wonderful entertainment to us, even though the administration tried to make a deal with PBS last year.

If PBS is so great and the content so thought provoking, then let it its support come from listeners and advertisers. If it can not compete in the private sector, it needs to die. The fact that it has to obtain government monies to operate is most telling.

It always amazes me that people will holler about funding PBS, Public Transit, etc. even though it benefits them.

PBS is not leftists, they present a more balanced picture than say Fox news.

But those who would rail against PBS don't mind spending tax dollars on things like needless wars and things of that nature. And pork barrel spending, don't even get me started.

Fund PBS, fund Amtrak. Stop the giveaways to the airlines, automakers, and oil companies.

PBS is committed to the whole truth and their mature depth of programing is legendary. PBS accounts for 95% of our viewing. What a shame they have to spend so much of their air time on fund raising.

The comparison to pro wrestling is nonsense. The type of viewer who watches each is completely different. Pro wrestling viewers tend to like violent shows. Those who watch Public TV like informative and intellectually satisfying entertainment. There may be some of the latter on cable but not nearly to the degree found on Public TV. Given a choice between the sitcoms, sex oriented and "blood and guts" shows served up by the networks, I'd take public TV any day! I'd hate to think my government would in effect promote the type of prime time network programs available when it so easily could support the type of programming presented by public TV.

Public TV and radio are options free of commericials and give the substance of a news story, not the snip-its of pro-Bush sentiments like FOX news. Poeple need to change their channels and remember what good, intelligent television and radio are. We should be clammering for more of it, not looking to dismantle the voices of reason.

Whether it is liberal, conservative, you like it or don't is irrelevant. The point is that if Congress is doing its fiduciary duty, there are bureaucrats watching every minute of broadcasting, giving thumbs up or down. And the PBS programmers know that and conduct their business accordingly. That should be troubling to everyone.

None of the cable channels we have seen come close to showing the variety and depth of programs with minimum advertisements. Programs such as Independent Lens and Front Line are rarities. Because they address controversial topics and appeal to the intelligence, rather than sound bite-reality-dumbed-down senses, they are also programs for which corporations may be less willing to sponsor than they would mainstream cable programs. Government support is needed to keep this option open.

I cosider myself a conservative and I do often feel that Moyers is biased, but does it hurt me to hear other opinions? If I really don't want to hear him, I turn to some other station. But I will tell you that PBS and NPR still have by far, more good intelligent, informative, cultural, educational, thought provoking, and family friendly programing than can be found even with careful filtering of regular stations. It is culture vs. the insulting of our intelligence. Obviously trash sells to many and it may at times be entertaining; like empty calories with food. But let us balance it with good taste. The government should have some obligation to help promote a better informational and culteral environment for our children and for us.

NOT SUPPORT PUBLIC BROADCASTING WITH MY TAX DOLLARS? Unimaginable. I need only watch cable TV for 15 minutes to see how many idiotic choices for viewing are offered us--and at a sizeable fee. PBS is the only continuosly intelligent, entertaining, uplifting, and satisfying choice we have. Our view (and our children's perception) of the world would be so much narrower without it. Please, keep using my tax dollars to support PBS (and it's radio cousin, NPR.

PBS provides a diverse array of quality programs, from news and public affairs to independent film and American biography -- and it's free! Free to anyone with a television set. It's truly the democratization of media, and non-commercial. Other countries support arts and culture through taxes, why not us? We need to value what we have, and a few pennies a day is nothing compared to what you get in return.

PBS is the only non-commercial broadcast outlet. Any commercial outlet is beholden to their advertisers ... do we want to live in a 'Max Headroom' world where TV and their advertisers run everything ... that's the direction the country is taking now ...

PBS's Kehrer News Hour, Nightldy Business Report and Charlie Rose are abiout the only TV programs I consistently watch for the best unbiased news and insight on the air. I'd love it if the President would enlighten the public one hour a week on what and why he/she is doing.

PBS's Lehrer News Hour, Nightly Business Report and Charlie Rose are abiout the only TV programs I consistently watch for the best unbiased news and insight on the air. I'd love it if the President would enlighten the public one hour a week on what and why he/she is doing.

PBS is nearly the only network my husband and I watch. It is the only network with good children's programming, and the only one with in-depth news coverage. We regularly watch The Jim Lehrer newshour, as well as Washington Week and The McLoughlin's group. We are great fans of the classical music and opera presentations as well as the nature programs, and we especially appreciate Nova, Frontline, and Bill Moyer's reports.

Incidentally, I am a democrat and my husband is a republican. We understandably have different perspectives, but both feel that we learn a great deal from the above news programs. (My husband enjoyed watching William Buckley and Louis Ruckeyser when they were on, and I certainly do not have an objection to conservatives as well as liberals being on PBS). If we are open minded and respectful we should welcome different points of view, such as they have from speakers and groups in forums on the Nightly Newshour. We have also watched The Lawrence Welk show for many years, and we are PBS subscribers. We feel that it would be a tragedy for PBS to lose funding.

Nancy Dash

What do you consider to be high quality TV on cable, I find very little high quality shows there and I am continually going to PBS where I do get high quality. Why instead don't we cut the outrages payments made to rich farmers or some other
grants that don't mean as much to the tax payers?

pbs is about the only place one can watch total freedom. freedoms of speech, political freedoms, freedom of religons etc..etc. getting rid of pbs via lack of funding sounds like one of the first signs of a dictatorship (as if we need more signs these days!). Not to mention, if pbs were gone, what sort of educational, enlightening, or quality television would folks that don't have cable (either by choice or not) have?
as someone who normally does not believe in conspiracy theories, the whispering of "big brother" is beginning to grow louder.

In a media world full of hype and cursory treatment of each day's important news, it is essential that broadcast networks like PBS and NPR continue to be supported with tax dollars. The very tiny amount of money from tax dollars is essential in supporting a media model which allows for in-depth, lengthy, non-partisan discussion of issues. Any curtailment of the budgets of PBS or NPR should only be seen as a political move on the part of this administration, or any administration. As it is, the mainstream media is hog-tied by major corporations. One can see the beginning of this if you go back to the days of Edward R. Murrow and some of his associates at CBS, who put up their own money to buy advertising time to ensure that stories about Milo Radulovich and Sen. Joseph McCarthy still got covered, in spite of objections from advertisers. Let's make sure that PBS and NPR get what they need.

i am 18 and will always remember growing up with pbs. watching sesame street as a child is one of my first memories of television, and so is watching all the interesting nature documentaries that my family and i always loved. pbs is one of the only, if not the only station for people without cable to be able to watch fun, educational television shows, such as nature, music, space, political and historical documentaries, not to mention the british comedies and children's shows. without pbs we'd be stuck watching conventional, superficial sitcoms and reality shows, which is in no way comparable to the educational, intellectual programs shown on pbs. save pbs!!!!!

As a father of 3 (soon to be 4) I am proud to say that I watch and let my kids watch PBS. It is a valuable tool with early childhood education and the fear of whether or not my kids will see provocative or illicit programs doesn't worry me like it does with other commercial programs on commercial networks.

I consider myself to be a very conservative and traditional person and while yes I sometimes disagree with, but I can't see any instance (unless I produce the program myself) of being able to logically find any program with which I totally agree with everything being submitted. My philosophy is to eat the meat and spit out the bones.

I also, being conservative, can harldy find a reason to support any government spending that is unwise or wasteful, but Public Broadcasting receives a very small amount (when you look at the budget of the US) of taxpayer dollars. One figure I read said something along the lines of $300M per year. Which averages out to about $1 per man, woman and child in this country and that is PER YEAR not per month or day. Think of what can be done if this was doubled or trippled...I think it is a wise investment.

With all the junk on TV I am so glad for the intelligent programing provided by PBS. The quality of TV has gone down as the number of TV shows and channels has gone up due to cable etc. Thank goodness for PBS. It's my favorite channel and the only one I would miss if it wasn't there.

Anyone who thinks PBS is not slanted to the left is no doubt slanted to the left themselves. Commentators such as Bill Moyers don't even pretend to hide their liberal leanings. And Parade magazine uses Media Matters for a quote!!! That's like asking the Pope if he likes Catholics. A little surprising for the Parade, whom I greatly respect for not pandering to the left or the right.

PBS is way more than politics or political reporting. The caliber is significantly higher than commercial TV.

PBS and NPR give a big bang for the buck. They are also supported by lots of nongoverment organizations and the general public. As their slogan says, learn, dream, grow. What a small price to pay for such high quality service. I for one don't want more programs like Desperate House Wives, Two and a Half Men, and Will and Grace. Give me American Experience, Carrier or Red Green anyday.

Public television should be supported with Federal funds because this is a democratic nation. In principal, the founding fathers believed that public education and discourse were essential to a well-functioning society. All television besides public television is created by advertisers, for consumers. Only PBS creates programming that keeps the public interest in mind without concern for ad revenue.

PBS slanted to the left? Liberal bias? I don't see it and I'm so conservative I think Reagan was a little on the liberal side.

It is well worth the money we donate to PBS and any tax dollars they get to ensure that the in-depth reporting of news events continues. The educational value of the nature and science shows is unparalleled and almost anything on PBS TV or radio is far better than the offerings on the ad-ridden commercial stations.

Some of us don't choose to submit ourselves to the vagaries and arrogant non-service of cable companies.

Others can't afford it.

PBS is a valuable educational tool for those people - besides having the best programs on television! I'm glad they re-run on channels 50 and 58 here, in case I miss them.

Public TV is the only place we can view high-quality musical programs, documentaries, science and nature programs, etc. They are simply not available on network or cable channels. In fact, public TV is about the only TV my wife and I watch except for some sports events. If public TV were to go off the air we would watch very little TV at all. The multitude of channels available on the networks and cable offer mostly juvenile drivel loaded with sex, violence, and inane comedy that most intelligent people will not waste their time on. The $400 million the government spend on it is a pittance that is lost in the rounding errors of most other budgets. Please don't deprive us of the one source of high quality, educational TV that is available to us. The same principal applies to Public Radio. I enjoy it in spite of the somewhat liberal bent of some of the political programs.

To talk about high quality TV on cable television and then mention pro-wrestling as an example is downright laughable. It is very rare to get truly intelligent discussions, those delving into the details of the stories, on any talk TV show on any cable channel. It isn't even a question of high quality shows on any cable channels, it is that PBS is definitely approaching television from a cerebral point of view, inviting its viewers to think. I somehow don't even think that this present administration has "money saving" on its mind with its proposal to cut the funding, rather, it has more to do with the fact that on PBS one is more likely to find shows critical of the current policies and that stings. The neo-cons want to flex their muscles in the only way the know how: With money. And look how small amount we are talking about here, $400 million! Does this sum even register when looking at the total national budget?

You have got to be out of your minds!!! Where on cable television can you get a toddler to watch tv with their parents and educate at the same time? Sure not on Disney Channel or Cartoon Network. If government wants to cut funding to such sources they need to pack a bag lunch! Our government is becoming tyrants of their time. We as taxpayers have the right to choose (so it says) of where our money be best spent.

Pay your own health insurance, take public transportation, and pack a lunch to the local and national government who live off the backs of taxpayers every single day. Leave us something that we can get for free and thats PUBLIC TELEVISION.

Work on something that helps someone else. PBS helps to understand and is informative. Take a day, any day and watch nothing but public television and then give us reason to believe that it's not worth federal funding.

The amount being asked to subsidize PBS is not a drop out of a barrel drum size container that represents the wasted dollars that idiot of a President spents yearly on the Irag war. The joy and learning potential that was given to my children is definitely worth the few pennies I contribute and hope to keep contributing in the coming years for the benefit of future generations of children. Thank God for Sesame Street.

As a teacher I have found that many students start school with little or no foundation from their parents. PBS offers all kids the same basic education and gives all of our students a fair shot. As they get older, the programs continue to offer a stress-free learning environment continuing into adulthood. I know that many times I have shared information with my students that I learned from educational programs I saw on my PBS station. In a time when the whole country is arguing about the nation's education system, shouldn't we continue to provide education in the only form our students are guarenteed to accept- media?

PBS is not necessary with all the information provided not only on television, but on the internet, newsprint, etc. Most Americans are smart enough to sort through the overabundance of news already available and figure out what's true and what's not. Regarding Mr. Boehlert's comment stating "Any cuts would hurt the millions of people who can't or won't pay for cable," I am one of those people--I do not subscribe to cable, therefore PBS is not available to me. If PBS cannot be funded by its viewers period, it should turn off the lights and close the door! Big Bird can fly away and look for a handout from those other than taxpayers!

PBS is not necessary with all the information provided not only on television, but on the internet, newsprint, etc. Most Americans are smart enough to sort through the overabundance of news already available and figure out what's true and what's not. Regarding Mr. Boehlert's comment stating "Any cuts would hurt the millions of people who can't or won't pay for cable," I am one of those people--I do not subscribe to cable, therefore PBS is not available to me. If PBS cannot be funded by its viewers period, it should turn off the lights and close the door! Big Bird can fly away and look for a handout from those other than taxpayers!

I cannot believe there are people who do not want to support PBS..
First, Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow are very important programs for for the kids to start learning with. Especially, the underpriviliged who cannot afford preschool. I am seventy five years old and from the start, I have always thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It opens up the world for the children. They no longer have to guess what this place looks like or this person looks like as we had to do years ago.
And as far as that person comparing PBS to Pro Wrestling, where did he come from. I am amazed that so many watch it. I'm sure that most of those people were not brought on PBS, and the scary thing is they get to vote our for our leaders........
Thank You

I am not surprised to learn the Bush Administration would be targeting PBS funding despite the fact he and the Republican controlled Congress spent how many TRILLIONS in government receipts, a surplus, and doubling? of the national debt? I am saddened to realize I am not sure how much the national debt has risen over the last eight years because even the so called 'liberal' media seems to have been corrupted and no longer covers what I would call 'news' or 'reporting'.

