View Full Version : Turn PBS Off
Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 06:26
Turn PBS Off
By Tom Barrett (05/16/05)
Columnist Charles Krauthammer describes PBS as a "Wholly-owned subsidiary of liberalism." Although that is most certainly an accurate characterization, I never thought I would see the day when the national media would be discussing taking tax money away from Public Television.
The New York Times recently ran an article titled "Time to Defund PBS?" The bias at PBS has gotten so bad that the president of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has acknowledged that its programming leans to the left. All Americans support PBS with their taxes, but the "Public" network pushes a far-left agenda that represents the beliefs of only a fraction of taxpayers.
Although I do not believe this, some would make the case that there was a time when the United States actually needed PBS. There were three networks that controlled what Americans saw on television. Our younger readers won't remember this, but there was really a time when you could not surf 240 channels. This was that wonderful period in our history prior to the advent of the Communist News Network (CNN).
The Big Three seldom ran historical or scientific programming. TV was for entertainment, and history and science just weren't all that entertaining to the masses. But if America needed PBS then, it certainly does not need it today. The History Channel and the Discovery Network, along with a host of other free programming sources, more than fill our needs for culture and education. PBS is simply no longer needed.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created to feed from the public trough by a group of elitists who convinced Congress that the Untied States would become a vast cultural wasteland if the government did not pay for alternative programming. Instead of insisting that public schools teach our children effectively, these well-meaning but misguided folks believed that the one-eyed babysitter could transform our children into privileged geniuses who could quote all the major passages of Shakespeare and hum complete Mozart symphonies.
Regardless of whether there was ever a need for PBS, you will never convince me that it was ever constitutional or even sensible for our government to underwrite any part of its horrendous cost. Historically, art and culture have been supported by wealthy patrons. That is as it should be. But I defy anyone to show me that portion of the Constitution of the United States that mandates (or even allows) our government to pay for culture. If the elitist believe that there is a need for PBS today, let them pay for it. The majority of Americans should not be forced to pay for it through their taxes.
Ken Tomlinson, the aforementioned president of The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, started this debate by declaring that NOW With Bill Moyers was so left-leaning that it jeopardized PBS's tax-exempt status and its government funding. He stated, "I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance." The Corporation Tomlinson heads dispenses hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to public television and radio every year. Tomlinson is responsible for seeing that that money is spent in a legal manner.
It is illegal for tax-exempt entities to support political parties or candidates. Anyone who has had the stomach to watch PBS's "public affairs" programming over the last decade cannot question the network's undying support for the Democrat platform and Democrat candidates. If there were a viable Socialist Party in this nation, PBS would be campaigning for them.
So the liberals are crying that Tomlinson is trying to kill PBS. Far from it. Tomlinson is trying to SAVE PBS. He knows that Public Television stands to lose government funding if it does not start reporting issues in a fair and balanced manner. If anyone questions whether PBS's political programming is UNfair and UNbalanced, they can simply go to area of the PBS website that lists the programs appearing on NOW (see LINK below). Every one currently listed is either negative toward the United States or toward our military personnel.
Tomlinson commissioned an independent study of Moyers' NOW program. It found (no big surprise) that the show consistently slanted its coverage to benefit fringe leftist causes and ideologies, and was equally consistent in its hostility toward conservative and middle of the road Americans.
Let me close with a small sampling of "NOW with Bill Moyers" programming. Please understand that this program is not an anomaly on PBS. While it is arguably the most blatantly liberal program on Public Television, it as just one of a plethora of highly objectionable programs that attempt to brainwash the American people in favor of the hard left point of view.
Let's start with a November, 2004 article in Current newspaper, a publication for PBS insiders. It reported that a six-month review of Moyers showed that "of the 75 segments over six months that treated controversial issues like the Iraq War, the state of the economy and the corrupting influence of corporate money on politics, only 13 included anyone who spoke against the thrust of the segment." So Moyers was not only allowed to slant the news in these shows, he was allowed to exclude any balancing comments in 83% of them.
Moyers has stated on his program, "Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Even Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy wouldn't make such a horrible statement, but Moyers didn't hesitate to accuse our brave military of being terrorists who behead innocent civilians with bombs.
