Here's Levar Burton explaining that funding priorities changed and that's why the show was cancelled. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi8adI4e2Lk#t=28 Basically they moved all the funding from shows that showed kids why to read into programs that taught kids how to read.

"If Reading Rainbow is so epically popular, then why was the show cancelled to begin with?"

This, of course, assumes perfect knowledge and efficiency. I wonder if the author of this piece would make the same sloppy argument against, say, Tell Me More, which, NPR announced this month, will be cut (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314256024/npr...). Or consider Firefly, the arch-example of clueless program cutting (https://www.blastr.com/2013-5-3/netflix-exec-explains-why-th...).

I'm not saying this program was good or should be brought back (I never watched the original and don't know anything about it) but doing a hack piece on a KS campaign with such scant reasoning is not cool.

I think Star Trek is an even better example. It was under constant threat of cancellation (saved only by fans writing in), then finally moved to a death slot and killed after three seasons. Then it went on to become the second-biggest science fiction franchise ever.

Aye. Crowdfunding is an excellent way to securing investment without the project being beholden to shareholders expecting a big payout at the end.

They do have private investors.

Oh I see what's going on! They cancelled it in 2009 because of their surpassing epic smartness, to create more demand for this for-profit venture, and to raise more money on kickstarter 5 years later. Washington post, hire me.

Seriously though, cancelling the show in 2009 was probably just a mistake or it could have been anyway.

I think the other part is the audience and target demographic. Despite that, they can still have my donation, I'd rather give a bit and see them fall short than not give at all.