How many of you watch travel shows on PBS?

Frank II, I definitely watch travel shows on PBS, so this news is a bit of a concern especially as the local PBS station in this area is based in Seattle. If the funding cuts take place, I suppose I'll have to try and budget more for donations during pledge drives. I'll have a look at the petition, but those outside the U.S. are probably not eligible.

No, they're not. You must have a U.S. address to sign.

"But government has to spend less, and I say start here." Convenient that Neocons want to start with something that provides little savings but eliminates knowledge they can't control. They wanted to eliminate public television when we didn't have a deficit. This is just their excuse. But, lets start here, cutting or eliminating the $160B spent to blow up 6 month old "suspected terrorists", rather than a few $M to promote understanding. I used to work with a woman who had a sign over her desk saying, "The beatings will continue until your attitude improves." That was the foreign policy of the Bush administration, "The killings will continue until you learn to love us".

Done. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention!

Just signed it. Thanks.

But in every pledge drive I've ever seen or heard, isn't the main message that the majority of PBS and NPR funding comes from "Viewers Like You"? How many times have I heard "We rely very little on government funding"?

BTW, in all seriousness, who funds "Rick Steves' Europe"? Does the money come from PBS or an affiliate? Does Mr. Steves' company chip in for part or all of the budget? It would only seem fair, since the show raises public awareness of his company's products (I've always thought he was one of the absolute masters of the "soft sell"). If PBS does pick up most or all of the tag for the show, wouldn't that effectively be a huge government subsidy to his company? Are these speculations going to get me banned from this site?

I can answer that Tom....Rick Steves gets his funding privately and funds part himself for production. He then offers the show for either nothing or minimally to PBS stations for just the reason you stated: it helps his company. However, someone like Ken Burns relies on PBS funding for his documentaries like "National Parks" because he has no company profiting from it. And most PBS stations offer local programming about their areas that can't be found anywhere else. To do this, they need funding. I know in my area, the only TV station to carry town hall debates between local candidates was my PBS station. They need funding to do that. And, honestly, I really don't want high-sugar breakfast cereal being sold during Sesame Street.

Does PBS provide worthwhile travel and other programming not otherwise available in our area? Would this programming be significantly degraded by elimination of federal funding? Yes. Yes. Oh, and thanks to our good neighbors to the north for their support of PBS over the years.

"...U.S. House of Representatives leadership...." Now there is an oxymoron! Doesn't matter which party is majority either....

We must start making significant spending cuts if we're ever going to get out from under our gazillion dollar debt. Where to start? It's a matter of priorities. I find myself pretty ambivalent about this particular issue. I tend to look at these issues from the perspective as how they will affect me, and my lifestyle. This is same mindset as the original post, i.e. "our watching of travel shows will be impacted." I don't watch travel shows on NPR (and I switched my NPR autoset on Sirius from NPR to Electronic Dance after the Juan Williams epidode). I own dozens of classical music CDs, so I don't need NPR for that either. And Sirius has that nicely covered also. So I really could care less about the future of NPR. PBS is different however. Although I don't watch Rick there, (locally we get Rick only at 3 pm and 3 am on Fridays) there is a lot of other programming I watch, but I'm confident PBS will survive without Fed funds. After all, by their own admission during membership drives, they get "very little government funding" now. I watch Rick on Hulu or on DVD (last summer 80 shows from 2000-09 for $69 - I jumped on that in a skinny second).

Ah, so that's how Rick Steve's Europe ends up on TV... In my opinion, though, the best travel show is on a commercial station- No Reservations.

