Earlier this week, I posted my thoughts on the proposed cuts in government funding for public broadcasting. USA Today liked my article and wanted to run it as an exclusive op-ed in Thursday’s edition, so I temporarily removed it from my blog. In order to fit the confines of their printed pages, it was edited down to what you see on their website. Below is my original, full-length version.
Congress is dealing with this issue imminently. If you are concerned, please contact your member of Congress today with a phone call or email.
————–
Our government spends $430 million a year on public broadcasting…less than the $500 million that (according to the Washington Post) it spends each year for marching bands in our military. With our current frenzy to cut the fat out of government, nothing is sacred ‘ except, apparently, non-essential expenses for the military. This puts marching bands on solid financial footing, while public broadcasting is facing the budget ax.
I’m certainly not anti-band. I actually transferred universities in order to play in a top-notch marching band. (In fact, every thirty years or so, I get out the old sousaphone to channel John Phillip Sousa.) But I believe non-commercial media that respects the electorate’s intelligence, assumes an attention span, and can produce content with no regard to advertiser interests is important to the fabric of our society and to the strength of our democracy.
Of course, I am part of public broadcasting. I produce radio and television shows that air across the nation on public broadcasting stations. While I could charge stations to air the shows I produce, I’d rather offer my TV and radio programs to the system for free (though, of course, my business benefits from the exposure I get). Therefore, I fund my own shows, then try to get underwriting from corporations (such as American Airlines, to whom I am grateful). My underwriters support my work, but do not dictate content. This allows me to introduce my viewers and listeners to the world I actually experience, rather than a version of the world shaped by the need to sell something. On TV, I can take viewers inside Iran to talk with everyday people, or to the Swiss Alps to celebrate Christmas, without wondering, “Will this offend advertisers?” On the radio, I can talk to the drug czar of Portugal about innovative drug policies, or to a gay activist in Lebanon, without sheltering our audience from thoughts that might get them out of their comfort zone.
But the value of public broadcasting in our society is much more important than being able to enjoy travel shows that aren’t shills for the mainstream tourism industry. Public broadcasting subsidizes news that is less exciting, but more insightful ‘ produced by journalists rather than entertainers…pursuing the truth, rather than advertising. Public television makes possible non-commercial children’s programming that is not shaped by people who sell our kids toys. And public broadcasting keeps culture alive even when it is not a commercial hit. Rather than lowering our society’s intellectual bar, it challenges us to be engaged. Public broadcasting inspires America to be smart. Of course, some will say, “Leave it to the marketplace.” But that’s just the point: Government-subsidized broadcasting makes possible media outside the marketplace and our society needs that for its own good.
Our society spends one-2,000th of a trillion dollars on providing the seed funds to make non-commercial broadcasting possible in our otherwise very commercial world. Public broadcasting requires much more money than that, which it gets from its audience through contributions and from corporate citizens through underwriting. Government funding is only about a tenth of what it takes to run public broadcasting in our country, but it enables this slice of our culture to exist. Does the American public ‘ which generates $13 trillion of wealth each year ‘ understand the cost to our society of sacrificing public broadcasting (to save less than $2 per citizen) in the name of fiscal restraint? (To learn more, visit www.170millionamericans.org. To make a difference, contact your member of Congress.)
I believe cutting government funding for public broadcasting would result in huge costs to our society ‘ even to people who find PBS or NPR threatening and annoying. You can make a very good case that, considering the complex and unprecedented challenges facing our nation today, programming like Sesame Street, All Things Considered, and public broadcasting’s trademark brand of quality independent journalism are actually important to our national security interests. Yes, marching bands can stir our troops to valor. But shouldn’t we find the resources, even in challenging economic times, to stir our minds to action as well?
By Rick Steves, host and producer of Rick Steves’ Europe on public television and Travel with Rick Steves on public radio.
If you can’t see the video below, watch it on YouTube.
Rick Hooray for the last bastion of truth and impartial information! I support NPR and PBS as a vitial contribution to American information, free of spin and commercialism.
Posted by: Howdy – Feb 14, 2011 6:26 PM
Cut out both of them and then move on to the other wasteful spending in our federal government. There are many and much larger. These two are easy.
Posted by: travelbug – Feb 14, 2011 6:28 PM
@Howdy: NPR? Free of spin?! I think Juan Williams would heartily disagree with you! Nice try…
Posted by: Thomas Elliot – Feb 14, 2011 9:38 PM
Rick, you truly are the best person in the world.
Posted by: Judy – Feb 14, 2011 10:07 PM
I agree with Thomas. If a communication organization is to receive “public” funds, it has an obligation for its news services to represent all of the public and not just a small minority. When it fails to do so and practices censorship, it has forfeited the trust that comes with the funds. Those who support their censorship can continue to donate voluntarily and not forced to through taxes.
