PDA

View Full Version : Defund All Public Broadcasting Now



PoliCon
10-22-2010, 09:55 PM
by Emily Miller
10/22/2010


The federal government spent $420 million this year to subsidize public broadcasting. When National Public Radio (NPR) fired Juan Williams this week for comments he made that did not tow their liberal agenda, the long-held conservative perspective that the taxpayers should not be paying for public radio and TV finally came to a head. The time has come to defund all public broadcasting.

In the wake of the Juan Williams firing, Republicans in the House and Senate have started the process to redline the Corporate for Public Broadcasting (CPB) entirely.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) announced he is introducing legislation to defund public broadcasting. Rep. Joe Barton (R.-Tex.), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee called for a hearing on NPR funding.

“How come CPB still requires an involuntary contribution from taxpayers' pockets after 43 years?” asked a spokeswoman for Rep. Barton. “Count us among the people who believe the middle-aged CPB needs to get a paying job and move out of the house.”

The CPB is technically a private, non-profit corporation, but in reality, it is a pass-through for federal funds to public broadcasting. Federal funds, through the CPB, are the largest single source of funding for public TV and radio broadcasting. Most of the funds go to Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and NPR, both of which were created by CPB.

According to the independent Congressional Research Service, Congress appropriated $420 million this year (FY 2010) for the CPB. The Democrat-controlled Congress also including provisions in the bill “to assist public broadcasters affected by the recent economic downturn.”

Obama and the Congressional Democrats appropriated $430 million for the CPB next year. And, the president’s budget this year requested that the CPB get another bump up in funds in FY2012 to $440 million.

(The CPB received two-year advanced appropriations by Congress so the amounts were set, despite the Democrats inability to pass a budget this year. President Bush attempted to block CPB’s advanced funding repeatedly in the last several years of his administration, but the Democrats in Congress blocked the effort.)

CONTINUED (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39548&ref=nf)

Gingersnap
10-22-2010, 10:12 PM
She means "toe", not "tow". Wince.

I would like to see a cogent defense of public broadcasting (aside from VOA). We know what we don't like about it but what do supporters find attractive in this era? Who can make case for it? :confused:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-22-2010, 10:45 PM
I personally am not really a fan of any of them except for PBS. A lot of cool kids shows are on it, and their history related stuff is very interesting. They have a whole 'American Experience' series detailing various events in history through an American lens, which is pretty cool.

Rockntractor
10-22-2010, 10:48 PM
I personally am not really a fan of any of them except for PBS. A lot of cool kids shows are on it, and their history related stuff is very interesting. They have a whole 'American Experience' series detailing various events in history through an American lens, which is pretty cool.
I like to watch keeping up appearances, it makes it easier to understand Hamps.

Gingersnap
10-22-2010, 10:51 PM
I personally am not really a fan of any of them except for PBS. A lot of cool kids shows are on it, and their history related stuff is very interesting. They have a whole 'American Experience' series detailing various events in history through an American lens, which is pretty cool.

Are these shows better than the History Channel? I mean this sincerely. I find the History channel to be a dumb 7th grade exercise. Should kids even be watching much TV? I don't know - I'm not a parent and my folks had dim views on child-TV watching (for which I'm now grateful). :confused:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-22-2010, 11:39 PM
Are these shows better than the History Channel? I mean this sincerely. I find the History channel to be a dumb 7th grade exercise. Should kids even be watching much TV? I don't know - I'm not a parent and my folks had dim views on child-TV watching (for which I'm now grateful). :confused:

Yes, I'd say they are. Believe it or not, they are actually very objective too. They have an "American Experience" doc for most of the Presidents--Each one is focused solely on that President and his entire life. I watched one on LBJ and they were very quick to point out both the man's flaws, his ego and his cheating in elections--as well as his good side. I use the example of him since PBS is probably thought to be very liberal, yet they didn't treat LBJ, who is a Liberal icon, as if he was a saint. It was all in all a very balanced biography.

