What should be the goal of public television? Should the government support public broadcasting?
The goal of public television should be to continue to provide quality educational programming, regardless of profits. Most importantly, PBS should continue airing children’s programs during daytime slots. PBS has been praised by critics for the quality of children’s TV, providing education in an entertaining way. Programs like Frontline and the various nature shows are also an element of PBS that can not be replaced by network or cable programming. According to Dominick, half the homes in America watched public TV at least once a week. This is a substantial amount of viewers considering the increased number of options we have today. Realistically, PBS will not dominate the industry like the major networks and cable channels, but it plays an important role in many peoples viewing habits. Noncommercial television needs to remain a viable option for people not interested in mainstream programming.
Despite challenges and tight budgets the government should fulfill an obligation to the public and maintain the integrity of the Public Broadcasting Stations. The government should be increasing funds rather than making cuts and the stations should not have to rely on commercial advertisements for financial stability. The internal structure and leadership should be evaluated by an independent source that makes recommendations for changes in the organization to eliminate communication problems between PBS and the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. PBS should also find creative ways to increase revenue and expand programs.
As a parent, student, and conscientious citizen I utilize the service provided by PBS as a source of education, entertainment, and news coverage. Without PBS I would evaluate my need for a television.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very thoughtful post. I agree with your assessment for the need of public stations, and the need for monitoring. As a parent, myself, I do utilize public stations for my youngest child, and have used it for my older children. I find many of the programs quite enriching, and there is certainly a need for these programs. This is one area of government I agree with and support.
My belief is that a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members as well as how much energy and time (and those two most often than not mean funding nowadays) it spends on culture. PBS is a cultural phenomenon, that creates meaningful and well produced shows on a wide variety of topics that may not be covered on the commercial networks. This adds color to our lives and thus should be preserved.
If PBS goes extinct, I would liken it to a great mammal disappearing from Earth. It would mean that the lack of involvement killed another dimension of our World.
I think PBS is a great channel for the same reasons you do. I think it is great that during the day there are childrens shows on. For PBS does an excellent job at monitoring what they are going to air. All there shows are educational and "safe" for children to watch. I mean by "safe" that you don't have to worry about something not appropriate is going to happen during the show when you have young children watching it.
I hope that PBS never goes for I feel as the station has so much to offer.
Very good point, I totally agree with you in every point you have mentioned. Public broadcasting television is a part of the society and plays a great role in the society. Yes it is the safest TV channel to let your children to watch all day and only benefit through its quality educational programs. Who can forget the sesame street and other children’s good informational programs?
I think PBS has dedicated its time and efforts to the benefit of the society and deserves all kind of funding from the government.
I think the concept of PBS is an interesting one. I agree that PBS is very beneficial for children's programs and other educational programs. But one thing that's interesting about PBS is where the money comes from and how money influences what shows get on the air and what don't. One of my teachers was talking about PBS in class and mentioned how certain companies will donate large amounts of money to have programs that support their company and their company's views. One example is when a large oil company donated money to PBS after a shipping accident spilled tons of oil into the ocean. Surprisingly, PBS did not have a program on the accident.
Alison, I agree with your comment. Over the years, I’ve definitely noticed that PBS is receiving huge corporate sponsorships. The announcements look more and more like glossy commercial television ads. It’s good to question who the sponsor is for a particular show. I’ve notice the same blurry lines around sponsorship of programs on NPR. It’s a matter of survival and public donations are dropping. People are tapped out from the stream of disasters over the last few years.
I also agree with Livia’s comment that PBS needs to be preserved. It does contain some of the most diverse programming available at the moment. I would be very disappointed to lose Sesame Street, stories about other cultures, or politics.
Post a Comment