Posted by: Alan S. – Feb 15, 2011 12:17 AM
More and more I’m concluding that I’m living in the wrong country. If only I thought the dollar would hold up (my pension is paid in dollars) I’d de-emigrate!
Posted by: Kathy_C – Feb 15, 2011 1:16 AM
Public television and radio is the only decent media out there. I cannot believe how bad and destructive regular television is. I am so glad my kids are all grown up and worry about my grandkids, I will see things and think what would I do if a little kid was sitting here right now. Most of it is mentally and emotionally damaging. But education is another thing that our society feels it doesn’t have to be responsable to pay for either. We have such self destructive attitudes in this country. “not my problem” The question is who is really the ones that are cutting this money.
Posted by: Judy – Feb 15, 2011 6:00 AM
Before jumping on Anybody’s band wagon I suggest readers read Glenn Kessler’s article in the Washington Post which fact checks what the politicians propose to cut and the effect it will have. Nobody wants his own ox gored, just the other guy’s. The article is titled: The Budget Battle of 2011; Deja Vu All Over Again. It was posted on Valentine’s Day and printed 15 Feb. Many of us have strong feelings about how we want tax dollars spent (or not spent). But try to convince 150 million taxpayers to agree. What we experience 24/7 in the US is political posturing and pandering to many special interests of which we are all members: mortgage interest rate tax deduction takers; retirees; military members; FICA payers; FICA recipents; the poor; the rich; corporations; small businesses; churches; tax preparers; charitable organizations; federal employees; Seattle Sea Hawks fans. It hasn’t changed since 1776: Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax that man behind the tree!!!
Posted by: Bill K – Feb 15, 2011 6:21 AM
Some may complain that they don’t want a minuscule fraction of their tax dollars funding public broadcasting, because some of its shows tend to espouse political viewpoints they don’t personally support. (OK, I can see why someone may be bugged by Bill Moyers or Frontline…or even, if we’re splitting hairs, Rick Steves. But come on: Sesame Street, Rick Bayless, Antiques Roadshow, Nova, This Old House…who can’t get behind those shows?!) Personally, I was deeply disturbed that vast amounts of my tax dollars were used to fund the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention government-sanctioned torture in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The point is, nobody agrees 100 percent with what their tax dollars are funding, but that does not mean it shouldn’t be funded. Rick makes a strong case here that, particularly considering the pittance we’re talking about, public broadcasting is certainly deserving of some government love.
Posted by: CH – Feb 15, 2011 10:13 AM
NPR funding is primarily through private donations. This entire discussion is only about 6% direct and 10% indirect government funding. See http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html for details.
Posted by: Alan S.- Feb 15, 2011 10:13 AM
Hurrah for Rick Steves! Not only does he “get” what public radio and television are all about, he can still actually PLAY a tune on his college band instrument…unlike me who needs to start over with “C” scales…
Posted by: Virginia- Feb 15, 2011 11:06 AM
Whatever happens please do not sell your soul to the Travel Channel!
Posted by: Catherine- Feb 15, 2011 11:16 AM
Being a Marine, I enjoy the Marine Corps Band but I would rather see less of them and more PBS even with the fraction of political shows. There are some wonderful and educational shows for kids and adults. I occasionally listen to NPR mostly for its classical music but I would hate to see that go also. Marching Bands are one place to start fewer trips using Airforce One, House and Senate cars and plane is another there are plenty of ways to cut spending. Send me to Guantanamo Bay for some nude frolicking and water boarding before you send me over seas to have my head cut off ;)
Posted by: Sam- Feb 15, 2011 11:30 AM
Perhaps Congress should divert the funds budgeted for the CPB into the defense budget. It would pay for less than one day of waging war in Iraq. http://costofwar.com/en/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102074.html
Posted by: Lee- Feb 15, 2011 12:28 PM
One needs to weigh all sides of any issue before making an intelligent, well-informed decision: http://zzoottland.blogspot.com/2011/02/future-of-public-broadcasting.html
Posted by: zzoott- Feb 16, 2011 4:52 AM
I am very suspicious that someone (or some group) has a political axe to grind. I wonder how many of the new representatives in the House would jump at the chance to publically finance the republican news channel as long as it kept the same management and political leaning it now has at Fox. Ch has it right. There are many things that my government supports with my tax money that I don’t agree with. Public TV offers a lot valuable programming for children and adults. Some in Congress ignore this and, instead, attack NPR just because it tries to take a non-partisan stance and present both sides of a political issue.
