For Viewers Like You

It all began with a question on February 17, 2008: “Is PBS Still Necessary?” The New York Times published this article in light of the Bush administration’s proposition for “taking a hefty whack out of the federal subsidy for public broadcasting.” Sparking much controversy and leading to many conversations within the past week, the author, Charles McGrath argues, “The audience for public TV has been shrinking, while on the other side of the ledger, the audience for public radio has been growing.” He attributes the dwindling number of PBS viewers to the countless cable channels on which to view niche programming. He states that “there are not only countless more channels to choose from, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better.” NPR on the other hand, “attracts fewer political enemies and cost much less.”

He concludes his article with this final statement: “At its best public television adds a little grace note to our lives, but public radio fills a void.” With a stab at NewsHour’s Jim Lehrer and a comment about the mustiness of the programming, McGrath opened the flood-gates for angry PBS viewers to put in their two cents.

Their tones, mostly defensive and in support of PBS funding, they argue that PBS provides “a gem that encourages not only free thinking and creative views, but education and objectivity.” Some argue that PBS’ programming is far from redundant because “not everyone has cable.” On the contrary, those who want to see budget cuts, argue the market should decide.

By analyzing the New York Time’s article and its massively generated responses, one can see that the positive comments vastly outweigh the negative. So, what I am about to say next might shock you. While I’m not going to dispute that PBS’ programming is high in quality, I am going to dispute the need for government funding. I, like Laurence Jarvik who writes in his book, Behind the Screen, feel that we should allow the market to decide. The government should not be in the position of using other people’s money to try to change people’s values.

“The best possible future would be for PBS to recognize that freedom of expression is strenghtened, not weakened, by the dynamics of the marketplace. A nonprofit, nonmarket system ruled by bureaucratic whim in response to political pressures reduces the range of possible programming available to viewers. If one truly values freedom, especially freedom of speech, one must honestly recognize that a free marketplace of ideas cannot possibly exist in an intellectual and administrative environment hostile to the very concept of the free market itself.”