L. Brent Bozell, in an article on Human Events Online (see LINK below) had this to say about a NOW program in 2004: In November, Moyers attacked Condoleezza Rice and her successor as national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, for their "pattern of ineptness," and despaired as the president turned America's credibility in the world over to "two of the people who helped shred it. Both are known first and foremost for loyalty to the official view of reality, no matter the evidence to the contrary."
Moyers, in an interview with an extremely liberal nun named Joan Chittister, asked, "Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been 37,000 civilians killed in Iraq, or as many perhaps as 100,000. Why is abortion a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of Iraq and the loss of life there?" The lefty nun agreed that dropping bombs is "military abortion." Military abortion? Where do they get these people?
I could go on, but it should be clear to anyone with discernment that Moyers and the management of PBS:
1) Are extremely liberal, far to the left of the majority of Americans.
2) They take every opportunity to bash our military personnel.
3) They use their platform for overtly political bashing of the President and his agenda.
4) And they do all of the above illegally through a non-profit corporation that receives many millions of our tax dollars from the federal government.
PBS, reacting to public scrutiny, has removed Moyers from the NOW program and reduced it to 30 minutes. But he is still a player at PBS, he has a new show, and his former show still spews forth liberal hatred and lies.
If there was ever a time when the US needed PBS, that time passed a long tome ago. There was never a time when it was legal or constitutional to steal money from citizens through taxation to support causes that most of us deplore. Public sentiment is starting to turn toward defunding Public Television. I encourage all of you to contact your representatives and say, "TURN PBS OFF - FOR GOOD!" Let PBS raise its money through its famous beg-a-thons.
I will close with a quote from Ross Mackenzie's blog on Townhall.com (see LINK below). "Will anyone seriously contend that if Ken Tomlinson were asking public broadcasting to be fairer to the left than to moderates and conservatives, he would be blasted - as he amply is blasted now - for comments that have a 'chilling effect' and threaten public broadcasting's editorial independence?"
Its time has come and gone.
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2005, 07:00
I never have it on besides the britcoms. ~;)
It can exist, but the whole news/political team should be fired or at least reigned in.
They are Public broadcasting, and as of now they represent only a tiny fringe of the radical left in this country.
They shouldnt kick all the liberals out or anything, just make it fair and balanced.
The country is about 50/50, so should be their coverage.
Papewaio
05-17-2005, 07:00
The History Channel and the Discovery Network, along with a host of other free programming sources, more than fill our needs for culture and education. PBS is simply no longer needed.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created to feed from the public trough by a group of elitists who convinced Congress that the Untied States would become a vast cultural wasteland if the government did not pay for alternative programming.
Maybe a spelling channel is required.
When someone rants about education they should spell correctly at least to the local variant...
Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 07:04
When someone rants about education they should spell correctly at least to the local variant...
Looks more like a typo to me. Is that the best you can do?
It can exist, but the whole news/political team should be fired or at least reigned in.
There is no reason to have it at all anymore other than for those who dont get cable or satilite.
Papewaio
05-17-2005, 07:15
It may be slanted. But isn't the whole idea of a vibrant democracy to allow freedom of speech from all sources?
Moyers has stated on his program, "Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Even Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy wouldn't make such a horrible statement, but Moyers didn't hesitate to accuse our brave military of being terrorists who behead innocent civilians with bombs.
It is a horrible statement. However I wouldn't call it a leftist statement more of a shock jock one. I prefer a less sensationalist media on all fronts.
I also find it hard to jump from:
"Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us."
to
"accuse our brave military of being terrorists who behead innocent civilians with bombs."
Saying that bombs behead people (or de-limb) them is not the same as saying that the act itself is a terrorist one. Sure terrorists behead people but so does the Saudi Government. Beheading in itself is not a terrorist act. Just a gruesome one. I'm sure more American bombs decapitate people then American bayonets. However it is not the act that makes a terrorist act, it is what was being done. If a mortar misses its military target and hits a market it is a military accident. While a mortar aimed at a market and hitting a military convoy is still a terrorist act as the primary aim was to kill civilians.
Even if bombs kill civilians by decapitation it does not make it a terrorist act unless civilians where the primary target.
Big_John
05-17-2005, 07:20
antiques roadshow is awesome.
edit: though nature kinda sucks since george page stopped narrating..
Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 07:21
It may be slanted. But isn't the whole idea of a vibrant democracy to allow freedom of speech from all sources?
