Last edited by drz-400; 03-20-11 at 10:58 PM.
Yeah, if can afford satellite or cable television there's a lot of variety out there.
I've yet to see anything which serves as a suitable replacement for PBS, and nothing that comes anywhere near that ballpark is going to be on the public airwaves.
Aside from that, I've been having trouble following exactly how money gets from the government (Federal and state) to public broadcasters, and how much of an impact on their function a loss of government dollars would represent. Since I can't understand it as precisely as I'd like, I can't say intelligent things like, "Well, I suppose we could cut funding X% and it would require only Y hours of additional fundraising or a Z% reduction in programming."
Since I can't do that, I'm sticking with the fact that it does what it is supposed to do, and as such should be left the heck alone.
And like it or not the debate in the US is not about funding, it is an ideological fantatism by the right who see PBS/NPR as a "liberal" voice. Fact is PBS/NPR get next to nothing from the public purse as it is, and the crap that the GOP pushed through in the House did not save a single dime, since the money they took from PBS/NPR was just diverted to private owned stations..