Time for the idea of public broadcasting to end?

[Denny Crane]

Gotta say PBS violates the public broadcasting act of 1967 constantly.

There's a revolving door between PBS and CNN and NBC, the latter two hardly unbiased.

Interesting that Maris' post contains the words "perceived liberal bias" as if it isn't actually perceived.

This whole argument is similar to the one about public unions and collective bargaining. PBS gets funding from Democrats and praises Democrats and is on-air advertising for Democrats' campaigns, which assures they get more funding.

 

[Stevenson]

"PBS, NPR Pumping Millions into Investigative Reporting"

"WASHINGTON — NPR, PBS and local public broadcast stations around the country are hiring more journalists and pumping millions of dollars into investigative news to make up for what they see as a lack of deep-digging coverage by their for-profit counterparts."

This is from Today's news.

Right, they should be defunded and they are just the same as private media. They serve a great public purpose.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why didn't they hire more investigative journalists when Obama and Democrats ran the whole show? Seems like we needed far more oversight then, since congress wasn't watching over the $trillions in blank checks they gave Obama.

Or is this hiring in response to republicans having some power, and a way to dig up dirt?

Seriously, this shouldn't even be questionable. Nobody gives a shit about NBC's bias, or at least it's not taxpayer money paying for it.

 

[maxiep]

"PBS, NPR Pumping Millions into Investigative Reporting"

"WASHINGTON — NPR, PBS and local public broadcast stations around the country are hiring more journalists and pumping millions of dollars into investigative news to make up for what they see as a lack of deep-digging coverage by their for-profit counterparts."

This is from Today's news.

Right, they should be defunded and they are just the same as private media. They serve a great public purpose.

You know where they got that money, right? I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with Sorge Goros. Do you believe that reporting will be neutral?

 

[Denny Crane]

While we're cutting spending, the republicans' allowance should be cut as well.

 

[MARIS61]

Gotta say PBS violates the public broadcasting act of 1967 constantly.

There's a revolving door between PBS and CNN and NBC, the latter two hardly unbiased.

Interesting that Maris' post contains the words "perceived liberal bias" as if it isn't actually perceived.

This whole argument is similar to the one about public unions and collective bargaining. PBS gets funding from Democrats and praises Democrats and is on-air advertising for Democrats' campaigns, which assures they get more funding.

The Mad Cow is entertaining enough, but do you need to wear the tin foil hat also?

 

[Denny Crane]

The Mad Cow is entertaining enough, but do you need to wear the tin foil hat also?

Aren't you the guy with the tin foil hat?

Anyhow, there is a 1st amendment and a govt. sponsored news outlet seems to violate the law, if not the spirit of the law. That's the point I've raised through rhetorical questions in this thread.

 

[MrJayremmie]

You know where they got that money, right? I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with Sorge Goros. Do you believe that reporting will be neutral?

It should be a rule that if you bring up George Sorros, then you have to bring up the Koch brothers as well. Each do the exact same thing for the wing of the left and right.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Why didn't they hire more investigative journalists when Obama and Democrats ran the whole show? Seems like we needed far more oversight then, since congress wasn't watching over the $trillions in blank checks they gave Obama.

Or is this hiring in response to republicans having some power, and a way to dig up dirt?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Ever read Reason Magazine?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/03/zero-hour-for-public-broadcast

I am an American and a male, so you can easily guess the first thing I do when I arrive in a hotel room: pick up the TV remote and turn on ESPN. The second thing may not be so universal: tune the clock radio to the local public radio station.

I have been happily addicted to the medium since 1979, when National Public Radio launched its "Morning Edition" news show. I wake up to NPR every day. I listen to it in the shower.

It's the first button on my car radio. I've set up automatic monthly contributions to my public radio station, so I'll be supporting it till the day I die, and maybe after.

In short, I think congressional Republicans are badly mistaken in denouncing public radio as a contemptible source of liberal propaganda and snooty elitism that the nation would be better off without. It's a national treasure, in my view.

And their proposal to eliminate all federal funding for public broadcasting? I'm all for it.

