The following, a glaring example of your cluelessness, having to do with Governor Bob McDonnell's call for ending state support for public television, is beyond boneheaded:
Again, the governor has PBS in his sightsWhere to start?
[Governor McDonnell] proposes cutting $2 million in each of the next two fiscal years to phase out state support. With so many "content providers" in today's media marketplace, he argues, it just doesn't make sense to use taxpayer dollars to give one a competitive edge.
This is a tired argument that conservatives have accepted unquestioningly for many years, but it simply is not true.
Public television and radio stations do not compete with private broadcasters for advertisers. They do compete for viewers, with content driven not by its commercial appeal, but its value to education and public service.
With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than advertiser expectations, public broadcasting has carved out a unique niche to become, as McDonnell himself acknowledged, "a wonderful resource, providing quality programming." [link]
1) "This is a tired argument that conservatives have accepted unquestioningly for many years." Wrong on both counts. The argument is not tired (see below) and conservatives, by their nature, question everything. See the six year history of "From on High."
2) "Public television and radio stations do not compete with private broadcasters for advertisers. They do compete for viewers, with content ..." What?! I've got news for you woefully uninformed twits: While it's true that public television station managers don't "compete" for advertisers (they compete with Medicaid for taxpayer funding), private stations, in fact, "do compete for viewers" too. You see, the number of viewers - here's a shock! - determine whether or not advertisers flock to a particular station. So, in reality, private owners aren't really competing for advertising either. It's all about body count.
I've been a purchaser of advertising on a pretty large scale. The first things I wanted to know, when I sat down with advertising managers for a station, are reach, penetration, and demographics (and then cost). It was my job to deliver open wallets to my employer. And lots of them. Viewers/listeners are what we are all about. Did stations profit from any ad buy that I made? Certainly. Did my company profit from the size of the station's listening audience? See how this works?
3) "With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than ..." Really? Public television has a mission? What incentive do public stations have to produce anything? "Public needs"? If public television or radio were working successfully to satisfy public needs, wouldn't those stations have an audience? And if they have an audience, why couldn't Virginia's taxpayers ask (demand) that they stand on their own and stop robbing us of our children's college education fund? Could it be that PBS really has no audience beyond the small set of effete snobs who occasionally tune in? What does the lack of viewership say about their ability to satisfy that public need?
4) "With a mission to meet identifiable public needs, rather than advertiser expectations ..." I've got a news flash for you people, from Marketing 101: All "advertiser expectations" involve meeting "public needs."
Remember "Air America"? Neither does anyone else. Had it not had to compete for listeners, like PBS doesn't, it too would still be around serving no real purpose and meeting the needs of ... well, except for the same handful of PBS loving people who want us to believe that it's vital to our national interests, no one. Where were the Democrats and our tax money when that jewel was going under?
5) In truth, every provider of news, information, and entertainment on this planet has a mission "to meet identifiable public needs." Or they go out of business. But not PBS. It's on the public dole. It just needs a good lobbyist. And a few effete snobs who write duncish editorials about the virtues of a worthless segment of a medium that is, on the whole, resplendent in its offerings and hugely successful at "meeting public needs."