Turns out the man who gives life to the “Sesame Street” muppet is a tall, soft-spoken black man who dreamed of being a puppeteer all his life. His story – that of a lower middle class lad whose talents led him to muppet guru Jim Henson – provides the kind of sweet, comforting material too rarely seen in the documentary format.

It’s the American Dream on a deeply private scale, and director Constance Marks captures it with an effervescence that honors both the puppeteer and Elmo himself.

“Being Elmo” isn’t an expose on the puppeteering world or an examination of the cultural biases found on PBS’s “Street.” It’s the tale of a boy who became entranced by the art of puppetry and had the talent and support of his family to transform that love into a career.

Young Kevin Clash made his first puppet from his father’s winter coat – without pappy’s permission. His Dad didn’t scold him for ruining a perfectly good jacket, a paternal gesture that may have cemented Clash’s fate.

The youngster went on to make many more puppets, all the while studying the work of Henson’s “Sesame Street” menagerie as well as those wacky “Muppets” a few years later. He eventually forged a bond with white-haired puppeteer Kermit Love, a mentoring relationship which paved the way for Clash’s first meeting with Henson, the unofficial King Muppet himself.

Clash bounced from one gig to another, eventually landing on “Sesame Street” as part of the show’s crew. But it wasn’t until a fellow puppeteer threw down an untested red puppet named Elmo in disgust – the artist couldn’t bring the muppet to life – that Clash’s fame took shape.

Parents may find Elmo’s high-pitched voice a tad nerve jangling, but just watching Clash at work is a joyous experience. His warm, ready smile makes him more than ready for his close-up even if he says he tends to be shy in public.

Even better is watching him make dreams come true for sick children. Too often dying boys and girls request a visit from Elmo, and Clash is more than happy to oblige. After all, the through line in Elmo’s World is the joy he brings to others. Elmo is quick with a hug or a kiss, and children can’t help but respond to his good soul.

The same may be said for Clash, although the film tip-toes around his divorce and strained relationship with his daughter. Being Elmo means spending far too many hours jetting around the world, and that formed a wedge between father and child.

Marks brings a calm, reassuring presence to the film. The black and white photographs glow under her care, and it’s wonderful that someone was shooting Clash during pivotal moments in his life, such as his first meeting with Love.

The film also reveals the artistry behind the muppets. We see massive draws where a variety of eyeballs, fur tufts and other muppet pieces await use, and we watch Clash gently instruct neophyte puppeteers on precisely how to bring life to clumps of felt, fur and plastic.

“Being Elmo” will put a silly grin on your face, the kind Elmo has been giving to children since he first stepped foot on Sesame Street.

“Sesame Street’s” latest mission has Lily the Muppet telling school children they can get free food from the government. All they have to do is ask.

Lily’s message is being circulated through schools, hospitals and food assistance programs as part of Sesame Street’s “Food for Thought” multi-media campaign, which includes DVDs and a booklet listing “services that can assist your family” as well as “referrals to social service agencies.”

Organizers say they have produced a million of the kits.

This is only one step of a larger Muppet movement regarding nutrition:

Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit educational organization behind the TV show, announced on Thursday that it plans to appoint a Poverty Advisory Board in 2012. The first meeting will be in Washington on Jan. 10.

Someone from my home state of Illinois (and I am NOT shocked this originated in Illinois) decided to start a petition to have Bert and Ernie get married on “Sesame Street.” Lair Scott said, “We are not asking that ‘Sesame Street’ do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert and Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let ‘Sesame Street’ and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives.” Seriously? Bert and Ernie getting married is going to help kids not bully others and LGBT kids stop committing suicide? Because preschoolers are the ones doing this? Ah, yes! The #1 way for a statist to promote an agenda is to somehow fit it in with SAVE THE CHILDREN! Mr. Scott is using their tragedy and a child’s program as a means to an end.

