3to1

tRump wants to gut funding for public broadcasting.

Recommended Posts

link?

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/373434-trump-proposes-eliminating-federal-funding-for-pbs-npr

or

In a repeat of last year, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2019 calls for eliminating four federal cultural agencies in a move that would save almost $1 billion from a $4.4 trillion spending plan.

Trump’s proposal calls for drastically reducing the funding to begin closing the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The four agencies would share $109 million in 2019, a overall cut of $917 million.

Congress rejected a nearly identical plan from the Trump administration last year.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would receive $15 million, a cut of $480 million from 2017’s figure. The proposal would destroy the agency that supports the public television and radio, said CPB president and chief executive Patricia Harrison.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/02/12/trumps-budget-eliminates-nea-public-tv-and-other-cultural-agencies-again/?utm_term=.9d42ca68a48c

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may already be effective, despite just being a proposal.

We get lots of channels on the satellite but I only watch about 6, including PBS, at least until recently. On that channel, and only that channel, I get the satellite signal out message that we get when the whole thing goes down in a bad rainstorm. It's been going on a few weeks now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would it even be proposed? godamn, I literally hate those soulless mf'ers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

why would it even be proposed? godamn, I hate those soulless mf'ers.

I can think of a good reason, though I am a fan of the programming.

I wish there were more variety in their political shows in particular. They have Duopoly cheerleaders broadcasting and I'm paying for it. They don't have anyone who shares my opinions being paid for by Duopoly taxpayers. So I'm paying to subsidize their views but not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really enjoy PBS, but why shouldn’t they go commercial nowadays, their original reason for existence is no longer valid. When it began, it was to provide an alternative in a very limited television landscape - there was only ABC, CBS, NBC and a few local/regional networks. There wasn’t educational TV, and there wasn’t much arts or culture TV. Now days there are so many networks/channels serving every niche, PBS could just be another.

And PBS has been accused of having some political bias over the past decade, seems inappropriate for public funding?

Again, we value PBS, just not sure why they should be a different TV entity anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

variety? many would call their programming 'biased', facts and integrity dictate what's presented and obviously most are better off for it.

the Reich-Wing and public broadcasting are contradictions of terms. those shady, bs'ing cunts would turn it to shit just like everything else they lay their hands on and they know they have no voice there, and that's why they'd be fine with disposing of it like common trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

variety? many would call their programming 'biased', facts and integrity dictate what's presented and we're all better off for it.

the Reich-Wing and public broadcasting are contradictions of terms. those shady, bs'ing cunts would turn it to shit just like everything else they lay their hands on and they know they have no voice there, and that's why they'd be fine with disposing of it.

You are missing bias of omission, the most common kind. Let me give you an example. I just did a search.

pbskelosearch.jpg

 

Umm, sorting by relevance isn't going to help. Neither of those is what I had in mind. With Trump threatening an emergency to seize lots of land, the seizure of land seems to me a current topic, or at least one that might have come up, you know, ever.

The same search on a Koch-$pon$ored propaganda site reveals a great deal more information of relevance.

That's one example but you can tell similar issues by noting which ones get comments from me and almost no one else: asset forfeiture, how stupid the drug war is, cellphones and our fourth amendment, why we shouldn't be meddling in other nations, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's not much to fuel a discussion here regarding the subject, I simply wanted to take a dump on the reich-wing by highlighting yet another textbook example of the rancid craziness and I thought this would be a fine opportunity to do it. 

fuck those kuntz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks for clearing that up.

I think there have been times when things like the arts and public broadcasting have struggled and thus there was a need or utility in public support.  Not sure that still exists. NPR and PBS are vastly popular and if one hadn't noticed, are actually competitive in their programing. Arts and museums are quite popular and certainly draw the numbers needed to be able to support themselves.

It has long been pointed out that Sesame Street, Arthur,  and Dora easily are marketable and one could argue that the shows are in effect advertising for their merchandise.  So does PBS or NPR really need to run commercials? I doubt it, not in the traditional sense every 8 minutes. But no one misses at the beginning of a PBS show when the list of corporate sponsors is run. You naturally take note who supports that programing and by the nature of those drawn to PBS programing, they support those who support PBS.

