Which should go: PBS or NPR?

Will it be "Sesame Street" and "Frontline" vs. "All Things Considered" and "Morning Edition" as House Republicans move toward cutting taxpayer funding for public television and radio?

With a government shutdown looming, fans of public-supported PBS and NPR are wondering if it's time to take sides on the debate. NPR has done itself no favors with one gaffe after another. But Mark Oppenheimer, who writes for The New York Times and is an occasional NPR host, says if you look at the way NPR has improved the quality of its programs as compared to "hideous, ugly" PBS programming, there would be no contest.

"Today, it can be difficult to find what ambitious, interesting programming there is on PBS," he wrote in Slate. "It seemed that an average evening on PBS had all the intelligence of VH1 and all the youth appeal of CBS."

Compare the "Antique Roadshow" or Suze Orman's financial advice shows with "All Things Considered," "Radio Lab" or "This American Life." If Oppenheimer had to choose, he's throwing PBS under the bus.

It's an interesting historical comparison, in light of the GOP's attacks on the present funding for the public stations. In the mid-'90s, PBS was running edgy, interesting shows, such as Armistead Maupin's racy "Tale of the City." The show typified its programming, which then attracted the ire of conservative Republicans who had taken over...wait for it...the House and prompted calls for de-funding PBS.

cheaps wrote:Wats NPR?