Posted by: Ron- Feb 16, 2011 6:07 AM
Thank for posting your thoughts Steve. I agree with many, not all (Thomas, travelbug, and Alan specifically) about the value of PBS and CPB. There is too much bias in the news (especially cable news). NPR and PBS leaves out much of it so that you can actually get the real news.
Posted by: Knows Better – Feb 16, 2011 8:50 AM
Steve- I’ve always greatly enjoyed your shows and I respect your candor to keep the stations that have disseminated them across the masses alive. However, I believe that public broadcasting can survive or even possibly emerge stronger as a consequence of removing government funding. My reasoning is described below: It would seem that one of the key pillars of your argument is that commercial funding or lack thereof strongly impacts the presence of special interests in television programming. On this point, I emphatically agree. However, to what extent can we say that the government itself is not driven by special interests, at least to some degree? If we truly want to be able to describe PBS, NPR, et al. as unbiased disseminators of information and outlets for quality programming for the people, would not a funding base that draws primarily, if not wholly from the American people be the best solution? Further, if the current level of government funding truly amounts to approximately $2.00 per citizen, wouldn’t it be far more meaningful and significant for public broadcasting to have received said investments of financial capital directly from the pocketbooks of the hardworking men and women of America? Just some food for thought…
Posted by: Wayne – Feb 16, 2011 2:41 PM
…and nice skills with the sousaphone.
Posted by: Wayne – Feb 16, 2011 2:43 PM
I lived in GA back in 2004. Sometime during mid October or late October GA Public radion had a segment of their probram which was called Book Notes(I think). So what book did they feature during October in an election year? Garrison Keillor “Why I’m a Democrat.” Right then I decided I will never send money to NPR. They can compete like everyone else.
Posted by: Bobby A – Feb 16, 2011 6:35 PM
It amazes me that some of those who decent here claim that PBS needs to equally represent “both sides” and compete with commercial broadcasting. But since those who are on the right tend to promote capitalism in all things, they should realize that their side is already well represented with commercial and cable broadcasting. Democracy doesn’t mean that the majority always wins. It means that the minority is protected. The government helps protect our right to alternative broadcasting. Let public broadcasting keep it’s measly government funds for those of us in the minority (?) who can’t spend $99 a month on cable, and for those of us in the minority (?) who enjoy Garrison Keillor and Rick Steves and Ken Burns and Jim Lehrer and Big Bird. Thanks for your insight, Steve.
Posted by: LeftyLucy – Feb 17, 2011 6:24 AM
I am a pretty conservative dude, but what I don’t get is why DOD spending is always considered untouchable. There is as much if not more waste there than in the other programs. I am anti government waste in all areas not just the social ones.
Posted by: Paul – Feb 17, 2011 11:01 AM
March on, Rick! I’m right behind you — alas, no baton, but I’ll do my best with the pompoms! Beautifully stated.
Posted by: Jeanie – Feb 17, 2011 11:54 AM
I like a lot of what’s on public broadcasting, but it’s not a necessity. Our government is flat broke. That’s the reality. Until it is not broke, we need to cut things that are nice to have but are unnecessary. Public broadcasting is one of those things. It should be cut to zero, along with many other programs.
Posted by: Hispa – Feb 17, 2011 1:40 PM
There are many things produced by Public Broadcasting I enjoy, that is why I have made donations. I also enjoy Greek yogurt but I do not ask the government to pay for it. PB should be funded by those who enjoy it, not the entire tax paying population. If it is needed it will survive without public funding. To those of you not paying attention, this country is bankrupt. I would much rather see the nation survive than Sesame Street!!
Posted by: KenK – Feb 17, 2011 2:00 PM
Hi Rick, I watch your show all the time. Your blog just informed me that you’re on public radio, too. I’ll have to check that out. However, I had no idea that you provided your shows gratis. That’s outstanding. Like you, I was a band geek in high school. I still play my sax in a community concert band. Also like you, I host a show on radio. I am a volunteer show host (and Late Night Coordinator) at a small community public radio station, an NPR affiliate station. It is a privilege that I value, especially since the music I present is far from the mainstream. Federal funding enables this type of activity and is a very small slice of the federal budget pie. It would behoove us all if Congress would trim the fat from the large ticket items first before cutting the small stuff. Yes, the budget for public broadcasting is penny ante but it is also big bang for the buck, enabling important freedom for commercial interests and pressures. I have been active at spreading the word regarding the proposed funding cuts for public broadcasting. As the volunteer administrator of WDIY’s MySpace page, I hope I’ve had an impact for positive change. I am glad to see that you’re voicing your opinion on this important issue. Cheers, Bill P.S. I have been to Europe nine times. I can’t get enough!
Posted by: Bill Fox – Feb 17, 2011 3:03 PM
Oops, I found a typo in my post: …freedom FROM commercial interests and pressures.
