"The weekly news and public affairs series "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" aired from June 18, 2004 to June 17, 2005."Originally Posted by whyidie
Wow, it made it almost a year.![]()
"The weekly news and public affairs series "Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered" aired from June 18, 2004 to June 17, 2005."Originally Posted by whyidie
Wow, it made it almost a year.![]()
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
Wow it was on for a whole year and that only started last year and its canceld already. Who the hell is Tucker Carlson anyway? I guess that makes them fair and balanced
Again they have no bussiness putting this show on either with taxpayer money.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Man you guys are an absolute hoot! I'm trying to figure out why we need a constitutional change to allow funding of a public network... I've found the documentaries, educational programs, and news programs to be money well spent.
Fox news, what a joke. I enjoyed watching some of it, mainly for live coverage of certain events during the Iraq War, but their "Fair & Balanced" stuff is farcical, like "compassionate conservative." Fox was sending most of the gung ho propaganda out unfiltered by critical thinking--I lost track of how many times we found WMD's and "got Saddam." Journalism? Hardly, especially watching make-up boy go on about his "G-Block," what ever the hell that was. Fox is entertainment, not journalism. Presently it is mainly entertainment for the Right. The opposite of Fox is not PBS...Al Jazeera perhaps, but not PBS.
But discussing this with the Right is like trying to deprogram a cultist. PBS is biased because they don't see everything the GOP's way...fine logic you have there. It gets back to that "righteous" aspect again.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
I've said it many times- who cares if its biased or not? It could be the most balanced stuff on TV and I would still be opposed to government funding for it- it could be the most right leaning channel on TV and Id still be against government funding.Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Of course, right leaning media is actually profitable and doesnt need government funding- so that will never happen.![]()
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
LOL, you quoted CATO??? Yeah, that's fair and balanced. I enjoy reading some of their stuff, I dig through their stats and bases at times looking for info, but ignore their biased reading of them as I find it at odds with logic.Originally Posted by Xiahou
What does Ann Coulter have to say? Let's ask Pat, too...
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Because theres nothing in the constitution giving the government the power to fund propaganda.Man you guys are an absolute hoot! I'm trying to figure out why we need a constitutional change to allow funding of a public network...
Of course as most of them push your agenda.I've found the documentaries, educational programs, and news programs to be money well spent.
I thought you liked to get both sides? Fox is certainly far more fair and balanced than PBS or NPR. Again if Fox were paid for by your tax dollars you would be screaming bloody hell to take it off the air. Yet you claim to be a moderateFox news, what a joke.![]()
But discussing this with the Left is like trying to deprogram a cultist. FOX is biased because they don't see everything the Democrats way...fine logic you have there. It gets back to that "righteous" aspect again.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
It sucked. Don't blame PBS, they gave him an ample supply of bowties.Originally Posted by Xiahou
And nobody's head exploded...guess we can file away another Right wing myth.Originally Posted by Xiahou
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_CarlsonOriginally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Tucker Carlson (born May 16, 1969 in San Francisco, California) is a libertarian-leaning conservative pundit best known as a former co-host for CNN's Crossfire, representing "the right." Distinguished by his moppish hair and colorful bow ties, Carlson is generally considered one of the most recognizable conservative personalities in American television.
Carlson currently hosts The Situation with Tucker Carlson on cable news network MSNBC, and is a contributor to Esquire magazine and the conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard. He also previously hosted PBS's Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered from 2004 to 2005........Tucker Carlson is the son of Richard W. Carlson, who was president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from 1992 to 1997. His stepmother is Patricia Carlson, heir to the Swanson frozen-food fortune.
No one said there were no right wing people on PBS. But the percentage is laughable as is your position. Look Look theres a conservative. Where? Right between those 200 liberals. As a myth buster your an utter failure. Now theres a show that should be on PBS.And nobody's head exploded...guess we can file away another Right wing myth.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Hmmm, I dont remember billing that as fair and balance... but whatever.Originally Posted by Red Harvest
However, they are far from Republican shills and regularly criticize the administration- and are just plain right on this issue. What argument can actually endorse government run media? We already have government funded TV and radio- why not newspapers too?![]()
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
----------------Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I think you should leave this one to Pindar.Their heads would explode if there was one show that was actually right-wing on there. They'd scream bias until their lungs burst.
Crazed Rabbit
Nor is there anything in there about a White House Christmas tree...yet I don't think we need a constitutional amendment to authorize that. You will have one hell of a time proving that PBS is propaganda. Anything that isn't 100% Right Wing Approved is tagged, "propaganda."Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
No, it isn't. The Right wing has no interest in balanced reporting. They hate PBS and NPR because more than one side will be presented. It has to do with the intolerant nature of the Right.I thought you liked to get both sides? Fox is certainly far more fair and balanced than PBS or NPR.