Who decided Bert and Ernie are gay? How can a puppet be sexual? Don’t answer that! It’s a rhetorical question. I remember it took me a long time to even realize they live together. It never clicked in my mind as a toddler and young kid that they live in the same house. They’re best friends, the puppet version of Felix and Oscar.

This morning I conducted an experiment with my toddler. Remember she is 2.5 years old. I asked her questions about Bert and Ernie. My first was, “What do you think is the relationship between Bert and Ernie?” She gave me a puzzled look. I asked her, “Do you think they have a relationship like Mommy and Daddy?” She gave me the same look, looked at the garage door, and asked, “Daddy?” I had to convince her that Daddy wasn’t coming home from work yet. I finally just asked, “Is Ernie orange?” Her face lit up and said enthusiastically, “Yeah!!!”

I asked my friends on Twitter how they viewed Bert and Ernie when they were growing up. The majority said they thought they were best friends. One thought they were father and son. A few thought brothers. Some said they didn’t care and still don’t care.

Fact is, children do not understand relationships of any kind at this age. I don’t even think my toddler understands the relationship between Mommy and Daddy.

Thank you to the “Sesame Street” producers who put out this statement:

Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most “Sesame Street” Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

And yes, Mr. Scott, you are being disrespectful by asking “Sesame Street” to educate our children on this subject.  “Sesame Street” is mainly for entertainment with educational bits splashed in. It’s a good starting point for a teaching lesson for the day.

This has to stop. I don’t care all that much about them targeting adults or even teenagers, but when it comes to extremely young children, it’s gone too far. Why is it so hard for them to allow children to remain innocent? Why do they want children to grow up so fast?

We will stop watching if Bert and Ernie get married. I’m 100% for gay marriage, but COME ON!! “Sesame Street” is supposed to be about numbers, counting, letters, colors, animals, and just having fun! I don’t want my young children sitting down for an hour of Elmo, Zoe, Abby, and Big Bird and coming to me later asking questions about marriage, relationships, or sex. I want my girls to ask me what words start with the letter K or what number comes after 5.

As we all know, Bert and Ernie have been shacking up together since 1969. That’s a long time to remain in the closet, and we can only imagine the exhaustion they’ve experienced in living out this charade for 42 years.  They’ve no doubt been saddled with an unfair tax burden all this time by being forced to file individually. It’s also likely that at some point or other, one of them has spent time in the hospital, and we can only assume the other was denied visitation rights. It’s not like the rest of the community didn’t know. I mean, they keep pictures of each other on their wall, for chrissakes. Grover’s not stupid. Sure, they sleep in separate beds, but so did every heterosexual TV couple back in the late 60s. Bert and Ernie were simply products of the sexually repressed era they came of age in.

Considering they’ve lived under one roof all this time, sleep in the same room, and obviously share a close bond, there’s simply no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t get married. They obviously care about each other, and when two people care about each other, that’s what they do. Get married. The fact that they’re getting on in years leaves them little time left for a healthy adoption, so now’s the time to demonstrate the strength of their commitment for the good of a young . . muppet. It’s not like they can’t still go out and have a night on the town or hit the clubs after bringing home a child. There are lots of good sitter options in the local community: Cookie Monster and The Count seem like positive role models. And what youngster wouldn’t love spending summer weekends at Big Bird’s Fire Island pad?

Once they’ve accepted reality and gotten with the times, they can finally introduce some edgy drama to this otherwise Puritan, whitewashed fictitious realm of New York City. Bert can get busted running a male prostitution ring out of their basement, and Ernie can feign ignorance in an episode called “But Who is it Really Hurting?”.  In another, Ernie gets busted for Twittering pictures of his weiner to young Fraggles in an episode called “Trust: Does it Really Matter?”. Their marriage crisis is only resolved after the intervention of Elmo and Gonzo and a trip to sex addiction rehab.