Posted by: Bill Fox – Feb 17, 2011 3:05 PM
It amazes me that very conservatives don’t want their money spent on anything. But they are turning down things that would benefit them too. And to live in a society with uneducated people would be an awful thing for everyone. The bad stuff really does trickle down too.
Posted by: Judy – Feb 17, 2011 3:30 PM
I’m sorry. I know I will be thrashed for saying this. I am a former PBS employee. There are simply too many PBS stations in this country. As a result, the market is watered-down and there is little quality in the productions of public broadcasting. Here is an appropriate analogy. A family of 4 owns twelve cars. They pay upkeep and insurance on all twelve of them. They are struggling to make ends meet. The most they can drive at any one time is 4 of the 12, and yet for some reason they try to justify keeping all 12 vehicles. It is simply foolish. The federal government needs to become more efficient, not keep throwing money at over-inflated programs. The station I worked for is being run into the ground. The productions are cheap (in quality, not production cost) and only have the tiniest of regular audiences. If it were not for government handouts, they would have shut down years ago. This is NOT what Public Broadcasting was intended to be.
Posted by: Martin_D – Feb 17, 2011 4:47 PM
It’s amazing how superfluous and overblown many of these comments are. You get the idea from reading these that by trimming some dollars from the public broadcasting budget, America is going to sink to the Dark Ages. The fact is that public broadcasting is grossly overweight and needs to go on a diet to be trimmed down to the lean, efficient program that it was designed to be, instead of the drastically left-leaning political machine that it currently is, that eats its own whenever one of them steps out of line (i.e. Juan Williams).
Posted by: D_Mickey – Feb 17, 2011 4:57 PM
I have lived in two major area of California and as far as I can tell there is only one PBS station in each area. I think major broadcasting and news stations are over bloated.
Posted by: Judy – Feb 17, 2011 7:56 PM
Rick, Thank you for your visit to Fort Wayne on Weds. and for bringing this matter to our attention. Our government wastes billions of dollars on nonsense. One would think that spending such a small amount on public TV would be better. Yes, the government is living above its means; however, cutting usefiul things like public television funding while leaving funding for military bands or other wasteful things is rediculious. Everyone should shout-out to our congressmen… Cut waste not intelligent programing. “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” must be the governments new motto…. remember “WAR IS PEACE” and “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY” ? What next……1984 in 2011…..
Posted by: Michelle R. Brindle – Feb 17, 2011 8:18 PM
Rick – I love you and your show. But I question whether government should be in the business of supporting opinion media, and I am sorry, but NPR/PBS does broadcast opinions. As I listen to news on NPR, more often than not, I disagree with those opinions. I would prefer that my tax dollars not support their broadcast. Thanks – T.J.
Posted by: T.J. – Feb 17, 2011 8:29 PM
Rick, Like your idea and way of presentation. A suggested solution is to let all the tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2012 be allowed to expire and let that action be the revenue producer for deficit reduction. Of course this action will cause claims of tax increases by one party so that won’t happen. Math is a tough nut to crack. What to do? Keep on traveling and giving your opinion. I like the approach as it make one think.
Posted by: Henry – Feb 18, 2011 2:54 AM
Coming from a country where American soldiers died for my liberation, and for the choices I have available for me to make, living here. This is a no brainer. Could one imagine my living a life, not having to pay taxes for wars we fought and still fight in, that I disagree with. To my fellow citizens, I thank you for paying your share of taxes, so I could click my remote, and learn about Julias cooking recipies, the Medici’s role in Americas Christian values. My awe in the vast Universe. Some really great thrillers, and documentaries. Etcetra, Etcetra, Etcetra.
Posted by: n. leitloff – Feb 18, 2011 5:47 AM
Coming from a country where American soldiers died for my liberation, and for the choices I have available for me to make, living here. This is a no brainer. Could one imagine my living a life, not having to pay taxes for wars we fought and still fight in, that I disagree with. To my fellow citizens, I thank you for paying your share of taxes, so I could click my remote, and learn about Julias cooking recipies, the Medici’s role in Americas Christian values. My awe in the vast Universe. Some really great thrillers, and documentaries. Etcetra, Etcetra, Etcetra.
Posted by: n. leitloff – Feb 18, 2011 5:47 AM
Dear Rick, As a retired military musician, I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, I think you should put out a call for marching band musicians everywhere to join you in a Public March for Public Broadcasting. I would have gladly grabbed my marching piccolo, and joined you in marching down your street in support of public broadcasting.
Posted by: Ed – Feb 18, 2011 7:43 AM
How about cutting welfare. What about the benefits for inmates. Cut those programs. Kill the unions that are creating a burden on the government & people. One sided public radio was in Iraq & we killed it. May as well do it here too. Military personel enjoy the bands & it takes their minds off the fact that their families are far away. They’re not in prison, although some of you liberals think they should be. Shame on you, you blind poor souls.
