I mentioned in my last post that Charity Navigator rated my local PBS outlet as a one star (of four) charity.

The CEO earns $160k per year, which is about twice the amount of a system which funds TWO PBS channels in Milwaukee, WI.

There are a few reasons I like PBS: I enjoy select episodes of "Mystery." And, for some bizarre reason, I like endless re-runs of Judi Dench in "As Time Goes By." Never mind that it's 1 of only 2 token British shows we've gotten for the last decade. And I liked "Moll Flanders." And my local station produces a local talk show called "Donnybrook" which is just great.

But there are a lot of mitigating factors...

Never mind PBS's relentless, blatant partisanship (look for a conservative equivalent of Bill Moyers and you'll see what I mean), and their incredibly stupid and uncouth mishandling of Louis Rukeyser. No, these are bad, but they're not the final straw.

When I first donated to KETC, I noticed they never actually asked me what shows I liked. I assumed if it was really "TV for me" then I would have some say in what was shown. But I guess all good decisions for "the people" must be made without their participation, eh?

Next, I noticed the same woman's face was what I saw, all the time, when it came fund-raising time. Year after year. I didn't like her much, but, oh well, I guess she liked the job and got it a lot.

Then there's the fund-raising technique used. I don't mind that it happens. But it seems to be done bizarrely: They show material completely unlike typical PBS fare in order to solicit donations. If I like "Masterpiece Theater", why would you assume I'm deeply interested in an old Rolling Stones concernt? If I like Rolling Stones concerts, why on earth would I give money to fund Tony Brown Journal (assuming they still carry him -- I liked him, BTW).

And last, there's the deal-breaker: Their relentless religious advocacy. There are three approaches to religion: avoidance, neutral coverage (as one might receive in history class, where the religion is described), and advocacy.

On the rare occasions where Christianity is discussed, it's covered neutrally (at best), or they approach the matter from a skeptical point of view, with "liberal" theologians, mostly from the reformed "God is dead" camp, chosen to represent the "faithful."

Okay, this I understand. I only ask, as an institution (a) serving the public interest, and (b) receiving public funds that you take a similar approach to other faiths and philosophies (e.g. Islam, atheism).

But no. Islam was recently presented in a totally whitewashed form. No skeptical voices, nothing but advocacy.

And worse is their relentless New Age teachings. I tune in during fund rasing time where a guru tells me the nature of God -- God is found within me, I can get in touch with this god by meditation -- and is teaching me how I should live my life in light of this religious worldview. Not just advocacy, but indoctrination.

You know, if I lived in a culture which primarily held this worldview, I could understand this. Or if the guru had paid to have his program shown -- as many Christian organizations do -- again, I could understand. Or if they just granted everyone the same rights -- e.g. I were to tune into teachings on Hinduism one day, Christianity the next, Islam the next, etc. Or if KETC just admitted it was a New Age station, like Christian radio stations do, again I could understand.

But should I give money to a group that claims to repesent a neutral position, while it endlessly promotes religious philosophies which have impoverished a huge percentage of the human race? I think not.

See also: PBS Kids: Respect Differences, Understand Others