Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Anyone think we need PBS

Congress doesn't.

http://www.thirteen.org/alert/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2002340430_kay20.html

Time to contact your Congressman.

OK, I just called my Congressman, not a hard as I thought it might be. They were very nice on the phone. My Congressman was a teacher/professor so he is against this bill.

here's a new article from 11:30 this morn

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/save_pbs_really.php

thanks for reading this post.
pete

P.S. I do donate to PBS.

Just found a good article from founder Lightning Lad's home town. It mentions Republicans (I have been registered one since High School) so I hope my good friend and polite adversary Mr. Rickshaw will chime in.
P.P.
PS Sorry for hoggin' my own thread; I can't come back, due to work until WED. eve. so I am doing a speed posting for the next 45 min.
LLL

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2812432

I'm a Canadian and I know that I need PBS.

Seriously, its a great station with informative programming, so I hope that it survives. And its news coverage seems to be a bit more even that the newscasts from the big four networks, in my opinion.

Add me to the list of mediocre Canadians who enjoy PBS.

Republicans have a point that the dominance of the northeastern and west coast media in producing PBS material can bias the content. That said the Republicans' opposition to PBS just plays into liberals' stereotype of conservatives as ignorant anti-intellectuals.

So as usual, its a political football that each party will use to smear the other side. Pretty much par for the course in politics (of any country).

The funny thing is if PBS is defunded, the only PBS stations that will likely thrive are the ones in the liberal Democratic markets like Boston-NYC-DC-SanFran etc. because they produce content that is commercially viable, have huge corporations backing them locally etc.

So is stopping Federal funding gonna change anything? Nah just another stupid political battle to score points for each party with its own supporters.

Well, Pete, I'm on the horns of a dillema (sp?). You see, i do approach it from the other side. I easily hear the snide accusations in the voices of people like steve inskeep (or however he spells it), and for some out there to say that PBS is almost universally known for its impartiality (I actually heard that on ...you guessed it...PBS)...well, they are truly full of rotted camel dung, lol.

At the same time, PBS does perform a very important function. It keeps those nutcases with no real talent from clogging the normal airwaves at the same time as giving the rest of the "good sense" loose affiliation that i like to think my self a member of a place to easily find them, and thus, know what the daily spin is.

So, cut funding, and they spread out to multiply like a fungus, or not cut funding, and allow them to remora-ize the pocket books of actual working individuals they so often look down upon.


Hmmmm, what to do...what to do...

Well, Rickshaw, all I can say is - how smug are you going to be when you no longer have an annual Yanni concert to look forward to. So there!

I think i have to go with leaving them in place. Look at "air amurica", the all-idiot network. Listen to it for long and you start to see the ridiculas crap being foisted off as rational thought and cogitation.

I never claimed to be unbiased, and neither have a lot of conservatives. Thats the real, non-kidding problem i have with the left and groups like PBS. They often pretend impartiality, and they often preach tolerance, but only for the ideas and beliefs that they agree with.

Noooooooo, not my yan...umm, wait...who?

Oh god, not the john tesh of greece, right?

Lol, hey, i do know that there is some interesting programing, like "whattayaknow", and a few other things. And i often get to hear music in the jazz zone that i don't get anywhere else.

But when it comes to politics, PBS is anything BUT unbiased.

relax, people. I'm not climbing up on my soapbox, lol.

For those of us with kids, PBS really is invaluable. The programs are better, and they don't sell you Disney world or sugar cereal or Barbie every 5 minutes.

It's worth saying here that lots of people (50%) don't have cable/satellite, can't afford it, and PBS kids programming is real benefit to them. I do remember a time in this country when we cared about public benefit, and using modest public funds to help the less fortunate. Public airwaves belong to US, not multinational corporations. We therefore have a legal right to demand some benefit from there use, besides selling make-up.

well it's the children's programming that will be cut. the religious right belives ernie and bert are gay. AND BUSTER...