Posted by: anti-liberal – Feb 18, 2011 8:49 AM
Reading the comments of a few, it is obvious they aren’t aware of programs like To The Contrary which DOES offer up all sides to what ever they are discussing on a given day. Also, I currently do not have cable or satellite. All of my programming is over-the-air. As a result I get 6 PBS stations and all of the networks (except for Fox because they are too cheap to upgrade their transmission capability and I live too far from the city so no House or Bones for me any more). Anyway, if it weren’t for all of those PBS stations, there would be very little of substance for me to watch on TV. Not only that, but one of those stations is Defence TV as I live within the broadcasting range of Ft. Hood. I have learned a lot about how soldiers are propagandized through the “Pentagon Channel” from watching this channel periodically. The point being that for folks like me who choose not to pay for cable or satellite, PBS is a Godsend. I get to travel around the world in my recliner, learn about new technologies for reducing our dependence on petroleum and find out about great places within my own state to visit as well as see what is on offer for the military. Maybe some PBS stations do not provide programming that is on a par with what I am getting, but rather than cutting the whole thing, how about working on improving the laggers…?
Posted by: Nancy – Feb 18, 2011 9:23 AM
I forgot to mention that I learned how to cook from watching PBS (Frugal Gourmet among others) back when I was in college and continue to learn new ideas and techniques from the new crop of PBS TV chefs (love Ming’s East Meets West, Rick Bayless’ Mexico One Plate At A Time, Lidia’s Italy, Joanne Weir’s Cooking Class and Todd English among others). In addition, from watching This Old House and Hometime, I learned a lot about how to do repairs around the house and was able to re-frame and install a new back door based on what I had learned. Other favorite shows are History Detectives, Antiques Roadshow and Woodsongs Old Time Radio Hour (which has turned me on to some really great unknown musicians). PBS is all about the learning for me.
Posted by: Nancy – Feb 18, 2011 11:32 AM
Military bands? NPR? PBS? Defund them all! NPR and PBS will survive – with more fundraising. CPB has been a diminishing source of funds for them for years. Military bands? No loss. Get rid of the Nixonian pomp and circumstance of government and make another step toward living within our means.
Posted by: David – Feb 18, 2011 1:29 PM
Rick, you should make this shareable on Facebook! Hooray for this post.
Posted by: peg – Feb 18, 2011 4:25 PM
I totally disagree. 1) You have a vested interest in PBS & NPR. 2) The marching band issue is a Trojan Horse of yours that you do not take seriously. 3) As usual you shy away from US troops in Europe issue where the savings to the US taxpayer could be in the billions of dollars if we removed them. 4) There was an editorial in the Washington Post by Michael Mandlebaum a few days ago that asserts that keeping US troops permanently based in Europe “….reassures the Russians that Germany, a 20th century rival, will remain safely anchored in an American-led alliance and will therefore not feel the need …. to boost its military forces or obtain its own nuclear weapons.”. I would like to see you address this. After throwing out the marching bands issue, you leave it hanging, implying that you want both the marching bands & government funding for PBS & NPR. That sort of mentality got us into this problem in the first place.
Posted by: Frans – Feb 18, 2011 10:01 PM
What % of the defense budget are marching bands? Let’s pick something else to cut – the bands rock and boost my morale.
Posted by: Tess stickles – Feb 18, 2011 10:46 PM
I thought public radio was funded by the public….my bad
Posted by: Anita hanjobe – Feb 18, 2011 10:51 PM
Let’s kill both, and many more.
Posted by: KenK – Feb 19, 2011 2:59 AM
Military bands provide morale, something that PBS and NPR do not … unless you are a left-leaning person who believes in state controlled media spin. In that case the public taxpayer should not have to fund these biased shows for you. COMPETE for viewers if you really think you provide a value added program. Let the taxpayer and public decide.
Posted by: jan – Feb 19, 2011 6:09 AM
It is obvious that this is the beginnings of what the history books will have written in a 100 hundred years: “United States, it was the most free and democratic country in this world, but a few decided that liberty, freedom and democracy belongs to the market place. Today-100 years from now- United States is only a vague memory of what was the experiment of freedom and democracy, the experiment that FAILED!!
Posted by: Fernando – Feb 19, 2011 9:19 AM
On the other hand, we cannot allow these few to take our country just for the sake of the market place which is own by these few anyway. If Government funding is only about a tenth of what it takes to run public broadcasting in our country, then we-who are more than those few- can come up with that tenth ourselves and actually come up with even more than that tenth in order to keep Public Broadcasting alive, thus making sure liberty, freedom, and democracy doesn’t become a vague memory of what this country is.