Not if were all paying for it. Then it should be fair and balanced. Oh thats right thats FOX news ~D Maybe the public should pay for that. Then would you still agree to pay for it? It may be slanted. But isn't the whole idea of a vibrant democracy to allow freedom of speech from all sources?
ICantSpellDawg
05-17-2005, 11:22
Sh*t - and ive been running around this entire time saying "im from the untied states"
what an idiot ive been!
PBS is trash
Not if were all paying for it. Then it should be fair and balanced. Oh thats right thats FOX news ~D Maybe the public should pay for that.
We do pay for that - News International isn't taxed in any EU country as it is too powerful. One of the reasons Murdoch is so anti-Eu is because there would finally be a body big enough to take him on.
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 12:49
How does not taxing you're paying for it? I love this kind of logic, Idaho you should go work as a PR man for an American Senator.
Fear is a terrible motivation.
I have a better one...
The First Amendment of the Constitution of thr United States of America
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/amendment.bmp
This paper is not based on fear.
It's amazing that some people have to be reminded of this document.
Steppe Merc
05-17-2005, 13:15
History and Discovery is better anyway. PBS does suck, except for when I was little and I watched Arthur. Just take away their tax money, and I think they ought to continue to brodcast. But we don't need to pay them to do so.
But how much political stuff does it run? I thought it was just cartoons and some inferior history programming and nature shows...
edit: Sometimes it plays like Concert for George or something, which is good, but then they have those damn fun drives every ten seconds, and they cut half of it out....
How does not taxing you're paying for it? I love this kind of logic, Idaho you should go work as a PR man for an American Senator.
Companies operating in the UK untaxed are in effect being heavily subsidised. They are not paying for the huge state infrastructure required to make a modern economy function. I shouldn't need to be teaching you these basics.
We don’t need public television any more although IMO we did in the past. NPR, on the other hand, I would sorely miss.
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 15:22
Companies operating in the UK untaxed are in effect being heavily subsidised. They are not paying for the huge state infrastructure required to make a modern economy function. I shouldn't need to be teaching you these basics.
They should pay for the privelege of making a buck, aah, okay. The old Socialist argument that everything really belongs to the State and we should be thanful we get kept to keep any of it. Thanks for the refresher lesson.
If the UK is subsidizing network television, perhaps therin the prolbems lie. In the US, companys have to pay the FCC for bandwidth (independent of taxes), they have to pay for their power, their buildings, pretty much all the costs of doing business. Maybe you guys might want to think about transferring these costs, which you're claiming your government pays, back to the media conglomerates?
There's nothing wrong with PBS. Shutting it down because it's "leftist" is the most hilariously American thing I've ever heard. Battlefied Britain has been showing on PBS for months, way before the History Channel got it. Besides, it's not just the American who pays for it - The PBS I watch (Watertown) gets a fair share of its money from viewer donations from Canada.
Kanamori
05-17-2005, 15:50
Oy, my parents refuse to get cable, and I hate it anyways. History Channel is second rate shite, as is Discovery (I've seen the most ridiculous history shows on the History Channel that show the common man's basic history; they are hardly comprehensive). The different PBS stations in different areas run different shows. Here, in the realm of political/news showing, they do the News Hour With Jim Lehrer (they have most people represented with interviews and roundtables), which goes into more depth on issues than I've seen in any other news program, BBC World News (generally liberal), Frontline (generally liberal), and sort of Wisconsin's News program. Fun to watch, for random bits of in-depth history, is Antiques Roadshow.
King Edward
05-17-2005, 15:55
If you do not like a TV Channel could you just not watch it? or is PBS like the BBC in the UK where you have to pay for it if you own a tv?
If you do not like a TV Channel could you just not watch it? or is PBS like the BBC in the UK where you have to pay for it if you own a tv?
It's funded by taxes - "Public Broadcast Station", I believe.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 16:02
If you do not like a TV Channel could you just not watch it? or is PBS like the BBC in the UK where you have to pay for it if you own a tv?
No you have to pay for it whether you own a tv or not.
King Edward
05-17-2005, 16:06
Ahh ok sorry for being Ignorant on that, i now understand the Debate.
Thanks.
PanzerJaeger
05-17-2005, 20:33
Id say keep it on the air just for "Are You Being Served?" and "Keeping Up Appearances".
Destroy every vestige of Frontline though - the anti-american liberal tripe.
