Quote Originally Posted by ichi
No one has addressed the point that the current admin is diligently working on silencing any oppsing viewpoints. This is certainly not good for a free independent review.

Current corporate interests are so powerful and have shown they are more concerned with image and damage control than the public good, that it may be important to have a non-commercial voice in the media.

But Pindar's point is well taken, this may not be an appropriate use of guv power, and as this last episode has shown, the idea of a neutral voice, while certainly desirable, is vulnerable to propagandization.

The question really is, is corporate propaganda the only option?

ichi
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.

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.