In fairness maybe PBS isn't completely unbiased but the information I have obtained from PBS has been the closest thing to truth I have seen lately without some questionable 'analyst' spoon feeding me their opinion!

Thanks to the comments I have read here I will be watching more of PBS from now on, especially Frontline, and when I get my joke of a stimulus check I'll make a donation.

PBS is so much more than Bill Moyers (the villainous liberal who, in the eyes of most naysayers here, appears to constitute the sum of programming on PBS). Out of curiosity: did any of you just happen to watch "American Experience" Monday night and the first part of an incredibly balanced (dare I say, "positive"?) portrait of George H.W. Bush? It's but one of scores and scores of PBS programs that does not reflect the dread liberal bias. And if a program should happen to lean left, I say "hear, hear"! The meager offerings on PBS cannot begin to offset the day-in, day-out spewings of wing-nut media.

As for those who try to favorably compare the programming offered on cable with that of PBS, just the slightest examination proves it's not even close. Where on network TV can you find a program that hasn't been aborted in length by a minimum of 8 commercials per 5-10-minute break? Thirty-minute, network newscasts (today composed mainly of 2-minute sound bites) have been reduced to a shameful 15-20 minutes (versus PBS' full hour); network movies are interrupted so many times, it's practically impossible to follow the story; and reality shows--when the vapid networks finally resort to airing them wall-to wall, I can safely say that PBS viewers will never have been subjected to even one. Cable programming versus PBS? No contest.

The debate here isn't about the quality of PBS programming. Some shows are drivel while others are well done. The amazing thing is that there are many people that believe that they are "entitled" to four hundred miliion dollars of taxpayers money. Their justification? I grew up with it. (I grew up with drive- in movies too, but I don't ask the federal government to use tax money to bring them back.) My children like it. ( My children like cotton candy but the feds aren't obligated to pay for it) There aren't any commercials (even though there are, even if they are only for PBS. And if there were more, as in "paying their own way" we wouldn't be having this discussion) The war in Iraq costs more. (even though most of that cost would be there anyway since the armed forces weren't exactly invented for the Iraq war, and we always have active duty soldiers and equipment and use billions of dollars to train them every year, besides , what in the hell does national defense have to do with NPR?? ) I'm entitled ( there's that word again- the life blood of progressives) to have a network whose shows reflect a liberal viewpoint (Yes, you are, as long as you and others support it and don't ask everyone else to subsidise your beliefs. But that's not the question here is it? So...NO, YOU'RE NOT, not if you want me to pay MY money to support views I disagree with! I enjoy NPR at times but there is no amount of appeals to emotion, circular arguments, or rationalization, that logically lead one to believe that it's the governments responsibility. I have to add that as I look through the comments above I see that the people opposed to spending close to half a billion dollars to prop up NPR invariably use logic and reason to explain market economics, while those in favor of foisting there beliefs on everyone else almost invariably become angry, change the subject to a hundred non related topics as diverse as the president, oil companies, ecology, class warfare etc. etc. ad nauseum just to try and justify that which can't be justified, and to bully others into paying for their narrow interests. It seems that the NPR supporters have no problem dictating to others what they think we should watch (at our own expense) and they demonize anyone who disagrees with their feelings as being evil. So not watching NPR is, therefore, a moral issue. Welcome to 1984 and the 60 seconds of hate. Whether fascists, communists or socialists, these folks seem to forget that we live in a free country where no man can force me to adhere to his beliefs. If you're so in love with NPR and the obscene salaries paid to Moyers and so many others on the taxpayers dime, then pay for it yourself. Just leave the rest of us the hell alone.

PBS Provides the only worthwhile viewing available with our basic cable package.

Hi All, Dupree,

Read some of the comments Yet I will be brief.

Yes it should be funded and now about 15% is the correct number based on the Federal Tax tables.

All good and most Bad Governments have Nation State Sponsored TV so we should have one and then manage it.

We also have SS, military, federal retirements like most good Governments yet the argument could be made that we ALL are paying for those free loaders.

I also pay to support PBS; as well as NPR, so my percentage will be higher than the average backwards person who is convinced that Bill O'Reilly or Rush who labels Americans regularly "Un American" is a newsperson rather than a galvanizing American/Whomever Hater. Since this average backwards person will sometimes watch PBS we end up putting a tad of brains into their heads and can even point them to more "fair and balanced" analysis programs.

A free government can only occur when the citizens receive accurate and not galvanizing or "feeding frenzy" information. If more citizens had listened to PBS or NPR in 2001 we would have not been in this Iraq War that was supported by the rank and file major media TV outlets that loved the financial bottom line gains of a War, Recession thumping, or Brittany.

Shows like Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers and others are sometimes called Liberal TV by Hate TV and Hate Radio to use your emotions against your own self interests and stay tuned in to the next round of Hate.

As for Dupree and the cost of the Iraq war: You better do much more reading or listening to NPR/PBS to become better educated on the Financials since you obviously don't have a clue as to it's Long Term extra and added costs. Alternatively you could read the WSJ, Business Week,

Public Television is one of the best public/private partnerships ever created by the federal government. It is one of the best investments ever made. Where can the federal government put up 15% of any funding and see a return of 85%.
Look at children's programming on PBS and then look at what you find on commercial stations. If the commercial stations could do any better they would!
Would you really rather have your kids watching cartoons or educational television on PBS? If you are not sure why public television should be supported ask people like Bob Dole who has supported public tv for many years.
Public Television deserves public funding. Our universities know it, our state's know it, corporations and individuals know it. It may take our federal officials a little longer to realize it and adequately fund it.

I watch PBS every day with my children. Why? Because there are no commercials. Very little innuendo. Programs with no foul language. Educational opportunities -- my three year old can spell some words he learned from "Word World," ones I didn't think he could learn to spell yet. Good children's programs, unlike what little I have seen on so-called childrens' programming on cable or satellite TV. Now, with the advent of PBS HD stations, there are even more excellent children's options. We do not have cable or satellite, mostly because I refuse to pay for the nonsense that is on there. It would be a disservice to the children of this nation to cut the funding that allows positive programming to be in every home that has a television.

From what I've seen over the past 40 years, cable, satellite and air show anything but quality programing. If anything government should increase their support of public programming. Support PBS.

Sad to say, but without PBS there would be almost no news or news analysis worth watching on TV in the United States. The NewsHour and Frontline are far and away the best news shows on television. And it's nice to have children's television that isn't built solely around product marketing.

Rather interesting that the Feds can allot 699 million to the state department for internatinal broadcast (Popular Comunications May 2008 pg 6 ) just to broadcast Propaganda " provide accurate and objective news and information news information about the USA " You think the feds would have no problem funding education by TV broadcast for the US citzens. For all the Nay sayers that have commented on this . Open your eyes to the whole Federal budget There are mammoth budgets out there with a lot of waste that excede's the whole PBS budget.!
Just a note I am Republican and I do vote towards the conservative side!

The hatred for PBS by the ultra extreme right is amazing. I say "ultra extreme right" because these people are so far right, they think Fox News is impartial. Heck, most Republicans I know are smarter than that. Even they realize how bad Fox news and most commercial television truly is. Did anyone watch Frontline, "Bush's War"? Here was a show about the Iraq war told by Republican insiders. But I am sure most of the dittoheads were issued their talking points and didn't even bother to watch. Sad really, when a culture relies on some radio talking head to give them their orders, rather than think for themselves.

THIS POLL IS NO LONGER VALID. PBS affiliate stations are posting this poll on their web sites in order to get loyal viewers to taint the results.

There are also web sites on the "RIGHT" that I am finding that are sending their readers to this poll. This poll is being tainted by web sites on both sides with an agenda.

PBS provides quality educational programming for children. Used appropriately, the programming increases school readiness and emergent literacy skills, particularly for children that do not get as much enrichment and enter school already behind. PBS provides a safe haven from commercial television out to make a buck off our youngest viewers rather than offering them educational options.

PBS is also available to children without cable for free. I believe tax dollars should help to support it.

I am one of the people living in a rural area. Cable television is not available where I live, and satellite television is not affordable. Commerical cable has taken what works from PBS and had turned it into a profit engine making it no different than any of the three standard networks. When my tax dollars are spent on PBS, I am assured that my money does not go into the coffers of an already rich and powerful corporation. As the old song says, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Either way my money goes to pay for television, but it does not have to go to make the rich richer. I prefer the non-profit model where any profits are returned to the business and does not pay for pools, jewels, and second villas on the Riviera. With all the problems in this country that have no easy solution, enriching the lives of citizens by supporting Public Broadcasting is easy. Let Public Broadcasting live!!!

PBS is the only place I can receive in-depth, uninterrupted news programming. There are actually some who still prefer that format of news presentation. This is just one of the many reasons to continue to fund PBS, which I've read currently amounts to $1.31 per year per person. There are several tax appropriations I am in disagreement with that receive much larger yearly dollar amounts than those given to PBS. Leave PBS alone and do not cut tax dollars to this valuable resource.

I am appalled by some of the "Bill Moyers bashing" of some of the previous posts. If only life were so simple. If some of these bastions of right and wrong had actually watched more than 30 seconds of the programming they are criticizing they would come to understand that Moyers is less interested in pushing an agenda than asking questions. These critics are taking to task a man that has interviewed a myriad of people including such conservatives as Frank Luntz and Grover Noprquist - asking intelligent, probing questions, allowing them to say their piece, and then thanking them for their time and opinions. This type of broadcasting does not often "play well" on commercial television because it doesn't invent conflict to keep us glued to the TV so we sit through the next advertiser's pitch.

Do these same critics watch the preceding program (The McLaughlin Group) as I often do? This show could hardly be described as “liberal” or “left-leaning”. It is this very type of available differing opinions that make PBS something worth supporting.

PBS often asks questions. Questions such as: Why do we do what we do? Why do people of differing viewpoints feel the way they do? What makes us humans tick? Often there are no pat, simple answers. Life’s complexities are often not easy to wrap up in a half hour with three or four commercial breaks. And PBS doesn't present these questions while at the same time positioning the advertiser's product as the solution. Commercial broadcasting serves the advertiser's good. The programming on PBS serves the public good. PBS deserves public support.

Loved the argument for non-support of tax dollars for PBS! Because of of the availability of high-quality cable-TV shows? That's a joke, right?

Absolutely NOT. It isn't the government's job to provide us with tv programming and it's a big waste of taxpayers' dollars. It's just another black hole.

At this point, we almost shouldn't even have to discuss this anymore. This is both a practical and a symbolic gesture on the part of our government, and an incredibly important one, at that. PBS programming encourages families to educate their kids and provides kids with entertaining and informative programming. More educated individuals contribute to a more educated workforce, raising wages, standard of living, GDP, and our competitiveness in a world economy, which is more important than ever right now. Public programming offers an alternative to broadcasting conglomerates around the country (this is even more important on radio), and the best journalism available on television. Even though it receives funding from the government, it is still able to criticize that government in a non-sensationalist method. Investing in public television is a demonstration of our commitment to a plurality of viewpoints and to rational thought in this country. PBS is a panacea, a remedy for virtually all the ills of our televised culture. The government does not even support it completely; they still take in small amounts of advertising revenue and rely on viewer donations. There is every reason to support it with tax dollars. Did nobody see that episode of "The West Wing"?

I don't mind at all seeing tax dollars going to help support advertising-free news & entertainment; what I do mind is the President trying to cut this back - while spending even more than this A DAY on the Iraq invasion!

The government makes millions of dollars auctioning the rights to use public "air waves" to cell phone companies, commercial broadcasting, other for-profit entities, the tiny amount that gets put back into a public service is our "payment" for the use of this publically owned asset. For all the millions of households that can't afford cable or satellite television and radio, PBS and public radio are a lifeline of education, enlightenment and quality. Money exceptionally well spent in my opinion.

I've watched PBS since 1972, and advocate watching to whomever will listen. It's value is immeasurable in my opinion, and removing funding would be an injustice to its viewers. Of course, the viewers also have a responsibility to contribute, but regarding the government funding...an educated population is a happy population. I don't envy those in government who are responsible for selecting what projects be eliminated, but "Parade" asked my opinion, and I feel public broadcasting, at all levels, is worthwhile, useful and necessary to a democratic republic.

THIS POLL HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY PBS/NPR ASKING THEIR AFFILIATES TO BROADCAST APPEALS TO VOTE YES FOR FUNDING. AS WITH ALL LIBERAL PROGRAMS THERE ARE OBSCENE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN LEAVING THE POLL UP SO LONG THAT PBS CAN SKEW THE RESULTS IN ITS OWN FAVOR AND STEAL 400 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE TAXPAYERS IN OUR COUNTRY! THE VOTE WAS 74% AGAINST IT ONLY YESTERDAY!!!

Its DISGUSTING how these government programs so hooked on the federal teat will fight and scratch and claw to keep their funding. PBS is even asking for donatations on their affiliates websites! Have they no shame?

PBS news on shows such as "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" are the most fair and informative of any on air. Add other objective investigative reporting from shows such as Frontline, and PBS adult news and truly non-partisan political information alone are sufficient to warrant tax funded support for the national good. But that's just the start - PBS educates our kids, including the poorest with no reading materials at home, with educational programs unequaled in quality elsewhere. THAT alone warrants public support. Add to that its adult education in science that beats anything else on the air (e.g., NOVA); the best history on the air (e.g., Ken Burns work; history of various ethnic groups in the U.S. - Jews, Irish, etc); and by far the best music specials broadcast - Irish folk and modern, Italian opera, Jazz, Motown, '60s folk, and on and on. All that is of great public value in documenting our nation's history and culture - "the common good."

