PBS Funding. Is it worth It?

Many of you have been asking to see my PBS funding post that they deleted over at UPC. I didn't have a copy of it, so I re-wrote it from memory. It has some changes, but most of it I could remember. Ironically I had no desire to write on PBS, but Goosefive who was posting that same day asked me to counter his. So I did. I am sure it wasn't just this post that got me kicked out. UPC and I just couldn't agree on anything. It was that simple. Anyway, it just so happens luckily that since UPC changed over to a new site they failed to delete my 3 posts from the old site. So I copied them and I have them as well. If any of you didn't get to read them and would like me to re-post them here, let me know. Anyway, here is the post on PBS.


The recent fight in Congress over reducing PBS funding is centered around the liberal politics of PBS. As Peggy Noonan says, "arguing over whether PBS is and has long been politically liberal is like arguing over whether the ocean is and has long been wet. Of course it is, and everyone knows it."

Peggy argues that PBS's programming should be reserved art and science and history. It is when they approach politics that it has the liberal reputation it has. Works of Shakespeare and Eugene O'Neil would never be shown on prime time TV. We need these programs. I recently watched a musical symphony called "Celtic Women" and it was one of the most moving and beautiful things I have listened to in a long time. But partisan politics diminishes what should be educational.

For example, I watched the last program of "Now" that Bill Moyer's hosted. (his new replacement is simply a young Moyers ideologically speaking) Moyer's last program was about the vast rightwing conspiracy. He began the program being dishonest. He called Sean Hannity of Fox News an "anchor." A total lie. As we all know, Hannity is a partisan commentator and has a liberal counterpart on the show, Allan Colmes, which Moyers conveniently never mentions. Brit Hulme, Chris Wallace, and Shepard Smith are "anchors." They give us the hard news, the "fair and balanced" news. Moyers was obviously not able to come up with any indication of those anchors being partisan though, so he used Hannity to make it look as if he were an anchor. This wasn't a small mistake either. It was deliberate. He put clips of Brit Hulme and Sean Hannity side by side. Then he goes on to show Hannity on his tour before the election being all "partisan." As if it were like Peter Jennings going out before audiences and telling people to vote for Kerry before the election. Hannity has never claimed to be anything but what he is, a devout Republican partisan pundit. He is certainly no anchor of news.

Moyer's also insisted that a lie was put out by the rightwing that Saddam was somehow connected to 9-11. He had no clips to show because that, of course, was never said nor implied by Fox News or Bush for that matter. Moyers proves it though by saying that 41% of those surveyed thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11. I hate to break it to Moyers, but 41% of the American people can't tell you where Poland is or who is the Sec. of State. Not because they are ignorant, but because they just don't care. How he figures it is Fox's fault that people believe that is beyond me.

It is that kind of programming that needs to be eliminated. Hillary stands in front of the camera protesting the cuts with Clifford the Big Red Dog behind her as if cartoons will cease to be if funding is cut, when in truth, all she is worried about is the liberal mouthpiece of PBS being shut down.

I say we fund PBS, but with rules and conditions of fair political balance if they insist on politics. In my opinion William Buckley Jr. was the only real conservative PBS ever had and he has been long gone.

Taxpayers fund PBS. Why ask Republicans to fund the opposition? We all fund it, let's have balance then.