Now that Bert and Ernie have thrown off the shackles of repression and a backwards religious-based history, they can serve as an example and inspiration to others. Yogi and Boo Boo. Shaggy and Scooby. Bugs and Elmer. (The awkward three-way love affair between Ronald, Grimace, and the Hamburglar is still a matter with an unclear resolution.)

Bert and Ernie should be applauded for their courageous decision to end the oppression and send a clear message to the bigots (like Oscar the Grouch) living in or around Sesame Street. Raise that rainbow flag, and fly it proudly, boys!

The media has jumped all over the story.  Or rather, they’ve jumped all over the wrong story.  When in doubt, attack the messenger. 

Rather than focusing on the tape we started to release yesterday through Big Hollywood, Townhall, HotAir, and other websites, the left has focused almost exclusively on a one-and-a-half page section of “Primetime Propaganda”: the Sesame Street section.  They’re claiming that I call Big Bird a pinko (nope), that I say that Sesame Street is a socialist haven (wrong) and that I am deeply upset by Sesame Street’s use of liberal pop culture icons like Katy Perry and Neil Patrick Harris (not so much). 

They should probably just read the book.  In the book, I do detail Sesame Street’s historic liberal tilt – the former VP of Children’s Television Workshop, Mike Dann, told me that the show was “underwritten and created primarily for black children, Spanish-speaking children.  It was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class … there’s no written material in a black household.  But there is television.”  This sounds like typical soft bigotry of low expectations material.  

In the 1980s, Sesame Street staffers talked about using the show to preach to kids about divorce; after September 11, the show creators decided to tackle peaceful conflict resolution (an odd topic, implying as it does either that we should peacefully resolve our problems with those who want to fly planes into buildings, or that our children need training in not beating up those of different cultures).  

Sesame Street’s liberalism is soft and overarching, not intrusive and annoying. The Sesame Street website lectures Americans about their deep, dark cultural biases ordering parents to examine “your own cultural assumptions and biases” as a “good place to begin your anti-bias work.”  The website also tells parents to “try to use gender-neutral language … [use] words such as firefighter, flight attendant, garbage collector, and humankind to replace the use of ‘man’ as a generic noun or ending.”  The goal, of course, is to parrot the feminist line about language’s inherent sexism.  The website also encourages parents to find toys and books with characters “that break stereotypes about men and women, for example, dolls for boys and building toys and puzzles for girls.”  Larry Summers has amply debunked such nonsense – it’s leftist utopian thinking at its finest, fostered with your tax dollars. 

Nobody in the media has bothered to examine the actual evidence with regard to Sesame Street.  But that’s no surprise – they’d rather shoot the messenger than listen to the tape. 

Sadly for them, this is only the beginning.  We’ll see how long they can ignore the real story.

That’s the claim by a right-wing author who says he’s exposed a left-wing plot behind some top TV shows

The TV series Friends undermined family values; Sesame Street taught ethnic minorities about civil disobedience; Happy Days had a subtle anti-Vietnam subtext; and the 1980s cop show MacGyver tried to persuade pistol-packing Americans that guns are bad. That, at least, is the considered opinion of Ben Shapiro, an investigative author and right-wing columnist who will publish a detailed exposé tomorrow telling how Hollywood producers, writers and actors have been secretly using TV to promote what he calls a “radical” left-leaning political agenda.

Shapiro’s book, Primetime Propaganda runs to 416 pages and revolves around comments by 70-odd industry heavyweights who he approached for interviews. The book promises to “profile the biggest names in showbusiness over the past 50 years” and includes a series of “gotcha” moments, in which the architects of the best-watched TV shows of modern times tell how they tried to use the medium of broadcasting to, as Shapiro puts it, “shape America in their own leftist image”.

“I was shocked by the openness of the Hollywood crowd when it came to admitting anti-conservative discrimination inside the industry,” Shapiro told The Independent on Sunday. “They weren’t ashamed of it. In fact, some were actually proud of it.”