(Read on)

 

[MrJayremmie]

Yet you were talking nothing about what was discussed in your last post. You were talking about Democratic funding and liberal bias. And of course, you support the Republican proposal.

I'm doing a speech on Libertarianism in my speech class, and the more I research the more it seems that you really are not what you claim.

Whatever you are isn't my business and I really don't care, I just happen to dislike when people call themselves libertarians and simply are not. Maxiep, when he talks about Libertarianism, says he has Libertarianism leanings. I think that is more accurate.

 

[MARIS61]

Aren't you the guy with the tin foil hat?

Anyhow, there is a 1st amendment and a govt. sponsored news outlet seems to violate the law, if not the spirit of the law. That's the point I've raised through rhetorical questions in this thread.

You've presented no evidence at all to back up your Palinesque conspiracy theory.

Nor has anyone else during the 40 years of it's existence.

In fact, the non-existence of political bent has made PBS the most trusted institution in America.

PBS is the most prominent provider of programming to U.S. public television stations, distributing series such as PBS NewsHour, Masterpiece, and Frontline. Since the mid-2000s, Roper polls commissioned by PBS have consistently placed the service as America's most trusted national institution.

Additional survey highlights:

PBS remains #1 in public trust, with 49% trusting PBS a great deal. Second in trust are “courts of law,” which are trusted a great deal by 27%.

Among those polled, 18% found PBS to be an “excellent” use of tax dollars, second only to military defense, which garnered 23%.

Americans stated that they are the most satisfied with programs found on PBS compared to cable and commercial broadcast. Thirty-five percent stated they were “very satisfied” with PBS programs; compared to cable’s 22% and commercial broadcasting’s 16%.

The poll found that Americans are “most satisfied” with PBS’ children’s programming, (ages 2-8), which garnered 48% of parents, while cable and broadcast networks lagged behind at 30% and 16% respectively.

PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 43% trusting its programs a “great deal.” CNN came in second with 28% and FOX News third at 27%.

Forty-three percent of Americans rated the news coverage, investigations and discussions of major issues on PBS programs as “mostly fair.” CNN and CBS tied for second at 32%.

The majority of Americans believe the federal funding PBS receives is insufficient. When informed that public broadcasting receives 15% of its funding from the government, and that this amount translates to about one dollar per person per year of government support, 48% believe this amount is “too little,” 38% say it’s “about right” and only 9% state that it’s “too much.”

Americans are clearly on the side of PBS and this issue demonstrates that the Tea Party represents nothing more than a tiny cult of gullible media-puppets too stupid to know when they are being manipulated by corporate interests.

By attacking this bastion of truth, the far-right makes clear their intent is to lie, cheat, and deceive Americans. Nothing new here, same old corporate criminals trying to cover their asses by de-funding the only media outlet they don't already own and run.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fine, let it be the most trusted. It's 80% viewer funded, let it be 100% and that's all there is to it.

I get it that you don't understand the rhetorical questions I raised.

 

[MARIS61]

Fine, let it be the most trusted. It's 80% viewer funded, let it be 100% and that's all there is to it.

I get it that you don't understand the rhetorical questions I raised.

I think you mean baseless and unfounded opinions, rather than rhetorical questions, which is why you ignored my requests for evidence to back them up.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Good post Maris.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think you mean baseless and unfounded opinions, rather than rhetorical questions, which is why you ignored my requests for evidence to back them up.

I don't need to provide evidence, YOU provided it for me and I pointed it out. The simple appearance of bias is enough that it shouldn't get govt. funding. That and the govt. has no business funding anything to do with the press/media.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=pbs+bias

If you insist.

 

[maxiep]

It should be a rule that if you bring up George Sorros, then you have to bring up the Koch brothers as well. Each do the exact same thing for the wing of the left and right.

I think if George Soros is willing to donate significant sums to CPB, it's clear that it can survive without public funds, just like the political entities to which those evil Koch brothers donate. I'm glad we agree.

Of course, making Soros and the Kochs morally equivalent is, of course, a fraud. One wants to increase the role of government in your life and one wishes to lessen it. I'll choose the side of freedom, thank you very much. If you side with the side that wants you to have less choice in your life, the question is: Why?