ABSOLUTELY! PBS should be government funded for those who cannot afford to pay the high cost of cable or satellite TV. Usually, its the only channel my small children can watch without me worrying about content!

I have been a professor of broadcast journalism for over 30 years. I required students in my classes to watch the Jim Lehrer Newshour on PBS and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on NPR on a regular basis. The quality of the reporting on these news programs was consistently outstanding. The minor amount of federal funding primes the pump for the unique mix of business underwriting and private viewer/listener contribution that keep this valuable assett functioning in our media-centered society. For those who believe in the marketplace of ideas and perspectives advocated by Thomas Jefferson, PBS-NPR are essential contributions to a well-informed citizenry in the U.S.

Should our tax money support public television? The federal government spends less than 2-cents per person for public broadcasting and the overwhelming opinion of Americans in poll after poll is that this money is well spent. So, I think Parade magazine is asking the wrong question. The better question is: Should the federal government continue to support commercial television?
Those who have argued that in a free market system the government should not be involved in broadcasting might be right except for one thing. The commercial media asked—or more correctly—begged the federal government to regulate their industry. The 1920s were the “wild west” days of AM radio. Anyone with a transmitter and a microphone could—and did—get on the air. So many people joined in the rush that no one could be heard and so no one would buy radio receivers.
So big companies like GE and RCA and Westinghouse went to the federal government asking them to regulate who could and could not get on the air. They argued that AM radio was a vital forum for education and information and, for this reason, it was in the national interest to restrict broadcast licenses. The federal government agreed and offered a free license to a limited number of broadcasters to operate on a given frequency “in the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” These broadcasters argued against the government providing a public educational broadcast service because it would be in their interest to do so themselves.
When FM was unveiled in the 1940s and TV in the 1950s, the federal government insisted on licensing educational broadcast stations because the commercial broadcasters completely failed in their promise to provide adequate educational programming. In the 1980s, the federal government relaxed licensing requirements because the commercial broadcasters argued that there were now so many competing sources for information that the market would insure coverage. Almost immediately, local and national news departments were gutted and small town radio stations left the small towns they were licensed to serve and began broadcasting to the big town a few miles away where the advertising revenue potential was significantly greater.
At the same time, commercial stations cut news coverage they increased the revenue they generated via political advertising. Since the stations carried less news and information, politicians running for office needed to buy ads on the commercial stations to get their story out. This became a significant source of revenue for them. In one election year, according to their annual report, Sinclair Broadcasting, one of the larger television station owners, reported a profit only because of the substantial amount of money it generated through political advertising.
So instead of asking if the federal government should continue to fund public broadcasting, I would suggest a better question would be:
Should the federal government continue to support commercial television?
In a more free market world, shouldn’t the federal government rent the valuable airwaves to the highest bidder and then insist that the commercial media themselves pay for the oversight they’ve requested? With that extra revenue we could probably support an even better public broadcasting system. It seems to me that this is a far better question.

PBS runs much good stuff, but I don't want my tax $ to support it because of
the decidedly liberal slant.

It will be interesting to see which polling result Parade Magazine selects to publish as their "result." Twenty four hours ago the results were 75 percent AGAINST at 10,435 votes and 25 percent FOR at 3612 votes of (3 to 1) against. Suddenly that reverses 17,069 votes FOR to 1,581 AGAINST (15 to 1 for) in that time period? The poll now probably has the validity of polls which predicted John Kerry's landslide in 2004 or Clinton's approval ratings jump after he molested employee Lewinsky.

But I digress... I used to enjoy PBS just as I used to enjoy National Geographic. Nowadays it's difficult to look at either without seeing flower children at both pimp the Socialist cause then send the bill to those whom would instead pay for the things in life they use while not buying the things they don't use. Whenever I see that silly PBS travel program where the noisy blonde airhead goes from country to country getting pushy in the face of polite villagers... I'm thankful those villagers are too polite to show their disdain for that brash little tart. It's pretty obvious that such a show is nepotism based. No matter I guess as long as somebody else gets the bills. That's the problem with public broadcasting versus accountability. In the real world competition most PBS / NPR employees would probably have a thrilling career in the fast food industry.

I can see why the government dependence mentality beats the drum for PBS. Mooching "free" stuff off others is what they do best! Sadly PBS gets further into political advocacy with their expectations of handouts as the graying hippies running it get more senile. Trying to point out PBS bias to hippies is like trying to convince some Sixties loser that it wasn't the toilet seat that gave them VD. Their roasted minds are so focused on gimme mode they can't fathom the possibility that the programs which beat the political drum for them can't be biased. Then again, there always will be those who think Jayson Blair was an honest journalist because the lies he fabricated supported their Leftist mindset. If PBS wants to be a Leftist political shill that's fine with me as long as they don't demand a government handout to do so. Send the PBS bill to George Soros or Raul Castro instead. That way they can lament the beloved Communism's fall while blaming Bush or whomever as much as they wish but they won't be lifting the taxpayers' wallets to do so.

I have found that most PBS broadcasting is highly and purposely slanted to the left. I am conservative and although I do enjoy much of the programing, I feel their should be no bias either way. Since my tax dollars are paying for some, or any of the programs, then I insist there be no political bias at all. So until I see it truly become a Public Broadcasting Station and not an outlet for the liberal agenda I cast "No Funding" for my vote.

Wake up PBS management.

PS: I used to make contributions to PBS, that has ended long ago. Act responsibly and fairly and many people will come back.

Of course PBS should receive taxpayer support! It clearly provides for the general welfare (That's in the Constitution for you nay-sayers!) of the mind and soul of our country. A quick scan of these comments - the tone and education level of the respective "yes" and "no" votes - provides an excellent argument for continued funding of this "public school of the air."

Everytime I hear the dusty chesnut about "with so many channels providing the same services, why do we need PBS?" I think, "where is that commercial tv "educational" kids show that's so great?" I see plenty of cartoons with diaper jokes and dim-witted stars, and kid sitcoms with cheap writing and performances to match, but I don't see where commercial tv, whether cable or broadcast, has ever quite gotten around to the ABCs of educational tv. Please name that show for us.

Ahhh, the ol' "Don't waste my tax dollars for Liberal (insert non-sensical Conservative target here)"!

Yes, PBS, the extremely Liberal station with such past Left-leaning hosts as William F. Buckley and Tucker Carlson, and such Communist propoganda as "Washington Week" and "Nightly Business Report".

Attention All Americans: The word "conservative" has offically replaced "liberal" for synonymous with Government interference, wasteful spending, and completely out of touch with the Mainstream view of most Americans.

Please Conservatives, do us all a favor and put your focus on fixing the National Debt to Communist China that your President gave the taxpayers money so willingly to, and leave one of the few things that Government does well alone.

The debate here isn't just about the quality of PBS programming. Some shows are drivel while others are well done. Many are absolutely left wing vehicles and /or support shows for Democrats. An example is Bill Moyers recent interview with B. Hussein Obama wherein he tried to help him distance himself from the comments of Reverend Wright. In a perfect example of advocacy journalism he let Obama act like Wright was his plumber rather than his pastor. After more than 20 years in which Rev. Wright supported him in his first run for Congress, married him, baptised his children, and was his spiritual advisor for the current campaign, Obama now claims that (to paraphrase) "he wasn't the man I met 20 years ago" Wait a minute! I thought you said that such nonsense was common at black churchs and we just didn't understand the dynamics at play! Ad that you could no more disown Wright than disown your own black community! Wright sold video DVD's of his racist and wacko conspiracy beliefs in the church every week! Acting like Barack didn't know his own pastors belief system might work if he was his yard man, or his barber maybe, but not a two decade relationship with a man Obama himself calls his "mentor". Unfortunately the Rev. Wright went out and did a series of press conferences just after Moyers powderpuff interview repeating the very same beliefs that Obama HAD CLAIMED WERE TAKEN "OUT OF CONTEXT" They weren't out of context -(and I don't know how you justify statements that the white man brought AIDS to America to oppress the blacks in ANY context, or that America "deserved" 9/11, or that the racists at the Nation of Islam are somehow good people because the murdering Louis Farrahkan (named by Malcolm X before his death as his likely killer) is an "important figure of 20th century America!". But there are still people who try to contend that PBS and Moyers are fair and balanced in their political views! I have to add that as I look through the comments above I see that the people opposed to spending close to half a billion dollars to prop up NPR invariably use logic, reason and facts to buttress their opinions against it while those in favor of spending the money use emotion and a sense of entitlement to justify their opinions. The vast majority of supporters have no idea what a logical argument is, and are reduced to saying that they have watched PBS for years and want taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for them. They justify this misuse of tax money to benefit a few with the standard elitist arguments that the government "wastes a lot of money anyway" ( so wasting some more is a GOOD idea?) or that the war in Iraq is using up billions of dollars (as if national defense equates to subsidizing unnecessary and partisan television networks!) Face it folks, there is no justification for spending huge amounts of money to susidize a network that is no longer necessary with the hundreds of channels to choose from and the inability to pay its own way mainly because of its appeal primarily to those from the far left. In addition it is an understatement to say that they have been very poor stewards of the peoples money by paying exorbitant salaries to their directors and others such as Bill Moyers, while claiming tax exempt status and begging for more money from congress every year. In a kind of reverse Robin Hood scheme they take from many of thsoe with the least amount of money who can't afford more balanced programming and give their money to the already rich elite who produce and run the network. Pathetic scoundrels all.

Forget about politics for a minute. What about the children? PBS provides about the only appropriate programming for children nowadays. If we take that away then they have nothing. That's okay in the summer time when they spend all day outside anyways, but it sure is nice to have a few good cartoons to turn to in the winter months. Funding should not be cut.

Yes! The portion of our individual taxes that go to PBS are miniscule. Some rural areas get no other signals. NPR and PBS are used by a wide variety of our population, not a narrow demographic. Case in point. No matter what the topic discussed on Diane R. or Talk of the Nation, a range of people call in who have direct knowledge of the subject or, who are directly influenced by the issue, policy, etc. Peace

I think most people with more intelligence than a carrot can realize that Bill Moyers is a political whore as are many on the PBS week in review and newshour programs. It wouldn't really matter if they were working as hacks for CBS or CNN but when it boils down to my taxes paying for it those political hacks should have to work a real job like most everyone else. Until PBS can get out of political shell games then their funding should be cut. Let those who want it pay for it. Let those who don't want it have their freedom not to. There is no guarantee anywhere in the Constitution for a free soap box to preach from. The Constitution limits government instead of expanding its powers. Those whom have actually read the Constitution will know that.

Says an earlier post: "Let those who want it pay for it. Let those who don't want it have their freedom not to." --- Great philosophy. I say that for the war in Iraq. Give me PBS any day over that financial black hole. I work the first 1.15 hours of every day (in taxes) to pay for that needless war. I work 2 seconds for PBS funding (in taxes).

It appalls me that the only place I can get actual news, besides the paper and, ironically, the BBC, is from PBS and NPR who, despite comments to the contrary, offer broad-based, international, and multi-faceted perspectives on current issues. The News Hour in particular is always careful to present views from more than one side on every story they cover. In addition to all the rest of the fine programming, the news coverage is an essential and unequalled service.

I read a lot of the comments and found that many were about whether PBS had a political leaning or not. I believe whether one believes it does or does not depends on what programs on PBS and/ or commercial television that they watch the most - a reflection of their level of consciousnes.

PBS was never intended to exist in the commercial television world. It was meant as a non commercial model, an alternative to absolutely no educational, non-informative nor independent viewpoint, as is now and was then offered on commercial television. Yes their are programs on PBS that are considered Liberal. But liberal by one persons viewpoint is conserviative to another. And if there were an audience that wanted to hear Rush on NPR or see O'riley on PBS they would first have to do a lot more than just write about their point of view to do it. The programming that NPR and PBS offer is a reflection of what their subscribers have asked for during their fund drives. Something reserved for those that pay for the myriad of commercials on non-public television. We the public get absolutly no say at all about the programming that is presented by 'commercial' television.

Lastly my wife and I are subscribers to PBS and it provides about 90 per cent of the programming we watch on television. The other ten percent is divided between some commercial television and watching DVD movies on the television.

Pass the doobie there Sharon for Woodstock is nearly over. Denver is already starting to look like a Chicago Seven redux in the making. Be sure to pack that peace pipe along with the love beads. Peace out.

I believe the federal government should actually pay for more programming on PBS and reduce the funding of a war a majority of the citizens of this country no longer want, and many of us did not want to ever start.

Again George has it backwards.

NO!!! I Do Not Want My Tax Dollars To Be Used For Suporting PBS!!! This Station Has Been Known To Air Shows That Are Not Pro- Famly Values & That Is So Wrong. Let Those Who Do Support PBS To Fund IT With Their Own Money & Not People Like Me.

PBS has almost as many, although shorter, commercials as commercial TV. What once were aimple statements of support or icon view now definitely have become commercials.

Stations have money raising events about every 2 months. Also, considerable money is made through sales of items from various shows, for instance Sesame Street.

The content of Frontline and similar shows certainly are written/produced from the liberal point of view.

Tax dollars should be only spent if opposing points of view are equally available. Our tax dollars, if necessary, should be able to buy a better product

I find it interesting that the article in this week's Parade magazine indicates that one argument against funding PBS is due to the "availability of high-quality cable-TV shows". Ha Ha Ha! There are not many "high quality" shows on cable that are actually appropriate for all audiences. PBS provides a wonderful service with which families can actually sit down together and watch a show that allows for great conversation and fun. PBS should be funded with our tax money. Goodness knows there are other "pork projects" that are tax dollars are currently funding that could be cut in order to keep the funding for PBS.