Posted by: Fernando – Feb 19, 2011 9:32 AM
I have to feel that the GOP is being funded (lobbied) by Rupert Murdoch to push this bill to eliminate competition and stifle real news. NPR/PBS represents news, quality programming – Murdoch represents a personal agenda and corporate profits, therefore NPR/PBS needs to go. I wish we could dig into who is funding this bill, I have deep suspicions. PS – It seems several cronies have found the comment section of this article… don’t be secure in your job and healthcare – you are next…
Posted by: Clinton – Feb 19, 2011 9:47 AM
Waa! Waa! Waa! btw…. here in SoCal, there are FOUR PBS stations (KCET, KOCE, KVCR, KLCS). Four too many I’d say!
Posted by: Let it die! – Feb 19, 2011 10:19 AM
Maybe NPR could post a fund raiser for military bands on they week they are not running a fundraiser. NPR should use military band music – that would help the listeners stay awake.
Posted by: Tess Stickles – Feb 19, 2011 11:33 AM
Why is it that certain people think that Public Broadcasting is a government mouthpiece or hyper-left or hyper-right? It is none of these things. The amount of opinion expressed is minimal, especially when compared to commercial media outlets. But the benefit of educating our entire nation with programs such as Rick Steves’ Europe, Nova, and Nova Science Now, just to name only a few, is worth the support of all. That’s a lot of bang for the buck. Ignorance is bliss so I am willing to have my taxes applied to removing ignorance. Those who have no curiosity or end their education upon completing high school or college still deserve the benefit of public broadcasting in case their children stumble across a PBS or NPR station. Our kids deserve the opportunity to be curious and learn what too many parents would deny them.
Posted by: Bill Fox – Feb 19, 2011 2:50 PM
Rick, not to change the subject but,,, you must just be acrimonious with your fellow liberals in Wisconsin. I just saw several images of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker being depicted as Adolph Hitler. A Democrat State Senator just said that dealing with Walker is the same as the N Korea Dictator. You must just be fuming with outrage at these liberal jerks! Right?
Posted by: KenK – Feb 20, 2011 7:46 AM
If the PBS programming is so educational and of high value (i.e. Nova, RS Europe, etc.), then surely it would be picked up by a ‘for profit’ enterprise should the content be made available. Maybe Oprah will pick up the slack with her OWN channel! Ultimately, the market will and should pick the winners and losers…..exactly as it should be.
Posted by: Mike – Feb 20, 2011 9:08 AM
Yes, I wonder as well if Rick will be outraged that the Gov of Wisconsin is compared to Hitler. Protesters holding placards equivocating him with Facism surely should be condemned, just as Rick condemned people on the right who compared Facism with Obama. However, I think we will hear silence.
Posted by: sophie – Feb 20, 2011 1:24 PM
Come on, folks. Do you really want your favorite travel writer and advisor, author and tester of hotels, restaurants, el al. to become involved with the situation in Wisconsin? If he did, there would be cries of outrage, mind your own business, what do you know about the realities of the situation here in Wisconsin. If he doesn’t, he’s a coward, not willing to put himself on the line for his “liberal” beliefs. I don’t always agree with what Rick says and writes, but give the man a break. It seems to me he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. His best reaction now, I think, is silence. Just my opinion.
Posted by: louisa – Feb 20, 2011 3:44 PM
Louisa….. Anyone who is intellectually honest doesn’t pick and choose when to be outraged. Wrong is wrong (re: the Hitler comparison) regardless whether it’s your guy being targeted or the opposition! If Rick is silent on the matter, it will speak volumes as to his true level of integrity. I hope he doesn’t disappoint, but I have my doubts.
Posted by: Mike – Feb 20, 2011 5:02 PM
Mike, of course people who are intellectually honest pick and choose when to be outraged. We all must choose our battles lest we waste our energy and skill needlessly.
Posted by: louisa – Feb 20, 2011 5:09 PM
Out of respect to the victims of the Holocaust, I don’t think anyone — far right or far left — should be compared to Hitler. As far as I know, in our age, only Hitler is a horrible as Hitler.
Posted by: Rick – Feb 20, 2011 8:55 PM
Rick….. Thank you for speaking out.
Posted by: Mike – Feb 21, 2011 8:33 AM
Rick’s blog mostly emphasizes education. The budget cutters are demanding tangible proof of positive results from federal expenditures. Rick’s presents intangible reasons to keep PBS. I contend there are tangible results. In my experience beginning with my childhood long before PBS, then my children’s and now my grandchildren’s experiences, I have seen firsthand that the progression of programs from Sesame Street to Nova builds a solid foundation in basic skills: letter recognition, spelling, arithmetic … The foundation is so solid that children who finish tenth grade are ready for college. Indeed, many schools offer college credit during the twelfth grade. I contend that eliminating eleventh and twelfth grades would produce a cost saving many times the amount the federal government allocates to PBS. Education funding is being cut at the same time that PBS is on the chopping block. I contend there is a direct, tangible cost/benefit correlation between Sesame Street and twelfth grade!