So, yes I'd say it's a lot better than the history channel.

Rockntractor
10-22-2010, 11:46 PM
Yes, I'd say they are. Believe it or not, they are actually very objective too. They have an "American Experience" doc for most of the Presidents--Each one is focused solely on that President and his entire life. I watched one on LBJ and they were very quick to point out both the man's flaws, his ego and his cheating in elections--as well as his good side. I use the example of him since PBS is probably thought to be very liberal, yet they didn't treat LBJ, who is a Liberal icon, as if he was a saint. It was all in all a very balanced biography.

So, yes I'd say it's a lot better than the history channel.

You are right about them having some very good programs but LBJ isn't a good example of liberals being objective, because of the Vietnam war he was not a favorite of liberals.

PoliCon
10-23-2010, 12:02 AM
Are these shows better than the History Channel? I mean this sincerely. I find the History channel to be a dumb 7th grade exercise. Should kids even be watching much TV? I don't know - I'm not a parent and my folks had dim views on child-TV watching (for which I'm now grateful). :confused:

History channel has a serious bias and has yet to find a conspiracy theory they don't like. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-23-2010, 12:06 AM
You are right about them having some very good programs but LBJ isn't a good example of liberals being objective, because of the Vietnam war he was not a favorite of liberals.

Well, they quick to point out FDR's repeated infidelities and even the fact--which they didn't have to mention--that he was with his mistress and not his wife when he died, and that his daughter arranged his visits in his last several months of life with his mistress behind Eleanor's back. Apparently he was semi-aware he didn't have much time left to live and so reconnected with Mercer after being away from her for yearsr, who had recently lost her husband if I remember correctly. They re-iterated the fact that he had promised Eleanor he'd never see her again, and yet he spent his final days with Mercer, and not Eleanor.

Rockntractor
10-23-2010, 12:21 AM
Well, they quick to point out FDR's repeated infidelities and even the fact--which they didn't have to mention--that he was with his mistress and not his wife when he died, and that his daughter arranged his visits in his last several months of life with his mistress behind Eleanor's back. Apparently he was semi-aware he didn't have much time left to live and so reconnected with Mercer after being away from her for yearsr, who had recently lost her husband if I remember correctly. They re-iterated the fact that he had promised Eleanor he'd never see her again, and yet he spent his final days with Mercer, and not Eleanor.

Once again you are right about them having good history shows, i wish they would dump their political bent and just go to history and educational. I think we need to quit the government funding now though.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-23-2010, 12:28 AM
Once again you are right about them having good history shows, i wish they would dump their political bent and just go to history and educational. I think we need to quit the government funding now though.

Eh, I'd keep it going. To be honest there's a lot more things that could be cut that are generally less useful. For example welfare, reduce food stamps, get rid of the Universal Healthcare thing, get rid of some of the agencies like the USPS. I think PBS is one of the better government run programs out there, to be honest, so I'm kind of partial to retaining it.

Rockntractor
10-23-2010, 12:37 AM
Eh, I'd keep it going. To be honest there's a lot more things that could be cut that are generally less useful. For example welfare, reduce food stamps, get rid of the Universal Healthcare thing, get rid of some of the agencies like the USPS. I think PBS is one of the better government run programs out there, to be honest, so I'm kind of partial to retaining it.

We don't have to pick just one, they all need to go.

noonwitch
10-25-2010, 09:24 AM
Are these shows better than the History Channel? I mean this sincerely. I find the History channel to be a dumb 7th grade exercise. Should kids even be watching much TV? I don't know - I'm not a parent and my folks had dim views on child-TV watching (for which I'm now grateful). :confused:


PBS has had some really good productions of Shakespeare in the past year or so. I think they are joint projects with the BBC, but the Hamlet production with Patrick Stewart and David Tennant was awesome. There was a MacBeth with Stewart, but I haven't seen that one yet.