I cannot imagine a world where my children are not able to watch quality, commercial-free programming! Some have voiced an opinion that PBS is irrelevant, given the hundreds of channels now available on American television. However, as a mother of 3 boys, ages 5 to 5 months, I can only say that nowhere else can I find the content that PBS provides. Sure, there are other networks out there that cater to the preschool/gradeschool demographic, but in exchange for their programming, my children are also exposed to massive amounts of commercials for toys, video games, and other things that my husband and I deem unnecessary and a waste of money and/or time. While it's important that parents monitor what and how much their children are watching no matter what the channel, I find very little to censor on PBS. So for me, when my children do get some TV time, I know they will have something of educational value to view, instead of the comsumer-driven shows and commericals found elsewhere.

Public radio and television is an unbiased source of news and information. As media services become more centralized with only a few owners the need for an "alternative" source for news and information in a free society is critical. An informed public can make informed decisions. Federal funding of public broadcasting is necessary to maintain unbiased information not tainted by commercial or other "special" interests.

Taxpayers have to quit funding programs that only a very few utilize. Public television should remain or fall on its own merit. In other words, those who use it should fund it.

Let's see--where would the government spend money that would be better than using it for public broadcasting? How about a useless war? the oil companies who already make billions in profits? legislators' retirement packages?

Here's something comparatively cheap to those other "important" expenditures, yet it benefits so many!

It's a no-brainer . . . keep supporting public broadcasting! At least I know my tax dollars are doing something worthwhile!

PBS is NON-Commercial: what a public good that is when everything else is so consumption and money-making as the driver of all, including our democracy!
And where did you get those low viewership numbers? Here are the ones that count: "90 million people watch public television each week, up 10 percent from the same time last year. PBS viewership is more than twice that of Discovery or the History Channel, and more than six times that of Bravo. PBS’ audience is larger than that of any cable channel on any night, making it the only broadcaster whose ratings are actually rising, not falling." William P. Mohler.

I'm amazed that so many people think PBS is liberal. I find that they have caved to some extent to the riight ,and they have a mild neoconservative bias if anything. However, the great majority of their programs have no political content, but are high quality, and not available on any of the commercial stations. They offer ideas and insights that we need to consider if we hope to maintain our thoughtful understanding of our society.

Most of the television my husband and I watch is on PBS. They host great music and documentaries. We watch the McNiell/Layer report every night for news. I don't know what we would do without it.

I have cable TV, but I still enjoy various programs on PBS, such as "The American Experience, Nature, Nova, Antiques Roadshow, American Masters, The Joy of Painting", in-depth discussions on important issues (with information that you won't find on similar programs on other networks), documentaries like "The War", movies that don't appear on cable, as well as travel, history and exercise programs, and G-rated, intelligent cartoons that teach and help kids (not just entertain them). Not having PBS would be a great loss for people who don't or can't have cable.

The Federal government spends and wastes a lot of money every year on less important things and unnecessary, sometimes ridiculous studies. They should instead spend that money to fund PBS!

In the very least, liberty should mean that I don't have to pay the salaries of Hollywood Executives to entertain my neighbors

If anything, federal funds to PBS should increase. Where else on TV can we find intelligent , thought-provoking, honest, and educational programing? I sure haven't seen any on the usual channels. We do not subscribe to cable at our house because we find more than enough to watch on PBS. We also donate to PBS regularly to ensure that the caliber of programing remains high. If more people watched PBS, the world and our country would be a much better place to live. Keep PBS public with our tax dollars!!!!

PBS is the one channel my child can watch without being inundated with ridiculous amounts of marketing targeted specifically at him. A generation of adults (who now have their own children) grew up with PBS - Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow - programs promoting education, compassion,equality and positivity. Programs like NOVA and Wild Kingdom feeding young minds with science, zoology, a greater understanding for the world around us. All these things helping to promote and nurture socially aware, educated responsible adults.
Public television offers educational programming without advertising = no financial gain.
Perhaps President Bush's motivation for cutting funding is rooted in this? But funneling billions upon billions into a war that continues to erode the "American" way of life is such a beneficial investment. How can one possibly find value in corrupting our children, sending them the message that children NEED to have the newest toy (that will probably break in a month),or eat a super-cool sugary treat (which will rot their teeth - yes I said it, just like our parents did - not to mention add to the ever growing obesity epidemic) ? I realize, in the end it is a parents responsibility to steer their children in the right direction with what is real and what is not. So, as a parent, I am hoping, praying...that our President, congress, does NOT cut funding of public television. All children (and adults) deserve unbiased, quality programming!

My life would be so empty without Masterpiece and Mystery. I gain so much joy from watching Wisconsin Public Television. Last Saturday I watched the UW Varsity Band concert, which is one of my favorite PBS traditions. I am a proud sustainer for WPT and always will be. I taught myself to read at age 4 in part by watching Read-A-Long, Sesame Street, and all the other great PBS shows of the late 70s. Don't take this away from today's children.

I am keeping my comment brief: PBS offers quality, thought-provoking, interesting and a variety of programs. Cable & Disk programs as well as the public stations are controlled by the owners and the contents are violent and sex-ridden..

I am keeping my comment brief: PBS offers quality, thought-provoking, interesting and a variety of programs. Cable & Disk programs as well as the public stations are controlled by the owners and the contents are violent and sex-ridden..

PBS is the hallmark of quality television and most deserving of federal funding to help ensure that the people have access to meaningful and objective news and programming. .

Without PBS we are subject to bad programming at a monetary cost and the cost of our freedoms in the future in broadcasting.

There is nothing out there like PBS. It is an incredibly valuable service. I am a subscriber and happy to be one. I very much would like to see government support continue.

In addition to the outstanding documentaries, which are often picked up by cable stations (History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc.) after the documentaries prove themselves on PBS, PBS provides unequaled daytime youth programming. The number of people that view pro-wrestling entertainment is a reflection on something OTHER THAN PBS.

Most TV programs give the public what it wants (as in entertainment) not what it needs to hear and see. PBS gives the public what it needs.

Thte Romans decided to be entertained rather than to be citizens. They fell after 200 years. We are pushing our luck in our frivolous, sex and celebrity slanted shows, and slanted news programs. PBS gives us a chance at combating our demise.

I voted to continue federal funding for PBS. The high quality of its shows are unmatched. Whenever I can't find a good show, there is always something to watch on PBS. Even children's TV is questionable these days. I am always at ease with the content of the shows when my children watch PBS. But, I do agree with a previous writer who believes that the marketing of its characters like Elmo could be increased. More marketing equals more money.

Sorry. PBS air commercials. They are a "commercial" network. As a commercial network, they should be cut off from goverment funding, and given the same chance to "sink or swim" as the rest of the "commercial" networks. From PBS, to the "war", I'll take any chance I get to remove the goverments hands from my pay check.

We need PBS because it is the ONLY source of unbiased news on regular TV channels. They invite both sides of the question to be heard, don't interrupt their guests, and give enough time to an issue for the viewers to understand it.

We have more than 50 satallite channels available. Yet I often cannot find a "good" program until I turn to public TV. Please continue to support PBS for everyone with tax dollars. We need alternatives to the poor-quality stuff available on the other networks.

PBS is threatened with funding cuts every time Republicans have a majority, if you look at the history of the channel. Even Sesame Street is threatened. If you look at Gerald Lesser's book Children and Television, you find that right-wing newspaper editors in the South accuse the show of "race mixing" and promoting lesbianism -- claims still made by the KKK in recent years.

Government cutbacks have really hurt Sesame Street. The show used to be able to make 52 episodes a year -- one a week -- but they got cut back to 40, then 30, and now 26. The saying is that if they cut its funding any further, the show will have to start firing letters of the alphabet.

Hi Guys, Gals and Dupreee, - - Would someone who has the time, spend the time, and count the positive or negative replies to this comments section.. It is far more worthwhile than the Top Bar which I goofed up by voting a few times. . . If you do post results list the data at your time point e.g. Positive 300 of 443 or you can take the Negative Viewpoint Negs 143 of 443. . . Dupree and Mr Mitchell I am glad we the average citizens are 85% funding your needed education and yes I often dislike those necessary "Please Fund PBS or NPR pledge drives" . Are they commercials, well yes kind of..

Television is a vast waste of the electromagnetic spectrum - except for PBS. Long live PBS!

I support PBS because it presents the views of both sides of the a topic. Todays comercial radio is hosted by persons who promote the political views of the owners of the station. About ten years ago or more the talk show host did not reveal their persomal political preference. If I want the Repubican Party slant of of the news, I'll read the Wallstreet Journal or listen to Rush Limbaugh. In order to hear the Democratic report I tune into PBS TV or PBS radio. I think it is important to know both sides of an issue. Thank you.

I think we should take a poll on the following question: Should the Bush Administration budget be cut by half or more than half? Why should public monies be spent on supporting an administration whose admitted goal is to transfer as much public wealth into the hands of a few people as it possibly can?

I have been watching-and grateful for-PBS for decades-I can't imagine TV without it!! The main criticisms seem to all relate to a supposed liberal bias in news-so I guess the people who believe that willing to deprive all of us-especially our children-of the wonderful shows on art, science, literature, music and special interests such as cars, antiques, gardening, cooking, travel, sewing, etc. The current funding should be increased!

Frontline conveys REAL news in these United States of America. Recently it profiled the Bush administration, under the bright light of facts and truth. Suddenly Cheney and his congenial "hand-puppet-as-leader" don't want PBS around. Imagine that.

Cable access television has taken a financial depletion from the seemingly self-regulated cable providers (only under this administration do such things happen). Now the mere mention of yanking dollars to PBS smacks of a selective thinning of the heard regarding platforms for the 1st amendment.

As the media options diminish, so does free speech.

When paying my taxes, I am not interested in putting $3 into political campaign, but I would like the option of instead sending a few bucks to PBS so easily. Am I alone in that???

I notice a number of comments that say "how could the numbers change so fast" and obviously not in favor of cutting PBS funding. The answer is simple. Those of us who regularly watch PBS were horrified to think that the poll might be used to justify cutting PBS funding. So I, and thousands like me, e-mailed friends who I know watch PBS and suggested they look at the article and then decide if they wished to vote. So don't blame PBS for trying to salt the poll results. Place the blame squarely where it belongs--on individuals like me who care about PBS and who support PBS with their private donations.

PBS supporters probably are the real "silent majority." We believe in education, we want to learn about other cultures and peoples, and we want news that goes beyond our nation's boundaries. We don't want to watch or listen to news and other programs that thrive on gossip, personal opinion and huge egos. We really don't wish to listen to partisan ranting and raving nor watch yet another reality show. The amount of federal funding for PBS is negligible. But at least it is a token recognition that government does support program content that is not solely developed with a eye to the approval of a commercial company.

Jim Lehrer hosts one of the few news shows that gives both sides of an issue. It's then up to me to decide what I believe. Neither cable nor local news shows can meet that standard every single day of the week. Bill Moyers regularly takes on the establishment...but if you don't like his research then do your own research, build your own special and I bet PBS would consider the topic if you've done your research well. And, as to childrens programs on cable or other channels -- have you watched them? I have a granddaughter so I do see what's out there now. The cable shows are generally violent, filled with stereotypes, and don't contribute to the growth of a child let alone the values of our society. Can't say that I personally adore syrupy-sweet Barney, but at least the show has values, education, and kids that are involved with other people and their community.

Hands down PBS is one of the best values for our tax dollars. It is one of the few areas that the government supports that I feel is worthwhile. Although I am a card carrying conservative, the fact that PBS has no commercials, and a wide variety of of quality programming that is available for free is evidence enough for me to continue funding them. Considering that most of PBS funding comes from non-government sources and it is one of the most utilized non-profits in the country makes it a really good deal.

Please stop spending our tax dollars on news programs that have an agenda or on programming that could not survive without being subsidized.

PBS should be able to survive on its own without using tax dollars. If it offered a good quality product that consumers wanted...it would actually be making a profit.

Good Communications and Communications that are good are the life-blood of a civilised society. They keep the society open and healthy in its pursuits of freedom with responsibility and justice with compassion. GO PBS GO. (Its still the Stanley Cup Season!). Good Government serves its people, though sadly too often the impression is given that the people serve the government. The Abrahamic tradition has at its heart a divinity that serves the creation with its Word of love. Re-sourcing responsible public service is in that category of service, and its wonderful that that se now have a 'Sight' that is added to the 'Word'. The covenant we are in is measured by what we give in service than by what we take in benefit.

Should tax dollars support Parade magazine?

I would be willing to bet most of the "supporters" of PBS are only willing to "support" them with tax dollars. It is always easier to spend other people's money.

Considering all the "garbage" and "pork-barrel" funding that goes on, it seems to me that we, as tax payers, can afford to spend money on PBS. I spend some out of my own pocket and have volunteered for TV fund raising events at WGBH in Boston. The programming at PBS is a "gentle sea" in an ocean of junk. The Congress (as a whole) doesn't have sense enough to come in out of a 3" hail storm. With the national debt at 9 Trillion dollars, that should be enough evidence that they have no idea what they are doing, as is the case with many of this country's citizens who are head-over-heals in debt themselves. Personally, I have almost no debt, and certainly no credit card debt. So, you tell me who has more common sense about what we should spend our tax dollars on. Hmmmmmm?

I notice that Ben (two posts above) suggests that most of the positive posters want PBS to be paid for by tax dollars rather than putting up their own money. This is almost certainly false. Many of us stated that we are contributing members of our local PBS stations, and quite likely most who took the time to post pay for membership.

