The Relevance of PBS

George Will writes today in PittsburghLive.com about PBS and how the TV marketplace has driven it to irrelevance:

In 1967 Lyndon Johnson added yet another piece to the jigsaw puzzle of national perfection: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was born. Public television was a dubious idea even when concocted as a filigree on the Great Society. Why should government subsidize the production and distribution of entertainment and, even worse, journalism? Even if there were -- has there ever been? -- a shortage of either in America, is it government's duty to address all cultural shortages?

Further into the article:

The Public Broadcasting Service recently tried an amazingly obtuse and arrogant slogan: "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?" What was the antecedent of the pronoun "it"? Presumably "culture" or "seriousness" or "relevance." Or something.

But in a television universe that now includes the History Channel, Biography, A&E, Bravo, National Geographic, Disney, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, The Learning Channel, The Outdoor Channel, Noggin, Nickelodeon and scads of other cultural and information channels, what is the antecedent?

Now PBS is airing some HBO films. There is a nifty use of tax dollars -- showing HBO reruns. Which contribute how to "diversity"?

Will is right to suggest that it's time for the Federal government to quit subsidizing PBS. Let the market decide if their broadcast fare is worthy of support. If it is, they can keep on going. If not, we won't really miss them.