Liberal Institution Decries Other Liberal Institution

Wonder of wonders, The New York Times says that maybe, just maybe, PBS has outlived its usefulness:

Forty years ago it really was different. There were only three networks, and none of them were known for challenging or high-minded programming. Indeed, public broadcasting came into being out of collective despair over what had become of the airwaves. Cable has changed all that. There are not only countless more channels to chose from now, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better.

If even the NYT can see it, public broadcasting's days must surely be numbered.

By the way, in another part of the article commenting on the "perceived liberal bias" at PBS, the author says, "...it’s hard now to see anything resembling liberal excess on PBS, if there ever was such a thing."

Ah, no liberal bias here, so sayeth the wise and knowing Times. Hey genius, PBS isn't liberal just because its content is explicitly liberal (although it often is). It's liberal because the idea of the government subsidizing TV broadcasts is liberal. If you wanted a perfect analogy of liberal excess, the government-funded broadcast of a show that nobody watches would be it.