I think I ultimately arrive at the same point Pong made.
There is definitely a place for some type of public broadcasting. However, what constitutes public broadcasting and a true public good is something that is up to debate, as it is a wide spectrum. On one end is the type of public services that I don't think anyone would be opposed to, such as the Emergency Broadcast System. This is "news" in the truest sense- as in, some bad sh-t is about to go down imminently. That sorta information is not generally subjective and I would consider critical to public safety and defense, so those services are in. Additionally, without a government effort, there would likely be no one to fund an Emergency Broadcast System, so I consider it a true public good- i.e. a good society requires but that the private sector likely wouldn't invest in. Then on the other end of the spectrum, we have public funding of the arts and such. Somwhere in between we have news/commentary services like NPR, PBS, the National Weather Service, and so on.
In ranking public services from "most" to "least" important, at first glance, I'd probably go the Emergency Broadcast System first, then other services that are related to national public safety next, such as the National Weather Service, the FAA, and what not. Next would come news/commentary (such as NPR) and finally, arts funding.
However, a wrinkle emerges, because news/commentary is inevitably subjective. People always talk about the "golden age of journalism," which is curious, since that's never existed. Yellow journalism has been around since the advent of the printing press. So the question arises whether the government should be funding something that would inevitably result in subjective viewpoints; i.e. it states that government is taking a position, even if unintentionally, on issues. This is in contrast to, as mentioned, the Emergency Broadcast System, which really isn't subjective, and is a true public good. But is news a public good? 30 years ago before the advent of cable news networks, I'd be more inclined to say yes. But in this day and age, and especially with the internet, your basic news and commentary services are provided, and amply so, by the private sector. We then get to certain arts funding, which perhaps somewhat oddly, do not bother me as much, because I see them more as public goods that wouldn't necessarily be funded without grants. I generally agree with the late and great Nelson Rockefeller here (and one of the greatest Republicans of all time, imo), who generously and vigorously funded projects like the Museum of Modern Art, etc.
So ultimately, I fall sorta into the same place as Pong. Funding for arts doesn't bother me so much; news more so. Now I have nothing against NPR per se. It is liberal biased, but a lot of the programming is of high quality too. I don't listen to it often, but that's more because I receive my daily news from the Wall Street Journal and CNBC; especially since I follow market news closely. I like to stay away from receiving "news" from other cable networks, but I do watch them for entertainment... whether it be O'Reilly cutting off people with his ridiculous points, or Maddow preaching to the choir- sorta like last night when she had Michael Moore on, who went on a 15 min rant about class war (lol). As a side note, it's funny how much criticism Fox gets from the left.. when it's a funny propoganda machine sure, but the true mouthpiece of the 1% isn't Fox, it's CNBC, which is vastly more influential.