The book’s contents will only add weight to allegations – often aired by conservative Americans – that Hollywood is the exclusive domain of leftie propagandists. Earlier this year, Republicans called for funding cuts to the public broadcaster NPR after one of its executives was secretly taped calling supporters of the Tea Party “racist”.

Among Shapiro’s most revelatory interviewees is Marta Kauffman, the co-creator of Friends, who recalls how she hired a “bunch of liberals” to run the programme to “put out there what we believe”. In 1999, she admitted casting the actress sister of Newt Gingrich, the prominent Republican, to play a preacher at a lesbian wedding because she wanted to annoy conservatives.

“When we did the lesbian wedding, we knew there was going to be some flack,” said Kauffman. “I have to say, when we cast Candice Gingrich as the minister of that wedding, there was a bit of a ‘fuck you’ in it to the right-wing, directly.”

Full article here.

I was in Austin Wednesday for the Texas Unions Day Off as they paraded around demanding state government keep its dirty paws off their pensions because, you know, we should keep cutting Child Support Programs and the Cancer Research & Prevention Institute so they can continue planning their retirement party in Jamaica, but whatever.

These two aren't going anywhere!

After the crowds dispersed to collect on the boxed lunch they were promised, I was approached by a guy who I immediately identified as a liberal, but not a union member (he wasn’t wearing a solid-color t-shirt, but he did reek of hipster).  We exchanged niceties and politely told each other what we did: I’m a conservative blogger and he works for Moveon.org.

Yah.

Niceties continued and he asked me if I’d mind taking a few minutes to speak with him on camera.  I believe both sides can engage in civil discussions and he was being very kind, so I agreed.

“What are some of your childhood Sesame Street memories?”
Um, what? Keeping up with the polite conversation, I answered about Elmo, Big Bird, counting – you know, Sesame Street stuff.

“Do you believe taking away federal funds for Public Broadcasting will rob future children of Sesame Street memories, like what you still clearly recall fondly today?”
Seriously?  We’re really still talking about Sesame Street funding?  14 trillion in debt…

“If Sesame Street were to be privately funded, do you think having a small group of people in charge would change the messaging and educational standards of the program?”
How on earth did you find a way to make letters and numbers partisan?

The questions went on and on, but he was being so nice about it that I continued to politely answer until I asked to be excused to make an appointment (which he kindly respected).  Overall, it was a very pleasant experience, except I just wouldn’t give him the answers that he wanted.

He lives in a trashcan. Would homeless really be that much worse?

If we de-fund Sesame Street, I promise you Oscar the Grouch won’t lose his trashcan.  Big Bird will still have his big ol’ nest and Bert & Ernie will still have that ambiguously awkward roommate situation.  The cultural icon that is Sesame Street will be snatched up by a private company, individual, or coalition of such for millions and millions of dollars.  There is a boatload of money to be made selling Sesame Street toys, clothes, books, DVDs, and live performance tickets.  Trust me, Sesame Street isn’t going anywhere.

As for the programming, well, there’s only so much room for interpretation of the alphabet and numbers, shapes and colors.  Sure, you can teach it in different languages and use flashy graphics, but the fundamentals of toddler education remain the same at home and abroad.  If, however, some Big Shot at 123 Sesame Street Corporate decided he wanted to change it up, I promise you that if he put one well-manicured toe tucked inside a Gucci ostrich loafer out of line, mothers around the world would retaliate.  If there is one group you don’t want to poke with a big stick, it’s new mamas.

That said, it’s evident to me that the market would drive the content of Sesame Street.  Parents will remain vigilant about the content, presentation, and products of the program regardless of who funds it, but perhaps even more so if it’s privately run.  Don’t put it past an infuriated mother to put the kid in the Pack-N-Play, make phone calls, write emails, and tell all of their mommy friends about the disgrace of Sesame Street if such a folly should occur.  The show’d be in the tank before it even knew it messed up.

