PBS should heed Romney's example for budget cutting
One guess for the first budget cut if Mitt Romney gets to be president?
Big Bird. Who'd have thought it?
Public television and radio can't say they weren't warned. They've been a sacred cow for a half-century or more, a legislative untouchable beloved by liberals, right up there with the farm bill and Social Security. (In Pittsburgh think blameless, exemplary, invaluable station WQED. Who could dare suggest an organizational shake-up?)
The Republican candidate must wish he could take back what he said. Too explicit. That's risky for office-seekers. In last week's presidential debate, he was asked where he'd cut the budget — be specific now! — and he spouted the first thing (probably) that came to his head.
Now he's not apt to get it out of everybody else's head.
Just recall former President George H.W. Bush's catastrophic pledge (which he broke) to raise no new taxes. “Read my lips,” he said. The public did.
Romney menaced Big Bird specifically, though with a smile. He “loves” Big Bird, he said, the fun-figure of educational “Sesame Street” that helps keep kids in front of the box. Takes all the scare out of reading, writing and ‘rithmetic, a friendly bird does.
But talk about scary prospects for the nation these kids will grow up in. Getting control of a $16 trillion national debt has to start somewhere, said Romney. The Public Broadcasting System must go.
From one point of view, this is swatting a fly.
If PBS went dark tomorrow, the federal government would lose scarcely a step in its rush towards bankruptcy. What's $1 billion a year, if even that, for taxpayer-funded broadcasting against a budget shortfall growing at over $1 trillion annually? A trillion is 1,000 billions.
On the other hand, why do we need “government broadcasting” (with all the potential of Big Brotherly propaganda) in a marketplace of hundreds, thousands of cable channels and other electronic pathways? Every kind of content almost certainly would make it to the air, somehow.
Ah, but what would happen to quality, such a slender reed to stand against the profit motive?
Who would broadcast the Metropolitan Opera or the great orchestras? The Nutcracker or Christmas Carol in December? And high-quality public affairs programming in all seasons?
But has anybody noticed that the Met already beams live opera into movie theaters? That commercial stations in other cities broadcast classical music and make money at it? And that “Sesame Street” is an entertainment and licensing empire (estimated at $200 million) bound to find a new home on cable should PBS lose its lease on the taxpayer pocketbook.
It hasn't escaped notice that public television originally took pride itself on taking no commercials (yet learned to drive its viewers up the wall with “pledge periods” for donations). Now it airs commercials in “good taste,” although with clear intent to move public opinion, from the likes of BP Oil and BNSF Railway.
Commercial broadcasters can't be so numb to opportunity that they'd fail to buy the best PBS programming if it came up for sale.
Lingering suspicions about the liberal, big-government slant of PBS News would be dispelled for good. So why not privatize?
Romney is right on this one. Bet he's sorry he scared Big Bird, though.
Jack Markowitz is a columnist on Thursdays for Trib Total Media. Email him at email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.