PBS should get funded for quality viewing like that. Just not for some of their other crap.

Rockntractor
10-25-2010, 09:29 AM
PBS has had some really good productions of Shakespeare in the past year or so. I think they are joint projects with the BBC, but the Hamlet production with Patrick Stewart and David Tennant was awesome. There was a MacBeth with Stewart, but I haven't seen that one yet.

PBS should get funded for quality viewing like that. Just not for some of their other crap.

Let them stand or fall on their own merit, we can't afford to pay for entertainment with taxpayer money whether it's quality entertainment or not.

Odysseus
10-25-2010, 09:41 AM
But if PBS went away, does anyone doubt that their better programming would be picked up elsewhere? Think of the bidding war that the networks would have over Sesame Street. If they were smart, they'd go to a cable subscriber model and then they wouldn't need the pledge drives. How many parents would spring for the channel just to keep Sesame Street and the other kids' programming? Of course, if they did that, they'd have to revise their business model so that they actually made a >gasp< profit, but it could be done. They'd just have to get rid of the shows that drag them down, and cut down some of their bloated overhead, just like a regular business.

NJCardFan
10-25-2010, 12:22 PM
But if PBS went away, does anyone doubt that their better programming would be picked up elsewhere? Think of the bidding war that the networks would have over Sesame Street. If they were smart, they'd go to a cable subscriber model and then they wouldn't need the pledge drives. How many parents would spring for the channel just to keep Sesame Street and the other kids' programming? Of course, if they did that, they'd have to revise their business model so that they actually made a >gasp< profit, but it could be done. They'd just have to get rid of the shows that drag them down, and cut down some of their bloated overhead, just like a regular business.

Sesame St. is already highly profitable. They make billions on merchandising alone and when you get to keep 100% of your profits because the government and private donations are taking care of your overhead, that's a tough habit to break.

Odysseus
10-25-2010, 01:23 PM
Sesame St. is already highly profitable. They make billions on merchandising alone and when you get to keep 100% of your profits because the government and private donations are taking care of your overhead, that's a tough habit to break.

Exactly. We get BBC America, which includes a lot of the programming that we used to get from PBS, as well as stuff that they'd never run. And, a lot of the stuff that they used to run, like Monty Python, would now be out of bounds for them. Can you imagine the current PC crowd at PBS running any of the following?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67JhKT5bxU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI&p=0081F01E77C83083&playnext=1&index=20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCkFhafk26A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=488-tm63qt8

And don't forget the audio for "I Like Chinese."

AmPat
10-25-2010, 01:31 PM
Yes, I'd say they are. Believe it or not, they are actually very objective too. They have an "American Experience" doc for most of the Presidents--Each one is focused solely on that President and his entire life. I watched one on LBJ and they were very quick to point out both the man's flaws, his ego and his cheating in elections--as well as his good side. I use the example of him since PBS is probably thought to be very liberal, yet they didn't treat LBJ, who is a Liberal icon, as if he was a saint. It was all in all a very balanced biography.

So, yes I'd say it's a lot better than the history channel.

All this programming, if it is as good as you say, will be able to stand in the public marketplace. If not, it will lose to a superior product. PBC and CPB need to go away. It should never have been allowed in the first place. It should quickly be placed in the dust bin of history, especially after the years of abuse against the very peole who were forced to fund it.

Rockntractor
10-25-2010, 01:33 PM
The world today seems absolutely crackers,
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing and it's senseless, and that's why...
I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today.
You'd better learn to like them; that's what I say.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like Chinese food.
The waiters never are rude.
Think of the many things they've done to impress.
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching, and Chess.

So I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught.
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please.

All together.

[verse in Chinese]
Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Wo ai zhongguo ren. (I like Chinese.)
Ni hao ma; ni hao ma; ni hao ma; zaijien! (How are you; how are you; how are you; goodbye!)

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
Their food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine, and lychees.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin, and yang-ese.

