Have you never heard of the BBC, one of the greatest institutions in the World today. All funded by public money.

Well I guess if YOU can't figure it out, there must be no reason for it. A+ logic!

Surely we can rely completely on the corporate-owned media to look out for the public interest. Fox viewers do.

I think that a lot of people make a big issue out of privatization vs. socialism, but I kind of think that it's a non-issue. It almost seems like an (unintentional) smoke-screen to distract people from real issues.

Because, of course, it's spending a bit on PBS and the Arts and Humanities that's crushing America right now...

Not, you know, staggering war debt and industry bubbles bursting and, you know, the tons and tons we ALREADY spend on the military...

Don't get me wrong--a strong military is important.
And yes, it creates jobs--the Valley of So. Cal where I live exists to build Air Force planes.

But it's not the be all, end all...
And we already fund our military to an enormous degree as it is, we spend so much already...
Whereas those NOT as rich as Romney might rely on PBS for exposure to the arts.

(To say nothing of Sesame Street and all the other great children programming that millions of Americans have for a couple generations now grown up with.)

Either a shameless attempt to appeal even further to the furthest reaches of his Far-Right constituency, or else I have one more reason to utterly despise the man's platform and political views.

Indeed, Nigee. "Snog, Marry, Avoid", "Dick and Dom", and "Eastenders" all created curtesy of a TV tax. Disgusting, isn't it?

Well, what about all the good shows it has, Octavious, and the higher level of journalism it has?

(Higher than MSNBC and FOX, for sure, so I'm admittedly setting the bar low, but still, the fact remains it's a better and more reputable station and news outlet than most in America...CNN is my "go-to" of the three just because it isn't as bigoted and ignorantly-Far-Right as FOX News or as simpering and condescendingly-Far-Left as MSNBC...but it's still not great by any means. I'd trust a BBC report over all three.)

And in any case, as PBS' CEO (rightly) says--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tv-column/post/pbs-ceo-romney-plans-to-cut-funding-extremely-disappointing/2012/08/16/387be134-e7ed-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_blog.html

Cutting PBS and other such Arts/Humanities programs will have nearly no impact on the debt or crippled economy.

@ Obi

Most Western TV organisations have higher levels of journalism than what you'd find in the US. Quite how you lot have made such a hash of it I have no idea.

I am in favour of state sponsored public broadcasting for nations like Britian. It has a long history here and generally speaking works well. The BBC is a good organisation, but it does take the piss a tad in some of the programming it believes falls within its responsibility. Thankfully this is being cut down a bit, but not near far or fast enough for my liking.

For the US with its traditions public funding of TV seems rather strange. What does exist has clearly not achieved a great deal, so why not do away with it entirely? Romney is a believer in small government (very small by UK standards) so this seems to be an entirely reasonable way of doing it. Moving on to art I am a firm believer that art must pay for itself. Publicly funded art is all too often a tax on the poor to pay for the hobbies of the rich.

I'm personally concerned for NPR, which my wife and I use as our major source of news. I'm not so worried about what would happen to the Diane Rehm Show if it were privatized. But I _am_ worried that there would never be anything like it, again (in American news media), after she retires. Can a young Bob Dylan thrive in a world full of Britney Spearses?

As to the quality of commercial journalism, the evidence speaks for itself. You can have a bunch of right-wing nut-jobs and angry shouting people on Fox News; or you can have shrill leftists with their conservative straw-men on MSNBC; or you can have Twitter as a substitute for journalism on CNN; or you can go to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and try to glean whatever drops of real news fit between the laughs and commentary.

Granted, there is always foreign media. But I like my American-centric news! I live here! I plan to keep living here for a few years, yet! If Romney gets elected, I hope he doesn't de-fund the last bastion of real journalism in America.

"For the US with its traditions public funding of TV seems rather strange. What does exist has clearly not achieved a great deal, so why not do away with it entirely?"

For two reasons, at least:

1. I disagree that it has not done a great deal here.

Excluding some of the adaptations and artistic productions it has allowed (such as the 2008 production of "King Lear" with Ian McKellan that PBS broadcast in March 2009) it may certainly be said that for adults, at least, PBS is in no way a BBC equivalent in terms of quality programming.

However, in terms of educational and for-children programming, PBS has a far higher reputation--58 Prime Time Emmys, most in that field, if I'm not mistaken.

Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood and Sesame Street and (I'll mention it just because my 5-year old self would never forgive me if I didn't) Thomas the Tank Engine and others all have and in many cases still do call PBS home, and quite a few of these shows (again, Sesame Street in particular, and Mr. Rodgers while it was on) have been acclaimed and are educational resources that millions of American children have grown up with and continue to grow up with. Many teachers of elementary school still use PBS shows and videos as teaching tools and resources.

Simply put, the station DOES have value, and DOES produce quality work, just mainly for children--and in an era when TV for children has become over-saturated with corporate tie-ins and exploitation, PBS' long history of integrity and quality combined make it a bargain considering...

2. It's low, LOW cost. As its CEO says, cutting PBS will do next to NOTHING in regards to cutting the national deficit or offering any real solutions to our economic crisis.