And the reason PBS now accepts commercials is because the President and Board appointed by Bush changed the policy. I believe they have recently been kicked out because of malfeasance. This was just one more way the present administration tried to silence unbiased reporting.

And, please recall the recent news stories about the Republicans paying "reporters" to submit stories pre-written by the administration to their newspapers, news magazines, and commercial TV news hours.

PBS has the best, most honest and unbiased programing on all of US television. Plus its aviliable free, over the air, making it the ONLY quality programing accessible to millions who cannot afford cable or satellite.

PBS is a great national treasure! The programs are extraordinarily informative, commercial free, and unusually fair and equitable to all sides. Enlightened leaders in the Golden Age of Greece built the Parthenon with public funds, and they created an edifice that elevated the human spirit not only for their own people, but for our species in the following centuries and millennia. PBS similarly is good for the enriching the human spirit. For me this is a non-partisan issue, I regard myself as neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

PBS is the best!

It's sad that Arthur, the highly successful children's series on PBS, lost it's federal funding a few years ago! President Bush and the rest of the Republican party don't like PBS because PBS tells the truth! Bush did not like one episode of Postcards From Buster, so cut funding for Postcards From Buster and Arthur!

Bring back federal funding to PBS and I am all for the use of some of our tax dollars to fund PBS!

Sesame Street is an amazing program. It should be made a national television program so that is it funded for as long as the creators of that program want it to continue! The program teaches the alphabet, numbers, feelings, Spanish and also discusses current events and introduces current singers and musicians in a very positive light. I just can't say enough about the program. It is delightful for children and adults!!!! It is a true national treasure and the fact that it is broadcast in several different languages in several different countries speaks volumes for its broad appeal. It needs to be not only funded, but encouraged to continue for future generations.

Duh...of course the Federal government should be funding PBS, and actually funding it more. It would have enough money to fund it and many other desperately needed programs if we didn't have to fund the war in Iraq. But that is another discussion for another day... This shouldn't even have to come up for a vote. The majority of the previous commentary was correct -- the programs on regular and cable TV are just mindless drivel, sexually expoliting in some manner, or full of violence. With few exceptions, there are very few good TV programs on anymore. PBS does an excellent job in providing unique, educational, and a variety of programs for all ages. Those who scream that PBS is too liberal can go back to watching re-runs of Ozzie and Harriet.

PBS is *biased* against bias!:) They always represent my views ... that the news should portray what is happening and not simply what listeners want to hear!

I couldn't believe Parade used the words "quality cable." Where, where? I agree with PBS's slogan "Be More". To me it means be more informed, be more interesting, be more knowledgeable...etc. Although I must admit when people talk about Married With Children or One and a Half Men, and the rest, I haven't a clue--thank gawd. Do you know about Horatio's Drive? Have you heard the Teachings of Jon? Does Jewel of the Earth mean anything to you? How about The War? Civil and WWII? Does the once polite society of Jane Austen sooth your ruffled soul after a day in 2008? I get enough of loud, crude and rude everyday life without bringing it into my home. Give me the peace of PBS!

i think our goverment should put there prioritys in place. why should our tax dollors pay for some things around the world, and give up one of the best educating programs in our own country. they worry more about other countrys then they do our own

i think our goverment should put there prioritys in place. why should our tax dollors pay for some things around the world, and give up one of the best educating programs in our own country. they worry more about other countrys then they do our own

PBS deserves to receive funding from our tax dollars as it is truly a PUBLIC SERVICE available to us all. The wide variety of programs available for all ages and interests are there to enrich our lives: in-depth news reporting and analysis; arts and cultural programs of consistently high quality; entertaining and educational children's shows (which aren't coupled with commercial content to develop our kids into voracious consumers); history, science and geography programs which help keep us informed about the world around us.
Over the years PBS has given us so many treasures: Ken Burns documentaries The Civil War, Jazz, Baseball, etc.; The Victory Garden; This Old House; Antiques Roadshow; Julia Child and all the other wonderful cooking shows; Masterpiece Theatre; Mystery; American Experience; American Masters; Sesame Street; Zoom; The News Hour; and so much more. How can we even think of cutting back our support for programs such as these which help make us knowledgeable, well-rounded citizens? No for-profit stations can claim to provide such a service to our nation and none can take the place of PBS. Quality programs can certainly be found on cable stations, but it is a hit-or-miss proposiiton. PBS is the one place we can depend to serve the public interest in providing consistent quality programming. For all those who would cut PBS funding because of a few programs they perceive as politically biased I would point out that withdrawing support from PBS on these grounds is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. The amount of tax money which goes to PBS out of each of our pockets is minuscule, especially when you compare it to the value of the service which PBS provides to each one of us and to our nation as a whole. KEEP PBS STRONG AND HEALTHY WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!

Every year, the Bush administration seeks to eliminate PBS funding , along with NPR funding, museum funding and any kind of public support for culture and the arts. Unless it's modeled on a private profit-based system, they oppose the use of public funds in any way that emulates what is done in nearly every other nation on the planet. It's time to send a definitive message to this and all future administrations that public funding of certain elements of culture, in-depth news of a publically supported free press and the arts is a hallmark of what makes a great civilization. Neither war nor politics should ever be allowed to take away public funding that amounts to less than .1% of the nations budget but has a positive impact far beyond what the miniscule percentage suggests.

When is the government going to get the message that American taxpayers are overwhelmingly in favor of using tax dollars to support public telelvsion/radio and stop these silly threats? Over the past 8 years public broadcasting is one of the few areas where I haven't minded my tax dollars being spent!

PBS offers the most comprehensive and balenced programming and news of any of the stations out there! It is educational and fair in its approach to each subject covered. In this season of political spin and misinformation. it is a must for thinking people everywhere to take in what PBS has to offer. In my opinion, Fox (sort-of) news caters to those who want their point of view bolstered with spin, agressive opinion and incomplete facts. The other stations are far better but, can't compare to PBS in their indepth coverage of the facts... Without public and private funding, PBS couldn't provide the valuable public service it does in all areas. My very strong vote is for continued support of PBS!!!

Time to pay the Piper. Hear the unbiased news, view shows that are not violent, and learn something. My taxes go for other ugly items, this item is special and rewarding for the mind, heart and health.

A DEFINITE YES!!!

PBS have great shows and informative quality programming, should the government support PBS? Yes. Just to name a few. Julia Child and all the other wonderful cooking shows; Masterpiece Theatre; Mystery; American Experience;
The Victory Garden; This Old House; Antiques Roadshow; American Masters; Sesame Street; Zoom; Ken Burns documentaries The Civil War, Jazz, Baseball, etc.; The News Hour; and so much more.

Sorry Mr. Delman. You have had nothing to do with my education, nor has PBS. And yes, those "commercials" that are run before and after each show, by it's sponsors, are "commercials". The fund raisers are something different, and quite worth the effort on the part of each local station. It allows them the chance to talk about programming and community involved activities on the local level.

I couldn't live without Mr. Rogers every morning at 6:00 am!! Let's put tax dollars where they have meaning and importance!!

I couldn't live without Mr. Rogers every morning at 6:00 am!! Let's put tax dollars where they have meaning and importance!!

Kristy must have missed the following sites, which are directing PBS fans to the Parade poll. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=17084123046. And then there is http://leslienotes.typepad.com/.

PBS adds to our freedoms by giving us programming that does not appear on commercial TV, for the most part, and knowledge from another perspective. It is a national treasure that should be continue no matter how it is funded. I would be lost without it. MJO

It seems to me that the debate ISN'T over the merits of the shows on PBS, but rather whether or not it's appropriate for the federal government to support one network over another for whatever reason. It is a matter of some debate as to whether it was ever a good idea to do so when television was in its infancy but there is liitle doubt that it is neither necessary nor in the peoples interest to do so in todays world. Since video viewing continues its migration to personal computers and hand held devices television is increasingly an antiquated way of receiving entertainment. The anti-american views reflected by spokesmen such as Bill Moyers serve to make it an even easier decision to save the four hundred million dollars for things more appropriate for the federal government. Couple that with its losing competition with private corporations and PBS is much like the Post Office in its seeming inability to compete on a level playing field. Of course no one knows whether it is truly necessary to continue shoring it up with huge amounts of money until the government "honey tree" is cut off, and the network is forced to operate without unlimited funds. If properly run it has many iconic shows that should lead to it not needing government assistance. That is if decades of wasteful spending by its managers and producers have not rendered them incapable of providing a product when there is a limit on their finances as all private entities of every size must do on a daily basis. "That which the government does, it does poorly. Unfortunately, there are a few things that should be the sole province of the government. So it must do them- poorly or not." Propping up television stations should not be one of them.

Anyone who believes that the programming offered by cable networks is an adequate replacement for the programming offered by public television has not been paying attention to what is actually being shown, and to what is being offered online in connection with that programming; otherwise they would clearly see the difference. Most of the fare, with very few exceptions, on cable networks, particularly with respect to public affairs, history, science, and the arts, is simply second rate and superficial. This country, now more than ever, needs to understand the complexity of the world around us and needs the best tools available to foster that understanding. Cable television does not offer that. Public television does. We cannot afford to allow ourselves to be dumbed down.

PBS is the only noncorporate game in town. On PBS, anyone interested will find superior programming and unbiased news and information. Bush and his buddies can spend tons of money on destructive poorly planned endeavors, Public radio and TV deserve a small portion of the money to help keep democracy alive here at home! PBS has my unwavering support!!!

Oh yeah, The McNeil/Lehrer NewsHour is a real left wing conspiracy, right up there with Sesame Street showing multi-ethnicity in an urban setting, *gasp.* I had to smile when I read that PBS isn't necessary since there's such "high quality programming on cable..." Huh? Have you ever seen what's on cable? What public affairs outlet on cable rivals the NewsHour for unbiased, in-depth reporting?!

You just don;t get it. Are you left or liberal you support PBS. I don't want my tax dollar supporting one side period. It is not fair. would you support FOX or Rush l. I think not and i would not expect you to. Liberals vote yes for this.

PBS is the the very best and needs everyone's support!!!! What good is democracy if we can't get the real facts from a secretive self-serving administration?!

CORPORATE MEDIA = LIES

PBS = TRUTH, FREE SPEECH AND IN DANGER OF EXTINCTION

WE ARE FAST BECOMING A CORPTOCRACY

DEMOCRACY IS IN CRITICAL CONDITION

It amazes me that in a country with budgets into trillions of dollars suppoting PBS becomes an issue.Words like leftist and liberal are tossed about like they are evil empires.Every evening PBS has discussion topics with opposing views.In-depth questions are asked rather than the sound-bites of commercial television.Shields and Books give comments on the political scene without being tilted one-way or the other.It would be a tragedy to see PBS disappear.The real tragedy is that people cannot listen to views contrary to thiere own.

Please do not cut the funding for PBS. I am a single mother on a very tight budget. Even though I make twice the minimum wage, in todays economy, after taxes, it takes 3/4 of my take home pay just to keep a roof over our heads. That doesn't leave much for food, electricity and diapers...I sure can't afford cable tv, not that I would subscribe to it if I could afford it. Rather than cut funding to the wholesome, educational programming on PBS, the government should spend some time looking at the influence that the crap on pay tv has on the kids and teens of today that are obsessed with guns, violence and death. I am GLAD that some of my tax dollars are going towards something that benefits my child, instead of just providing welfare to the illegals that come to this country just to pop out more kids so they can get bigger welfare checks.

Government funding for education comes through many various tax dollars. Why not fund PBS? PBS is education at its best. I can't imagine a government by the people for the people not supporting good quality broadcasting with a % of tax dollars.

PBS and NPR offer high-quality programming for our entire family. In these days of cable, satellite, tv-on-demand, etc. you still are hard-pressed to find educational programming, in-depth news and analysis (not just screaming/talking heads), international programs, and fun programs the whole famliy can enjoy. And all this without commercials! Truly, NPR and PBS are treasures to be supported.

There seem to be many people who think that because they like a show on PBS than the government should pay for it. How many more people could be fed, or how much extra money could go to AIDS research if federal money was applied to that instead of a T.V. station? Every dollar that is paid is one less dollar for truly important assistance programs that can always use the money. People are being selfish. Why don't they pay for it themselves instead of leeching money from those that really need it?

There's no way cable channels replicate what we see on PBS for a fraction of the cost of all programs. Sure, I don't always agree with PBS programs or people, but I REALLY don't agree with some other programs that my dollars support, such as warmongering or conservative health education, but I contiue to support them. That's what democracy is all about--we balance differing likes and dislikes.

Here we go again -- annually, it seems, we must exhort our elected officials to maintain public broadcasting. If all PBS offered was news, it would be one thing, but to give up Masterpiece Theater and Prairie Home Companion because of the Fox News mindset that we get so much today would be tragic, just tragic.

Support the liberal arts!

With a few exceptions, PBS provides the only "sanity" on radio and TV programming today. Therefore federal funding support for the entire system should be sustained. Thank you.

Really, the attack on PBS, radio and TV, is a part of the wider lack of appreciation of art and ideas for their own sake. Learning how to behave as a child, to count and spell, having access to entertaining yet hard science, theater, cinema and history make for a well rounded person. I see PBS as an alternative, just like 4-H, Scouting, instrumental and vocal music, and exchange students. When we turn our back on these things we loose touch with our place in the world.

I fully support the continued federal funding of PBS. PBS offers what the others do not. I feel my taxes go to at least one good cause. It is truely mind boggling that some news starved people can't appreciate the fair and balanced reporting PBS offers without the personal views of owners and corporate managers of the other stations. Ever hear of Rupert Merdoch and his political agenda??? Also, there are no better "family values" programs offered anywhere on the airwaves. What better insentive to support PBS than insuring an informed citizenry in a democratic society minus political spin?!