Hunh, i thought it was big bird, lol.

Blaming Congress is blaming the messenger IMO. These ARE public airwaves and that's the point. PBS has neglected it's charter. I've seen more than one Charity Board get "taken over" by groups on political or other agenda's as had PBS. A great idea, time for them to get back to what they were chartered to do. Being a proponent for a political party or an ideology isn't one of those things.

Hopefully this is just a scare and those in charge of programming will adjust to provide balance.

By the by, i do realize that PBS and NPR are two different things, but they are closely tied to the same thing, and i think the radio division is lumped in together with the tv division in funding.

If i'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Of course Bill O' Reilly calls his show fair and balanced...

But on-topic, I wouldn't be the first to hearken to anything PBS says politically myself. Not that I really pay much attention to what goes on on PBS. Let the kids have their Big Bird and Barney, I say!

One thing is certain... without PBS, there wouldn't be a thing on TV that cares whether kids know how to read, spell, and do math, and that in itself makes PBS valuable.

Sorry, but I missed 2 things:

1. How did PBS neglect its charter?
2. How and when was PBS taken over by a political agenda?

I can imagine one response, but your description has left me uncertain of your meaning.

i wish pbs was taken over by a political agenda.

but seriously this is just one example of the reduction of government. good luck in a private nation all.

Prime, i do think fox is more fair an balanced for one reason...

They allow both sides of the arguement to be presented. Some show like deface the nation say they do, but they tend to have groups of four, with three libs and one conservative. Often, in the case of people like James Carvell, if a conservative starts to give their point of view, he goes into a screaming fit, hollering about how he wont allow them to 'define the debate' or some such. But that isn't to say that they don't have individual bias'.

See, the problem is two fold. One, on places like npr, if they do talk with a conservative, it's either outright accusatory, or the accusation is in the tone. I once saw Paula Zahn on some show interviewing Rush Limbaugh. I am sure that she and the others that ran the show thought it was a great interview, but halfway through, she starts telling him that he "really doesn't believe"... and starts putting her interpretation out there. Now, if its a conversational show, thats one thing, but in an interview, the other person should be allowed to state their case. To me, if you can't allow the other person to have their point of view, that means you are scared that your point of view is either wrong, or coming across badly. And yes, i do know that some conservatives do that, such as Sean Hannity. The difference is, conservatives seem to be a lot more willing to call out their own when they do it. Liberals seem to make excuses for their side when they do. Now, that is opinion from me only, but i have heard it from other conservatives as well.

The second thing is the old softshoe routine. A favored guest, like the guy from snl, played stuart smalley...dang it, having a mental block on his name, sorry... is served up the super soft questions, led into giving a nice, sweet, lollipops and sugar cane interview, and then hailed as the second ..Al Franken, sorry, just came to me...coming.

He was a failed comedian that glommed onto using others names, and wrote a few things that the libs liked because it completely agreed with them, and he is called a genius.

Or someone like Bill Clinton, who made the single stupidest, dumb-assedist statement i have ever heard..."We defeated the business cycle", and was never called on it by his own party. Most of the reporters studied english, or history, or liberal arts of some sort that had nothing to do with real, working professions, such as economics, finance, or accounting, and didn't even know enough to question that statement, or were either to lazy to talk to professionals, or didn't want to take the chance that he would be proven wrong.

Like i said, i don't excuse my side their mistakes, but i do think that my side is more willing to allow true free speach, where ALL ideas are open for discussion, than the other side is.

Again, just my opinion, but it should be worth mentioning...my own personal bent came from studying the world around me, my parents were southern democrats, and i still looked around and came down more on the conservative side.

I am not a religous nut, i didn't set foot in a church from the time i was 12 until i was in my mid twenties. I still don't attend church except for weddings and funerals, so I'm not a fundamentalist nut.

My own personal affiliation is more along the lines of "good sense", fiscal responsibility, and personal responsibility. And in this day and age, that seems to make me a party of one.