So, with this great American icon in check, I say: Screw you, Big Bird. You’ve been living on handouts

Brush up your resume, dude - it's time to be a productive member of society.

long enough; it’s time for you to put your big bird pants on and go get a job, work for a living.  No more tax dollars, entitlements, or kickbacks.  You’re big enough to support yourself now, so get off your feathered hiney and go do it.  And take Snuffy with you – heavens knows he could use a haircut.

A note to Cole, the Moveon.org guy: Thank you so much for being so polite on and off camera.  Although I imagine we don’t agree on much of anything, I have great respect for you as an individual.

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma) introduced legislation to stop taxpayer subsidies to public radio and television. CPB-funded television and radio programs are distributed through National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Since 2001, CPB has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money.

“Our nation is on the edge of bankruptcy and Congress must make some tough choices to rein in spending, but ending taxpayer subsidies of public broadcasting should be an easy decision,” said Sen. DeMint. “Americans struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be forced to fund public broadcasting when there are already thousands of choices for educational and entertainment programming on the television, radio and web. President Obama’s own bipartisan debt commission proposed ending these unnecessary subsidies to public broadcasting. NPR boasts that it only gets 2 percent of its funding from taxpayers and PBS gets about 15 percent, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own.”

“Politicians in Washington should focus their attention on eliminating the more than $200 billion in duplicative spending GAO highlighted this week and stop defending indefensible subsidies for public broadcasting,” said Dr. Coburn. “The federal government has no business picking winners and losers in today’s highly competitive media environment.  NPR and CPB will do just fine without largesse from Washington.”

CPB was incorporated as a private nonprofit corporation under the authority of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and its first taxpayer subsidy in 1969 was $5 million. Today, CPB is slated to receive $430 million from taxpayers in the current fiscal year and President Obama recently asked for an increase to $451 million.

According to the 2009 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file (990), PBS President Paula Kerger received $632,233 in compensation that year while NPR President Emeritus, Kevin Klose, received more than $1.2 million in compensation. The PBS program Sesame Street’s Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 — nearly a million dollars — in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, “Sesame Street” made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales.

In 2010, NPR accepted a controversial $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundation, backed by liberal financier George Soros, to hire 100 reporters. Additionally, NPR has an endowment of over $200 million.

List of federal funding for CPB over the years, provided by the Congressional Research Service:

·         2001: $340 million
·         2002: $350 million
·         2003: $362.8 million
·         2004: $377.8 million
·         2005: $386.8 million
·         2006: $396 million
·         2007: $400 million
·         2008: $393 million
·         2009: $400 million
·         2010: $420 million
·         2011: $430 million

If you are like me and grew up on Schoolhouse Rock than you can’t help but sing The Preamble of the Constitution.  I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t be able to recite any of it if I didn’t watch Saturday morning TV.  Sure, there was Bugs and Woody for some mindless entertainment (side note: I can argue that I learned a lot from Bugs) but there was plenty of entertaining academic options to make parents comfortable that their kids were glued to the television.

Yes, times have changed.  The highly desirable demographic, known to us as preschoolers, is now spoiled for choice. Nickelodeon and Disney have gone head to head with academic based shows.  Nickelodeon has always come out on top with hits like “Dora The Explorer.”  Based on market research, Disney has decided to scrap Playhouse Disney and offer Disney Jr.—a block of preschool programs that focus on social and emotional growth rather than academics.  Apparently, some mothers feel that there is plenty of academics offered to children early on and that they would rather see their children become emotionally prepared for what lies ahead.

Preschoolers are expected to know their ABCs and 123s before they ever even set foot in a classroom.  Then why are mothers saying they would rather their children watch programs that favor social values over academics? According to Nancy Kanter, Senior Vice President of Playhouse Disney Worldwide, “Moms are saying they want their kids to be emotionally strong to really understand how to live in the world. There’s a huge place for storytelling to help do that.” Sounds like a tall order to me.  Isn’t it easier, more practical and more beneficial to teach kids the basics and leave the emotional preparation to the parents?  Is there some kind of universal emotional preparatory curriculum that all parents can agree upon?  Not a chance. While we can all agree that lessons in honesty, integrity and courage are important, there is a subjective nature to all of these attributes.  I don’t think that anyone can argue the product of 3 times 3, but what about dealing with bullies? There is more than one answer to that problem.  I doubt Disney Jr. will invest in programs that teach kids how to stand up for another child or fight back. 