It's chilling to think that everything we might see and hear via the electronic media could be dictated by the puffery, propaganda and bottom lines of the oil, automobile and drug industries...for without public broadcasting that's the way it would be. Our elected leaders must not put for-profit corporations in charge of what we see and hear.

I would go crazy without NPR because all other radio stations are nothing but hype, same for most TV so-called news (except Public). It would be a catastrophe if funding were pulled out from NPR and we would have to fight hard to reinstate it.

Opt-in web polls aren't worth the bandwidth they consume to conduct them. Even if efforts are made to try an effect 1-IP-address per response (supposedly tying each vote to a single personal opinion), organizations with a perspective one way or the other will enlist their memberships to "vote" in order to skew results. Those organizations with effective grass-roots (or artificial turf) organizational skills will "win" the vote. There is no scientific basis for reporting the "results" of this, or any other, opt-in web poll.

Madison, WI

P.S. I am a big supporter of PBS and NPR.

It's refreshing to get in depth news programing like NPR provides. The only thing comparable are the programs provided by the BBC.

And one thing more...when was the last time you watched or listened to a serious (or otherwise) program on commercial broadcasting that wasn't interrupted at least every 10-15 minutes with ads for (whatever)? Unless you watch public broadcasting, the answer is 'never".

To not continue to support PBS and all it represents would be truely criminal!!! It is a very small amount when considering how the bulk of our federal funds are being misspent by our illustrious leader!

We spend such a small percentage of the national budget on the arts, I wonder what gains would be made by cutting something as treasured as PBS and NPR. Will the health care crises suddenly disappear, global warming cease or will the pitiful amount we spend on PBS finally bring peace to the middle east. I think we need to keep supporting this institution. Infact I say double the money and lets start up another one.

We have been supporting public television since 1965--during those years, and before and after them, we were supporting a family and could use every "penny" (of our own) money that the Federal Government would allow us to keep. Obviously the small amount of money that came from taxes-specifically for the support of public television- would not break the bank, but now add that to the other well-lobbied for governmrnt projects and see what we come up with; woah!! the taxpayer can't be all things to all people!! Public television has just as many advertisements as "regular" television, except that they are a little shorter and obviously much "classier", and the last I saw-they owned their own chain of stores. Does public TV sound poor?! Do they need my tax dollars?! I'm thinking--why can't public television manage their finances with the monies that they get from their sponsers as do the regular television stations?! Yes everyone knows that there are some people that can't afford Cable, and who enjoy watching public television-in contrast to some of the not-so-interesting programs that are on regular TV, and so undserstandably they would like the currant system to be maintained; but think on this--we(my family and myself) cannot afford certain things and so we don't have them; we're not asking taxpayers (and we have been paying into the system all of our lives) to pick up the tab for them--we learned from a very early age that "you get what you pay for". It wasn't too long ago that we were up against this same decision, and "their" lobbiests worked so hard that they won, and so we continued to "pay". No fairsies! We all can't go to Washington and lobby--only Big Business can afford to do that, so must taxpayers forfeit their rights again to make it profitable for Big Business, which is what public television is?! Bar humbug! In all fairness to the taxpayer, and to the regular stations-who are not subsidized by the by us--letsl let public television make it on their own. One more thing--their "begging" for money gets boring--the regular TV stations don't beg for money, but maybe they should--afterall they don't receive federal subsidies. Also we should think about this--the Federal Government gives a lot of our money to "causes", some good and some not so good, and this is our money they're giving to public TV, not "theirs"--ours! WE are the governments' only source of money There's no money tree out there, there's only us. Thanks for reading this.

I don't think the government should stop funding PBS. It really is the only intelligent thing on TV most of the time. I totally love their kids programming, every show teaches a lesson. Our kids deserve to continue to have such wholesome tv available on open air. There are still plenty of households that either can't afford cable or don't pay for it because it's so full of trash programming.

Frontline, Nova, Sesame Street, NOW, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, American Experience, nature... NOTHING compares in quality to the programming on PBS!!!

It doesn't matter as much to me whether or not PBS has a liberal or conservative slant. I just don't see how the millions of dollars given to the station is benefitting me as much as tax relief or gas relief could.

Having read through many,many comments posted, I can't help wondering; why are the people with mostly "conservative" opinions so hateful and emotional? First off, some of the programming on PBS stations have benefitted their children just like they have mine. Visit our schools, public and private; then visit our libraries. The PBS childen's progams are reused so often without further cost. I think it's because the committment was made to provide quality and entertaining educational tools that would engage the youngsters, which works. My experience working in the library system ( another ongoing government funded American institution) and volunteering in all four of my children's kindergarten classes, then mentoring students up through high school (please excuse this run-on sentence); this experience has shown me that people with differences can learn to get along with each other and find a way to make decisions that satisfy the whole group, just not all at once or all of the time. Maybe our citizens, no matter what the political view, might practice some of the rules taught in primary school. 1. respect your neighbor 2. everybody's opinion counts 3. NO name-calling 4. take turns 5. we are all in this together. When this question has been decided, there are some commenters who will leave a sad spot on my heart and a bad taste in my mouth. "Drop dead"?, because you don't agree to a few pennies of your tax money going to supply, not just political soapboxes, but cultural and historical programs that are readily available to all areas of the population. Keeping in mind that not all child oriented shows are produced by "BigBird" billionaires, can't we see that there is more at PBS that helps us than what you find "slanted"? If a "conservative"/right leaning program were aired, would that make it all better? I would welcome the added views. Listening to everyone's input helps to make up your own mind. I support tax money for PBS, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. My tax money is going down the drain in the forgotten Afganistan war as well as the huge pricetag for Iraqi Freedom. I want to spend it on Americans, my neighbors to whom I owe some loyalty.

It is precisely because Pro-Wrestling has so many viewers that we need something intellectually stimulating to balance the otherwise disgraceful TV we currently have. Public radio is needed to combat the wasted air time of the corporate preprogrammed drivel. Any monies used to support public radio/television are as close to a blessing as the current administration is likely to get.

Public radio and TV are among the best media in our country and deserve the support of taxpayers. It is for the most part educational and extremely well done, not to mention really fair and balanced. It would be a shame to lose this valuable service to the nation.

I have a conservative view point, have voted nearly exclusively Republican for over 25 years. In spite of the liberal slant, find that it is enjoyable, informative and enlightens me on a number of subjects. Where the bias is overwhelming, I take what is stated with a grain of salt.

PBS should definetly be supported with our taxes. It is an educational program and many people enjoy it.

Amy in Detroit- I agree with much of what you say. I have a problem, though, (a big one) whenever support is tied into my taxes. If in fact it was roads, for instance, or national defense that I am forced (through my taxes) to support I can accept that, because those are necessary parts of a governments obligations. But when you want to spend tax money- and therefore FORCE me to pay- for something like a television station that nowadays has hundreds of other choices regardless of your interests then it isn't right. And one has to wonder if PBS might, in fact be able to operate on their own if they were only removed from their dependence on OUR money (since government money is our money!) I like many of their shows as well, but what motivation do they have to run an efficient corporation, one not dependent on handouts, if there is no incentive to do so?

In a profit-driven capitalist society media is controlled by the almighty dollar. No conspiracy theories here, just that simple fact. Just because we don't require PBS and company to be a for-profit business does not make them a failure, the government has an entire distinction in tax code for businesses that operate in the public good and are not required to make a profit, a non-profit organization. That does not automatically exempt them from doing what is in the best interest of their audience. PBS and company are their to offer a choice that does not have to directly cater to every single person in it's viewing area, thats how we get network TV and reality TV. They can do what they believe is in our best interests and of the highest quality. Yes, sometimes there will be bais, but it is not the presence of bias that makes it bad. We as human beings will always posses a bias of some sort to some degree. It is how we let that bias affect the programming that is presented. To call something overly "liberal" or "conservative" is an oversimplification much like the two party system it represents. It perpetuates ignorance. Make informed choices, not: "Well my friend John told me that "insert media outlet name here" was "insert political leaning here" so that means I won't like anything that they do". For-profit TV pushes the adgenda of whoever can fund them, not a liberal or conservative viewpoint in totality. You can support a station without fully supporting every program thats on it. I support local arts groups but may not like every single painting in the gallery, or every play they choose to do, I support their mission and whether or not they are fulfilling that mission. If it's a money issue, we budget $400 million to Public Broadcasting and this last year we spent over $100 million because nickels and dimes cost more to make than they are worth. That cost is only expected to rise if we don't find another alloy to make those coins from. Thats almost more money than we spent on the entire National Endowment for the Arts budget. Arts and culture are conerstones to our society and we sit here and argue about Public Broadcasting while we almost spent more wasting money on minting coins for more than they are worth than the NEA, and now we want corporate censorship to take over Public Broadcasting? Just a thought.

Most of the comments calling PBS and NPR liberal seem to come from people who are right-wing. Some mention evolution as part of a left-wing conspiracy. Anyone who thinks that is not interested in facts, only ideology.
We need the objective coverage of PBS anbd NPR.

With all the hate radio spilling on the airwaves and tv commercials taking up nealy 20 minutes in a half hour of network and cable programming where else can we turn (we do own the airwaves don't we!) for information in depth, cultural programs reflecting the best of american life, and political history for us to learn from. I suppot public radio and TV individually and feel strongly my taxes should be part of that support. If we can have taxes for arms-- with much wasted --we should also allocate taxes for the future of our human condition.

We don't have cable.

It is good to hear PBS has so many fans. But I ask, should we all chip in to pay for programs you favor? Do not bring up how we misspend tax dollars in Iraq or with other unwise projects. Should we use the power of the government, to take taxpayer money for those who do not have cable, or to fund TV programs you may like but are not economically viable on their own? If PBS/NPR are as popular as the posting of so many fans let is be free to continue its excellence, without tax dollar subsidies. I think the fan base of these programs are very limited. I also think it simply wrong to publicly fund any program on the basis people do not have cable TV. OMG get real !

We should not fund PBS OR the NEA. If art is enough people will pay to buy or see it. If the programming is good enough sponsors will fund it. As for hate radio, Air America is still on a couple of radio stations. Tune in there. I am sure you will find it familiar.

Of course, the federal government should continue its support for PBS, NPR and local Public Television and Radio stations, like every civilized nation.
Love and Peace,
Atty. Jonathan Robison

PBS and NPR do tend to offer a progressive and forward looking perspective as some have noted. But, it appears to be one that relies on substantiated reporting versus substantiating a given perspective. It offers arts beyond and far broader than any commercial network. In that light I applaud government support of a fresh voice of investigative reporting and a beacon of the arts.

I am proud to say my tax dollar helps in this effort!

Amy in Detroit

Please give me an example of the hateful postings of these conservatives. I read the postings. Are you suggesting to disagree with a liberal point of view is HATEFUL?

"Having read through many,many comments posted, I can't help wondering; why are the people with mostly "conservative" opinions so hateful and emotional?"

PBS is a public good and virtually the only TV worth wacthing. Once in a while I see a program on commercial TV and the onslaught of advertising and the generally abysmal quality of the programs makes me extremely grateful for PBS. It is easily one of the best things the U.S. government spends our tax dollars on.

$400MM is a great investment in dragging the poorly educated into entertaining education.
Being such a minority "ownership" at a paltry 15%, the Feds can shut up about any influence they should have over content. Sit back and suck your thumb like a back bencher.

Let us keep supporting PBS. Lets STOP supporting polygamy (which is illegal) as we currently do through welfare payments to the women who participate in it. Where's the referendum on that?

Public television is needed in this day of such miserable television shows. It is the only station that continues to broadcast quality shows without the media bias seen on the other stations. Our current administration has caused enough problems in the past 7 1/2 years. Please do not let them disrupt this wonderful broadcast station.

It's an interesting world, eh? I spent several years living without a car, walking everywhere I went and at times I found that I resented the presence of both cars and the pavement they ran on. I'd prefer dirt paths and clean air and others to keep me company as I walk. Do we have a choice about how that land, public land, is used and whether our tax dollars go toward road construction and maintenance? I have no children, do I get to say "don't give money to schools because it's not about me?" (Which I don't believe by the way, children belong to all of us whether we gave birth to them or not). Yes, we can have input through our votes and voices but when we live in a society there will always be compromise. I am thankful, truly, that we can have this debate, that we aren't shooting each other, that we have rights. All of it is an illusion but a worthwhile one to maintain. I don't have a t.v. but I do like the premise of public broadcasting, that it is an instrument of continuing education for all of us, regardless of age. For those of you who think it's biased, go volunteer for a public media outlet and see if it makes a difference. Or just voice your opinion here. What a thoughtful bunch you commentors are. Thanks for the interesting reading.

All corporate news media have dumbed down their content, become White House lap dogs, and in general have stopped taking their jobs seriously. There used to be a big difference between serious network news shows and shows like Entertainment Tonight (which is entertainment in the form of a news program about entertainment). ET never pretended to be serious news. But increasingly the "serious" news is becoming nothing more than entertainment pretending to be news. In contrast, you'll very rarely - if ever - get "news" about Britney Spears or other unimportant topics from PBS or NPR.

In a time when news media outlets are trimming budgets and doing minimal "independent indepth research" on topics critical to this country, it is good to know that PBS has our best interests at heart. Other stations are fed very slanted views and incomplete information by an administration interested in increasing the power of the wealthy few. I am pleased that the retired "military experts" who have recently been outed were covered by most media. Just not in a real upfront way. Where is the outrage??? PBS and NPR are a beacon of hope in a time when our civil rights are being trampled on by a self-serving out of touch administration. Rational thinking people need PBS! How wonderful that a few of our tax dollars are being spent on something as important as PBS and NPR!!!

