Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
James--
 
I take it you're in Cincinnati (have a Hudy Delight for me).  Just kidding!
 I'm in Chicago now, but originally from the stellar southern Ohio area.
 
Anyway, back to PBS.  Everyone is probably going to slam me for this, but I
think PBS is pretty much obsolete.  They give "educational TV" the bad rap it
currently enjoys with most of America, i.e. the programming is extremely dry
and definitely not entertaining at all.  For example, A & E, and many other
cable channels show much more interesting, well-made historical documentaries
which people watch for entertainment, not because they're compelled to watch
(for a class assignment, for example).  PBS could have a place in the media
array if it actually programmed the challenging fare (politically and
otherwise) that it theoretically could, being "public" TV, rather than
relying on advertisers.  An example is the program "Image Union" on Chicago's
channel 11 which shows work by independent film/videomakers (everything from
political documentaries to animation).  However, a large portion of PBS's
money comes from huge corporate "sponsors," therefore what really is the
difference between that and straight forward advertising dollars?  I'm sorry
for the rant (I'm not sure if this is what the discussion was really supposed
to be about since I came in on the middle).
 
--Amy