I like Chinese.
I like Chinese.
They only come up to your knees...

AmPat
10-25-2010, 01:47 PM
Nice, what's it from?

Arroyo_Doble
10-25-2010, 02:49 PM
No. There needs to be at least one outlet for information in this nation not controlled by a profit driven entity. Also, broadcast frequencies are a public asset that requires a public presense.

PoliCon
10-25-2010, 07:08 PM
No. There needs to be at least one outlet for information in this nation not controlled by a profit driven entity. Also, broadcast frequencies are a public asset that requires a public presense.

OOOHHHh so in your mind - because there is no drive for profit their clear and measurable bias is excusable. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
10-25-2010, 07:37 PM
No. There needs to be at least one outlet for information in this nation not controlled by a profit driven entity. Also, broadcast frequencies are a public asset that requires a public presense.

First, exactly why must there be an outlet for information that is not driven by profit? You make an assertion without any explanation. What is it, exactly that you have against profit?

For that matter, if PBS' and the CPB's claims are true, the amount of funding that they receive from government sources are minimal, so defunding them should have little or no effect (I don't believe them for a second, but if that's their argument, then it makes little difference if we choose to defund them). Second, given the massive number of cable stations available, there is no reason to keep a station whose functions are, at best, redundant, not to mention unprofitable. CSPAN does a better job of covering government at all levels, and the various entertainment channels run a greater variety of children's programming than PBS does. AM radio offers more diverse commentary than NPR and doesn't require subsidies (except for Air America, which cannot make a go of it, even in the most liberal markets). In fact, a free market would provide far more outlets for PBS kids' programs than one grainy broadcast channel in every market.

Your second premise, that broadcast frequencies are a public asset, and that there must be a public presence, doesn't hold up either. The FCC is the public agency that regulates broadcast frequencies, not PBS, and no one is demanding the revocation of PBS' broadcast licenses. They would have the same right to broadcast as any private station that has a license. They'd just have to pay for it like everyone else.

This leads to my counter argument, that PBS/NPR refuses to compete with other media, demanding special privileges in return for programming that appeals to a very small demographic. Devotees of the various programs claim that PBS/NPR provides programming that is more cerebral than that offered by commercial outlets, but that is debatable. It's certainly more pretentious programming, but it's not very popular, and those who listen to or watch it tend to be from the upper economic strata. In other words, it's programming for snobbish elites, subsidized by the taxes of people who don't particularly care for it. The public funding of PBS/NPR puts progressives in the odd position of advocating taxes on working people in order to subsidize the tastes of affluent elites who can afford their own entertainment. No thanks.

AmPat
10-25-2010, 09:14 PM
No. There needs to be at least one outlet for information in this nation not controlled by a profit driven entity. Also, broadcast frequencies are a public asset that requires a public presense.

Why? Does profit necessarily preclude truth and honesty? Look at FOX. They make a profit and I believe they report closer to the truth than all the other "news" outlets. As for not-for profit PBS, what honesty is there in PBS? They are known for their liberal bent. Explain that.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-26-2010, 08:03 AM
Why? Does profit necessarily preclude truth and honesty? Look at FOX. They make a profit and I believe they report closer to the truth than all the other "news" outlets. As for not-for profit PBS, what honesty is there in PBS? They are known for their liberal bent. Explain that.

You're delusional.

obx
10-26-2010, 08:47 AM
NPR is a joke. The only show without a left bias is 'Car Talk'. Way past time to defund.

Arroyo_Doble
10-26-2010, 09:06 AM
First, exactly why must there be an outlet for information that is not driven by profit? You make an assertion without any explanation. What is it, exactly that you have against profit?

I have nothing against profit. But it is what it is. An entity that is profit driven has only one goal: Earn a return on invested capital. All else is secondary to that. If they can do that by informing people, they will. But they will also bullshit you too if that makes them more money. In terms of media, they make their money by selling earballs. Yours and mine and that guy's over there. Accurate information doesn't always get the earballs.