If Fox were funded the same way as PBS, I doubt it would last on the air very long, and it certainly couldn't qualify as a non-profit. Fox has an anti-intellectual appeal to it--more of a blue collar network. I enjoy some of the shows, but their news programs don't do much to stimulate my gray matter.Again if Fox were paid for by your tax dollars you would be screaming bloody hell to take it off the air.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
What Red doesnt seem to realise is that if FOX was funded in the same manner as PBS us conservatives would still hold the same position on the matter. Close them both down. He is showing himself to be a liberal partisan here yet claims to be a moderate.
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
That's funny, I never knew PBS or NPR were "government run."Originally Posted by Xiahou
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
You didnt know that? Maybe that's part of the problem....Originally Posted by Red Harvest
It's run by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who's board members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You knew that right?
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
You are painting yourself farther into the far Right corner there. You posed the question assuming you knew how I would respond. You were wrong.Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
And once again, we have the far Right reclassifying everyone not in their corner as being "liberals." Sigh. Wake me up when something new happens. Don't you guys ever get tired of saying that? It is so dated...you need something new, something with some pizazz.
So now you are saying that if you can't pin PBS with the bias rap, you would simply oppose any Federal funding on principle. Perhaps, but that isn't your motivation, and we all know it.![]()
There is nothing constitutional to this.![]()
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
No, I actually didn't. I hadn't actually looked into the governance aspect. Makes the claims of bias even more ludicrous though...Originally Posted by Xiahou
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
red you are a liberal claiming claiming to be a moderate.
we should not have government funded news stations. If fox was like pbs the right would still not like it. And left would hate it also but the left isnt complaining now because it promotes their agenda
Formerly ceasar010
Ive been saying it for months- defund it, bias or no. Its not all political news either, they can defund Sesame Street too, let it sink or swim on its own- without taxpayer funding.Originally Posted by Red Harvest
"Don't believe everything you read online."
-Abraham Lincoln
Replace anti-intellectual with anti-elitist and maybe you'll have a point.If Fox were funded the same way as PBS, I doubt it would last on the air very long, and it certainly couldn't qualify as a non-profit. Fox has an anti-intellectual appeal to it--more of a blue collar network. I enjoy some of the shows, but their news programs don't do much to stimulate my gray matter.
That is a typical coffee shop liberal statement though. Do you often cast aspertions on your blue collar underlings? How dare people who dont get paid as much as you challenge your intellect. You know whats best for them, right?
Now that's something I would like to see! Have Rush Limbaugh as the secret new co-anchor for Bill Moyers. Bill Moyers face when Rush Limbaugh walked in would be priceless.Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
There is a definite liberal bias in the news media, but I think Bill Moyers made a few good points here.
the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.
Too often reporters are just mouthpieces for sound bites and are not doing a credible job of reporting what is behind the story. Any idiot can listen to what Bill Clinton or George Bush says on the podium. This is proven by the number of idiots doing exactly that. We do not have any need for a reporter to repeat back to us what they just said. A good cameraman would be enough for that. Journalism to be of any value must be more than that. Too often what is behind a story is left in silence. Stories about the military for example are frequently poorly done from a basic lack of knowledge on the part of journalists, and from a lack of desire to learn or find any sources that do know more.
news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity.
This is true and seems to be poorly understood by modern day journalists. Sound bites, talking points, news conferences, and political think tank publications are just part of the machine and the journalist must get beyond them or be irrelevant.
I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity was not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference. I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies, as well as the big lie of people in power.
This was seen with the claims of Bill Clinton, and George Bush in their wars. The ultimate justification of their wars aside the media did a shabby job of reporting the substance of their claims and never seemed to actually find the truth behind what we now know to have been somewhat shaky in both cases. Any news reporter could have gone to Yugoslavia or Kosovo to report the truth. Any news reporter could have gone to Niger to find out the facts in the case.
Why this failure to do what anyone with a plane ticket and a MasterCard could have done?
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Wrong. Elitist better describes the current monarchy, I mean administration. What I find funny is that the Right is heavily represented by those running business, the true elitists. On average they also have religious conservative views, so that fits with the working class base.Originally Posted by PanzerJager
Spoken like a true fascist. See, isn't this name calling fun? No, I don't think you are fascist, I'm making a point.That is a typical coffee shop liberal statement though. Do you often cast aspertions on your blue collar underlings? How dare people who dont get paid as much as you challenge your intellect. You know whats best for them, right?
I wasn't casting aspersions, just pointing out differences in backgrounds and what each *on average* favors. Unlike you, I don't consider any one who works for me an "underling." Your statement reminds me of a conservative manager I didn't worked for (but who thought everyone worked for him), who liked pointing out to others that he was their "superior."
My background is more blue collar, pulling myself up by the bootstraps beside many who had money and connections, but who lacked drive and insight. I get along better with the operators than with the elitist management. You see, I well understand that position or education do not equate to intelligence. Unfortunately, I found that many of my own conservative coworkers with nice salaries did NOT share my view in regards. They would actually say that they felt they were somehow more important because of their position/education/intelligence, and they really looked down on the low end wage earners. I've known plenty of dense well educated persons that reached their place based on their heritage and the good ole boy network. And I've done my share to promote and reward intelligent innovative shift workers, especially ones who "challenged my intellect" with something I had not thought of.