 

[MrJayremmie]

Of course, making Soros and the Kochs morally equivalent is, of course, a fraud. One wants to increase the role of government in your life and one wishes to lessen it. I'll choose the side of freedom, thank you very much. If you side with the side that wants you to have less choice in your life, the question is: Why?

Wow. Talk about spin. The Kochs are simply looking out for their own interest. They are egomaniacs and are buying politicians to deregulate their industry. Freedom has nothing to do with it. What does busting the unions in Wisconsin have to do with Freedom? Why don't they actively support Ron Paul if they are in favor of less government when many of the Republicans they support are big government? Why did they deny until recently that they had any hand in organizing the "grass roots" tea party rallies?

If they are for freedom then I'm sure they were actively opposing the patriot act and pouring money into politicians to go against it? If they did, they would gain more respect from me. Why didn't they organize tea partiers under Bush's administration when he increased government at record levels with the patriot act, wars, spending, department of homeland security, etc...

You have been listening to a lot of Glenn Beck.

 

[maxiep]

Wow. Talk about spin. The Kochs are simply looking out for their own interest. They are egomaniacs and are buying politicians to deregulate their industry. Freedom has nothing to do with it. What does busting the unions in Wisconsin have to do with Freedom? Why don't they actively support Ron Paul if they are in favor of less government when many of the Republicans they support are big government? Why did they deny until recently that they had any hand in organizing the "grass roots" tea party rallies?

If they are for freedom then I'm sure they were actively opposing the patriot act and pouring money into politicians to go against it? If they did, they would gain more respect from me. Why didn't they organize tea partiers under Bush's administration when he increased government at record levels with the patriot act, wars, spending, department of homeland security, etc...

You have been listening to a lot of Glenn Beck.

Firstly, I'm not sure the Kochs are interested in gaining your respect. Second, eliminating collective bargaining has quite a bit do to with "freedom". It means we're free to fire bad teachers. It means we as taxpayers aren't subject to non-adversarial negotiation. It means my son isn't saddled with promises made twenty years before he paid taxes. It means public employees are free to vote whether or not they wish to be in a union. But freedom is only one issue. It has to do with an economic realty which you haven't even bothered addressing. I understand why.

As for the Kochs, they wish to have deregulation in their industries. Okay. I like freedom, too. Wouldn't you prefer to make more of your own decisions? Explain to me how their activities are different than GE's? And as for giving money to further their interests, do you understand how Soros makes his money? He's shorting the dollar while supporting those who want to put the printing presses on overdrive. How is that noble?

No matter how much you try to deflect, no matter how much you keep trying to change the debate, the simple facts remain. The goal of CPB has been met. It's a luxury item, not a necessity in the budget. It has shown the ability to sustain itself. We can't afford it. There is no reason to keep subsidizing it. I have yet to hear a response as to why we can and we should continue to pay for it when we're borrowing $0.41 for every dollar.

 

[MrJayremmie]

Firstly, I'm not sure the Kochs are interested in gaining your respect. Second, eliminating collective bargaining has quite a bit do to with "freedom". It means we're free to fire bad teachers. It means we as taxpayers aren't subject to non-adversarial negotiation. It means my son isn't saddled with promises made twenty years before he paid taxes. It means public employees are free to vote whether or not they wish to be in a union. But freedom is only one issue. It has to do with an economic realty which you haven't even bothered addressing. I understand why.

So they are involving themselves with this because they see teacher unions as bad for freedom, and a harm to freedom? If you believe that, and don't believe this is about dismantling unions one at a time then you are severely blinded by your ideology.

There is no reason to keep subsidizing it.

But rather let us spend the money we don't have on subsidizing oil and bailing out banks that we give no regulation to because the republicans didn't want to limit the banker's pay of the banks that we bailed out. Yet they are fine with this.

Maxiep, it is hard to find someone with your ability to spin. I bet we can sit down, have coffee, and go through liberal newspaper after newspaper and you will tell me why the Republicans did a good job in this and that.