Also, when a media entity is part of a larger corporation with many revenue streams, it becomes even more complicated to determine what shit they are peddling for the bottom line.


For that matter, if PBS' and the CPB's claims are true, the amount of funding that they receive from government sources are minimal, so defunding them should have little or no effect (I don't believe them for a second, but if that's their argument, then it makes little difference if we choose to defund them).

I believe they are selective with that information. Public broadcasting receives public funds in a myriad of ways so I am highly sceptical of the 2% number though it really hasn't risen to the level of me feeling the need to investigate too much. I really don't care. It should probably 100% but that is not possible in a political climate where so many think anything but Rush and Hannity is "liberal media."


Second, given the massive number of cable stations available, there is no reason to keep a station whose functions are, at best, redundant, not to mention unprofitable.

It is not meant to be profitable.


CSPAN does a better job of covering government at all levels,

CSPAN is great. I imagine the long knives will come out for them sooner or later considering their lack of profit.


and the various entertainment channels run a greater variety of children's programming than PBS does.

Alot of garbage to sell sugary snacks and EXTREEEEEEEME MACHINES!!!


AM radio offers more diverse commentary than NPR and doesn't require subsidies (except for Air America, which cannot make a go of it, even in the most liberal markets).

Not in the metroplex. AM radio is nothing but blatant propaganda for the Republican Party specifically and the (usually far) right in general.


In fact, a free market would provide far more outlets for PBS kids' programs than one grainy broadcast channel in every market.

Probably. But garbage in garbage out.


Your second premise, that broadcast frequencies are a public asset, and that there must be a public presence, doesn't hold up either. The FCC is the public agency that regulates broadcast frequencies, not PBS, and no one is demanding the revocation of PBS' broadcast licenses. They would have the same right to broadcast as any private station that has a license. They'd just have to pay for it like everyone else.

My point is that I am denied the right to broadcast; I am denied my freedom of speech and arguably the press in order to maintain a coherent national system. If I am to be denied for the "general welfare" then I want at least a small portion dedicated for the public and not all of the vast wasteland reserved for Ancient Astronaut and 2012 Doomsday shows masquarding as science and history because more people will watch that than a documentary about research on Corvus corax.


This leads to my counter argument, that PBS/NPR refuses to compete with other media, demanding special privileges in return for programming that appeals to a very small demographic. Devotees of the various programs claim that PBS/NPR provides programming that is more cerebral than that offered by commercial outlets, but that is debatable. It's certainly more pretentious programming, but it's not very popular, and those who listen to or watch it tend to be from the upper economic strata. In other words, it's programming for snobbish elites, subsidized by the taxes of people who don't particularly care for it. The public funding of PBS/NPR puts progressives in the odd position of advocating taxes on working people in order to subsidize the tastes of affluent elites who can afford their own entertainment. No thanks.

Well, I find the concept that only that which can turn a profit is considered to have value to be a recipe for Idiocracy.

But I understand why people from the right are hostile to facts and why they confuse accurate information with a "liberal bias."

Molon Labe
10-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Public media is garbage. Any media outlet funded by the government can't police it objectively. Government policing itself is a joke.
Public media is like the student who get's to grade his own papers.

It's not profit that is evil...it's love of profit. But what does the media have to do with that? The media is about policing power structures. A free media was created to critique those that have the power be them public or private entities. So you should be darn skeptical if a media outlet's primary goal is the bottom line.

So Arroyo is correct that most MSM corporations are garbage. If the only thing a media outlet cares about is profit and the bottom line, then how much objectivity is going on in the critique of anything American liberty stands for?

That's why it's always a laugher to hear people say that Fox MSNBC or CNN are vastly different news channels. Simply because one highlights a "right wing" view by occassionally putting up the token libtard weenie and then claims "fair and balanced". It's funny when someone says Fox is like an independant news source. CNN and FOX have has more in common with each other than sites like politicallore or counterpunch.

