Can someone tell me why PBS no longer recieves government funding?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

By that merit, lets cut all public education funding period. All of it.

Because that's EXACTLY what I said . Because public schooling and publically funded television are the same.

Again, if theres a market for it, then it will survive. If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink.

And PBS and public schools serve the same purpose. THEY TEACH. So if you say "Well, PBS can't be funded cause they don't have enough viewers" can easily be applied to public schools.

Bottom line: If students dont want to go to school, then public schools will fail. If people dont want to watch PBS, then it will fail. They both are educational, thats their primary reason for both of their existences.....

Tassadar, when you've run out of arguments (as you just have) and start putting words into the mouths of others (ditto), then you've lost the debate .

Attempting to downlplay your opponent through the standard "victory" speech is a red herring which is a debate fallacy.
Oops I won't mention that debating fallacies usually dilute someones arguement and cause them to lose.

[Shi Huangdi]

"We all know Imran and Shi love Reality TV. and sitcoms. God Bless the market!"

Ah GePap, always going into a condescending fury whenever he hears something he doesn't like. I don't watch TV, except for when I watch CNN in the Student Union waiting for class. I however, don't demand the government subsidize putting on something I would want to watch.

We already do have educational programing on TV which can survive the Market, check out History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. The government does not need to subsidize educational TV.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm for public spending of schools. It creates skills for high-tech jobs. I'm also for public spending for libraries, as that, as well, is used by many and also serves a purpose of helping people in business.

I'm AGAINST public spending for a television station which every cable company must carry.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm for public spending of schools.

From one post of yours, I thought you were against public funding of schools because it was the same as PBS (or maybe was it a post from Tass - I am tired and your avatars are just too similar for my tastes ).

People who are against public schools generally rank very very low in my book.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, if theres a market for it, then it will survive. If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink.

Once again, putting words into someone else's mouth indicates you've lost.

This is why leftists will never win. They have such a simplistic view of things, they don't realize that public education and publically funded television are two seperate things .

And PBS and public schools serve the same purpose. THEY TEACH. So if you say "Well, PBS can't be funded cause they don't have enough viewers" can easily be applied to public schools.

Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule.

We already do have educational programing on TV which can survive the Market, check out History Channel, Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. The government does not need to subsidize educational TV.

Ah, thank you .

[David Floyd]

People who are against public schools generally rank very very low in my book.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule."

[Nubclear]

I just cannot comprehend why ANY person would advocate the eventual elimination of quality education from the market.

It's very cheap for every taxpayer, and provides so much in return. Because if it helps just one child....It's accomplished its job. And plus, it takes away from the war on Syria/Iran/China/Russia/France/Germany/Finland/Australia/Some other country.

And thats a very good thing

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you were against public funding of schools because it was the same as PBS

No, because schooling for everyone (which is required for a functional economy) is something that the market cannot provide satisfactorily. It can do so for the upper classes.

However, educational tv is something the market CAN provide and has provided. Furthermore, I don't see why it is required at all. Because it teaches? Yeah, so? The dramas on TV probably teach some people (such as cop shows), should they get an educational grant?

[David Floyd]

It's very cheap for every taxpayer, and provides so much in return.

It doesn't do **** for me, and I don't consent to paying for it, and the price isn't really the point anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

and provides so much in return. Because if it helps just one child....It's accomplished its job.

So much in return? In what sense? I mean, really most kids usually just watched Seseme Street and Mr. Rogers and that was it. Those shows are extremely cheap. Why should I pay for the channel to show operas and foriegn films? Who does that really teach?

[Shi Huangdi]

"It doesn't do **** for me, and I don't consent to paying for it, and the price isn't really the point anyway"

It does do **** for you. It is getting you a university education at a reduced price to what you would pay for a private university, and then still taking away costs for you with the scholarship you have.

[Nubclear]

Once again, putting words into someone else's mouth indicates you've lost.

This is why leftists will never win. They have such a simplistic view of things, they don't realize that public education and publically funded television are two seperate things .

We can't even debate the subject, so were resorting to "Well......You lost! Nya nya nya nya nya nya!!!". A red herring, a debate fallacy Thats ok Imran. I'm always really nice so I'll just let you off the hook. Come back if you want to debaet it.

Public schools teach useful things, which are needed for people in getting work. If PBS suddenly started to show lectures on computer science or something, then I'd start backing it. But PBS doesn't really teach. Most of its programming is elitist entertainment like operas, etc. The 'childrens programming' is a very, very small portion of their schedule.

Ok, then REFORM is needed. But to simply cut it off is NOT the thing to do.
Though I will admit, I haven't seen too much opera there....Maybe I just dont watch it at that time

[GePap]

The History Channel, TLC, discovery and so on do not compare to PBS:

first, the overall quality of porgraming is lower (Nature, Nova and other regular PBS science series are better) and only untl recently have they had the budgets to make anything as expensive as somehting like, lets say, Ken Burn's The Civil War. In fact, they still don;t have the money to do so. And as i said, on issues of news and things like Frontline, none of those channels come close. plus, there is the fact that PBS is free to all, and not costing 40 bucks a month to see.

The "school's" argument is a red herring. As i said, the Us spends more than any other industrialized state PER STUDENT (for example, NYC alone spends well over 2 billion on schools a year, while the most PBS ever got from the gov was maybe 500 million). The problem with public schools is not the amount of money, but how money is spent by the system. Add to this the nice little fact that money for public education at the elementary and secondary levels are all from state budgets, NOT FEDERAL< while PBS funding is FEDERAL, so again, the "public school's" argument is a red herring.

[Spiffor]

Why should I pay for the channel to show operas and foriegn films? Who does that really teach?