Posted by: Charles in Plano – Feb 21, 2011 11:31 AM
So sad…it’s amazing to what length the wealthy elite will go to avoid paying any taxes. With public television, they get a nice double whammy: cut-out 400 million or so from the budget, plus leave those with no other access or alternative to substative information beholden to those who manipulate at will. Knowlwdge is power, so course there’s people on the Hill who seek to de-fund a non-profit informaton source like an NPR or a PBS. It seems like this is the state of affairs in the U.S. today: demonize public servants and public service, and give every tax advantage and break to the wealthy so they can get even wealthier.
Posted by: Alfran – Feb 22, 2011 7:49 AM
I’m completely befuddled. Rick writes, “This (PBS) allows me to introduce my viewers and listeners to the world I actually experience, rather than a version of the world shaped by the need to sell something.” How can Rick say that? He makes money by selling tours and guidebooks. How can we be so sure that Rick isn’t introducing his viewers and listeners to a version of Europe that isn’t influenced by his need to sell something? I love Rick’s TV show and his books. I hope he makes tons of money from them because they’re an excellent product. But I really question whether Rick truly thinks that he can provide an un-biased portrayal of Europe when his very livelihood depends on it. I also have to comment on the last post, regarding how the “evil” rich people in this country get all the tax breaks. According to our government, my spouse and I, who both work full-time, are those evil rich people. Believe me, we do NOT get any tax advantages because of our income. I guarantee you that our the % of our income that we pay in taxes is much higher than those who make less. That’s not a judgement as to whether that’s right or wrong; it’s simply a fact.
Posted by: Anonymous – Feb 22, 2011 2:50 PM
Did you know that approximately 47% of U.S. households paid NO INCOME TAX in 2009? About 10% of the earners paid 70% of ALL the taxes! What’s the old saying….. ‘sooner or later, you run out of other peoples money.”? I think we have finally reached that point!
Posted by: Let it die! – Feb 22, 2011 4:09 PM
Back in the 1970s I was on a Navy deployment to the Indian Ocean. Except for three days in Mauritius, hardly a garden spot, we spent over a month at sea. Having a band on board helped to relieve the boredom. Military bands serve a very useful public purpose. Besides promoting morale they help with recruitment and retention, These things are very important to the military. Having a military, and by implication military bands, is authorized by the Constitution. In fact national defense is the first priority of any government. Only the federal government can fund military bands. On the other hand public broadcasting serves no essential function. As others have pointed out, the good programs would have few problems making it without taxpayer support. The Bill of Rights limits the federal governmebnt to powers enumerated in the Constitution. There’s nothing there about the feds funding media outlets. According to NPR, its average listener has a household income of $86,000 a year. “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tkyrannical.” — Thomas Jefferson. Surely its affluent audience can pay for public broadcasting’s programs.
Posted by: LesLein – Feb 22, 2011 6:02 PM
Rick, you have put forth the first intelligent and understandable arguments to opposing this cut, thankfully devoid of emotional rhetoric. I say this as a long time conservative, one who sometimes opposes certain viewpoints on NPR (not so much PBS). But I also pride myself on our fundamental right to express dissent and opposing viewpoints, peacefully and constructively. I value that right, and try to support it for others. I have enjoyed travelling for years, and have only recently begun enjoying your books, videos, and products. And while I suspect you and I may disagree on certain political issues, I do appreciate your approach to debating those differences. Such intelligent debate is sadly lacking throughout our world today, and I applaud your efforts. And by the way, I plan to continue to be an avid consumer of your excellent products!
Posted by: Rick Trice – Feb 25, 2011 2:46 PM
Umm….http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110308/ts_yblog_thecutline/npr-appalled-by-former-execs-comments
Posted by: Sam – Mar 08, 2011 11:07 AM
Funny, they want to cut Public Broadcasting which benefits the common people, but I still haven’t heard of cutting the loopholes or welfare to corporate America. When do the conservatives cut the bone that’s got by far the most fat on it? They’re holding onto their money, not hiring like we’ve been promised time and time again they would if they got their tax breaks. And I’ve been hearing that old saw about our children and grandchildren inheriting tremendous debt for 40 years now. Get off it!! Repubs always spend like drunken sailors on shore leave when in the White House and then gripe about the debt they stuck us with til they get back in again.
