The problem is it's not a hoax -it's real. The other problem is the perception that PBS and NPR don't need public funding at all, because "only 15% of their budget comes from the government". Well, that's true enough for the national org., but many small local stations, which, not coincidentally, serve largely rural areas where there is no other independent alternative for news, make up a much, much larger percentage of their budgets through government funding.
Supporters of the move, which will slash the PBS budget 25% next year and eliminate it entirely in two years, make the argument that money needs to be saved somewhere, and we cannot cut funding for education or health care in favor of PBS. That type of argument is called "mis-direction" -no PBS supporter wants to cut funding for education or health care; but what about billions for futile wars, or billions in rebates, in the form of tax cuts, for millionaires on their stock-market gains? A country that can subsidize millionaire's yacht purchases to the tune of billions, and then turn around and tell us that we have to chose between cutting education or information services to save several millions, is on the wrong track.
I believe the word is "bamboozle".
The other word is shameful.