Mike Lester by Mike Lester

Mike Lester

Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    Back in “commercial television” days, PBS, radio and TV was a way for people to connect to the world, it still is, in a manner not biased by advertisers. It uses the public airwaves, which belong to all of us. Current funding comes mostly from subscribers and donors. The purpose of “commercial free” is to NOT have “news” influenced by private corporate interests, like well Faux, and cable. Gee, remember when paying for cable was supposed to also free us from commercial advertising because we’d pay the cable companies?

  2. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, about 4 years ago

    We don’t have the money. This type of spending has to stop. If we can’t cut here tan we’re in real trouble.

  3. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 4 years ago

    So simple. Wipe out a $16 trillion debt by removing funding for PBS. Why didn’t Obama think of that? No wonder he doesn’t deserve to be president.

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 4 years ago

    Once again you take a simple example and call it the entire plan. The reduction of government spending would “include” things like PBS. PBS would not be the only program looked at for funding reduction.

    Why do we need to use taxes to fund things like PBS? Balsim asks “when was the last time you heard classical music on Fox?” Well, I don’t turn on fox to listen to classical music. I have purchased several CD’s with various artists to enjoy. But I can turn to PBS and I can contribute to PBS IF I want to do that. So all you wealthy liberals and conservatives who want to see PBS continue to broadcast in your area can open that wallet and give them money. If the tax rate goes down then you will have a little extra. Or maybe you do not believe in charitable giving like your man Biden.

    And Trout, if you wish to foot the entire bill for your cable company then keep it up. Cable was not designed nor did they promise to bring you commercial free entertainment. It was an advance in technology that brought television into areas with little to no reception. It was a new market not yet exploited and not guaranteed to succeed. But if you want commercial free you can opt for premium channels (you pay more taking the place of some advertisers). I was there at the beginning as well. I know what went down.

    But back to big bird. How much of their revenue stream do they contribute to insure PBS stays on the air?

  5. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 4 years ago

    The difference between a “public” member station and a “private” affiliate is a big one. As with so many other things the GOP sets out to destroy (they are after all a party of destruction — not building), the highest toll comes in the smallest communities.

  6. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, about 4 years ago

    Most PBS affiliates get as much as 50% of their operating costs from the government. The rest comes from viewers and private donors, so cutting the budget won’t affect Big Bird, but could shut down channels across the country. People also seem to miss the point about the children’s programming: the idea is that parents can let their children watch entertaining educational programs without being bombarded by toy commercials every seven minutes. The news shows are also unbiased by corporate interests. Just because they don’t always praise the right doesn’t make them leftist, it just shows two sides to each story.

  7. Farley55

    Farley55 said, about 4 years ago

    I have to laugh at the rather effete liberal idea that the government should fund PBS stations so that farmers and minorities can be exposed to classical music. Maybe the broadcast signals will go farther if we put the PBS towers on top of your ivory towers.

  8. sw10mm

    sw10mm said, about 4 years ago

    Another odd part of the toon no one wants to mention is that now the Norwegian University of Science and Technology doesn’t agree with all the tree huggers that love the electric vehicles like the volt. They say they have twice the global warming potential of traditional vehicles.

  9. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, about 4 years ago

    “Ever watch PBS? It’s the most left leaning liberal force fed to the country. About as left as BBC and we know who pays for that.”

    Sounds like your way of saying PBS and BBC value truth and facts. If PBS were actually leftist as you and your partisan cohorts claim, it wouldn’t broadcast the “conservative” leaning pundit shows in ti’s programming line up. As for the BBC, I highly doubt you know the facts of how it’s funded.

  10. Archimedes

    Archimedes said, about 4 years ago


    So why is PBS not beholden to the donors then? Oh wait it is. So instead of the market determining what is on, the donors like Soros do.

  11. neuturn

    neuturn said, about 4 years ago

    Do you not believe there is a product out there for every cultural group? If there wasn’t they would have trouble keeping all of the other content on cable or local television. They could then run a fund raiser for the music and arts if needed as that group is a big part of their fund raising.

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 4 years ago

    free free free everything has to be free for you. I listen to free radio all the time. If you want to support the free station then you need to collect money on the street for them and contribute. Or take a break from MickyD’s for a week and send that to them. Eat a PB&J for lunch.

    The public radio stations will do just fine IF you will support them with your cash and your time. Or are you counting on the government to do your charity work for you?

  13. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, about 4 years ago

    You’re worried about the $1.52 of your taxes going to one of the best sources of educational television in the country?

  14. omQ R

    omQ R said, about 4 years ago

    I note that you didn’t suggest Bruce "… take a break from MickyD’s for a week and send that to them. Eat a PB&J for lunch. "
    But then you’re more polite.

  15. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, about 4 years ago

    hmmm let’s see, I do pay for that information. Just like I contribute to PBS and NPR and no I do not mean taxes.

    You are so steeped in hate for conservatives while you have no actual knowledge about them you can only throw idiocy at logic.

    If you lower tax rate, increase the amount of people that pay taxes by created full time sustainable employment (not part time seasonal work) your tax base will increase (more money) and then there will be ample funds to allocate for things such as the “arts” and PBS.

    But if you raise taxes on “the rich” – meaning anyone making over 200K individually or 250K as a couple – you will stifle job growth (as it has been under Obama), shrink the tax base and end up without the revenue you need. Yes, you will have the satisfaction of sticking it to those terrible rich people but it is a limited gloat because they leave and take their jobs elsewhere. Oh yeah, you may get another 75-80 billion a year out of em for a while.

    Put your money where your mouth is dude, contribute to your cause PBS.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (4).