Foreign languages and foreign worldview.
IIRC, the US is very poor when it comes to foreign movies (except the British ones), and most are dubbed anyway. This lack is a very sad loss. If PBS helped to compensate it, it was doing a good job.

[Shi Huangdi]

"We can't even debate the subject, so were resorting to "Well......You lost! Nya nya nya nya nya nya!!!". A red herring, a debate fallacy Thats ok Imran. I'm always really nice so I'll just let you off the hook. Come back if you want to debaet it."

Actually Imran is right. I never said that anything that can't survive in the market should sink, only TV stations that can't survive in the market should sink. You however, above said: "If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink." when I affect I never said I wanted everything they can't survive in the market to sink. The fact that you are inventing arguments on our side to answer rather then answering our real arguments indicate you have once again lost.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

and provides so much in return. Because if it helps just one child....It's accomplished its job.

So much in return? In what sense? I mean, really most kids usually just watched Seseme Street and Mr. Rogers and that was it. Those shows are extremely cheap.

Yes, and educational. And yes, it is a cheap. You really don't lose much money on it, and you WILL be getting a tax cut, SOO.........

Why should I pay for the channel to show operas and foriegn films? Who does that really teach?

Why should you pay for the government to find out what the sound of a rocket does to cows? There are SOOOO Many more things we could cut that are absolutely useless.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"We can't even debate the subject, so were resorting to "Well......You lost! Nya nya nya nya nya nya!!!". A red herring, a debate fallacy Thats ok Imran. I'm always really nice so I'll just let you off the hook. Come back if you want to debaet it."

Actually Imran is right. I never said that anything that can't survive in the market should sink, only TV stations that can't survive in the market should sink. You however, above said: "If it cannot survive in todays market, as Shi said, it must sink." when I affect I never said I wanted everything they can't survive in the market to sink. The fact that you are inventing arguments on our side to answer rather then answering our real arguments indicate you have once again lost.

I'm sorry, I mean that shi said "IT SHOULD SINK". I never meant to imply that Shi said that everything that can't survive in the market should sink.

Though I do think you knew that

[GePap]

Like the osprey program, the F-22, or more titan missiles. But once we get them, we can all wathc the wonderful PBS show about them!

[Nubclear]

GePap is doing much better than I am

[Nubclear]

We learn something new everyday...

I just learned that many PBS programs are recorded and then PLAYED IN SCHOOLS because of the educational content in its programming

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why should you pay for the government to find out what the sound of a rocket does to cows? There are SOOOO Many more things we could cut that are absolutely useless.

Who says I don't want to cut these things either. It isn't mutually exclusive .

Though how is the F-22 useless? I would think keeping our lead in air superiority is very useful to national defense.

[Edan]

I'm pretty sure PBS still gets money, though not as much as it used to. OTOH, much of the program PBS use to soley offer now has more outlets, though certainly not all

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui So instead you pour money into a channel that no one watches? What insanity!

Just call me no one then. Of course, I pledge to one of my local PBS stations regularly anyway. BOth for the programming I watrch, and for others to benefit from the programs they want to watch.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Why should you pay for the government to find out what the sound of a rocket does to cows? There are SOOOO Many more things we could cut that are absolutely useless.

Who says I don't want to cut these things either. It isn't mutually exclusive .

I'm just saying that we shouldn't be debating about PBS. We should be about cows and rockets

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just learned that many PBS programs are recorded and then PLAYED IN SCHOOLS because of the educational content in its programming

Let's see, the public school has a choice between something made by the government (it's ultimate boss) or something made by someone else, which may be better, but it isn't backed by the boss. Hmmm...

[GePap]

Becuase we realy don;t need any new planes to mainitan air superiority. it is all the other systems that complement our airplanes (like AWACS, satellites, so forth and so on) that give us air superiority. An F-15 airframe is little better, if at all, form that of a SU-27. But the better electronics, pilot training, and long range systems is what matters.

Oh, and if you see more than one PBS show a year then you probably have gotten more out of PBS than you ever out in as tax revenue, so attacks against PBS are not based on money, but ideology (like Floyd's libertarian assault)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I just learned that many PBS programs are recorded and then PLAYED IN SCHOOLS because of the educational content in its programming

Let's see, the public school has a choice between something made by the government (it's ultimate boss) or something made by someone else, which may be better, but it isn't backed by the boss. Hmmm...

Apparently, because schools seemingly are trying to furfill their purpose (to teach), they chose something thats better but isn't backed by the government

[Shi Huangdi]

I've never had a PBS prgoram played into me in school, except for Ken Burns' program on the Civil War on the 9th grade; though BUrns' program was by no means nessecary to learning about the Civil War. Stuff from the History Channel was far far more commonly shown.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I've never had a PBS prgoram played into me in school, except for Ken Burns' program on the Civil War on the 9th grade; though BUrns' program was by no means nessecary to learning about the Civil War. Stuff from the History Channel was far far more commonly shown.

Could just be a Utahn thing

[GePap]

I don;t think TV is a worthwhile thing to use time in school for.

The problem with the history Channel is that thier writing is severely dumbed down, and I have noticed many writing errors.

The only way to get culturally enriching and genuinely educational TV without cable or satellite service is PBS, and even with these other networks, PBS is the best of them, with the best overall porgraming.

The issue for PBS is that since it does have to aim for a universal audience, it can;t just become totally specialized like a cable channel. It covers a very wide range of topics, and not just one (like History, Animal Planet, so forth). plus it is also able to stay away form things like trading spaces, and other themse programing.And as i said, if in the last year you saw just one show on PBS, you already got your moneys worth from it.