Public Broadcasting is a part of the common good. Like a park. Or a bus system. As such it is a bargain and well worth funding. It is often the voice of the people. I do not accept labels like left or right. I do accept yearning for truth. It is right that publicly funded programs speak truth, whether to all of us or indeed to power, even if it earns the label of leftist or liberal.

I would like to see though a cessation of the relentless stock market updates.
Daily changes are irrelevant. And how the wealthy public perceives the value of owning certain funds has no relevence on an hour by hour basis, whether my customers will be able to afford the project they need or whether we will stay in business.

Thank you.

Although we subscribe to basic cable and the premium family tier, there is nothing else available that equals the quality of educational and family programming available on PBS. In addition, on PBS we are spared the commercials that are often inappropriate for family viewing even during the day and the family viewing hour. We need federal funding for PBS/1

Public broadcasting is one of the things that makes me proud to be an American. The opportunity to be presented with media that is thoughtful, intelligent, compelling, and broadening is priceless. It would be a sad testimony indeed to what our president values and what he sees as disposable.

There are so many people that don't have cable and cannot afford it. But truth be told PBS is the best, generally superior to most, if not all, of cable and on par with the few cable in-depth news stations and better. Some people cannot even afford to subscribe to PBS and support it. So, we must treat PBS as the national treasure that it is: It allows people of every walk of life to learn about the world, culture and science for free. And that is what America is all about. Equality and equity. No elitism and no exclusion.

PBS is educational, informative and interesting. I can't imagine life in the 21st century without it. The government should most certainly support PBS!

The US needs a source of news and information that is not controlled by advertisers. At a time when the rest of the media in the US has failed the American public, the value of what PBS does for us is beyond measure. PBS protects our democracy. PBS does not just provide an alternative perspective, PBS gives us information about issues that need to be addressed by American citizens. Imagine that, Americans having a real debate about real issues! I think the rest of the networks are jealous of the unsurpassed quality of PBS reporting and the high regard everyone has for PBS. If it wern't for PBS I would throw out my TV.

Wow, the comments "for" retaining PBS roughly match the 74% who voted Yes - I'm soooo surprised. Mr. McCauley's comment that "PBS is non partisan and actually fair..." - and - " PBS is one of the few sources of a fair media." - is as slanted as the PBS commentators who infest the airways - liberal to way left liberal.

Please note that I said commentators. Have you spent any time watching the ENTIRE FOX news channel? They're not all Hannity or O'Reilly.

Not to pick on Mr. McCauley only - many of these comments (I didn't read them all - only enough) are lib cool aid drinking - "save PBS" BS.

Before FOX News Channel, no other news source uttered the words "fair & balanced" because - you grew up with the liberal media slant/bias and ate it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. THERE WAS NO REAL OPPOSING VIEW!

Look, I - like many of you, enjoy the TV programming on nature, human events and travel/life in other cultues stories. We are all enriched by the other people on this planet. I've had the opportunity to live and travel in Europe, Asia, Mexico and Canada. PBS, the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel are all great windows on the rest of humanity.

Somehow, the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel can make it without government subsidies. Will you really stop watching the good programming if the PBS crews are absorbed by the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel or some other entity???

I think not. Good programming for the subjects I've mentioned here, is still good programming.

I also enjoy the TV programming when a legitimate argument is presented with supporting facts, what a concept!

Why would you want slanted programming??? Why do you accept ANY slant to a story??? Don't you want the "unvarnished" truthful facts presented first, AND THEN an even-handed presentation of the virtues and limitations of the opposing arguments???

Don't you want to be considered a valuable THINKING citizen who is not in "lock-step" with the political correctness of politicians on either side?

I for one, will sift thru the dreck presented by BOTH sides, engage my critically thinking brain and decide for myself what is right and what is wrong. I understand the need to prioritize. Let's choose the best idea now and realize that we will need to wait to bring the other merely "good" ideas along later.

I'll be emotionally mature enough to realize that we, as a nation CANNOT have it all - now.

Sorry, I've not consumed the "conservative cool aid" - nor have I consumed the "liberal cool aid". That leaves in the open-minded center, ready to read, view and THINK about all options presented.

The best arguments, presented by the best thinkers/commentators will find a home on a TV or radio channel that is not subsidized. I have faith that good ideas presented by your favorite commentators will too.

Otherwise, maybe you're in brain-dead lockstep with some closed-minded, intolerant fools.

Because you're dying to know: I've been a registered Democrat since 1972, but a conservative Democrat since 1980 - when my mind was truly opened.

PBS is one of the federal government's best investments, and more so now than about ten or more years ago. People who claim that cable channels crammed with infomercials offer the same programming as PBS should compare offerings by A&E, Bravo and some others from that era with what they have now (In 1991, A&E observed the bicentenary of Mozart's death with a showing of his opera, Cosi Fan Tutte; would they do that now?). Also, PBS' critics should explain in detail how the country would be better off without it.

I have watched PBS off and on for some of their adult educational shows, and have learned quite a few things. And as a parent of a son who also watches PBS, I see him learning new and exciting things as a result of the educational shows. I've read to my son since before he was born. He is now five and he enjoys words and numbers. He goes to public school. We have always limited our TV viewing, but have tried to incorporate "Sesame Street", "Caillou", "Dragon Tails", and now "Word World" into his learning. And that half-hour gives him something special to look forward to. It's "his show time". The shows have lessons, information, and ways of learning that provide us with hours of more learning fun after the TV is off again. And as a result, he loves to spell and create new/crazy things to say and new things to try to do. I'm not looking for or seeing the left, middle, or right political views, and I'm sure he doesn't either (or even cares). What I'm looking for and seeing is a child who is growing and benefitting from quality educational shows. He expresses thoughts well, and has many questions and answers -more so than the friends of his that don't have access to PBS. And where the money comes from to fund those shows -well, most things in life come down to politics, and many things I don't agree with get funded thru the government, but some I do agree with also get funded thru the government. I'm sure most people agree with that. So, what is it to spend a little on children's education that may some day positively impact the world? It only takes one good idea, and it may have been started by a show on PBS...

PBS should be donation based and not government subsidized. When government gives our tax money for programming they can also put on regulations. If viewers support PBS so much, they can support with their own money. I don't appreciate my tax dollars, which I have no say about, going to support the programming likes of Bill Moyers. Yes, I can turn him off and I do, but he still continues to get my tax dollars even though I get no benefit from it. Television programming should be based on supply and demand. If there is quality programming, people will watch and demand more of it. They will support what they want and that is the rule of supply and demand.

PBS continues to maintain exceptionally fascinating and interesting programming. In contrast to the onslaught of advertisement and irrelevance of much commericial programming, I will find myself pulled into a program on PBS covering a subject I never thought of before, or one that will stimulate and inform in a manner other stations seem incapable of.

I believe it is a sign of an enlightened culture when a government is willing to support arts, education, and independent viewpoints. Those who would object to an appearance of left leaning attitudes, may certainly become more involved with the agencies that administrate these programs, to add shows and that present opposing or other views. I enjoy the quality programming. A critical thinker can certainly discern bias and adhere to or adjust their opinions accordingly. I would rather tax dollars spent on PBS and NPR than many of the other government supported programs. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

85% of funding for PBS comes from donations and that's a testament to its popularity and to the devotion of viewers. Our government can afford to kick in the rest and indeed should give a green light to all of the arts, public radio and creative expression of a wide range of viewpoints. Our freedoms of expression and speech are a core value without which our country could no longer strive to be a great nation.

"Media Matters" is quoted in the article as supporting PBS. Go to the Media Metters website to see just how 'unbiased' THEY are. That Parade chose to quote M-M and not balance that with comments from a group on the conservative side is one example of how pervasive liberal bias is in the media.

Even though I feel that PBS tends to lean a bit to the left politically I still enjoy the information & entertainment I get from the programs. Its a true value to the public in an age of mindless reality shows that have little to no educational value.

National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting System are far, far too important to be ignored by our government. My life would not be half as interesting without them and my continued education would suffer.

I'd rather my tax money support PBS, than building a wall around the country to prevent illegal immigration.
I'd rather my tax money support PBS, than sending billions of dollars to support political factions, just because they say they are democratic.
I'd rather my tax money support PBS, than giving tax relief to Gasoline corporations, who are making billions in profits and driving the rest of us into the ground.

PBS funding must continue. As an educator I KNOW that there is nothing on commercial television as relevant to the educational needs of students as the offerings on PBS. In addition, our local PBS station carries the local university athletic games, allowing the community to support our school and team. The many offerings in the areas of drama, music, science, social science, and other areas are of superior quality and warrant repeated viewings. Any cuts would harm our community and state immensely.

I rather FOX News receive tax payer dollars too. They are conservative, PBS & NPR are liberal. That is fair and balanced, and gives no one on the left or the right room to complain, unless they don't want to be fair about it. Both channels serve the public interest with information/education and with news of the day.

The people supporting the government spending an incredible 400 million dollars on the aging hippies at PBS seem to have taken some of the bad "orange barrel" acid out there. Rather than any semblance of reason or logic in their comments they carry on with Democratic talking points about the war on terror and the "almighty dollar." If you aren't concerned with the "almighty dollar" then keep your hands out of my pockets when attempting to support your leftist viewpoints on television. If you're truly unconcerned about money than let PBS fund itself, sunshine. It has some interesting nonpolitical shows that would help carry it if its political content wasn't so leftist as to appeal mainly to socialists. But, as with most liberals, you are, in truth, very concerned with money, and you seem to always want to spend someone elses dollars by using the governments power of taxation to force your beliefs on others. If you want to be free, be a conservative and revel in paying your own way through this beautiful world of ours.

It seems like no matter what blog or comment section I view on the web, it's easy to spot the right-wingers: they never can spell, AND THEY ALWAYS YELL AND USE LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!! The ones who need educational TV the most are the most resistant to it. It's sad. And I think the talking points against Bill Moyers, a fine journalist and a pleasure to listen to, probably come from a certain employee-harrassing talking head named Bill O. If PBS opponents had any cogent arguments, I might listen, but they don't.

Even if there were similar quality programs on cable, should quality programming be available only to those who can afford it? The haves in this country have blinders on when it comes to the lives of many others - families, elderly, the whole spectrum. We have the opportunity, at a relatively modest cost, to make the world available to people - science, nature, exploration, history, early childhood learning, music, dance and literature. And not just the "classical", but the classics - of all styles, cultures and times. Also, the government can quit subsidizing PBS when it quits subsidizing all other media through tax-breaks and benefits (via laws) to media conglomerations. I can understand that some people feel the news discussion/debate shows don't match their views. There are many such shows on other channels with which I don't agree. I can, however, realize that they are opinion shows, not factual news, take what I choose from them, and research further what I want.

Spelling...yes. It's O'Reilly. Just thought you might like some help with that.

KDUR Rules!

As a science teacher I rely on public radio and television for honest news and a variety of opinions. While driving I listen to the radio. I watch NOVA and Nature regularly. There is not other source for balanced discussions and good science programs other than public radio and television.

I enjoy some weekend programming, but I hear very little educational content. Several of the programs are not only liberal, but hard-line, left-wing
liberal. I don't like my tax dollars supporting such material.

Let George Soros cover costs !

Tax dollars should not go toward an entity that supports and espouses one point of view, whether that be liberal or conservative. PBS should be neutral, but it is not. Although there are many fine programs on Public Television, unfortunately, there are is a clear political agenda on its part that I do not support. PBS should be forced to compete in the market place of ideas just like everyone else and convert to an advertising format. That way, they don't have an unfair advantage over ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. that are already liberally politicized.

Between the logic errors, grammer problems, misspellings, and bizarre conspiracy theories regarding corporations from the left wing supporters of PBS on here, it is hard to tell just what their defense of using tax money to support that network really is. Some will justify the 400 million dollars as a pittance, a piddling amount of money, though that is a defense that surely even Warren Buffett or Bill Gates wouldn't attempt. Others contend that because they like particular shows, or due to the fact that they have been watching PBS for many years, then that alone is sufficient to require taxpayers to continue paying a kings ransom to support them. Still other folks claim no liberal bias in spite of innumerable studies showing otherwise, or argue that because there are conservatives on Fox network opinion shows, or on radio shows, then somehow it is their "right" to produce leftist news shows and skewed documentaries as an offset to them, somehow. This, in spite of the extreme liberal views of all the other mainstream networks who already self identify as Democrats in the 80-90 percent range just as those at the New York Times, Newsweek and other large print media do as well. No, the debate is whether the people of our country should be required to subsidize a television network at all- regardless of the bias of its producers and staff. The question is not whether it should be shut down, as some attempt to portray it, but whether it's fair to compel people to pay for it who don't support it. All of the 'straw man' arguments and liberal moonbat logic aside, it is obvious to any objective person that the taxpayers money has no business supporting a television network in any context. And I wonder how many of the supporters of tax payer financing are aware of the ongoing controversy over the huge paychecks that many of the management and producers receive at our expense adding insult to injury. The elitist enthusiasm of those supporting PBS receiving billions of dollars over the last decade from rich and poor alike would be greatly diminished I think if Carl Rove and Newt Gingrich had shows on there, and were in charge of programming. Moyers is as far, or farther, to the left of the poliical spectrum as they are to the right, and he is not just paid an obscenely large amount of money but has a great deal of influence as to which other shows are aired as well. You can count this libertarian out of such a heinous shell game seemingly designed to con the American people out of their hard earned money to benefit a wealthy few.

