(2 of 2)
For starters, it's frugal. We get a national TV and radio network for the kind of money Oprah has under her couch cushions. Progressives might prefer a lavish all-public program like the BBC--the single-payer plan of TV--but PBS uses its seed money to leverage corporate and charitable dollars. If PBS were a space program or a school system, conservatives would love that. It's also decentralized: major decisions are made locally, just as Romney would have with health care.
And for all the culture warriors against it, public TV is proudly, dorkily family-values-friendly, an Edwardian hemline in a sea of booty shorts. If liberals love PBS's pluralism, cultural conservatives love that their kids can watch free TV without being bombed with ads and inappropriate content.
Frankly, cutting PBS funds might be better for me personally. Here in rich, evil, liberal New York City, I'd still have public TV, now free from political pressure to be safe and bland. And I could keep the buck and change in taxes that I spend to offer PBS to the heartland. Screw you, South Dakota. You're on your own!
But public TV is for all the public, which is why it's amazing we're fighting over one federal program that manages to be cheap and bipartisanly popular. You may think that this election is about how to best serve "the 100%" or that it's about using money wisely in tough times. Either way, PBS is the definition of educational TV.