[at-l] Re: PBS was THE ATC & Membership therein - a bit longish

[Bror8588 at aol.com (Bror8588@aol.com)]

In a message dated 6/4/2005 8:52:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
carol1944@brmemc.net writes:

I'm gonna toss a log on this fire.  I agree that PBS is probably a  great 
waste of taxpayers money, but so are a LOT of other "government"  controlled 
agencies.  They start out with good intentions and then get  top-heavy with 
personnel.  No one can stop the train and before you know  it, the agency's only 
goal is to raise money to pay for all the  personnel.  The original reason for 
the organization or agency has been  diluted yet no one in Congress is willing 
to step up and say "we can abolish  this agency as it's original mandate was m
et in 1970 and there is no longer a  political or practical reason for its  
existence."



OK -- I do like some of the programs that are presented by PBS, but the  
interminable "self-commercials" ruin the experience.  Fortunately, I now  have the 
ability to record the shows and skip through the begging part in  seconds.  
Still, I don't see the need for a "Public" broadcasting system  when there are 
other ways of doing it.  I think that if the government paid  for air space on 
commercial channels (as in a bidding system) it would be less  expensive and 
there would be some way of deciding which programs merit air time  by public 
expense and which are crass commercials themselves and benefit those  lecturers 
who sell their wares.  
 
Now if there was a two hour presentation of the sport of Hiking, or Birding  
and Hiking, and the like there would be more interest on my part.  Still,  
these shows or presentations could be done on the  letter stations.  
 
And, I admit that in the Metropolitan Areas (especially the tri-state  area 
of NYC/NJ/CT)  we have more choices than the hinterlands.  Still,  buying time 
on a commercial station or on a "Public" station is probably equal  in money 
spent.
 
Just My Opinion,
 
Skylander