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 20:36
I wouldn't have any problem at all with "Now, by Bill Moyers" or Frontline, or Say Brother, or any of the other more Left leaning shows on PBS, if they allowed for opposing viewpoints. But I don't think it's the government's place to pay for the propaganda of one side in what is essentially a 2 horse race.
DemonArchangel
05-17-2005, 21:51
Err... Liberals are pro-American. In fact, I think Conservatives are truly anti-American, simply because they have done so much damage to America, no matter what their party affilation.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2005, 22:00
Err... Liberals are pro-American.
Only if you think saying the US is bad makes you pro american ~:confused:
I think Conservatives are truly anti-American, simply because they have done so much damage to America, no matter what their party affilation.
Examples please.
Steppe Merc
05-17-2005, 22:09
I really don't see how anyone can be anti American. Mabye anti America, but as long as you are an American, I don't see how you can be an anti American.
And not all Liberals hate America. Some just hate the actions, or the current people in charge. To hate America would envolve hating the gov, country, people, and culture, and not too many people hate all of those...
Don Corleone
05-17-2005, 22:14
In certain corners, at home and abroad, people are indeed 'anti-American' and resent and loathe all the things you mention. That being said, it's a term that's in danger of losing it's meaning due to over usage.
Steppe Merc
05-17-2005, 22:21
Well abroad, yeah I can see that.
But as being someone who has been branded as anti American in real life, I don't really think it applies to that many people. I may not agree with the countries actions, past or present, and I'm not like proud of it, but I don't hate it, or practice (too many ~;) ) non American actions, whatever those are. And I certiantly don't hate the people here.
Destroy every vestige of Frontline though - the anti-american liberal tripe.
Funny you should say that. It was a Frontline episode that made me have more respect for G.W. Bush.
Kanamori
05-18-2005, 00:21
"Funny you should say that. It was a Frontline episode that made me have more respect for G.W. Bush."
I remember that one; it had the same effect on me.
PanzerJaeger
05-18-2005, 01:56
Tripe i said and tripe i still say! :furious3:
PBS's purpose is supposed to be to educate.
not indoctrinate people with an evil liberal agenda
for that i say, time to pull the plug on PBS
LittleGrizzly
05-18-2005, 02:29
heh PBS could be shorthand for pure bull sh.. well theres my useful contribution to the friend...
Devastatin Dave
05-18-2005, 04:22
If I want my money to go to a left wing cause that is bent on destroying my country, I'll write a check to the DNC... F U PBS
If Bill Moyer was on fire, I would piss on him to put out the flames.... :furious3:
The fact that a portion of my tax dollars goes to sh## organisations like the UN AND to a left wing propaganda and Democrate mouthpiece TV broadcast station known as PBS, makes me want to vomit all over my brand new shoes I bought with my paycheck that was earned from the wonderful blessings of capitalist Western Society. God bless America and George Bush... ~D
Well if Bill Moyer is a true liberal, he might view your gift of a golden shower to be a form of courting and an expression of open love.
Are you prepared to begin that kind of a relationship? :curtain:
Tachikaze
05-18-2005, 06:17
This is all ridiculous. Conservatism is the latest fad in the US, so everyone's going overboard trying to hunt down every corner of the nation that may be a hideout for liberals. Soon, the conservatives will be looking for another McCarthy.
George Bush and his government are funded by my taxes and they spew conservative offal into the media. There's a lot more of that being fed into American ears than PBS programming. I have to pay for the Bush Regime, you conservatives have to pay for PBS.
When the government is fair and balanced, than maybe PBS should do the same. But while the country spins wildly out of control down the rightwing, religious whirlpool, we need someone to counter the trendy swing of the political pendulum.
By the way, no offense, Pape, but I think "Untied States" is more accurate than "United". We are anything but united these days.
PanzerJaeger
05-18-2005, 07:43
George Bush and his government are funded by my taxes and they spew conservative offal into the media. There's a lot more of that being fed into American ears than PBS programming. I have to pay for the Bush Regime, you conservatives have to pay for PBS.
Thats because more americans wanted him to be funded by our tax dollars. We dont get to choose what airs on PBS like we get to choose who runs the country. :bow:
Byzantine Prince
05-18-2005, 08:00
PBS's purpose is supposed to be to educate.
for that i say, time to pull the plug on PBS
Republicans hate education. ~D
Aurelian
05-18-2005, 08:16
Oh, yeah... kill PBS. Great idea. It's just so liberal you know.
