During the first presidential debate tonight, former Governor Mitt Romney mentioned that he liked Big Bird, but he wasn’t against cutting funding for PBS, which is part of public broadcasting.
Before I go any further, I want to make clear that the funding the government provided in 2009 for public radio is only 5.8 percent. The rest of the funding comes from individuals (34.4 percent), Businesses (20.1 percent), Universities (14.3 percent), Foundations (8.2 percent), CPB (10.6 percent) and others (6.6 percent). This landscape has remained roughly the same since then.
Having that said, what its up for discussion is should the government fund of 5.8 percent of the public radio budget? Like any other issue it has it pros and cons.
At this point in time in our nation, cons outweigh the pros.
One of the biggest cons right now is that, in a time with great national debt, public broadcasting is an add-on we can’t afford. Public broadcasting radio will survive without government funding.
I’m not saying that the government having an interest in having an educated and culturally informed nation is bad its just for the most part people don’t tune into PBS or NPR because they just want to relax.
Another positive outcome of discontinuing government funding is that we can use that money and invest it on actual education rather than kids shows with morals that they will hopefully understand.
Public broadcasting lacks in participation and appeal so people rather watch or hear something else, something that entertains them. And by entertainment I don’t just only mean reality shows, I also mean shows on the Discovery Channels, History, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I love public broadcasting I just don’t think the government should be responsible to fund any of it, even if the percentage is as low as 5.8 percent. They have bigger fish to fry.