The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: PBS's Scorching Reply To Mitt||Date: 10/5/2012 7:09 PM|
|Author: TMFSpeck||Number: 1821586 of 2111776|
Conversely, if this supposed "public" broadcasting brand is capable on standing on its own, then so should it. As for the rest of PBS's output – the eternal replays of the Peter, Paul & Mary reunion concert, twee Brit sitcoms, Lawrence Welk reruns and therapeutic infomercials – whatever their charms, it is difficult to see why the Brokest Nation in History should be borrowing money from the Chinese Politburo to pay for it.
Not every PBS show is for everyone. It's *meant* to be inclusive. But to suggest that old/dead musicians and infomercials is what PBS is all about just tells me that the person who wrote that doesn't know much about PBS.
Let's talk about Nova: The science program that's won numerous awards over it's nearly 40 years, and is shown in classrooms nationwide.
Let's talk about Masterpiece (I used to know it as Masterpiece Theater): The longest running prime time drama series that has garnered 57 Emmys, 17 Peabodys, and two Academy Award nominations.
Let's talk about PBS News Hour: 60 minutes of commercial-free news programming that devotes enough time to each of it's stories to go in-depth on the topics of the day, instead of the 90 seconds or so network broadcasts devote to each story.
Yeah, and let's talk about Sesame Street. And Frontline. And American Experience. And Austin City Limits (one my very favorites). And Baking With Julia. And This Old House. And Magic School Bus. And Bill Nye the Science Guy...the list goes on and on.
Or instead, let's dismiss PBS as a bunch of Lawrence Welk reruns funded by the Chinese Politburo, because that makes the argument against PBS seem like one worth having.
But it's not.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|