If you guys actually watched PBS, you'd notice that the arch-conservative editorial panel from the Wall Street Journal has a show on during the same Friday evening lineup when NOW is on. You'd also see that Tucker Carlson, the conservative pundit, also has a show on Friday evening.
Other great liberal programming has included: "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley, "Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser", "The McLaughlin Group", Peggy Noonan on Values, Ben Wattenberg's "Think Tank", "Adam Smith's Money World", "National Desk" featuring Laura Ingraham, Fred Barnes and Larry Elder, etc.
(Psst. In case you've never watched PBS, I was joking, those shows I just mentioned were actually not liberal.)
On the 'liberal' side, we get "NOW" and an occasional documentary. Some conservatives would also consider "Frontline" liberal... just because it's good investigative journalism (and good Americans don't question power). I suppose most conservatives would consider "NOVA" and "Scientific American" to be liberal because they're about... you know, science (and good Americans don't trust science because it might undermine their faith in Jeebus).
Just so you know, Moyers had people of all political persuasions on "NOW", and engaged them in actual meaningful intelligent conversation... instead of the shouting head match that passes for discourse on cable TV. I watched long segments with conservatives like Grover Norquist, Frank Luntz, and Richard Viguerie.
By the way, that first article was wrong in many ways, but I'll just mention that this quote in particular: "PBS, reacting to public scrutiny, has removed Moyers from the NOW program and reduced it to 30 minutes", was particularly off-base. Moyers retired from NOW after the election. He wasn't forced out and his retirement had been planned for some time.
For those who want to hear what Moyers actually has to say, here's (http://www.freepress.net/conference/audio05/moyers.mp3) an MP3 of a recent speech he made on the whole "NOW"/PBS controversy. Here's (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0516-34.htm) a transcript of the same speech. Finally, here (http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_05_08_is_pbs_liberal.asp) is a little bit called "Is PBS Liberal?"
Gawain of Orkeny
05-18-2005, 15:22
His oost is meaningless. The head of PBS has come under fire because he says PBS only shows for the most part one side of the story. The guy in charge says its almost all liberal. But then I guess Aurelian knows more than the head of the network. It doesnt matter however f its biased or not. The point is that its time has passed. Theres more than enough of the same type of programing they put on now days. Theres no reason that our tax money should go to produce this sort of thing. If it were all rightwing stuff on there I would say the same thing. If they want to pay their way like everyone else be my guest.
Tachikaze
05-18-2005, 15:28
George Bush and his government are funded by my taxes and they spew conservative offal into the media. There's a lot more of that being fed into American ears than PBS programming. I have to pay for the Bush Regime, you conservatives have to pay for PBS.
Thats because more americans wanted him to be funded by our tax dollars. We dont get to choose what airs on PBS like we get to choose who runs the country. :bow:
PBS wouldn't exist without public interest and support.
You don't get to choose how Bush runs the country or what he lies he's going to tell us. The people who voted had only two parties to choose from, and chose one party by a slim margin. In the 2000 election, the popular choice did not get the presidency.
My next point was already voiced by Aurelian, who did a better job than I could do.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-18-2005, 15:31
My next point was already voiced by Aurelian, who did a better job than I could do.
Again he made no point.
PanzerJaeger
05-18-2005, 16:17
PBS wouldn't exist without public interest and support.
Then let it run completely on donations and we'll see how long it stays on the air.
You don't get to choose how Bush runs the country or what he lies he's going to tell us. The people who voted had only two parties to choose from, and chose one party by a slim margin. In the 2000 election, the popular choice did not get the presidency.
I dont know what that ultra leftist trash has to do with PBS. Fact is your tax money pays President Bush because he was voted into office. Your point about having to pay for a government you dont like has nothing to do with having to pay for PBS. You dont understand?
Kanamori
05-18-2005, 16:19
I have never seen a news show as engaging as I have seen on PBS. The news on cable TV, and the main networks, is just headlines; there is no depth to them. If you know about about the issues they skim over on the network news, what they talk about is a simplification of the actual issue.
