Something that happened in the past

Why, then, doesn't Congress continue to fund PBS at current levels but tell them they must stick to what they are good at, and stop being the TV funhouse of the Democratic Party? Nobody needs their investigative unit pieces on how Iran-contra was very, very wicked; nobody needs another Bill Moyers show; nobody needs a conservative counter to Bill Moyers's show. Our children are being raised in a culture of argument. They can get left-right-pop-pop-bang anywhere, everywhere.
PBS exists to do what the commercial networks should and won't. And just one of those things is bringing to Americans who have not and probably will not be exposed to it the great treasury of American art, from the work of Eugene O'Neill (again, ABC won't be producing"Long Day's Journey" anytime soon), outward to Western art (Shakespeare) and outward to world art.
And science. And history. But real history, meaning something that happened in the past as opposed to the recent present, with which PBS, alas, cannot be trusted.
Art and science and history. That's where PBS's programming should be. And Americans would not resent funding it.
PBS producers would rebel, claiming such programming would rock with age. What they would mean is, There's little personal status in art, and much in controversy. You don't get any particular respect for mounting a great play or a producing a great symphony: their excellence is already known. Respect and status come from controversy. But too bad. The point of PBS is not to employ clever producers. [emphasis added]
- Noonan in WSJ

To be completely honest, I only occasionally watch PBS and rarely listen to NPR. Mostly because TV and radio are not available on my iPod. But, just the other night, I taped and watched a repeat of The Rock Star and the Mullahs - which is set in the"recent present" and could be considered a bit more important than the aesthetic enjoyment of Brad Pitt's Hamlet.

Lest, PBS and NPR become things that happened in the past.