Carolina Lightcap, Head of Disney Channels Worldwide, claims, “they (parents) don’t honestly think kids are going to learn how to read from watching a TV show”.  If that were the case, then how are these shows going to teach them how to take turns?  One of Disney’s new shows, “Jake and the Neverland Pirates”, makes a point to teach what Disney considers to be an important social lesson: at the end of each episode Jake still invites Hook to play with him even thought Hook is a bad guy.  How is this a good thing?  It reminds me of the residents of Berkeley wanting to invite the Gitmo detainees to be their neighbors. I think it’s foolish and naive to teach a child that mean people won’t be mean if you are nice to them. 

I would feel more comfortable knowing my child is watching educational shows that can’t be left up to interpretation; it just makes me feel better about my child watching television.  Sounds like history is repeating itself. I doubt I’ll be a fan of the kinder, gentler Disney. I have found that Sesame Street, The Electric Company and Schoolhouse Rock are just as relevant today as they were in the 70s.

Teaching kids how to read and multiply never goes out of style.

In other words, it’s Christmas everyday for Libertarians.

There seem to be three consistent arguments in favor of tax dollars being spent on public broadcasting and government subsidies for “art,” First, the defenders question the amount of money actually on the table. After all, these programs are but a teeny-tiny piece of our ever expanding government. Secondly, dispensing taxpayer cash on media is “in the public interest.” In the unholy pursuit of “profits,” private broadcasters and artists often compromise their work to make money. Private news organizations like FOX and MSNBC sensationalize the news and have become hyper-partisan in order to increase ratings and advertising dollars. We need outlets that are free from the restraints of the free market. And, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which in this case is a giant yellow bird. “Sesame Street.”

What kind of Islamophobic, racist, evil, baby-blood-drinking fascist wants to send Elmo to the unemployment line?

The first argument is simply ridiculous. We’ve all had to, at one point or another, examine our household budgets and look for spending cuts. We write down a list of our expenses, organizing them in order of both cost and importance. At the top is stuff like rent/mortgages, utilities, car payments etc. Towards the bottom is the fun stuff like vacations, extra cable channels, and faster internet. Everybody always starts at the bottom. Nobody starts at the top. “Hey, let’s ditch the house and keep our annual trip to the Wisconsin Dells?”  My girlfriend always likes to try and sneak cigarettes and scotch into the non-essential category. Nice try. I always push for more mac and cheese in order to keep my subsidies of R.J. Reynolds and Pernod Ricard intact. But I digress.

The money we spend on arts and media at the federal level is never too small to ignore. I think most taxpayers would trade a free movie ticket once a year for all the Bill Moyers specials, Nina Totenberg insight, and jars of pee and crucifixes that our federal government can buy. Public broadcasting and the arts are but two of a myriad of programs with similar “insignificant” funding. You start nuking all of them and before you know it, that free ticket to AMC becomes a down payment on a car. It is the height of arrogance to imply that waste and questionable costs at any level are acceptable or insignificant. To make this argument reveals that the person making it has a grotesque understanding of the relationship between government and tax payer.

The second argument is disingenuous, but not for the reasons that you may think. There is a real and tangible value to news and media that is free from a personal or corporate bias. A news organization or television network whose motto was a Jack Webb quote would actually serve the public. Unfortunately, the CPB has failed their mission.