Thanks Frank for providing the link. I had seen the headline about this, but thought it was the typical Republican effort to decrease the funding. It wasn't until I clicked on your link that I realized that want to eliminate all federal funding. Sure, we're in hard economic times. I'm currently unemployed so I particularly aware of the job market and the need to create jobs and examining where we spend our money. I remember when I first discovered NPR when I moved to Indiana. It was a life raft of information in a land dominated by basketball. I love a good basketball game as much as the next person, but there is more to life than hoops! ; ) I really came to appreciate PBS and NPR during the first Gulf War. I did not have cable and NPR broadcast all the Pentagon Briefings. I felt like Pete Williams was my best bud. Certainly PBS made a mistake regarding Juan Williams, but talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face to never listen to them any more! I guess Fox News and Murdock have achieved perfection in their decisions? So, certainly PBS / NPR need to do belt tightening as do all of us. But eliminating them is a purely partisan politics, not wise budgeting. Pam

It was NPR and Juan Williams - not PBS. Why the need for the snarky comment about Fox?

Neo-Cons avoid knowledge like cockroaches avoid the light. They know that knowledge will defeat their narrow minded ideas prejudices, so they try to control and inhibit the dissemination of knowledge. BTW, I signed it. The 2011 Budget provides for $159.3 billion for making people hate America, and Republicans can't figure out where to save $100 billion.

Okay, sorry for saying PBS when I meant NPR. Oh, I made a mistake. I am not perfect. I hope that doesn't meant that people will no longer read my posts. It wasn't snarky. I am sorry if you took it that way. It's just one example. I don't think that any of the news media or any company or person is mistake free. I guess I could have said that I didn't think that CBS or the New York TImes never made a mistake, but I was making a point of contrast between supposedly left wing leaning media source and a supposedly right wing leaning media source. Pam

It's very clear we need to reduce government spending. The numbers speak for themselves. Deciding where to cut is not easy. Personally, I think this is the perfect place to start. Why on earth should the government be funding public TV and radio? It may have made more sense back when there were three networks and limited radio stations. But with cable and the internet and satellite radio, there are seemingly endless media outlets. Please don't tell me you're signing this petition so you can watch Rick Steves on public TV. For the record, I'm assuming it's more than that. Obviously, we are all going to have to make sacrifices. Some of my favorite TV shows of all time are public TV shows (Sesame Street, This Old House, Masterpiece Theatre), and I love having a classical radio station with no commercials. But government has to spend less, and I say start here.

Bravo, Lee! Cannot agree more.

Lee, I LOVE YOU! :-) Great posts. I totally agree with you. And I love the sign you mentioned.

I agree with you too Lee!! :-)

"It may have made more sense back when there were three networks and limited radio stations. But with cable and the internet and satellite radio, there are seemingly endless media outlets." But, an important but I think, people have to pay for cable, internet access and satellite radio. A publicly funded media source is an equalizer. And before anyone says let people go to the public library for their internet access, guess what other publicly funded source of information is also always under budget attacks. I started paying attention to the pledge drives in my early 20s (Lordy, 25 years ago). The pitch was though majority of funds came from federal funding the viewer was an important minority source. These days the viewers are majority funders, and as much as some may say let only viewers who watch do the paying, just like public libraries, which some are too busy to use, these services are there for everyone, and the ones who do use them, can really need them.

"Please don't tell me you're signing this petition so you can watch Rick Steves on public TV." No, actually, I'm pretty disappointed in Rick. He hasn't made a new program on German travel since before the Reformation. However, I do believe in Freedom of Speech, and I feel public television is essential to exercising that freedom.

Not only do I watch travel shows on PBS, but also Nova, Nova Now, Frontline, Independent Lens, Masterpiece, American Masters, American Experience...There aren't any other programs like these on commercial television. Those in favor of doing away with PBS always point to TLC, A&E, History, etc. Are you kidding me??? The so called Learning Channel is all cakes and wedding dresses; A&E brings us Dog the Bounty Hunter; History tries to produce some good programs, but they are few and far between. As for travel shows, there's the Travel Channel the opponents of PBS say. True, and they even have some good ones; I like Samantha Brown and Anthony Bourdain, but how many shows are dedicated to people going around the country eating themselves sick? Every other one! Again, are you kidding me??? (And no, though it sounds like I watch a LOT of TV, I really don't. But I do like quality TV, and PBS gives us that :) ) Thanks Frank II!
Bravo Lee!

