PUBLIC BROADCASTING
As things stand, is funding warranted?
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum laments proposals to cut government subsidies to public radio and television ("We get smart with public broadcasting," Feb. 28). She cites especially the unbiased news and cultural programming that they provide.
These features (news and cultural programming) may be worthwhile.
In the past decade, however, much of public broadcasting's programming has been changed and has become essentially the same as that available from commercial stations.
There's cooking, travel, science, financial advice, do-it-yourself and pop psychology programming. Public radio's talk-show programming (which is largely not unbiased) is also redundant with options found on commercial radio.
The seeming absence of advertising is nice, but public television is certainly moving toward "commercials."
The extended recognition of a show's sponsor often exceeds the 15 to 30 seconds that some commercial advertisers deem long enough.
Also, the "previews" that take up five minutes or more between shows are tiresome and inconsistent with "commercial-free" programming.
McCollum fears a "dumb" decision. A decision with that attribute was made when public broadcasting started deviating from its roots.