Education is not elitist. Historically, fascists and extremists typically target the educated, because they represent the biggest threat to totalitarian regimes. One of the first targets of totalitarianism is the media--they recognize it must be controlled. Yes, the parallels do concern me.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Red I suggest you take a good look in the mirror as it seems you are all you hate.
And the libs did a great job of it for forty years. Unfortunatly for them along came talk radio, the internet and cable tv. No more monoply. People are more informed now and your breed is dying along with the main stream media. No one trusts them anymore other than liberals who are what 18% of Americans ?One of the first targets of totalitarianism is the media--they recognize it must be controlled.![]()
Fighting for Truth , Justice and the American way
Pindar, et al, who are saying there should be no publicly-funded broadcasting-- I am not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that it is an irrelevant argument. The PBS exists, and it has for a while, and will for a while more. The issue being discussed here is the decision to sideline Bill Moyers, and should rest strictly on the merits of that choice.
To bring up the philosophical point of there BEING no PBS, is either one of two things--
(1) Selfish. Bringing in a pet political cause and tooting its horn where it has no place. Distracting from real conversation.
(2) Cowardly. A convenient back-up position that supposedly absolves the debater from actually attempting to prove anything at all. A farsical attempt to claim the "high-ground" of "neutrality". "Well, even if it said everything we wanted, we'd oppose it." Irrelevant. Stick to the reality at hand, debate the merits.
..
Now, if you say his strong statements against right-wing figures, even taken in balance with his frequent invitation of opposing, pundits to talk on his show, are an unacceptable use of public funds, then we can agree to disagree.
There are not only TWO sides to every issue, giving a left-wing hack and a right-wing hack the chance to yell at eachother does not create balance. In fact, there are not TWO sides to ANY issue, but only ONE. The side of TRUTH. Everyone sees this truth a little differently, but it is the reporting of this truth according to individual concience which defines good journalism.
Or at least that's ONE of the definers of good journalism. The other is quality research and solid factual backup for all statements and conclusions. And no one could ever fault Bill Moyers on THAT.
..
If a man's conscience and documented research leads him to criticize one political camp over another, then he is an honest man, and his is a valuable journalistic voice.
But if you see the world in terms of right and left, and believe that criticizing the one makes you the other, then in terms of your world view you are CORRECT-- that honest journalism certainly is a poor use of public money.
DA
Sesame street is the bomb.
Have you thought about going on Crusade? You would make a good one.Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
There are usually more more than two sides to an issue. Often, three, four, or more. The first point is that what you want to see done may not be what someone else wants done. So how is there only one true way in that situation?
The second point is the value you place on what you want done and the value someone else places on the same thing. The cost the two are willing to pay for it will vary based on their perceptions.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
I see everyone is decided to ignore what is stated in Moyer's little speech / editorial. Everyone seems to want to blame the adminstration for slopply and lazy journalists not reporting the new - ie the truth. But instead of looking at his profession - Mr. Moyer choses to blame the right and the adminstration more then anything.Originally Posted by Myself
Like I said in the above quote - Moyer is own worst enemy and is showing himself to by a hypocrit in his arguement - especially given that his funding primarily comes from PBS - a federally funded network
Notice the bolded type - it means opinion. I don't care for Mr. Moyer's editorials nor his hypocrisy in this mattr.Originally Posted by Myself
Some of you need to get your information from more then one source.Originally Posted by Myself
However when one blames the administration for the lazy journalistic efforts coming from most journalists - that individual is being a hypocrit. The profession of journalism means you research the story and report the truth. Just because the subject of the story does not give you information hand over foot - does not make it an attempt to silence the media. The journalist needs to get off his fat lazy butt and become a journalist again and get into the trenches to report the story - ie the truth - in spite of any minor obstacles the subject of the story might put in place.Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
Mr Moyer wants his pie and his cake - and he wants to eat them both at the same time without truely having to work for it. (or at least that is the opinion I gather from his article that Ichi posted.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
I didn't address your specific point because I am not particularly concerned about the liberal bent of PBS or NPR. I have no real problem with more as opposed to less ideas in the common square. I understand various Administration advocates who argue any government sponsored broadcasting should be neutral or proportionally representative, but I do think there is a disingenuous element to the rhetoric that boils down to power politics.Originally Posted by ichi
I think, in general both PBS and NPR try to be rigorous in their approach and that alone is noteworthy. Regardless of political persuasion a sober (albeit left leaning) approach should give room for thought and that is never a bad thing.
What is a bad thing, in my opinion, is government monies funneled to any such exercise.
"The question really is, is corporate propaganda the only option?"
Cable baby.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
An attack on the notion of publicly funded broadcasts is a more fundamental issue. If government sponsorship is illegitimate then that issue trumps any discussion of content. To argue a necessarily prior position is irrelevant is to put the cart before the horse.Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Bookmarks