Bravo Penny.

Boy, you can sure tell it's the weekend!

Why don't the regular stations offer good, quality programming with documentaries, travel shows and so on? Does anyone ever contact their local stations and say, you know, this is what we all want to watch instead of one more crappy reality show. Why not start a local movement to get better programming at the local level? I kind of like listening to NPR, as it is a good balance to listening to AFN programming over here. As to PBS, can't say I ever watched anything on there, back in the day. Have never watched a Rick Steves show either except for the random clips that show up here. In fact, I had never heard of him until about 5 years ago. I am with James and Lee on this issue.

Already signed....love PBS and NPR... don't know what my grandkids would do without NPR... Science Friday, Car Guys, and don't know what I would do without Downton Abbey (Masterpiece Theatre)... if people think these are 'liberal agenda' they must have never watched MSNBC...I think NPR and PBS are 'fair and balanced.'

Jo, how can we listen to NPR over here? I kind of miss Prairie Home Companion. Oh yeah, AFN... don't get me started...

Tom, all of a Prairie Home Companion's shows are archived on their website. The newest shows are available a couple of days after broadcast. http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/

"I am with James and Lee on this issue." That's hilarious!

Care to clue the rest of us in on why you are so amused Randy? I often agree with many people on here about various issues, it doesn't mean I agree with them about every last thing they say. Heck, I occasionally agree with you too, just not quite as often as I do with people that live here or travel like I do. Lee travels like I do, but we disagree mightily about finding hotel rooms and taking tours. James, Tom, Nigel, Nancie, Beatrix, Cate, all are extremely familar with life here, as they live or have lived here. Living in Europe changes ones viewpoints on many things. So, please, why this is funny to you?

If Public TV's funding from Government dries up, one of two things will happen. Channels will keep operating with viewer support and foundation donations (as they claim the vast majority of their budgets currently come from). The Channels go away but every show with any ratings at all gets picked up by a network or cable outlet and continues to be broadcast. True that means a 22-25 minute half hour (networks do less commercials than cable) but have you timed one of Rick's shows?

Because Jo, unless I am mistaken (or you were referring to some other James or Lee), they are at polar opposites on this issue. So I found it amusing that you agreed with them both. I wasn't judging you. I was simply amused. The topic is not really "do you enjoy PBS" - it's about how it should be funded...

Thanks for the link, Frank. I just signed it. I completely agree with the need to reduce our gigantic debt, but PBS and NPR are not money hogs of government spending and cutting funding for them will not make that much of a difference. It seems that whichever party is in power wants to cut things that are the least important to them. A month ago I was hired for a part-time job after a year and a half of being unemployed after I graduated from school, so I know that things are still very bad. As for as the quality of programs that PBS and NPR present, they're unrivaled. NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show" spends 1 in-depth hour on 1 topic, something completely abhorrent to cable news shows. The majority of their audience would lose interest after 10 minutes, tops.

I remember the days when the commercial networks would pre-empt regular programming for documentaries and news events. Those days are long gone. If we didn't have NPR and PBS, we'd lose an important resource for news, culture, and public affairs. Seems to me every democratic country in the world maintains public broadcasting. I hope we continue to do as well.

I am a registered independent that votes based on issues. My political claim to fame is that I have never voted for a president who has won the election. That tells you that I am all over the place, politically. With that said, I pay attention to Fox News, mainly thru the website and not the channel. But what is on in my car is NPR. I listen to the shows and for classical music. One thing that I have noticed is how non-biased they are with the news. It is like a dream come true. When it comes to news reporting, it is as middle of the road as they come. Now on the other hand, there may be some liberal minded segments, when it comes to programming that includes interviews, book reviews, general talk....but the news itself is very unbiased....the way it should be......not based on opinion. It's another reason why I like BBC world news. I feel like I am getting facts and not God fearing conservative opinions or liberal nut job rantings when it comes to NPR. I signed the petition. To me, it is like schools being robbed of their arts programs. If you focus just on math, science, English, you might just become dry and boring. You need performing arts, music, and art to become colorful. It sucks that we get robbed of culture left and right, here in America. Which is another reason I am fascinated with my European travels.