The Kochs don't give a crap about OUR freedom. They care only about themselves. To act as if their hand in the anti-union debate is ANYTHING but to try and hurt the democratic party is simply ludicrous.

 

[Denny Crane]

So they are involving themselves with this because they see teacher unions as bad for freedom, and a harm to freedom? If you believe that, and don't believe this is about dismantling unions one at a time then you are severely blinded by your ideology.



But rather let us spend the money we don't have on subsidizing oil and bailing out banks that we give no regulation to because the republicans didn't want to limit the banker's pay of the banks that we bailed out. Yet they are fine with this.

Maxiep, it is hard to find someone with your ability to spin. I bet we can sit down, have coffee, and go through liberal newspaper after newspaper and you will tell me why the Republicans did a good job in this and that.

The Kochs don't give a crap about OUR freedom. They care only about themselves. To act as if their hand in the anti-union debate is ANYTHING but to try and hurt the democratic party is simply ludicrous.

Just wanted to point out that bailing out the banks is not a Libertarian thing to do. Neither is regulating them or limiting the bankers' pay.

You might remember I argued the auto companies should have been left to go bankrupt and the banks should not have been bailed out. I'm quite sure that doing so made the recession last about 2 years longer than it would have otherwise.

 

[barfo]

Just wanted to point out that bailing out the banks is not a Libertarian thing to do. Neither is regulating them or limiting the bankers' pay.

You might remember I argued the auto companies should have been left to go bankrupt and the banks should not have been bailed out. I'm quite sure that doing so made the recession last about 2 years longer than it would have otherwise.

What is a Libertarian thing to do? I'd say making absurd claims on the internets is pretty much the only thing that falls into that category.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

So they are involving themselves with this because they see teacher unions as bad for freedom, and a harm to freedom? If you believe that, and don't believe this is about dismantling unions one at a time then you are severely blinded by your ideology.



But rather let us spend the money we don't have on subsidizing oil and bailing out banks that we give no regulation to because the republicans didn't want to limit the banker's pay of the banks that we bailed out. Yet they are fine with this.

Maxiep, it is hard to find someone with your ability to spin. I bet we can sit down, have coffee, and go through liberal newspaper after newspaper and you will tell me why the Republicans did a good job in this and that.

The Kochs don't give a crap about OUR freedom. They care only about themselves. To act as if their hand in the anti-union debate is ANYTHING but to try and hurt the democratic party is simply ludicrous.

Once again, this is a discussion about subsidizing CPB. It's not about the Koch's; it's not about freedom. And you have no direct answer as to why we should continue subsidizing it other than some crap about subsidizing oil companies. Just like the other thread, you're only interested in deflection, not in answering the questions at hand. And no matter how many times I bring up the core issue and ask you to respond, you won't. Again, I understand why that's the case.

 

[Denny Crane]

What is a Libertarian thing to do? I'd say making absurd claims on the internets is pretty much the only thing that falls into that category.

barfo

Let the banks take risk, assess the risk, and make loans accordingly - all along. If they fail, some other bank will come along and buy the assets.

Business 101.

 

[barfo]

Let the banks take risk, assess the risk, and make loans accordingly - all along. If they fail, some other bank will come along and buy the assets.

Business 101.

You should take Business 201 sometime, then.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You should take Business 201 sometime, then.

barfo

Already did. You should take Business 101 sometime.

 

[barfo]

Already did. You should take Business 101 sometime.

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

The local public station I listen to in rural North Carolina would undoubtedly go under if it had to rely on private funding. The only news stations that can survive in that climate are Christian and right-wing talk stations. There is a lot of poverty here and people just don't see the value in it.

 

[Denny Crane]

PBS has a lot of corporate sponsors. You'd think they'd pay for stations in rural areas as well.

For example:

Antiques Roadshow is sponsored by Liberty Mutual and Subaru.
General Motors sponsored Ken Burns' "The West"
ExxonMobile underwrites "Nightly Business Report," "Nova," "Masterpiece Theater" and other programs.
Nova is also sponsored by Howard Hughes Medical Institute and David H. Koch (owner of Koch Industries)

Anheuser-Bush sponsors quite a few shows as well.

That's the tip of that iceberg.