The First Amendment :whip: "Back! Back you nasty Amendment"
LittleGrizzly
05-18-2005, 16:22
I have never seen a news show as engaging as I have seen on PBS. The news on cable TV, and the main networks, is just headlines; there is no depth to them. If you know about about the issues they skim over on the network news, what they talk about is a simplification of the actual issue.
no wonder its considered left wing ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-18-2005, 16:24
The first amendment gives the government the right to tax us to put propoganda on the air or anything else for that matter? ~:confused:
Kanamori
05-18-2005, 16:30
People expressing their views is, necessarily, propoganda? I don't care if some left wing nut or some right wing nut get on TV, that I've paid taxes for, and blather about something ridiculous. The fact is that the PBS and NPR news broadcasts are top notch - their coverage is as close to unbiased as you can get, but the editorials are not - if some conservative guy wants to speak on the PBS/NPR news, they can and do. Have you ever seen the round tables on PBS?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-18-2005, 16:33
People expressing their views is propoganda? I don't care if some left wing nut or some right wing nut get on TV, that I've paid taxes for, and blather about something ridiculous. The fact is that the PBS and NPR news broadcasts are top notch - their coverage is as close to unbiased as you can get, but the editorials are not - if some conservative guy wants to speak on the PBS/NPR news, they can and do. Have you ever seen the round tables on PBS?
The point is with all the programing available today why should our tax money pay for their editorials or anything else for that matter?
Kanamori
05-18-2005, 16:42
Because, not all people get cable, or want to pay for, cable. PBS costs about $1.24 per person to fund w/ taxes. Cable costs $100 a month; I don't want to pay $100 for crappy TV when I can get PBS, and all the other stations, for $1.24 a year.
The first amendment gives the government the right to tax us to put propoganda on the air or anything else for that matter? ~:confused:
The point of this whole affair seems to be mostly based upon the idea that since I don't like what you're saying, let me try to stop you from saying it.
If the Right can run the country, take it to war, change its laws, all at taxpayer expense (about 48% of whom are not of the Right but who still pay for the Right), is it really that bad that a few dollars flow towards a digressing opinion?
Freedom means allowing everyone to voice their opinion. Espescially when you disagree with them. I thought the US was founded upon this principle.
Don Corleone
05-18-2005, 16:54
The point of this whole affair seems to be mostly based upon the idea that since I don't like what you're saying, let me try to stop you from saying it.
If the Right can run the country, take it to war, change its laws, all at taxpayer expense (about 48% of whom are not of the Right but who still pay for the Right), is it really that bad that a few dollars flow towards a digressing opinion?
Freedom means allowing everyone to voice their opinion. Espescially when you disagree with them. I thought the US was founded upon this principle.
It's not freedom when it's a one-way street. Nobody was talking about giving Republicans an hour on PBS when Clinton held the reins.
Why is it when Leftys tell Rightys to pay for their own media outlets, it's okay (until they get successful, then they pass laws banning them) but when Rightys say the same thing back to Leftys, it's censorship?
That being said, you raise some valid points. I personally like NPR, even though I want to reach through my radio and choke that smug, America-hating Daniel Shore (I know this term gets overused but if anybody ever hated America, it's him) going on and on about how joyous were the days when Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and how the Nazis were more rational and calm then America has been since, not 9/11, January 2001. Shore has made every editorial since Bush was declared the Republican candidate in 1999 an attack on capitalism or Bush. He only occassionally pauses to tell America how sick and twisted and disgusting we all are because we don't agree with his views and how we're the most degenerate, backwards people on the planet. There's not many people that actually invoke violence in me, but he's one.
BUT, I think it's important to have people like that around. How would I know just how badly some Leftys hate America and all it stands for if it wasn't for Daniel Shore? And I do believe the NPR news department does a better job than any network news group out there, hands down. Better than Fox, and much, much better than CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN.
Why do you all get so worried about the opposition. All mainstream US political views are all pretty right-wing anyway, I don't understand why reasonable people get so worked up and polarised by it. If Kerry had won it's almost guarenteed that America would be in basically the same position now.
PanzerJaeger
05-18-2005, 18:50
The point of this whole affair seems to be mostly based upon the idea that since I don't like what you're saying, let me try to stop you from saying it.
Wrong. The point is that we have to pay for it.
Your example about the evil Right is just as flawed as Tachenzi's. We got to choose who runs the country last november - we never get to choose what gets shown on PBS. Since its own leader has declared it very biased, why should we have to pay for what amounts to government funded propaganda?