"My political claim to fame is that I have never voted for a president who has won the election." Kelly, in that case I am praying your vote in 2012 is for Sarah Palin.

Kelly, I, too, really wish I could say the same. Unfortunately, I voted for Ronald Reagen in '80 and '84.

The issue reminds me of sitting on a United Way allocation panel years ago. We had to decide where to allocate the money available to us. I was one who voted to cut all funding for summer camps because I believed, while camps are great, it shouldn't be as high of priority as feeding people who are hungry. Others felt that camps were vital, even if it meant cutting food programs for the poor. I see this the same way, something needs to be cut. I like PBS but don't see it as a high funding priority when there are at least 150 other channels available to the public that don't get federal funding. Cut PBS, keep a safety net for people who truly need it.

I signed it. Thanks for posting it, Frank II.

Brad, you've created a false premise here. It's not a question of cutting PBS instead of the "safety net for people who truly need it". In fact I suspect you'll find that conservatives are proposing cutting a lot of the safety net, too. Our military establishment is wasting hundreds of billions on unnecessary military operations and we are cutting 400 million because we can't afford it? Didn't we learn any thing from the failures of the Soviets. They spend so much of their budget on trying to subdue the Afgans, while cutting things that the people really wanted, that the people finally said, "enough". Currently, the US expenditures for the military is nearly half (46.5%) of the world total, and, with France and UK, it's over half.

What a joke! We have a national debt of $14 trillion, an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion, and they want to cut a couple hundred million out of a $4 trillion budget? It's politics plain and simple...it has nothing to do with cutting the deficit. And the CPB receives only 15% of its budget from federal sources anyway. The Republicans can't stand the CPB, because they perceive NPR and PBS to be part of a socialist conspiracy. Clearly, anyone who has watched Nature, Arthur, or Clifford knows the commies are in charge of the CPB (Clifford is a big red dog after all). If the Republicans were serious about cutting the deficit, they would start with cutting defense. Close most of the bases in Germany for starters...last time I checked the Russians weren't poised to roll across the Fatherland in their T-54s. In fact, we could probably close half of the 700 bases in 63 countries without affecting national security in the least. Here's a crazy idea...we could leave Iraq and Afghanistan sometime in the 21st century and save a bundle. Perhaps a little less time posting photos on Craigslist and a little more time listening to the advice of those who have real experience with managing an economy is in order. Where's Robert Reich when you need him? Oh, never mind...he's at Communist Party headquarters over at Berkeley.

The DEA, which is not authorized in the constitution and has not been effective since it's founding, has a budget of 1.2 billion. But they are a safety net for tobacco sales.

But Michael (Des Moines), there is a program made specifically for the far right..."Barney and Friends." Now, before you laugh, think about it. Much of the that group does not believe in evolution and prefers the theories of "intelligent design"--aka creationism. They believe dinosaurs and man co-existed on the planet. And that show proves it. So, if anything, you'd think they want to continue funding such a wonderful program aimed at children that discounts science.

When I hear people say this or that is being funded and has not be approved in the Constitution, I have to laugh. The same reason PBS can be funded is the same reason DEA can be funded. Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Welfare being the key word. It has been defined as:
health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. It is so broad ranged that in can include almost anything.

I'm more reminded of when I worked as a product engineer for a manufacturing company. I was tasked with the job of reducing the cost of a product. I knew cutting the cost of a $10 item was going to be more effective than cutting the cost of a 2¢ item. Using Pareto Principal, I ordered all the components in the product from the most expensive to the least expensive, then I started with the top of the list. We are contractually obligated to fund Social Security and Medicare. That would be like cutting your budget by not paying the gas bill. Next biggest item, military operations (I don't believe you can call it "defense"), and you can't claim there isn't a lot of fat there. Do we really need an alternate engine for the F-35 (do we even need an F-35)?