And what about the educational and quality entertainment like “Sesame Street”? Surely, even a miserly old curmudgeon like me can see the value in allowing quality programming to be financed without the tinkering of executives or the pressure of ratings? The answer is, without a doubt, yes. Unfortunately for you, my statist apologist advisories, all of the shows that have come from public broadcasting that are a “value to the public” have also demonstrated financial solvency in the free market. “Sesame Street” is worth more than a Dr. Evil ransom. “Austin City Limits” makes money from the live performance venues (charging admission) and from selling recordings on sites like itunes in addition to generating revenue from ads on websites like youtube.

The point is that it is up to the producers of these shows to protect the integrity of their work. There is great value in alternative financing structures, through sponsorships, donations, and merchandising. That is without question.

“Sesame Street” makes enough money through merchandising to PURCHASE air time from private networks. No need for Elmo and Co. to sell out the quality or educational value of their show. The ancillary incomes from the “Sesame Street” empire would allow the producers to make the show any way they wanted. If they stuck to their principles, it wouldn’t matter if they were on PBS or ABC Family. However, the recent Katy Perry “incident” suggests to me that even with public financing the current people behind the show may be slipping a bit. I’ve included the Katy Perry video below, purely for informational purposes. I’ve watched it 72 times to accurately shape my opinion.

—–

The free market value of shows that used to be PBS type stuff is rather apparent. The History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic channel exclusively air programming that was once solid PBS territory. As a kid growing up, I used to watch “Dr. Who” on PBS. You know, the same show that you now watch on BBC America, Syfy, or on demand on Netflix. And it’s TLC, not PBS, that has greenlit a series that showcases the wonders of Alaska as seen through the eyes of a popular American figure.

This whole debate and kurfuffle exposes a much larger truth. The bone of contention isn’t so much whether or not this type of funding, in it’s stated form, has value to our society. The problem is the human factor. On paper, we can say that these public institutions are above the fray of the free market and bias, but they aren’t. The mission of an NPR is a noble one. It is the execution that is flawed. The CPB gives us government versions of MSNBC and Air America that don’t have to worry about crappy ratings. Our tax dollars immunize partisans and people of questionable on-air talent from the grim realties of cancellation.

But isn’t that the way it always is? We are constantly lectured about the value of “public” institutions and programs vs. the evil private industries that provide the same services. But, at their root, when you introduce the human element, these “public” entities function in exactly the same way as their private counterparts, minus the checks and balances of the free market. Where are, as Milton Friedman once asked Phil Donahue, these “angels” who will manage these public programs for us?

—–

Where are they indeed, Milton.

Shouldn’t ideologues be willing to take the hit personally? Shouldn’t any organization that relies, in any part, on forcibly confiscated citizen funds be held to incredibly high standards? If someone is going to ask for all of us to pitch in, shouldn’t they lead the way, donating their blood, sweat and tears to what they believe in? It is rather egregious that NPR personalities and executives have competitive, and in some cases superior, compensation to their private industry counterparts. If you don’t like the money, can’t afford to do it, then, in the words of Chris Christie, don’t do it. On top of that, the people who work in these public sectors must themselves be above the fray, putting their own bias and ideology on the back burner to serve the greater good.

For Public Broadcasting or arts financing to have any hope of working and actually living up to their oft defended and declared mission statements, radical changes are needed. Nobody should plan on becoming rich and famous from a career in public broadcasting. Volunteer, balanced advisory boards must be created to ensure that public funds do actually serve the public, and not a small minority of small minded leftists. I’m sure Leigh Scott, John Nolte, Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart would volunteer some time to review PBS programming schedules and NEA submissions.

But nobody’s asking us. The notion of a “public interest” is undermined by the very people who champion it.  It shouldn’t be up to me, a capitalist slime ball who makes movies featuring mutants and flying monsters to be obsessed with the integrity and bias of the CPB, NEH, or NEA. It should be the obsession of the people who have dedicated their lives to these organizations and their mission statements.

But it isn’t.  So, these public programs have become the extra cable channels and Disneyland trips of the federal budget. Time to tighten our belts.  Sorry, but they gotta go.