Adrian II
05-18-2005, 20:57
If I want my money to go to a left wing cause that is bent on destroying my country, I'll write a check to the DNC... F U PBS
If Bill Moyer was on fire, I would piss on him to put out the flames.... :furious3: Must be an intelligent channel then. Pity we can't watch it here.
Must be an intelligent channel then. Pity we can't watch it here.
It's a great channel! Lots of highly intelligent stuff. (Guess it just soars too high for some. :laugh4:)
What I love about PBS is lying on the couch and watching a few hours of cooking shows every Saturday afternoon while eating my Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, Charlie Trotter. Just love it!
Gawain of Orkeny
05-18-2005, 21:53
The point of this whole affair seems to be mostly based upon the idea that since I don't like what you're saying, let me try to stop you from saying it.
No the point as Panzer pointed out is why should we pay for it? Its the same as those lousy unions who take the dues of their members and give it to the democratic party even though the members maybe a republicans.
It's a great channel! Lots of highly intelligent stuff. (Guess it just soars too high for some.
Yeah right. Mr intellectual.
What I love about PBS is lying on the couch and watching a few hours of cooking shows every Saturday afternoon while eating my Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Julia Child, Jacques Pepin, Charlie Trotter. Just love it!
The watch the cooking channel and you will be even happier.
Cable costs $100 a month
Basic cable here is 9.99 a month.
Bye the way I watch PBS now and then . It does have some real good programs but again you can find programing just as good if not better on other channels and they dont get a penny from us.
Kanamori
05-18-2005, 22:01
You'd have a lot of pissed off viewers if PBS was shut down. And, they won't do it anyways.
Yeah right. Mr intellectual.
That should be written, "Yeah, right. Mr. Intellectual."
The watch the cooking channel and you will be even happier.
She Who Must Be Obeyed has not yet allowed the aquisition of said channel.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 00:40
That should be written, "Yeah, right. Mr. Intellectual."
You dont deserve a capital I ~D I ll give you the period though Mr. intellectual.
You dont deserve a capital I ~D I ll give you the period though Mr. intellectual.
You forgot apostrophe in the word "don't" and the period at the end of your first sentence. You also forgot the apostrophe in the word "I'll".
Hey, PBS has Sesame Street. There's a guy there who can sell you all the punctuation you need. (I think he could even sell you a W.)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 02:01
You forgot apostrophe in the word "don't" and the period at the end of your first sentence. You also forgot the apostrophe in the word "I'll".
I didnt forget a thing like I didnt forget the apostrophe this time in didnt ~;) I like to give you a chance show off just how intellectual you really are. Im just a lazy bastard.
I didnt forget a thing like I didnt forget the apostrophe this time in didnt ~;) I like to give you a chance show off just how intellectual you really are. Im just a lazy bastard.
Perhaps the people who regard elementary school punctuation rules as intellectualism need PBS far, far more then they realize. ~;)
Or maybe it really does soar above them.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 02:21
Perhaps the people who regard elementary school punctuation rules as intellectualism need PBS far, far more then they realize.
I call it more snooty. I admitted Im a lazy bastard what more do you want. Im not going to use apostrophes unless im listening to Zappa.
Or maybe it really does soar above them.
You see snooty. ~:)
Im not going to use apostrophes unless im listening to Zappa.
Good point.
You see snooty. ~:)
I call it touchy and defensive. You started a thread saying people should turn PBS off. I'm saying that there are, apparently, some amongst us who, while decrying PBS, sure as shoot could use a few hours of it to better their grammar and writing discipline.
Don't get mad at me. You started it. I'm only answering. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 02:48
I call it touchy and defensive. You started a thread saying people should turn PBS off. I'm saying that there are, apparently, some amongst us who, while decrying PBS, sure as shoot could use a few hours of it to better their grammar and writing discipline.
Yopur going to male me break my promise to Don here in a minute. I'm perfectly capable of good punctuation and grammar but as I said (close but not the same don ~;) ) I'm a lazy bastard. I'll do it this one time just for you. Again I do this for fun, not for work. Using correct punctuation and proper grammer at all times is work for me . If you ever can't understand what I post please feel free to ask me what I meant and I will try to answer you with proper grammer and punctuation if thats really what it takes to get my message through your thick skull j/k ~D
Yopur going to male me break my promise to Don here in a minute. I'm perfectly capable of good punctuation and grammar but as I said (close but not the same don ~;) ) I'm a lazy bastard. I'll do it this one time just for you. Again I do this for fun, not for work. Using correct punctuation and proper grammer at all times is work for me . If you ever can't understand what I post please feel free to ask me what I meant and I will try to answer you with proper grammer and punctuation if thats really what it takes to get my message through your thick skull j/k ~D
You forgot the period after "thick skull".
