Is Public Broadcasting Needed Anymore?

I think most NPR stations in urban markets would survive through donations and their present fund-raising mechanisms.

The smaller rural stations I am less sure about.

 

It's also not every 10 minutes throughout the entire day like it is on a lot of all news stations. They do a quick -- sponsored -- traffic report during drive time.

And, to an earlier point, the sponsorship is more than just a corporate mention, but it's also not a full fledged ad.

The one I heard yesterday was sponsored by McDonalds (which is sort of odd, since I don't think of NPR's audience being the right demo for McDonalds) and they got a mention and a tag line.

 

Air traffic control could be privatized. They do that in Canada, of all places, and that works just fine and dandy.

The FDA's drug approval process takes way too long and costs drug companies way too much. An operation, run by the private sector, like the Underwriters Laboratories, would be more efficient and find more problems with drugs than the FDA does. The conceit that government always does things better than the private sector is just that, a conceit. There are obviously things that the private sector can't do (national defense, etc). And those are things government should stick to. TV and radio isn't one of them.

As for public broadcasting (I meant to say public broadcasting in place of NPR, forgive the error), the ratings, except in the NYC and other big markets, are miniscule at best and non-existent at worst. Why pay the freight on something that very few use and enjoy? I don't watch a lot of public broadcasting, so why should I have to pay for it anyway?

Social Security is a great, big pyramid scheme. Bernie Madoff went to prison for the same offense. It's as laughable as the case full of IOUs from Dumb and Dumber. Raise the retirement age, engage in some means testing (Bill Gates shouldn't get a Social Security check) and allow people to funnel that money into private accounts that they can take with them and pass on to heirs.

 

Because it makes society a better place. It promotes the general welfare, as the Constitution directs.

 

So no one should broadcast state gubnatorial and Congressional candidate debates because only PBS and the local county access cable channel bother (there's no incentive for regular broadcast networks to do that, it makes no money). Clearly, because the local ABC station can make more money off a night of sitcom reruns, the public does not need this service? What?

Whether public broadcasting should in general more closely resemble C-SPAN all the time than Prairie Home Companion is, perhaps, a legitimate question (though Sesame Street and Car Talk not only pay for their damn selves, the extra money they bring in allows PBS and NPR to do other things). But it goes beyond OMIGOD TEH LIBRUL NPR and should be looked at as a total service.

 

Does this private corporation oversee all aspects of airline safety, not just the controllers?

Bernie Madoff went to prison because he didn't pay his investors as promised, and made off with their money.

Please to tell me about the millions who have paid SSI taxes over the years who money went "Poof!" like those who invested with Madoff.
Please to tell me of the millions who did not get the exact SSI benefit that the government guaranteed them.





[/quote]

 

Stop the bleeding, yes. You're talking about something that doesn't even draw blood, if I am to stick with your metaphor. You want your money back for what you've contributed to public broadcasting? Calculate it, and I'll send you a check.

 

That's not the point. Everything has to be cut. The big entitlements must be cut. Public broadcasting as a whole isn't a huge part of the pie. But all of those slivers add up to something. It's not a business like railroads that our government needs to be involved in.

 

Then cut something meaningful. Lawmakers should have the backbone to cut something like defense or social security in the name of cutting deficits. Anything less is cowardly.