I think the real question is why does the government still fund PBS and/or NPR? What is the purpose? It is not as if most programing, with the exception of News and Editorial content, demonstrates a political bias with sole intent of corporate sponsorship effecting public policy. And even if one could argue that does exist, is PBS or NPR really serving to "balance" that content bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Contumacious Tom said:

You are missing bias of omission, the most common kind. Let me give you an example. I just did a search.

That's one example but you can tell similar issues by noting which ones get comments from me and almost no one else: asset forfeiture, how stupid the drug war is, cellphones and our fourth amendment, why we shouldn't be meddling in other nations, etc.

Not to mention guns.

Oh, you didn't.

Never Mind. <nasally Emily Latella voice>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MidPack said:

There wasn’t educational TV, and there wasn’t much arts or culture TV. Now days there are so many networks/channels serving every niche, PBS could just be another.

There's education or arts or culture TV? Not airing publicly funded programs? Where? decent news? Where? It should be apparent by now that news isn't profitable on its own, yet has societal value. We can either subsidize it, solve the problem someway else, or revel in stupidity. I'll note - areas without newspapers experience more partisan voting than areas with. 

funny thing about all the righties/"centrists" complaining about NPR is they bend over backwards to give "equal coverage" so the rightwing loons sound sane when they ipso facto aren't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are those guys that argued that 5.7 billion was such a drop in the bucket it didn't matter?

Having a a less than utterly commercial source of news, music and entertainment is a plus, and worth the price to the public coffer. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Well thanks for clearing that up.

I think there have been times when things like the arts and public broadcasting have struggled and thus there was a need or utility in public support.  Not sure that still exists. NPR and PBS are vastly popular and if one hadn't noticed, are actually competitive in their programing. Arts and museums are quite popular and certainly draw the numbers needed to be able to support themselves.

It has long been pointed out that Sesame Street, Arthur,  and Dora easily are marketable and one could argue that the shows are in effect advertising for their merchandise.  So does PBS or NPR really need to run commercials? I doubt it, not in the traditional sense every 8 minutes. But no one misses at the beginning of a PBS show when the list of corporate sponsors is run. You naturally take note who supports that programing and by the nature of those drawn to PBS programing, they support those who support PBS.

I think the real question is why does the government still fund PBS and/or NPR? What is the purpose? It is not as if most programing, with the exception of News and Editorial content, demonstrates a political bias with sole intent of corporate sponsorship effecting public policy. And even if one could argue that does exist, is PBS or NPR really serving to "balance" that content bias?

The don’t fund NPR. They fund PBS, which provides payments to small market radio stations so they can stay open. The stations choose to buy programming from NPR.

basically, they want to cut alternatives for the Red markets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, learningJ24 said:

Where are those guys that argued that 5.7 billion was such a drop in the bucket it didn't matter

they are here, posting stupid shit they got from Foxnews or Reason mag as "proof" we don't need another source of news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe?

Just because it's government funded doesn't make it contrary to Democratic freedom. "By the people, of the people, for the people"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

American Pravda. 

A state-run news source is a contrariety to Democratic freedom. 

Good point.

However public radio and TV are not "state-run"  they just get a bit of money to keep the lights on.

37 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

they are here, posting stupid shit they got from Foxnews or Reason mag as "proof" we don't need another source of news.

In the Bush/Cheney years, hundreds of new Jesus-channel radio stations were commissioned by the FCC squatting right on the NPR bands. Of course radio tuners are all digital nowadays, so it's not quite as big a problem to have the God squad telling you what doomed sinner you are for trying to listen to actual real news but it still tells you where they want to go.

Heaven for the rich, manure-foot peasantry for the rest of us.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MAGAts don't like people to hear the truth.

 About a year ago I gave one of my neighbors a ride to the garage to pick up his truck He got in, and after about 2 minutes of listening to "The Diane Rheme Show" he turned to me and said "Oh my god! You really are a fucking bleeding heart liberal! What is this NPR or something?!" I smiled and said yes. Then he went on a rant about his tax dollars being spend on radio  shows that are produced by commies, to spout anti-American agenda to the wellfare cheats, and other entitlement grifters.

 I asked him Which Tuesday of the month his SSDI check arrived... (He'd wrecked his leg in a motorcycle accident and is on full disability due to his own stupidity)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The MAGAts don't like people to hear the truth.

 About a year ago I gave one of my neighbors a ride to the garage to pick up his truck He got in, and after about 2 minutes of listening to "The Diane Rheme Show" he turned to me and said "Oh my god! You really are a fucking bleeding heart liberal! What is this NPR or something?!" I smiled and said yes. Then he went on a rant about his tax dollars being spend on radio  shows that are produced by commies, to spout anti-American agenda to the wellfare cheats, and other entitlement grifters.

 I asked him Which Tuesday of the month his SSDI check arrived... (He'd wrecked his leg in a motorcycle accident and is on full disability due to his own stupidity)

you pay into Social Security moran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

There's education or arts or culture TV? Not airing publicly funded programs? Where? decent news? Where? It should be apparent by now that news isn't profitable on its own, yet has societal value. We can either subsidize it, solve the problem someway else, or revel in stupidity. I'll note - areas without newspapers experience more partisan voting than areas with. 

Animal Planet, Bravo, Cooking, Food Network, Nat Geo, History, Travel, Discovery, Science, HGTV, DIY, Disney (3), SyFy, Sundance and loads of movie channels to name a few off the top of my head. None of those existed when PBS was enacted to fill the void, those are the niches PBS was supposed to fill, no longer needed. We all have more networks than we could possibly watch, and massive choice.

Again, why couldn’t PBS just be another private, commercial network? Why should their programming be subsidized instead of standing on its own merits like every other broadcast? And again, we love PBS.

And have you noticed PBS NewsHour has a big presence on YouTube now? They livestream every day now, and that’s generating revenue for them. More power to them, maybe they see the writing on the wall? Maybe they’d like to quit begging for pledge dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

American Pravda. 

A state-run news source is a contrariety to Democratic freedom. 

Imagine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

you pay into Social Security moran.

Keep telling yourself that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MidPack said:

Animal Planet, Bravo, Cooking, Food Network, Nat Geo, History, Travel, Discovery, Science, HGTV, DIY, Disney (3), SyFy, Sundance and loads of movie channels to name a few off the top of my head. None of those existed when PBS was enacted to fill the void, those are the niches PBS was supposed to fill, no longer needed. We all have more networks than we could possibly watch, and massive choice.

Again, why couldn’t PBS just be another private, commercial network? Why should their programming be subsidized instead of standing on its own merits like every other broadcast? And again, we love PBS.

And have you noticed PBS NewsHour has a big presence on YouTube now? They livestream every day now, and that’s generating revenue for them. More power to them, maybe they see the writing on the wall? Maybe they’d like to quit begging for pledge dollars.

PBS doesn’t get fed money. Local stations get some cash so that there is a local station.

i really don’t care if they cut off funding for local stations. It’s just another part of the dumbing down of AmeriKa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

PBS doesn’t get fed money. Local stations get some cash so that there is a local station.

i really don’t care if they cut off funding for local stations. It’s just another part of the dumbing down of AmeriKa

Really? Then why are we talking about Trump cutting off funding?

See wiki

PBS is funded by member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, corporate contributions, National Datacastpledge drivesprivate foundations and individual citizens.

The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. 95% of the corporation's appropriation goes directly to content development, community services, and other local station and system needs.[4]

For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $500,000 in interest earned.

One more time, why couldn’t PBS be a private, commercial channel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Keep telling yourself that....

I'm not defending SSA but, he paid into it, he's legitimately entitled to its benefits.   Unlike the ghetto goblins who load up the food cart with 2 liter bottles of soda and shit food and a bunch of rib eye steaks, pay for that shit with an EBT card and trying to bag that crap all while talking on an iphone 10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MidPack said:

Really? Then why are we talking about Trump cutting off funding?

See wiki

PBS is funded by member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, corporate contributions, National Datacastpledge drivesprivate foundations and individual citizens.

The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. 95% of the corporation's appropriation goes directly to content development, community services, and other local station and system needs.[4]

For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $500,000 in interest earned.

One more time, why couldn’t PBS be a private, commercial channel?

Sigh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

I'm not defending SSA but, he paid into it, he's legitimately entitled to its benefits.   Unlike the ghetto goblins who load up the food cart with 2 liter bottles of soda and shit food and a bunch of rib eye steaks, pay for that shit with an EBT card and trying to bag that crap all while talking on an iphone 10. 

Did he? For how long.

SS is an income transfer tax. Period.

there are no savings, there’s no savings account, you don’t earn anything. The only reason someone gets it is because Congress says they do. That can change at a whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MidPack said:

 Bravo, Cooking, Food Network, Nat Geo, History, Travel, Discovery, Science, HGTV, DIY, Disney (3), SyFy, Sundance and loads of movie channels to name a few off the top of my head. None of those existed when PBS was enacted to fill the void, those are the niches PBS was supposed to fill, no longer needed. We all have more networks than we could possibly watch, and massive choice.

Again, why couldn’t PBS just be another private, commercial network? Why should their programming be subsidized instead of standing on its own merits like every other broadcast? And again, we love PBS.

And have you noticed PBS NewsHour has a big presence on YouTube now? They livestream every day now, and that’s generating revenue for them. More power to them, maybe they see the writing on the wall? Maybe they’d like to quit begging for pledge dollars.

Bravo? Bravo's reality TV. It's owned by NBC universal. Who also own Syfy, and a bunch of other propertys. Oh, and they own the pipe to peoples home, comcast.

Discovery, Science, Travel, Food, Cooking, HGTv - are all owned by the same company.

Disney - owns ABc, partly owns ESPN, AMC & Sundance.

despite all of the "channels" the corporate control is even greater than it was when PBS was setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question should be: is this charter still valid?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an American non-profit corporation created in 1967 by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the federal government to promote and help support public broadcasting.[3] The corporation's mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70 percent of its funding to more than 1,400 locally owned public radio and television stations.[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

Also, fuck palestinian national radio.

Because nothing screams LIBERAL!! like telling the truth

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

 I asked him Which Tuesday of the month his SSDI check arrived... (He'd wrecked his leg in a motorcycle accident and is on full disability due to his own stupidity)

you pay into Social Security moran.

Actually, about 49% of SocSec is paid out to people who never paid in..... disability is the biggest category of this

Facts.           Doncha just  hate-hate-HATE  'em

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, about 49% of SocSec is paid out to people who never paid in.

Like kids with cancer, widows of veterans, the blind and mentally impaired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, about 49% of SocSec is paid out to people who never paid in.

Like kids with cancer, widows of veterans, the blind and mentally impaired?

Not a judgement, just a fact.

Widows & orphans of veterans get money from a different pot AFAIK, as a judgement call I'd say that they definitely paid in.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

AFAIK

Not sure about now, they used to get it out of SSi (when I first started paying in).

I agree they deserve it because I believe that ANY citizen of the richest country in the world deserves it if they fall into those straits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defunding PBS, the arts etc. is dear to the heart of the Republicans.

They have no souls so they want to eliminate anything that even hints at the importance of one.

Besides - it'll give them a little more petty cash to give to their friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's becoming pretty clear that, given the opportunity, the Republicans will shut down anything that disagrees with their partisan window on the world. Now that it is officially "The Trump Party", they are going all-out to insure there is no division in their ranks. Hopefully, they will be revealed as a giant corrupt grease spot on the US timeline.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-trump-campaign-takes-steps-to-prevent-a-challenge-within-republican/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give monthly to PBS and NPR just because of the morons like Barnacle Brains that only drink from FOX.  Speaking of.....

does the forum seem less Grumpy or is it just me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

American Pravda. 

A state-run news source is a contrariety to Democratic freedom. 

 

3 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 

Nicely played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barnacle Balls said:

I'm not defending SSA but, he paid into it, he's legitimately entitled to its benefits.   Unlike the ghetto goblins who load up the food cart with 2 liter bottles of soda and shit food and a bunch of rib eye steaks, pay for that shit with an EBT card and trying to bag that crap all while talking on an iphone 10. 

Can you define this term for me? I'm not familiar with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, inneedofadvice said:

Can you define this term for me? I'm not familiar with it.

Think "darkies".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, inneedofadvice said:

Nicely played.

That's a "news" run state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

We don't need a taxpayer funded radio network...it serves no purpose

Not when you have Fox and Breitbart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barnacle Brain is a man the USA can be proud of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bravo? Bravo's reality TV. It's owned by NBC universal. Who also own Syfy, and a bunch of other propertys. Oh, and they own the pipe to peoples home, comcast.

Discovery, Science, Travel, Food, Cooking, HGTv - are all owned by the same company.

Disney - owns ABc, partly owns ESPN, AMC & Sundance.

despite all of the "channels" the corporate control is even greater than it was when PBS was setup.

You're flailing as well as avoiding the question I asked you, so I won't waste my your time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MidPack said:

You're flailing as well as avoiding the question I asked you, so I won't waste my your time...

maybe he is.

But you asked a serious question, my response is that I'm OK with shutting down CPB - since we know that the rural population doesn't really need this:
 

The corporation's mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70 percent of its funding to more than 1,400 locally owned public radio and television stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Trump’s proposal calls for drastically reducing the funding to begin closing the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services"

 

you're all focusing on PBS and I see the rest getting shit on.  The NEA gets a paltry $150 mil. to support Arts (music, art, dance, theater, literature) Arts education, Arts  history and the development and support of said parts.  the current admin. wants to knock that down to $42 mil... they use the money in part to match individual donations, grants and other artistic funding that would not have a chance to happen if not for the NEA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dacapo said:

"Trump’s proposal calls for drastically reducing the funding to begin closing the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services"

 

you're all focusing on PBS and I see the rest getting shit on.  The NEA gets a paltry $150 mil. to support Arts (music, art, dance, theater, literature) Arts education, Arts  history and the development and support of said parts.  the current admin. wants to knock that down to $42 mil... they use the money in part to match individual donations, grants and other artistic funding that would not have a chance to happen if not for the NEA.

It's all jeffreaux's bitch burning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

It's all jeffreaux's bitch burning.

Too bad they are trying to burn down the good bits first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 3to1 said:

there's not much to fuel a discussion here regarding the subject, I simply wanted to take a dump on the reich-wing by highlighting yet another textbook example of the rancid craziness and I thought this would be a fine opportunity to do it. 

fuck those kuntz.

That sums up the totality of your "contributions" to discussion here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

That's incorrect.  But I'm not a liberal, ergo.... must be raciss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

That's incorrect.  But I'm not a liberal, ergo.... must be raciss.

 

1 hour ago, inneedofadvice said:

Can you define this term for me? I'm not familiar with it.

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, inneedofadvice said:

Thanks, I didn't want to make assumptions about what kind of person mr. balls was without further information.

Mr. Barnacle still thinks dressing up in black face is a fun party trick.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MidPack said:

You're flailing as well as avoiding the question I asked you, so I won't waste my your time...

I'm flailing by pointing out it's not the early 00s media-landscape you seem to believe it is? That we may have lots of channels on TV but little "choice"? By pointing out most news is subsidized by someone? Like most of these things you've your belief, little interest in changing it, so there's really no point at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm flailing by pointing out it's not the early 00s media-landscape you seem to believe it is? That we may have lots of channels on TV but little "choice"? By pointing out most news is subsidized by someone? Like most of these things you've your belief, little interest in changing it, so there's really no point at all.

This could be interesting, really.

I used education and arts/culture as examples of what PBS was intended to support, you’re focused on news it seems. News wasn’t a need in 1967, that’s one base major networks did provide. How did PBS morph into essential for news?

To continue the line of thought, I gather you feel we don’t have choice because channels are (commercially) sponsored, which may bring some bias, and there’s some truth to that. However, you have more choice in news/politics now than ever before, from Fox News to MSNBC & CNN. What’s missing are news sources that try to present impartial journalism that includes both sides of given issues - they’ve been drowned out by opinion news, and they deliberately blur the lines. The rise of partisan news silos has ultimately been driven by viewers, not sponsors. No network or channel can make you watch, they have to attract their audience. If people weren’t flocking to partisan news, they wouldn’t be on the air, they wouldn’t have sponsors. Said another way, if viewers wised up and stopped watching the partisan sites, and watched objective news instead, how long do you think it would take for objectIve news to drown out partisan opinion “news?”

And right or wrong, more and more people are getting their news online and/or through social media, they don’t rely on TV or paper news anymore. Another reason PBS and TV in general is a little less relevant today.

Unfortunately I think a majority of “news” consumers are too busy or too lazy to delve into issues. They’d rather have some opinion pundit tell them what to think, and be given the one sided evidence to support those views around the water cooler with their like minded friends...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MidPack said:

This could be interesting, really.

I used education and arts/culture as examples of what PBS was intended to support, you’re focused on news it seems. News wasn’t a need in 1967, that’s one base major networks did provide. How did PBS morph into essential for news?

And I gather you feel we don’t have choice because channels are (commercially) sponsored, which may bring some bias, and there’s some truth to that. However, you have more choice in news/politics now than ever before, from Fox News to MSNBC & CNN. What’s missing are news sources that try to present impartial journalism that includes both sides of given issues - they’ve been drowned out by opinion news, and they deliberately blur the lines. The rise of partisan news silos has ultimately been driven by viewers, not sponsors. If people weren’t flocking to partisan news, they wouldn’t be in the air, they wouldn’t have sponsors. Said another way, if viewers wised up and stopped watching the partisan sites, and watched objective news, how long do you think it would take for objectIve news to drown out partisan opinion “news?”

And right or wrong, more and more people are getting their news online and/or through social media, they don’t rely on TV or paper news anymore. Another reason PBS and TV in general is a little less relevant today.

Unfortunately I think a majority of “news” consumers are too busy or too lazy to delve into issues. They’d rather have some opinion pundit tell them what to think, and be given the one sided evidence to support those views around the water cooler with their like minded friends...

Is the original charter still valid? Is it important for rural areas to have an independent station? Or should we leave it to the commercial stations? Many owned by partisans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Is the original charter still valid? Is it important for rural areas to have an independent station? Or should we leave it to the commercial stations? Many owned by partisans?

The original charter isn’t valid anymore, that was the underlying basis of my POV. I don’t think anyone needs taxpayer funded stations anymore, so I gather we disagree. Partisans from both sides sponsor networks-channels-shows, and PBS isn’t non partisan anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MidPack said:

And right or wrong, more and more people are getting their news online and/or through social media, they don’t rely on TV or paper news anymore. Another reason PBS and TV in general is a little less relevant today.

People getting their news filtering by the liberals at Google and Facebook is better?

You look at 150 channels and see choice - I look at them and see 5 or 6 dueling behemoths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MidPack said:

and PBS isn’t non partisan anyway.

what is it then?

travel around rural america sometime - local public radio may be the only news left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

People getting their news filtering by the liberals at Google and Facebook is better?

You look at 150 channels and see choice - I look at them and see 5 or 6 dueling behemoths.

So PBS is entirely unfiltered?

So you see Fox News and CNN/MSNBC BOTh as part of the problem? I’m not sure about you personally, but I read so many posts here where people clearly can’t see their preferred sources as biased.

But we’re getting away from PBS.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MidPack said:

So PBS is entirely unfiltered?

