• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Defund NPR, PBS?

Davidlpf said:
Californians don't want their state ran into the ground like ebay nearly was.
Click to expand...

LOL! California is already more broke than ebay ever could have been ... in large part due to Jerry Brown giving unions power they'd never had before he came along.
 
Speaking of Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown...anyone see her new add where she opines about wanting California to be like it was in 1980 when her and her husband moved there, and when anything was possible...1980 when JERRY BROWN was GOVERNOR.

Classic.

TAM:)
 
Brainster said:
1. The Lewinsky affair was recognized as serious very quickly. IIRC it made the mainstream newspapers about four days after the Drudge Report came up with it. You may have forgotten, but the story was actually broken by Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, but spiked by the editors over there. It was the biggest topic the following week on This Week with David Brinkley, and led 60 Minutes. It was a continuing saga all year long as the story came out in bits and pieces.
Click to expand...

Thank you for educating Grenme on this. He often lets his left-wing propaganda get in the way of his attempts at due diligence.
 
BeAChooser said:
LOL! California is already more broke than ebay ever could have been ... in large part due to Jerry Brown giving unions power they'd never had before he came along.
Click to expand...

So blame the common man for grouping together so they are not taken advantage of classic (ed.) BeAChooser.
Do not change members names for the purpose of insulting them.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NotJesus said:
What list? None of those people holds public office, so we can't vote them out.

Your posts will be more persuasive if you make them at least minimally coherent.
Click to expand...

You are slow on the uptake, that much is clear. I was mimicking TAM's post, (which I clearly quoted) except in the political alternate. Your posts will be more persuasive if you make them at least minimally relevant.
 
Like the guy on Slate said, if NPR and PBS didn't exist, the GOP would have to invent them. They're another "them" to rail against.
 
T.A.M. said:
Speaking of Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown...anyone see her new add where she opines about wanting California to be like it was in 1980 when her and her husband moved there, and when anything was possible...1980 when JERRY BROWN was GOVERNOR.

Classic.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Jerry Brown took Whitman's quip and ran with it. :)

 
BeAChooser said:
But won't you agree that what Schiller is advocating needs to be stopped? Remember, this isn't just about the cost of NPR, PBS, CPB, relative to our overall economic situation. It's about who controls the media and the information that voters/public use to make decisions. Part of the reason we've gotten into the mess we are now in is that the leftist mainstream media have controlled that media and abused their responsibility to be impartial journalists. Now we want non-impartial government funded government media to replace it? I think that needs to be stopped. And one place to start is by defunding Schiller's power base.
Click to expand...

No, and no it's not.

Daredelvis
 
BeAChooser said:
But won't you agree that what Schiller is advocating needs to be stopped? Remember, this isn't just about the cost of NPR, PBS, CPB, relative to our overall economic situation. It's about who controls the media and the information that voters/public use to make decisions. Part of the reason we've gotten into the mess we are now in is that the leftist mainstream media have controlled that media and abused their responsibility to be impartial journalists. Now we want non-impartial government funded government media to replace it? I think that needs to be stopped. And one place to start is by defunding Schiller's power base.
Click to expand...

No, I for one won't agree that your insane ramblings have anything to do with reality.
 
Beerina said:
Maybe they don't want to afford it. Maybe they don't want to be forced, under penalty of jail, to financially support viewpoints opposed to their own, which is a disgusting thing in a free society.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't want to let them use MY airwaves without something in return. It is in fact my airwaves they are using. They have no right to simply use it without giving me something in return...given that after all the airwaves belong to the people.

But hey they can't choose anything given that that airwaves belong to the people, and not them. They have no choice in the matter. Public broadcast is the compromise for allowing commercial broadcast on public airwaves. Hell cut all commercial channels out of it if they don't want to play fair...it belongs to the people anyway. Sorry, but those airwaves belong to the community.

PBS and NPR are the compromise they accept in exchange for using the airwaves that belong to the people. They have no right to them without permission, and the fact stands that with the fact that corporate abuses the channels they owe us something in exchange and that is PBS and NPR. So either tax or pay for it outright, but it is my god damn birth right, because you are using my channel.

EDIT: They can use cable or Satellite...and give up the public air waves....why not that? Oh I know...welfare for the corporations? There is no way for you to win this one.
 
Last edited:
You assume the attitude of NPR represents The People, whatever that means. That we're even discussing the possibility of de-funding PBS shows how much in error this assumption of yours might be.
 
Beerina said:
You assume the attitude of NPR represents The People, whatever that means. That we're even discussing the possibility of de-funding PBS shows how much in error this assumption of yours might be.
Click to expand...


Did I mention that "NPR" and "PBS" are not synonyms? Not to mention "PBS" and "public broadcaster".

Being that local public broadcasters are mostly funded by individual donations (Some people may have noticed those occasional irritating fund drives.), it seems to me that the people's interests are being fairly well represented on a level far more direct than most government processes can claim.

During those fund drives the contributors are asked what their likes, dislikes, and wishes are. This is what the station uses to determine broadcasting content, not any directives from the New World Order. For some reason this often leads to the local broadcaster increasing the airtime they devote to programs distributed by such entities as NPR, APM, and PRI. It rarely seems to lead to less.

What it does lead to, however, is different content in different markets based specifically on the preferences of that local group of cash paying customers.

There is nothing to prevent a public broadcaster from using those contributions to air a franchise like Rust Limpdong any more than there is for them paying to air CarTalk or Fresh Air, just like any of the drive-time, private, ad financed stations. Except for the expressed wishes of the people who choose to contribute as well as tune in. The main difference is that unlike the private stations the "people" vote for content quite directly, wallet in hand, on a regular basis rather than being at the mercy of what owners and advertisers decide they should want to listen to.

It hasn't been shown here yet the the red-baiting boogieman of "state owned" broadcasting is a fair or accurate representation of the public broadcasting model actually in place in the U.S. The evidence suggests that it is, instead, a massive distortion and bald-faced lie. I'm more inclined to think that the opposite is true, and it is the listeners to large corporate conglomerates of privately owned stations who are being spoon fed what the broadcasters want them to hear.
 
what are the "liberal" programs on PBS and NPR? I listen and watch these stations often and there really aren't very many political shows at all, and then, those shows are rather informative and not editorial.
 
thaiboxerken said:
what are the "liberal" programs on PBS and NPR? I listen and watch these stations often and there really aren't very many political shows at all, and then, those shows are rather informative and not editorial.
Click to expand...


I think the BBC re-broadcasts in the middle of the night are distinctly Anglo-centric ... sometimes. Maybe.

They're all commies, aren't they? And commies are all liberals, right? (Or do I have that backward. :confused:)

Anyway, there's ya some leebrul byass right there.
 
quadraginta said:
Being that local public broadcasters are mostly funded by individual donations (Some people may have noticed those occasional irritating fund drives.), it seems to me that the people's interests are being fairly well represented on a level far more direct than most government processes can claim.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think it represents the people's interests better than private networks.
 
The government also funds various public-private partnerships. Faith-based initiatives anyone? They get government funding!

What the right is complaining about is that a perceived "leftist" news outlet (face it, if you aren't far-right, you are a "leftist" to them, there is no middle) gets government funding as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom