A nonpolitical statement in support of PBS

Everyone has their thing they get all “pitchforks” about. And by pitchforks, I mean that thing they believe so strongly in, that they’re quick to pick up their pitchforks and chase down whatever threatens their “thing.” Mine is healthy media for kids. And while watching the presidential debate the other night, I have admit my fingers were itching to pick up my pitchfork and fly into action. When Mitt Romney said, “I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS,” I was a little worried. Do I want that to happen? Absolutely not. But do I think PBS would go away if it did? No, after doing some research, I don’t. It would suffer, but it probably wouldn’t disappear entirely.

But the question that some are asking, and it’s an important one, is this: why do we even need PBS? So when a friend posted an infographic explaining PBS (they make the numbers a little easier to digest) on Facebook today, I “shared” it. Now, I know it’s a hot topic of the debate, but I wasn’t prepared for the conversation that would ensue.

And here’s the debate that ensued (names deleted):

As you can see, other people have their “pitchfork” things as well. And that’s fine. I think it’s better to be fired up about something, although I wish civil discourse could find its way to social media. But I don’t think anyone got to the heart of the matter. Is PBS necessary? In my opinion, yes. Do I think my children are entitled to it, or deserve it? No. But I do think they need it in order to thrive. Here’s why:

1. It’s not about the characters. It’s about the character your child develops. Big Bird isn’t sacred. Neither is Curious George. And Barney? Well, I could do without Barney. (Sorry, he makes me nauseous.) But if you sit down with your children and actually watch these programs together, you’ll see character development and education woven in to each episode of each program. There’s no junk here. (Except Barney. Okay, he’s not junk, just super annoying.)

2. Healthy media is an important part of a child’s development. Like it or not, unless you’re Amish (then why are you reading this?), your child will consume a LOT of media before they graduate high school. Whether in your home or at a child care facility, or at a friend or relative’s home. Reading and hands-on activities are more important, but positive programming can be immensely beneficial, especially in homes where parents may lack the ability (or time) to properly educate their children. (And I apologize if I offended any of the Amish.)

3. The other options are crappy (well, mostly). If you look at other options for children’s media, what do you see? Disney, Cartoon Network, Nick, Nick Jr., etc. Now, Nick Jr. gets a good grade in my book (except for Yo Crappa Crappa), but the others? Not by a long shot. And Nick Jr. requires a cable TV subscription, which some can’t afford (like us). I love watching Disney/Pixar movies with my daughter, but purely for entertainment purposes. Not a lot of life lessons happening there. And “traditional” Disney movies? I mainly let my daughter watch them because I want her to be culturally relevant. I mean, she’ll probably get made fun of if she cocks her head on the playground and asks, “Cinderella who?” And don’t get me started on Cartoon Network. Just don’t.

So there you have it, my attempt to provide a statement of support for PBS without being political. I probably didn’t succeed, but I had to try. This doesn’t mean I support one candidate over the other. Or that I want Big Bird to run for president (he actually annoys me a little, don’t hate me). It just means that I want to be able to turn on the TV while I’m making breakfast, and know that my children’s minds are being fed with healthy things, just like the meal I’m about to serve them.

The real loser in this debate? Arthur. I would totally vote for him for president!