Posted by: Linda – Mar 08, 2011 7:04 PM
Rick, this is another ridiculous diatribe by a liberal who has his weath but rails that others should share their money to “spread it around” for the common good. Dumping NPR & PBS is only logical – leaving money to “share” as the government should – with the least of them who can not help themselves. Giving the elite and the liberal their own media does not meet that function. Travel as a political act is a convenient ruse that justifies Steves’ illogical positions on the environment, the proper use of energy (for others than him), and where we need to give our money.
Posted by: Joe – Mar 13, 2011 8:01 AM
Linda…my sentiments precisely.
Posted by: Alfran – Mar 13, 2011 3:49 PM
Absolutely love your shows but am sad that you are pitting PBS against military bands. As a member of a premier military band, I readily admit there are instances of waste. But these instances of waste are tiny villages outside the metropolis of big goverment waste. I happen to be a big fan of tiny villages. It’s the metropolis that needs to be reduced. Military bands provide myriad intrinsic benefits. We serve as international ambassadors by honoring allied military and civilian leaders as they visit their U.S. counterparts, we honor both living and deceased vets with thousands of ceremonies and funerals each year, and we lift the spirits of lonely warriors on the front lines. I won’t argue against the benefits of PBS as I’m an avid fan. Our organization has frequently partnered with PBS for special shows honoring vets. I only ask you find some other area of government for your comparison. There are other programs that receive billions with no oversight or attention paid to the results of the costly program. Let the band play on!
Posted by: Concerned Musician – May 30, 2011 10:43 AM
Absolutely love your shows but am sad that you are pitting PBS against military bands. As a member of a premier military band, I readily admit there are instances of waste. But these instances of waste are tiny villages outside the metropolis of big goverment waste. I happen to be a big fan of tiny villages. It’s the metropolis that needs to be reduced. Military bands provide myriad intrinsic benefits. We serve as international ambassadors by honoring allied military and civilian leaders as they visit their U.S. counterparts, we honor both living and deceased vets with thousands of ceremonies and funerals each year, and we lift the spirits of lonely warriors on the front lines. I won’t argue against the benefits of PBS as I’m an avid fan. Our organization has frequently partnered with PBS for special shows honoring vets. I only ask you find some other area of government for your comparison. There are other programs that receive billions with no oversight or attention paid to the results of the costly program. Let the band play on!
Posted by: Concerned Musician – May 30, 2011 10:43 AM
By using the wording “marching bands” in your article, I am lead to believe that you are not thoroughly aware of the purpose and mission, and the overall importance of our military bands. Before you suggest cutting these programs, perhaps you should research the military bands themselves. Not by what some newspaper article misleadingly reports, but by actually finding out first hand. Perhaps it would make a great travel show; visiting Washington, DC and the premier bands of The United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines! I think you might be pleasantly suprised by what you find! These are not “marching bands,” but a collection of diverse musical ensembles which support a wide variety of missions, from numerous funerals and official ceremonies, to concerts for service members as well as public concerts, from supporting music in public schools, to performing for our wounded warriers and much MUCH more. These ensembles make a profound difference in the lives of our service members, their families, and indeed, the citizens of The United States of America. They are current and active, always looking forward to what the future needs may be. They are not stagnant and obsolete, but very viable and necessary. Please let’s not talk about making “cuts” to budgets until we actually know what we are talking about! Come for a visit, Mr. Steves! And bring your sousaphone… you’ll have a blast!
Posted by: Lee – Jun 13, 2011 4:21 AM
It seems you don’t know much about what military bands do or who they are. If you were paying attention, Congress just INCREASED defense spending. They threw a distractor of cutting military bands by 37.5%. Please. A cap on military bands spending. Really? Most of military bands cost is personnel. Compare that with costs in the Air Force or just about any portion of the military. One F-35A costs more than funding the entire 5,000-odd person bands all over the world. Perspective. Less than 7/100ths of 1 percent of defense budget. That’s bands. We’re talking about jobs here. But what we’re really talking about is a classic form of misdirection. In the end, they are increasing spending again…Don’t be fooled into jumping on the “band wagon” and crying “down with frivolous spending on bands and NASCAR.” If you think that the government’s right hand will know what its left hand is doing, you should think again. Military bands are firmly on the chopping block. They represent a great musical heritage who have been a part of the military since before America was a nation. They remain valuable in paying respects to fallen warriors and burying veterans. They entertain troops in combat and are great ambassadors to the public both at home and abroad. Congress will be happy to cut both the NEA and military bands. Remember Sir Winston Churchill was once asked to cut the arts to pay for the war debt after WWII. He responded, “Then what were we fighting for?” Don’t be naive Rick. You are better than that
Posted by: Jim Bob – Jun 18, 2011 8:39 PM