Bernard points out that the Public Broadcasting Service isn't really
free television, as I'd said, since:

>...PBS gets some government subsidy (not as much as was once the case)
>and lives by frequent fund raisers.
>
>Classical music lovers should question whether or not the perceived
>virtues of PBS programming balance the egregiously bad treatment of
>classical music.  For me it is not even close and I choose not to
>contribute.

PBS may not in fact be free, but I'm left to wonder: do you shun the
channel entirely, or even its CM programs altogether ...or watch even
so?  I, for one, couldn't manage on 'Boomtown,' '24,' and 'Seinfeld'
re-runs alone.  As indicated, I was impressed with the performance of
the Rite, and found the program worthwhile despite their chopping the
Lutoslawski to a splinter.

>The marginalization of classical music is a choice that PBS
>(NPR as well) has made.

You seem to be suggesting that PBS's choices about CM stray from the
presumed *quality programming* imperatives they claim to follow.  The
prima facie case is a sort of utilitarian approach, the usual cost-benefit
non-analysis: BBC miniseries and documentaries about jazz, Einstein's
influence, Kissinger's crimes, and so forth, get aired as those audiences
are reckoned to be large; but CM programs are marginalized as it's thought
that there aren't enough CM lovers to warrant the expense.

What makes you say that the thumbs down about CM isn't about this numbers
game?

I guess it's entirely possible that I've misunderstood your thrust.  If
not, though, it would seem to follow that we North American CM lovers
are a shy and retiring bunch who ought to write to PBS, showing them
that we're a hefty and loud gang, and demand a little respect.

Bert Bailey