Wow, I'm so glad there are intelligent people like Frank and Lee on here to remind us how stupid and ignorant people who don't agree with their politics are. So much for tolerance I guess.

I agree with Lee and others who say cut the budget, but elsewhere. I have no doubt there are plenty of pet projects and excess expenditures that benefit far fewer people than do NPR and PBS. The budget problem is less a lack of money than it is people spending it sensibly. I signed.

Guess we are joing Rick in his 'liberal agenda'. Lee... what was it about Reagan? Good acting? I unfortunately did the same stupid thing in the 80s! Also, spent all day in the car yesterday driving to the east coast listening to NPR and didn't hear too much 'liberal propaganda.'

Really, Rik, what are my politics? I happen to be a moderate/centrist who believes in the free flow of information and has gone after both those to the far right and those to the far left. Why are the extremists on both ends so afraid of other ideas being discussed? Why is it their way is the only way?

Wasn't the part about "avoiding foreign entanglements" part of Geo. Washington's farewell speech?

There's now an addendum. The Republicans had originally wanted to stop funding PBS/NPR beginning in 2013. Today, they included 2012.....the budget they are now debating. If you really hate the idea of funding, and your Representative is a Democrat, then I suggest you contact them and tell them you don't want a penny going to this. If your representative is a Republican, you don't have to bother as it is unanimous amongst the party. If you want funding to continue, you many want to contact your Representative to let them know how you feel. BTW, not all Democrats have come out for funding. So there, you choose whichever side you want to be on.

The funding issue really should be apolitical, but the Republicans in Congress made it political way back in the 90s and have kept it political since. Initially, they didn't like the Teletubbies, because they thought one of them to be gay, and they didn't like Bill Moyers because of his activism. Newt Gingrich went after public broadcasting, and the rest is history. It's funny how they'll continue to focus on such non-issues as funding for the CPB when the country is literally falling apart (remember the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis). They'll waste more money talking about defunding the CPB than the CPB will actually receive in a year. And what about all of those tens of thousands of people who work for the production companies? I guess some secondary benefits of government programs (like employment) only apply when giving money to the for-profit corporations that get people elected (e.g. bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler). Bailouts are okay, but a few dollars for the CPB isn't? I guess the next time I watch Masterpiece, I'll need to double-check on Mr. Dorrit's politics.

Frank, perhaps I should have said "beliefs" in general; more specifically, your post about the Barney show was pretty condescending at best, petty and immature at worst. Just because someone is a certain religion and leans right politically, does not automatically make them an ignorant, uneducated, backwards redneck who refuses to believe in science and spends their life clinging to their religion and guns.

I got an email this afternoon from the powers that be at ETBD that Rick was aware of this posting and would be blogging about it. It's now been uploaded to his blog.

If you are on Facebook, there is another whole discussion going on over there, with an article by Rick. Jump into the fun! Try and decide who is right, try and change the minds of those who are wrong. That is what all this is boiling down to. Raise your hand if your opinions about ANYTHING have been changed by these discussions. Inquiring minds want to know.

...and now that SEVERAL of you have shown your arses, I vote to close this thread. The OP has put forth his information (although in a politically charged way that wasn't necessary for the thread), so you can sign the petition or not. Since the ummm, 'discussions', don't concern the original post (except, perhaps, the politics within the OP), let's put this one out of its misery. We thank you.

About 10 years ago, there was a proposal in Congress to levy a quarter percent tax on ad revenue from all commercial radio/tv/cable broadcasters. It was estimated that the money collected from this tax would quadruple the current budgets for NPR/PBS and their affiliates. They would no longer have to rely on corporate underwriting, do away with pledge drives, and not become become a political hot-potato every few years (in theory). It was modeled after something similar in Europe. Obviously this proposal died, and history is now repeating itself..........oh well wadda u gonna do;)

