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