This is a useless article from the Los Angeles Times. Why is it useless?
"Aside from Mitt Romney's threat to defund Big Bird, [. . .]"
When that's your opening, you're in trouble.
Mitt Romney did not threaten to defund Big Bird. Nor is Big Bird something that gets funds. He threatened to defund PBS.
And he should.
I'm sick of PBS pretending to be for the people when it's just corporate news. It's not interested in a variety of view points. It's one big corporate echo chamber.
As for Big Bird.
As I've gotten older and seen how people enrich themselves in public broadcasting, I've gotten really angry.
Jim Henson's Muppets are Jim's muppets.
They belong to his family now and should. But Sesame Streets has DVDs and games and assorted toys and generates tons of money each year. If that's not enough to make it profitable, too bad. Charlie Rose sells the DVD copies of his PBS program. That's wonderful, isn't it. He's paid by the public and yet he thinks he owns those programs and can sell them for his own benefit?
All the crap needs to be cut out.
They can beg like crazy, over and over, but they've long had the means to generate revenue.
I support the idea of public broadcasting. And just as soon as a radio or TV station is willing to support the public in public broadcasting, I'll gladly advocate for them receiving tax dollars. But the reality is that public television really isn't about the public.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"