I am the OP. My political leanings are centrist/moderate. I am all for the free flow of information. I do not believe in extremism from either side but want to hear real information, not one sided pundits. Unfortunately, there are some, and those are mostly to the far right, who are afraid of this. They only want to hear what they believe. And anyone who disagrees with them must be a far left pinko. I'm also fascinated by the fact that those the most upset by this live outside the U.S. In my original posting I neither mentioned conservative nor liberal, democrat nor republican. I stated fact. The current House leadership has released a budget that does away with funding to PBS/NPR. The previous house leadership never did. What wording should I have used? I neither watch nor listen to NPR or PBS news. I now get the majority of my news directly from the wire services..AP and Reuters..which seem to stay unbiased. They just report facts. I also ignore CNN, MSNBC and Fox as nothing more than punditry. However, I do watch quite a bit of cultural and entertainment programming on PBS that is not available anywhere else. And what's wrong with actually having programming that doesn't include bickering wives or people willing to make fools of themselves just to appear on TV? Are we to only have programming that dumbs down our nation? And to those who attack me for making this political or anti-one party....why didn't you attack those who started making this thread political? Is it because they agreed with you and that's okay. You only attack those who believe something different? PBS' varied programming really offers something for everyone. Unless, of course, you are so afraid that your brain will explode if you dared to watch something of value. (con't)

But here's the key...and let me put it in persepctive....the current funding of PBS costs each of us $1.50/year. That's right. Half the price of one designer coffee. Are you telling me that's too much to pay for a year of programming? So, let's say you're a family of 4. That would be $6/year. What does it cost to take them all to a two hour movie?

"They would no longer have to rely on corporate underwriting, do away with pledge drives," If that happens, then a big hole would open up in Rick Steves' schedule. He seems like the type who doesn't let a minute go to waste, so I wonder what he would do with that time?

Speaking of the BBC, does current House leadership really want to force us to go over to the BBC when they cut off funding for the CPB? Better yet, maybe we'll have to start watching (God forbid) Al Jazeera English on Free Speech TV online. If you've ever watched their programming, you already know that it's basically a clone of the BBC, so there's really nothing political or anti-American about it. They even have an Al Jazeera Kids, just like gold-old PBS. We'll all have to blame the Republicans for forcing us to Al Jazeera. :)

If everybody who watches PBS paid for it, there would probably be no need for government money to keep it going. I believe that in Britain people pay a fee to watch TV, the BBC anyway. I've watched Al Jazeera TV while in Europe. It seems a lot like CNN.

NPR, Al Jazeera...tomato, tomahto... Calm down, it was a joke.

Causation: A always leads to B Correlation: A can be shown to be linked (in large part or in small part or in any measure in between) to B For example, it can be shown that there is a correlation between living in trailer parks and lung cancer. If you hypersensitive about your beloved trailer home, then you might bravely try to call me nasty names and point out how absurd such a connection must be. Or, you could stop and think for a minute and realize that folks who live in trailer homes are more likely than the general population to smoke - leading to lung cancer. ...not that I expect this little tutorial to make any difference at all. And now that we have strayed so far from the topic at hand as to be almost comical, I vote to end the silliness, too...

Hello everyone. I've just spent too much time cleaning out this thread. There was a lot of bickering. There still is some left, but it's not worth the time. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS THREAD CLOSED. If you would like to continue the conversation, be sure to check out Rick's article that USA Today is picking up. It should be live with them very soon. Thank you.

I always liked PBS but I grew to Love it even more after my Sister-in-Law told me that one couldn't trust what one saw on PBS because Nova said the Earth was millions of years old when everyone knows it's only 6,000 years old! I signed the petition a couple of weeks ago. I believe it also sends your comments to your congressmen. My comment was that PBS was the best FREE source of quality programming such as Nova, Nature, Masterpiece Theatre, Ken Burns Documentaries, Travel documentaries, children's programmin and general news programming. You can also put a link to the website on your Facebook page if you are so inclined.

While Sandi's comments are very nice, I must reiterate that this thread is closed. PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY FURTHER ON THIS THREAD. Your post will be removed if you do so. Thank you.