PBS was also my childhood. Bill Nye, Magic School Bus, Sesame Street, all that stuff. My parents made a conscious decision to disallow me from watching non-PBS television (we didn't even have extended basic cable - No Nick, no Disney Channel, none of that trash).
I would be significantly less knowledgeable without it. I'm disappointed this is even a discussion here.
(we didn't even have extended basic cable - No Nick, no Disney Channel, none of that trash).
Note that Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel actually had exceptionally high quality programming in the early to mid-90's. After that point is when things started to shift. Do not lump my Duck Tales, TaleSpin, Darkwing Duck, Rugrats, Doug, and Rocko's Modern Life in which the garbage that comes out of those channels now (well, besides Phineas and Ferb, but that show is really, really good).
Demand shouldn't be the deciding factor in something so cost-efficient and cheap as PBS. We had this same discussion years ago. A person just won't find the kind of programming on PBS as easily available to them anywhere else, including the internet. The thing about the pervasive and passive nature of TV is that a person can veg in front of a show or absorb something beneficial from even partly paying attention to a show. For those people who are interested, even in the least in what PBS has to offer, it serves as a springboard for them to discover new areas of interest and new areas of enriching, fulfilling content.
I would not be the same person at all without shows like Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery, Nova, McNeil/Lehrer, Washington Week in Review, American Masters, American Experience, Frontline, Charlie Rose, etc. I grew up poor and isolated. If I didn't have the easy access to this sort of programming, I would have probably never had any inkling that there was a possibility of life that didn't revolve around mind-numbing, repetitive, soul-crushing, and back-breaking manual labor scrounging in shit on my pappy's dirt farm. Well, I guess I would've known about the steel mills in northern Indiana, but the idea that something like Shakespeare or Shostakovich could be accessible to someone like me just wouldn't have filtered through. When I've been at my lowest points, and when I've been most inclined towards thoughts of suicide, I'm always pulled back from the brink not by some stupid Adam Sandler movie, but by remembering enriching art that inspired and challenged me, and by knowing that I'm never going to be ready to stop trying to discover some new example of that sort of thing. If Adam Sandler was the only thing I had to look forward to, and was the highest form of art I'd been exposed to, I'd probably have killed myself years ago. Without PBS, I'll have to say that the likelihood I would have ever been exposed to depression-fighting art in any meaningful way is slight, at best.
Hell, even just being able to watch political debates and speeches without some blowhard pundit's comments makes PBS worth the money, in my opinion. Actually, one-offs like Vietnam - A Television History, or any of Ken Burns' documentaries make PBS worth it by themselves.
(we didn't even have extended basic cable - No Nick, no Disney Channel, none of that trash).
Note that Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel actually had exceptionally high quality programming in the early to mid-90's. After that point is when things started to shift. Do not lump my Duck Tales, TaleSpin, Darkwing Duck, Rugrats, Doug, and Rocko's Modern Life in which the garbage that comes out of those channels now (well, besides Phineas and Ferb, but that show is really, really good).
This was always one of George Will's arguments against PBS back in the eighties and early nineties: PBS is unnecessary because we have the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, TLC, and blah, blah, blah. A&E and Bravo actually used to be in his list of channels that could replace PBS, because, at one point, they - like all those other channels actually had some good shows. Now, all they have is Pawn Stars and Hillbilly Handfishin', with an occasional The World's Largest Tumor/Baby/Hangnail - hardly edifying fare. All those channels start with promise and then turn out to be crap. I haven't heard Will use this argument for many years, because even he knows it's a bad argument now.
I guarantee you, somewhere, someone thinks that that (women's vote, moon landing, etc.) is the real footage and the government doctored the footage that most people use. Excuse me, I need to find and read his explanation now.
(we didn't even have extended basic cable - No Nick, no Disney Channel, none of that trash).
Note that Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel actually had exceptionally high quality programming in the early to mid-90's. After that point is when things started to shift. Do not lump my Duck Tales, TaleSpin, Darkwing Duck, Rugrats, Doug, and Rocko's Modern Life in which the garbage that comes out of those channels now (well, besides Phineas and Ferb, but that show is really, really good).
By "trash" I was referring to their educational value, specifically, the lack thereof. So yes, I'm perfectly content lumping them together.
Where I live, we do not have a local PBS affiliate. I live in a rural part of Texas, albiet not far from a rather small city. What happened as a result was that Louisiana Public Broadcasting, being nearby, broadcasted to our area over the air and on cable. However, something happened (maybe Louisiana decided not to spend money on Texans) and we lost that. Being on cable was helpful, because Time Warner Cable decided to provide us with a feed of Houston PBS. For a long time, Houston PBS was not available over the air. This wasn't well received, as people who had previously depended on LPB, now had nothing. For about ten years, most didn't have anything except NPR. I used to watch it all the time. Kids in our neighborhood would flock to our house in order to watch it.
Thankfully, Houston PBS found out, and got permission from the FCC to put a signal repeater down here, so that we could get PBS. Is it needed? Yes. Does it still need funding? Yes. I don't think even the most conservative person down here would oppose it.
Geeze. Can't even get TV from Springfield, MA or anything there? That does suck... Then again, I did hear that the original invention of cable TV was to have a giant-ass communal antenna that could be used to gather over-the-air broadcasts to those who, due to geography, couldn't otherwise get it.
Comments
I would be significantly less knowledgeable without it. I'm disappointed this is even a discussion here.
I would not be the same person at all without shows like Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery, Nova, McNeil/Lehrer, Washington Week in Review, American Masters, American Experience, Frontline, Charlie Rose, etc. I grew up poor and isolated. If I didn't have the easy access to this sort of programming, I would have probably never had any inkling that there was a possibility of life that didn't revolve around mind-numbing, repetitive, soul-crushing, and back-breaking manual labor scrounging in shit on my pappy's dirt farm. Well, I guess I would've known about the steel mills in northern Indiana, but the idea that something like Shakespeare or Shostakovich could be accessible to someone like me just wouldn't have filtered through. When I've been at my lowest points, and when I've been most inclined towards thoughts of suicide, I'm always pulled back from the brink not by some stupid Adam Sandler movie, but by remembering enriching art that inspired and challenged me, and by knowing that I'm never going to be ready to stop trying to discover some new example of that sort of thing. If Adam Sandler was the only thing I had to look forward to, and was the highest form of art I'd been exposed to, I'd probably have killed myself years ago. Without PBS, I'll have to say that the likelihood I would have ever been exposed to depression-fighting art in any meaningful way is slight, at best.
Hell, even just being able to watch political debates and speeches without some blowhard pundit's comments makes PBS worth the money, in my opinion. Actually, one-offs like Vietnam - A Television History, or any of Ken Burns' documentaries make PBS worth it by themselves. This was always one of George Will's arguments against PBS back in the eighties and early nineties: PBS is unnecessary because we have the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, TLC, and blah, blah, blah. A&E and Bravo actually used to be in his list of channels that could replace PBS, because, at one point, they - like all those other channels actually had some good shows. Now, all they have is Pawn Stars and Hillbilly Handfishin', with an occasional The World's Largest Tumor/Baby/Hangnail - hardly edifying fare. All those channels start with promise and then turn out to be crap. I haven't heard Will use this argument for many years, because even he knows it's a bad argument now.
BUT - what is one life or one mind worth?
Thankfully, Houston PBS found out, and got permission from the FCC to put a signal repeater down here, so that we could get PBS. Is it needed? Yes. Does it still need funding? Yes. I don't think even the most conservative person down here would oppose it.
EDIT: Lost a sentence. -_-