I am the guy NPR hates. White, male, southern, thinks for myself, and am tall. If i was actually a fan of nascar, i would be the trifecta.

That FOX could be called Fair and balanced in anything but an ironic way is quite amusing.

And I can't think why Paula Zahn is cited in a paragraph about "places like NPR" since Paula Zahn is on CNN - much more like FOX than NPR.

On the whole the gripes about NPR tend to be rather unsubstantiated with plenty of gripes about "libs" and "hate".

But a more interesting look, IMO, can be found in the PIPA poll (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Report08_20_04.pdf).

Based on several nationwide surveys, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between.

The real tragedy is that some partisans are succeeding in politicinzing EVERYTHING to the point at which the perception is there are no facts, only political spins.

And that's a shame.

I like PBS, they air British comedies, what would I do with out my "Are you being served?"

Took the words right out of my mouth. Love that show.

Seriously, I think Public Brodcasting is a great resource and it'd be an absolute shame to loose it. I don't know if we need it exactly, but I still hope it can be saved.

I think that we need a small amount of clarification here. Congress is not considering defunding PBS and/or NPR. Both are private entities supported by donations from many sources, including major corporations, the government, and individual viewers/listeners. What Congress is considering cutting funding to is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) which is the mechanism through which the government channels donations to PBS and NPR. Even without that money both will continue to operate, but they'll have to get even more aggressive about soliciting donations.

And the question of impartiality is a red herring. PBS provides some of the highest quality science, nature, and children's programming on the air today. Their news and public-affairs programming, the political bent of which we could debate til doomsday, comprises a pretty small percentage of their broadcast week. The whole point of PBS is to have a forum for programming that isn't driven by marketing needs. That's how you can show programs like "Great Railway Journeys," "Nova," "Cosmos," "Masterpiece Theater," "Sesame Street," "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood," and all the other shows that a for-profit network would cancel in a heartbeat.

And Rick, I think that perceptions of "snide accusations" are just that: perceptions. I hear the same note of sneering mockery from Bill O'Reilly and Britt Hume on Fox News. I think it's mostly a matter of perspective.

Yes, Joe. I know that Paula Zahn doesn't work on NPR or PBS. I was using her "interview" as an example. But, if that offends thee, i can easily use Steve Inskeep, Terri Gross, and many of the others i have heard over the years.

And when you quote the group doing the study, lemme ask this: Who paid for it? Who did it? What are their political leanings? Are they truly impartial, or do they just say they are? And who determines if those 'misconceptions' really are misconceptions? Cause i for one do not know everything that went on before, and now during this action, do you?

As for Bill O'Reilly, i never said that the man isn't an ass. But i have heard his program a few times, and the times i have, he has gone after everyone, not just libs. I have never, not once, heard a lib go after their own with true fervor and gusto.

And yes, those are my perceptions. That is what we are talking about. You perceive your side to be great, that its okay to skew a little if it means that your side looks better. I mean, there are memo's that actually mention how to spin and skew it, some from the democratic party during the last campaign. And yeah, the repubs do that as well. What i am saying is...we seem to be more forthright, and seem to be more willing to call someone on the carpet from our side when they do something wrong than you are with your side.

As an example...where were the outraged femanists when bill clintons camp went apecrap over the women accusing him of harrassment? I'll tell you, they actually helped him. Some looked for dirt on the women, and some, just by being silent, betrayed their own side.

My wife, a lib, is still furious over that.

Just calling yourself impartial doesn't mean you are. People lie to themselves and look for the way to portray themselves in the best light. Can you honestly say you, or your side, have never done that?

As to NPR, like i say, the political side, which is where the real quibble is, the children's programing is a red herring as to the debate, is the side driving this.

Both are bad to an extent. I just happen to believe, after watching the news, and having dealt with it, that the left side is a lot more willing to stick it's head in the sand, and ignore its own faults.

With the left, it's all about intentions and not results. And we all know where that paved road leads.