As a subscriber to Satellite T.V., I pay extra to receive local programming. Why?--I watch PBS more & would miss it more than anything Satellite ever broadcasts. My children were raised in the 60's on the fine children's PBS programming in the southern CA area. Watch a few minutes of average children's programs offered on other networks and you will realize why I contribute the max I can afford monthly to help PBS stay public. The absence of those annoying commercials, especially those aimed at children, makes it imperative that adults support their local PBS station. Bill Moyers, Masterpiece, Mystery, American Experience, the Ken Burns series, and the magnificent offerings ongoing make PBS an oasis in the desert of most other network & cable programs offered to us today. Keep us from drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Help keep PBS on the air!

the comment that twice as many people watch pro wrestling on "high quality"???? cable-TV shows is a powerful indication that PBS should be supported by taxes. Isn't it in the best interests of the government and the people of this country to have intelligent, truly "high quality", informative programming that contributes positively to the viewers instead of "dumbing them down" like pro wrestling does? If pro wrestling is an example of "high quality" programming then we are in trouble! ( I guess "W" must enjoy the wrestling)
ps I am a long standing registered republican
Kathy G.

I see a lot of stats being thrown around here from righties pulling the numbers out of their behinds. "90% of journalists are registered Democrats." Please cite your source. "Innumerable studies" showing liberal bias on PBS -- please cite your source. You can't? I didn't think so. In fact, the study I ready came to exactly the opposite conclusion. It's not a thought crime to listen to ideas that differ from your own. Quibbling over who pays for TV is just a smokescreen for the real issue -- control over message. The money's not really the issue. Oh, and by the way -- "moonbat" and "elitist" are codewords for "O'Reilly man-crush."

Bill Moyers is certainly biased. From the time, as an LBJ staffer, he investigated Barry Goldwater's campaign staff, looking for personal dirt, to his recent interview of Jeremiah Wright. Funding him with taxpayer dollars is a travesty.

There IS SO MUCH Trash on TV anymore SEX, Violence, killings, satire, who can we make a fool of this week. PBS is one of the few informative, interesting, Historical, easy watching without wcreaming or blood, guts language. Tv has turned to S---We need PBS to calm us love make us laugh & learn. Don't you dare pull back dollars for soemthing usful, & leave us with the only trash channel. PBS has INTERITY LEARNING, LOVE KINDNESS, NO COMMERICALS, INTERESTING, INfORMATIVE, LEAVE IT!!
Leave the trash to the idiots who pormote the other kind of TV people who don't care to learn just watch for the sake of the thrill these kind do not know a good program when they see it. another good note is at least PBS can be a GOOD heathy Babysitter. Go PBS!!

Republicans are negative when it comes to benefits for the people. Bush has eliminated most of Clintons programs. This has become USA.Inc., a money wash for Cheney and his corporate greedy selfish opportunist buddies. Check their financial statements one year after leaving office. You should not be surprised at what you find.

Here is some documentation for moonbat andrea regarding the media;
In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.KEY FINDINGS:

81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.
Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
“Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press.
In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, four for liberal independent John Anderson, and two voted for Ronald Reagan.
In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.
Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”
“Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).”
I have a lot more but always remember that conservatives use facts to argue a point and liberals use personal attacks- as you did- if they don't have the facts on their side. Have a nice day.

Ouch- THATS gonna leave a mark isn't it Andrea! Andrea? Oh... I see. You were pulling stuff outta your rear end, weren't you now? Go back to the "appeals to emotion" and the "straw man" arguments as your only source of debate and try to distract us all from the facts again. Nice.

I love it when someone is challenged and responds with facts instead of the kind of insults and crazy conspiracy stuff that so many of the PBS fanatics seem to come up with. I also like many of the shows on PBS, but I certainly don't think it is right to use tax money to pay for it. That only makes a business less efficient along with invariably ending up with worse customer service. When a business, any business, has to work at pleasing their customer than you will always have a better product. Isn't the post office the worst in its business? I mean 80% or so ontime compared to UPS (or Fedex) consistently 98%-99% ontime for their ground services. UPS air deliveries are well over 99% -sometimes as high as 99.8% of all parcels on time. Amazing. But that's the difference between government services that don't have to operate at a profit and the private sector that does or hundreds of thousands of people would be without jobs. And the Post office, along with other examples like V.A. hospitals or publicly run prisons are simply never innovative or the first one to their market with anything new or improved. The people at a government subsidized business are neither driven to improve service to their customers nor forced to innovate or run the risk of being out of business altogether. So.. UPS is the first to offer refunds if they aren't on time and the other carriers eventually follow suit. Except the Post Office. Which still doesn't dare to offer it (without an extra charge!) years after it has become the industry norm. Think how much better P.B.S. will be when it is finally cut lose from its dependence on government funds and can truly be creative in its offerings. I believe that it would be the greatest thing to happen in P.B.S. history to free it from its reliance on taxpayer money! AND WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT FROM THE CHANGE!!

I think that the way the question is posed in PARADE is very biased since it quotes from the liberal advocacy group media matters. However I wouldn't care if George Soros himself owned PBS as long as they don't use the peoples money to pay for it. PARADE misrepresents the true issue which is that it is not in the public interest to have the federal government support one company competing against others in a free market. It wasn't fair when it started, and it certainly isn't fair now. Instead of paying hundreds of millions of dollars taken from taxpayers pockets they would have many private stations bidding on Sesame Street or Antiques Roadshow etc. and return that money back to the people who paid to create it- you and me. And, if not, then let PBS run themselves without a subsidy and prove they can run their business in a more professional and efficient manner. You know, like the rest of us have to do in our homes and businesses. As for the elitists who want to take money from the rest of us instead of doing the hard thing and requiring the network to be run in a semi businesslike matter with accountability as to where the money goes; I suggest you throw your money out some windows since you would see a better return than on a television station that has cost billions of dollars to keep afloat with not only no end in sight, and no intention of monitoring where that cash goes, but not even explaining why they have the gall to make their management and producers millionaires on the back of honest taxpayers. And write your congressmen as well, and demand to know why there is no committee empowered to investigate such a corrupt and greedy boondoggle continuing to waste more money every day.

I just read through some of the posts and I floored at the random rantings of those on the left who think that they know where best to spend my money. I don't believe that the PBS and NPR networks should be covered using the tax money of American citizens. I am reminded of a quote by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemons) wher he says " If you're not liberal when you're young you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're old you have no brain!" I think we have either a lot of youngsters on here or a lot of people with no brains, ha ha. Thank you.

I was on this website several days ago and the numbers were almost exactly reversed. I read that PBS IS PUTTING LINKS ON THEIR WEBSITES AND ASKING PEOPLE TO COME HERE AND VOTE FOR THEM. THAT NEGATES ANY VALIDITY THIS POLL MAY HAVE HAD.

I have always enjoyed many of the shows on PBS but I had no idea that it was costing so much money from all of us to put it on. I think it would be better for them to offer ads than to keep on taking money from the government. And in their fund raising statements it thanks lots of corporations (which some weirdos on here seem to hate no matter who they are) and people but nver mentions all the tax monet that they have been getting. Thats not right and I dont think that we should have to keep paying for them regardless of how much I like the shows. Just send NOVA to another station so I can keep watching it.!

NO we should not pay for PBS ANY MORE. It shouldn't even be a question. Have all the people who are voting yes pay for it if they want it so bad.

As a Canadian who follows issues and politics in the U.S. fairly closely, I cannot believe that any informed viewer could see PBS as anything but a rose among the television broadcasting industry's thorns. Broadcasting of this sort of fine quality -- both in public affairs and entertainment -- is a national treasure of which the American public should be proud. As for PBS being liberal (which has somehow become equivalent to being leftist among the chattering class), why not tolerate an alternative viewpoint for a change? God knows none of your other broadcasters have the courage or inclination to ask the vital questions.

I STRONGLY feel a part of MY tas dollars should be used to support Public Television. Any basis such as your statement 'twice as many are watching wrestling...' is a 'dumb-as-they-come' rationale for arguing against public support!, about as dumb as 'we should no longer support public education because the kids don't want to go to school anyway'! The more we 'dumb-down' our citizens, the closer we move toward third world status, and baby, we're heading in that direction at flank speed now! Pease, continue to support Public Television. Thank you, Joe.

I would not stop at just 200 million I would not support PBS at all. It's
about time to stop the free money give away to the liberals, you want
it, you pay for it. We do not watch PBS and or even like it's format and
that is my choice, this is America where a person is suppose to have
free choice and not be forced to join someone elses choice as though we
live in a socialist country.

Big Bird and Barney are billionaires. Why do they need my tax dollars, too? Maybe PBS needs a new financial officer.

Well, I must be hanging with the wrong crowd. When I mention Bill Moyers or Masterpiece Theater to my friends, they nod their heads; but when I mention the show Survivor, they barely ever acknowledge watching it.

Timmy; just make sure that your friends understand that Survivor actually is far more based in reality than the rantings and conspiracy theories of Moyers busily trying to joust against "the man" once again!

Since Rove/Cheney and oh yes, W. Bush entered the White House, true and factual and actual information has not been allowed to be printed, photographed or televised. They, especially Rove, want America to become the dumb America, treatment similar to other countries' governments who feel that they won't survive if the truth ever came out. Well folks, there are still 2.1 million of us out there, who want the truth and who will find the truth. If putting in Rove's clone into the leadership of PBS did not work, and Congress finally ejected Tomlinson, then I feel assured that America and Free Press and the entitlement of the American People to the whole and unbiased truth is working. You go, PBS! And yes, I want a lot of my tax dollar to go to PBS, and to American roads, and to protecting American borders, etc. You get the idea. Anytime I read or hear criticism of PBS, I know that the person speaking is a person who wants to make money off the airwaves, that is all.
With PBS presenting unbiased info, and letting the viewer make up their own mind, what finer method could Americans develop for establishing correct solutions to current situations?

Well, I believe in protecting our borders but the rest of your posting makes my head hurt. I'm certain that there is more news and information, available to more people, than at any other time in the worlds history ,simply because of the internet. And although one can make the argument that the old school television networks are very biased in what they choose to cover, and that their ever falling viewership is due in part to that bias, it is nonsensical to say that about the president. In what way would the overtly hostile press, from a thousand different viewpoints and representing every form of media including bloggers, agree to withhold any information. They have even printed information dangerous to our troops in Aphganistan and Iraq, and been helpful to terrorists by revealing ways the intelligence services are gathering information on them. Sounds like a VERY free press to me. And thats true with or without PBS.

We as Americans discuss things as if in a vacuum. We export our trash all over the world and never bother to examine what others create. We lust for ultimate fighting, envy desperate housewives, and wallow in Snoop's sex chant. All of this is decried by the right as the downfall of our civilization! Yet, when the government tries to subsidize an alternative that squirms and scratches for relevance, an alternative that strives to keep our society from complete malfunction, they condemn that as well. So as Fred Rogers taught my generation to be fair, and even that men could talk without yelling, future generations will have the Snoops. It seems ironic to me that conservatives feel the need to run away from the only free and widely distributed media outlet that TEACHES us how to be well rounded people and enriches the mind. They want us to be good citizens, but are we going to learn that from Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston? Perhaps Hells Kitchen is where we learn workplace etiquette?

We have so many choices in the United States, yet so many people make bad ones. Schools and parents are just a part of society, everybody else, connected by the media, is the rest. We need to make sure that if somebody really does want to be smarter then a fifth grader, they have an alternative.

I read that it costs me about ONE DOLLAR a year to fund PBS with my taxes and that's an amount that I'm completely willing to pay for the reasons already stated by many others.

And for Pete's sake, even if you're not a fan, it isn't a 24-hour cycle of Moyers. There are a lot of other programs on that are without bias--unless you consider Jane Austen to be a socialist! Try tuning in to NOVA or American Experience sometime and maybe your mind will expand a little.

What I can't understand is how some who posts seem to consider PBS's share to be a lot of money in terms of Federal spending. Compared to your personal cable bill, yes, it is more. Compared to what the government spends on projects like the bridge to nowhere? Or the war? Please.

Gas used to be $1.40, then we invaded. After trillions of dollars, what I see is that major petroleum is posting quarter after quarter of record breaking profits. Even when we're in an economic downturn, yup, still setting records for profits. How many of my annual tax dollars are used to shore up EXXON's profits and how can I stop that allocation? Where's that poll?

PBS clearly has a liberal bias, so conservatives should not be forced to part with their hard-earned tax dollars to support opinions with which they do not agree.

PBS should be politically neutral, but sadly, that is not the case.

Jason; I'm not sure if it is the right or left that decries the UFC ( a veiled reference to my own name?) but after your statements of how we export our trash I assume that you do. Remember that we export our beauty as well and the world does know that as well. I feel that there is a glorious renaissance in broadcast media where we can all watch whatever we wish to watch or listen to, or attend, or become part of in an interactive experience. I happen to enjoy watching many of the shows on PBS. But that does not mean I believe that the government should intrude on a free market of ideas. For every view and opinion imaginable, and Ultimate fighting would be about a 1 on a range of 100 as far as that kind of diversity goes, there is someone nowadays providing that content- whether it be print, internet, audio, video, podcasts, webcasts, or something that is a hybrid of all of those or none of those. Teach your children well. There is an amazing and virtually unlimited rainbow of the worlds arts and sciences and philosophy for them to explore truly at their fingertips for the first time in human history. The worlds librarys are available in your own bedroom due to the internet. Because there are less "high minded" options, for lack of a better word, available to all as well, doesn't mean that it is the job of the government through tax money to subsidize any particular view. That is true whether it is 2 million people that support it, or the other 398 million people in our country behind it. Not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder but so is good taste and therein lies the rub. It is a small step indeed from well intentioned and intelligent people such as yourself supporting something that the government provides in "our best interest" to our government forcing such beliefs on everyone in the name of the common good. It smacks of elitism I'm sorry to say, even though you make some very valid points as to what is pumped out en masse from Hollywoo