It's a bit like saying you'll begin the process of cutting the payroll of the New York Yankees or Manchester United (from what I've heard they're UK soccer's Yankees, so apologies if the analogy is a bit muddled in translation) by first cutting all those who clean the stadium toilets for minimum wage--

Yes, you're reducing payroll, but not seriously, it's not as if you're getting rid of Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez or (insert rich UK soccer players here) and reducing payroll in any MEANINGFUL way...

You're just giving lip-service to the idea of "cutting spending" and then taking it out on a small group of people with comparatively-little funding assuming no one will raise an outcry against you, as it's not a popular, high-salary player like Derek Jeter or sacred cow like social security or military spending you're cutting.

"Romney is a believer in small government (very small by UK standards) so this seems to be an entirely reasonable way of doing it. Moving on to art I am a firm believer that art must pay for itself. Publicly funded art is all too often a tax on the poor to pay for the hobbies of the rich."

To take that sentence by sentence:

--As Romney said that he'd like to also increase military spending, he does not come across as exactly being Ron Paul here (thus continuing the 2012 meme of having Ron Paul somehow crop up in every last political discussion...to say nothing of the fact that I am markedly anti-Paul and thus, even if Romney WERE Paulian in this regard, I'd disagree with him and argue that again point out that 18th century ideals of an agrarian-based small government cannot and should not be applied to a 21st century technological and nuclear superpower with 300 million+ inhabitants. We have outgrown small government as Paul advocates or as Romney pretends to advocate, which is NOT to say that we need an over-large, flabby one as well, before everyone gets up in arms, a balance must be struck between, shall we say, the over-regulatory Putins and the under-regulatory Ron Pauls. What's more, again, this not making a smaller government, but cutting a small program just to say you cut something; this isn't actually affecting the size or scope of government or government spending in any but the most negligible way.)

--I again disagree.

How many of the upper-echelon artists in history had patronage?

Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Mozart...and I'll stop there because not only could I keep going and turn this into a tedious and lengthy list, but as I've arguably given the greatest master in each of the listed fields of literature, art, and music, I think the point is at least somewhat made.

Do we need to spend lavishly on art as a nation?
Certainly not.
Should we still spend something, even a small amount, as PBS gets now?
Certainly we should--a nation that does not promote cultural growth is a nation culturally bankrupt.

--I'd again point to PBS (since that's seemingly the most well-known target of this) and say that in now way can PBS programming be considered "a hobby for the rich."

All in all, given how little we ALREADY spend on artistic and PBS-style expenditures (almost all Western nations, the UK included, as well as other nations such as Japan spend more) I think the cost/benefit works out.

EITHER there is little cost and little benefit (thus breaking even) or, as I claim, little cost and reasonable benefit in relation to that little amount spent, thus making it a "value pick" of sorts.

NOW.

If Romney wants to start talking about cutting MILITARY spending, THEN I will take seriously the claim he's honestly after reducing the nation's deficit with his cuts.

As much as I detest Ron Paul politically, AT LEAST I can credit him that far and say that, for as backward as I think his views in many cases are, AT LEAST he appears sincere when he says he wants to severely cut the deficit and spending, hence his wish to cut the sacred cows of both parties, social security for the Democrats and military spending for the Republicans--AT LEAST Ron Paul, for all I criticize him, puts his money where his mouth is in that regard.

Romney does NOT.

Cutting Big Bird isn't the answer and doesn't in any negligible way benefit us or help us when it's those two sacred cows chewing quite a bit of our cud (as it were) and industry meltdowns and war debt further crippling the nation.

When arguing about the BBC, remember to think counterfactually- what would UK television be like without a license fee funded broadcaster. I suspect it would have more alternatives than now.

How is publicly funded art a tax on the poor? By privatizing it you ensure only the rich will have access to it. Another attempt to preclude the poor from the richness of of life.

This is an attempt to ensure that the only information we get is corporate propaganda to keep us good and brainwashed.

Another point for the fools who say the parties haveno differences. Keep lying to yourselves.

"This is an attempt to ensure that the only information we get is corporate propaganda to keep us good and brainwashed."

Once again, Putin, you embarrass the position you take with your shameless extremism and fanciful leaps in logic.

I share the same position here as you--ie, don't cut PBS and those programs Romney advocated cutting--but implying that his desire to cut them is part of some larger conspiracy to keep us "brainwashed" makes you sound..well...

Like a conspiracy theorist full of himself and utterly partisan and slanted--

Ironically making you PERFECT for job behind the FOX News desk.

;)

If the government was shutting down crappy advertiser driven private media you wouldnt be singing that tune.

The gop has alwayshad it in for npr and pbs, and the reason is alleged liberalism. Thats just a fact.

NPR stands for "Nice, polite Republicans." They're painted as "liberal" by the far right because everything looks leftist when you're on the far right.

I'm A) disappointed that Romney's position had support, but B) glad to see that obi is putting in one of his better defenses of PBS et al. I'd jump in and say some supporting remarks myself, but I'd just be repeating earlier posts.