It seems more complex than that. Just as it would be unwise to put all of your retirement into one form of investment, it's unwise to depend on one large source (or even a few sizable sources) to fund public broadcasting. Letting everyone donate means the money can go toward creativity without letting any donor (private or public) have too large a vote.

Then again, this also assumes that the monolithic PBS and NPR approaches should be the only outlets for long-form expression. PBS stations play Lawrence Welk reruns for the elderly then ask for money... to replay a show hosted by a man long dead.

NPR (and flagship Boston station WBUR in particular) was the most active group lobbying against Microchannel FM stations for a decade. Jane Christo, head of WBUR for a long time, felt they were all anyone needed for public radio, that they should get a monopoly on the noncommercial end of the FM spectrum (88.1 through 91.9 FM). She actively worked to kill Allston-Brighton Free Radio because they were literally down the street (well, down Comm to Packard's Corner, then straight on Brighton along the old A line and then a sharp right on Cambridge, but still about 1.5 miles) and she wanted dibs.

Multiple funding sources for multiple project entities, multiple ways to get your story out, is what freedom and open finance should be about. We all have our goals, and we all have stories to tell but not necessarily the cash to tell everyone.

Why beg some billionaire not to be angry with the tote-bag guys at channel 13? It only makes that one person more powerful than his largesse.