Some people... ~:rolleyes:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-19-2005, 03:01
You forgot the period after "thick skull".
You missed my one intentional and one not so intentional spelling mistakes ~D
1st
My very 1st word
Yopur
Next you can accuse me of either bad spelling or grammar in the 1st sentence
Yopur going to male me break my promise
One more booboo
(close but not the same don
Don should be capitalised as its a proper name.
You see two can play this game ~D
Again my main problem with PBS is that we shouldnt be taxed(yes I didnt use an apostrophe in either instance here) (would have been easier than writting out all this carp but its a matter of principle ~D ) to put it on the air. It was great when we only had 7 stations but its time has come.
Steppe Merc
05-19-2005, 13:03
Hey, PBS has Sesame Street. There's a guy there who can sell you all the punctuation you need. (I think he could even sell you a W.)
Damn! Ok, we need to keep it. Sesame Street rules, and must stay on. I also think they ough to put on the other old Muppet shows (Fraggle Rock, and the Muppet Show). That would not only make it less political, but better. ~D
Tachikaze
05-19-2005, 15:25
You all should be happy that there are media who critique the government and watch them carefully. The trouble is, you conservatives don't want anyone to investigate what the government is doing. You want us to just agree with whatever they do, and give them blind support.
Shows like Frontline attempt to keep our government honest.
Hmm, maybe "keep" isn't the word . . .
Damn! Ok, we need to keep it. Sesame Street rules, and must stay on. I also think they ough to put on the other old Muppet shows (Fraggle Rock, and the Muppet Show). That would not only make it less political, but better. ~D
I hated Sesame Street, but the Muppet Show should come back in a big way.
Big_John
05-19-2005, 16:10
fraggle rock was awesome. hbo sucks now.
KafirChobee
05-19-2005, 19:57
Aurelian, good post. Though I sincerely doubt any of those that oppose Mr. Moyer listened to his speech (in part because it would invariably challenge them to hear even a portion of truth).
In Bill Moyer's final signoff on NOW, he said it was time for him to leave - to give his wife back some of the time he had stolen from their marriage, etc. But, that he would miss investigative reporting - unearthing scandals, telling the truths that politicians fear, dread and coverup. He also mentioned that todays administration is so ripe with scandal and controversy it almost pained him to leave and miss out on the fun. He only hoped that others might follow atleast some of the examples for independent journalism he had attempted to convey in his life.
It seems, to me, that some equate the truth with being liberal - if the truth somehow exposes the reality of corruption, propaganda and, out and out deception by those in power.
Is the exposure that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were in fact manufactured to support a false premise a liberal view? Or, simply the truth. Is the expose of an administration handing out uncontested $billion$ contracts to its friends (Haliburton, Exxon, etc.) a liberal attack on freedom? Or, a demonstration of the corruption that is now allowed and permitted without contention.
Without a free and independent source or outlet for "real" investigative reporting - like NOW, all we will get is the pap of FOX news.
Soon, it may all be gone anyway. If Kenneth Tomlinson has his way. Then PBS will join the others with the regurgitation of preapproved government propaganda, by and for the right-wing aganda. Then, I suppose, those that presently oppose PBS for being independent will praise them for conforming to the beliefs of Ann Coulter, Rush, and the vast array of others that are telling them what they want to hear - versus someone challenging them by telling the truth.
:balloon2:
You all should be happy that there are media who critique the government and watch them carefully. The trouble is, you conservatives don't want anyone to investigate what the government is doing. You want us to just agree with whatever they do, and give them blind support.
Shows like Frontline attempt to keep our government honest.
Hmm, maybe "keep" isn't the word . . .
I think the independant media does a fine job of bashing, *ahem*, critiquing the current government- there's no reason to publicly fund it. If the programming is so great and wonderful, let it sink or swim on its own.
Honestly, it doesn't matter what line they spout- we don't need state funded (run?) media. The idea that it serves as some "equal time" counterpart to the administration is absurd- our government is democratically elected, PBS & NPR are not. There is no provision, nor should there ever be one to subsidize government opposition.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.