PBS supposedly gets only 15% of funding from the government, which is a number I don't believe. The rest comes from "viewers like you," or, more accurately, "local corporations looking for easy ways to score points on their community service charter." Ideally, PBS shouldn't receive any funds from the government, thereby abolishing any shred of influence they could exert over programming. No one in this country would trust a newspaper published by the White House (although most media is instead run by bright-eyed young morons fresh out of journalism school)... so why have a state-run television station.

I think we need to step back and examine what the American public actually gets out of PBS. Not a whole hell of a lot. It's an old, dying concept. In the days before cable, yeah, PBS often stepped up with shows that you simply could not get anywhere else... some of them actually worth watching. They had the monopoly on safe kids programming; the only venue for Americans to see entertainment shows from England and Canada; art, cooking and DIY shows that became household names; plus documentaries, theatre, global exploration... an impressive schedule all around. Now, everything PBS used to do, somebody else does better. HGTV, Food Network, Nickelodeon, TLC, The History Channel, Bravo, BBC America. The only price we pay is commercials.

PBS lost it all the same way your local stations lost their historical beachheads of programming: movies and reruns. Cable took all of that away, slowly but surely. Cable - nee variety, choice, and convenience - is what America wants, leaving PBS and local stations struggling to find something, anything that people will watch. The local affiliates at least have local news... PBS has nothing.

(Speaking of local stations, I'm intensely annoyed that PBS doesn't have to air the FCC-mandated TV ratings. As if PBS programming is somehow magically appropriate for all ages at all times!)

If PBS disappeared, Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow and all the other kids shows would gladly be snapped up by The Disney Channel or Nick. Either one could easily put together their own "family friendly" kids network by combining some of their existing shows with the PBS library. The only reason PBS still gets cred with parents is because everything is done soft, no Power Rangers action or Pokemon selling, so it is a more trusted babysitter than other kids nets. Other networks would - and do - recreate that safe feeling. As for whatever else PBS still has exclusively, same situation. Hell, most of PBS's classic shows - This Old House, Monty Python - jumped to cable long ago.

And as far as PBS's legendary advertising snottiness goes, that ship not only sailed, it was painted like a circus, packed with cotton candy, and charges $5 admission. PBS's successful kids brands are just as prevalent in Toys R Us as the so-called "half hour toy commercials" found anywhere else. What the holier-than-thou types failed to realize decades ago was that people want to buy things. You may not be watching Clifford and getting a blatant Thomas the Tank Engine commercial halfway through, but both shows have plenty of merchandise staring at your kids whenever they enter any store anywhere. What's the difference? At least one of them is honest about it.

I've seen Sesame Street lately. There's commercials on after it, just like anywhere else. Just shorter ones.

Does Levar Burton honestly believe that Reading Rainbow couldn't do as much good on a kids' cable channel? Or even as syndicated product on a local station? Is PBS the only acceptable outlet for Dragon Tales, Nova, and Julia Child?

And the pledge drives... PBS has been making their ongoing failure public for so long that everyone just assumes they will continue to always be just $50 away from falling off the planet. And with dwindling viewership, the drives have become even more desparate... you're enlisted for life as soon as you give them $25, forever on the rolls for direct mail and phone calls.

I just don't see a need for it at all. PBS has been outmoded. I'd rather see the government's money spent on items that aren't duplicated up and down the dial. I'd rather see local money put toward more effective means. I'd rather not have to put up with the snotty attitude of PBSers who think their entertainment is somehow better than anything else out there. It is increasingly hard to justify the existence of PBS, and the whole original purpose of it was co-opted decades ago.

For the record, I also think local non-PBS stations are on the chopping block (just not as close to the blade) for many of the same reasons. Why have them at all? is the question. You don't think NBC wouldn't rather just become cable-only and skip the local affiliates entirely? There's no need to worry about losing antenna viewers, they're all dead. The only thing local stations can offer is local news... and how many of those do you really need, per market? Everything else is just a negotiation away from moving somewhere else. The Simpsons to Adult Swim. Wheel of Fortune to GSN.

Yeah, I'm talking myself right out of my job... but I think it is inevitable. Were it not for local advertising, it would have happened already. Thankfully (for my career, anyway), there is a need for local companies to advertise on local stations, the lack of which is the big reason why PBS is habitually addicted to life support. And as long as the local cable outlets continue to do a terrible job of local spot production, local TV stations can thrive on video production, as well as promotion of the shows that haven't bailed to cable, and by trading on the local brand name of the stations themselves. At least two of those, however, are losing battles.