<facepalm>

edit: You know what the difference between their programming and everyone else? The give the news, everyone else tells you what it means, you know, opinion.

edit edit: How may here have actually watched a news program on PBS (Frontline counts for this) ?

Raise your hands so I can get a count.  TIA

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That sums up the totality of your "contributions" to discussion here. 

someone has to take the direct approach you fkg bs artist, and I'm fine with that. 

stop voting, it's not all about you and your 'security'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

We don't need a taxpayer funded radio network...it serves no purpose

that was funny, sounds like something that would spew forth from the mouth of some fascist ass clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

someone has to take the direct approach you fkg bs artist, and I'm fine with that. 

stop voting, it's not all about you and your 'security'.

A greater service to humanity would be achieved if you simply stopped talking - but, figger the odds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 3to1 said:

that was funny, sounds like something that would spew forth from the mouth of some fascist ass clown.

WTF do we need a tax payer supported radio station for... the AM and FM dials a full of free market radio everywhere in the country... Why?  If there is market demand.. put up a business 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

couldn't give a quarter-fk about the 'market', only substance. it's like mixing religion and politics, it's bound to go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 3to1 said:

couldn't give a quarter-fk about the 'market'. it's like mixing religion and politics, it's bound to go wrong.

funny...PBS is your religion...just provide a couple of reasons taxpayers money needs to go to PBS TV & radio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of flailing and putting words in other's mouths, go have your brain cell destroying wank at the alter of Fux Newz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

funny...PBS is your religion...just provide a couple of reasons taxpayers money needs to go to PBS TV & radio

For one it cures people of labeling those they disagree with as commies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sailed a lot with an Israeli guy who wrote opeds for a major Israeli newspaper.  His focus was on american perception of middle eastern events.  He'd insist on listening to NPR when we were sailing if it was on.  We would both look at each other in utter amazement when the guest would say something obviously false and the host would just patenly agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

For one it cures people of labeling those they disagree with as commies. 

LOL! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

For one it cures people of labeling those they disagree with as commies. 

It does?  Funny - I still hear a lot of that kinda BS in here, and PBS is still on air, isn't it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Barnacle Balls said:

I sailed a lot with an Israeli guy who wrote opeds for a major Israeli newspaper.  His focus was on american perception of middle eastern events.  He'd insist on listening to NPR when we were sailing if it was on.  We would both look at each other in utter amazement when the guest would say something obviously false and the host would just patenly agree 

And you had personal, independent knowledge of those falsehoods?  Wow!  

Inside source! 

What happened to Bloudan, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

For one it cures people of labeling those they disagree with as commies. 

A real reason...or maybe it can't stand on it's own two feet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Is the original charter still valid? Is it important for rural areas to have an independent station? Or should we leave it to the commercial stations? Many owned by partisans?

We have two!  One classical, and one Jazz!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Barnacle Balls said:

That's incorrect.  But I'm not a liberal, ergo.... must be raciss.

Yeah, nothing racist about the term ghetto goblins.

Fuck you are a Nazi cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It does?  Funny - I still hear a lot of that kinda BS in here, and PBS is still on air, isn't it? 

Listening is required for anything to actually occur.  Bitching is the predominate activity here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

A real reason...or maybe it can't stand on it's own two feet....

Which is more a condemnation of the average American IQ than it is NPR.

PBS is practically the only intelligent television left in the USA.

Look where reality programming got you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Which is more a condemnation of the average American IQ than it is NPR.

PBS is practically the only intelligent television left in the USA.

Look where reality programming got you.

There's nothing like Lowest Common Denominator to make TV succeed. And the USA succeeded in electing the Lowest Common Denominator as *resident. You must be so proud.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Which is more a condemnation of the average American IQ than it is NPR.

PBS is practically the only intelligent television left in the USA.

Look where reality programming got you.

There has never been a larger and more varied program menu,  via every media delivery system and availability in the history of mankind than there is now....and it is expanding by the year ...what you talking about ?.....liberal elites should easily be able to support  PBS programing on their own dime

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites