----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
The long-running thread here about whether or not the
government/tax-payers should be spending money on tv
programming has been extremely helpful in helping me
form more focused opinions.  But more a tangible, and
therefore influential, event has started me on really
re-thinking about my earlier dogma of supporting publicly
funded programs to the bitter end.
 
I watch a *lot* of public television.  I love it.  But,  it also was
the only free station that showed what I wanted to watch
because I don't watch sitcoms, sports, drama serials,
newsmagine programs or talk shows (okay, one or
two).  I also don't have the personal resources to pay
for a quality cable station like Bravo (in my area they were
asking something like $18 a month for Bravo).  But now,
in the nick of time, Bravo is being offered free in my cable
tv service area.
 
Well, this seems like a smart move on the part of Bravo and/or
the cable company, because if they can offer the service free
and a lot of people watch it, they can ask for big money in
advertising costs from the same corporate giants who
finance the programming on PBS.  I would support PBS
being sold to someone (preferably *not* Murdoch) on the
condition that the government regulate it heavily, which is
my liberalism showing.  We'd just be spending the same
money on the regulatory agency instead of the Public
Broadcasting System.