There is little serious news on TV folks. It's ALL entertainment. That's why no one has the attention span today to watch a quality news show like the old Macneil Lehrer report's or talk shows on CSPAN. The average person doesn't want indepth news and analyisis...they want lights bells, whistles, and the latest catch phrase.

Forget the recipe for Idiocracy....it's been here for some time.

Lager
10-26-2010, 10:19 AM
I enjoy PBS, but don't listen to NPR that much. I don't invest in cable TV, so the nature, history and music shows are nice to have and unavailable thru network television. It's obvious they lean toward the left, especially Bill Moyers, but knowing that, I take it in account on the occasions when I view their news shows. I don't mind that they're publically funded. I view it in much the same way I view public libraries.

PoliCon
10-26-2010, 10:22 AM
You're delusional.

and you're a fucking retard. You're point??

PoliCon
10-26-2010, 10:24 AM
I have nothing against profit. But it is what it is. An entity that is profit driven has only one goal: Earn a return on invested capital. All else is secondary to that. If they can do that by informing people, they will. But they will also bullshit you too if that makes them more money. Go ask CBS how selling bullshit has worked out for them financially. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
10-26-2010, 10:44 AM
No. There needs to be at least one outlet for information in this nation not controlled by a profit driven entity. Also, broadcast frequencies are a public asset that requires a public presense.

Let me ask you. Would you feel the same if NPR had a decidedly conservative bent? Something tells me no. The problem here is that there is a good portion of the funding to PBS/NPR that comes from people who do not share their political ideology yet we have no say in that our tax money is forcibly taken from us and given to NPR.

Arroyo_Doble
10-26-2010, 10:59 AM
Let me ask you. Would you feel the same if NPR had a decidedly conservative bent? Something tells me no.

It would depend on what you mean. If they were raving lunatics like Beck or Rush as their information reporting? Probably. But I would just listen to something else since that stuff is fluffy clouds affirmation for the audience with no real reporting. But if they were like The Economist or The Wall Street Journal, no. I would still like it since even if it has a so-called "conservative bent," it would still bend toward accuracy over propaganda.

I understand those two publications are private concerns but they are two that I consider solid reporting organizations even thought they are moderate to conservative.

Also, I do not consider NPR (or PBS) reporting to have a liberal bent.


The problem here is that there is a good portion of the funding to PBS/NPR that comes from people who do not share their political ideology yet we have no say in that our tax money is forcibly taken from us and given to NPR.

I get the argument. I just disagree.

Bailey
10-26-2010, 11:17 AM
It would depend on what you mean. If they were raving lunatics like Beck or Rush as their information reporting? Probably. But I would just listen to something else since that stuff is fluffy clouds affirmation for the audience with no real reporting. But if they were like The Economist or The Wall Street Journal, no. I would still like it since even if it has a so-called "conservative bent," it would still bend toward accuracy over propaganda.

I understand those two publications are private concerns but they are two that I consider solid reporting organizations even thought they are moderate to conservative.

Also, I do not consider NPR (or PBS) reporting to have a liberal bent.



I get the argument. I just disagree.


You threw this idiotic statement out to troll or incite people right? because if you believe this you're full of shit.

Odysseus
10-26-2010, 11:24 AM
I have nothing against profit. But it is what it is. An entity that is profit driven has only one goal: Earn a return on invested capital. All else is secondary to that. If they can do that by informing people, they will. But they will also bullshit you too if that makes them more money. In terms of media, they make their money by selling earballs. Yours and mine and that guy's over there. Accurate information doesn't always get the earballs.

You can stop referring to PBS as accurate. They are no less biased then the for-profit media, and often less informative, and they are happy to present BS, as they are insulated from the consequences of it by being subsidized. The mainstream media's failure to inform has cost them in terms of declining viewers/listeners/readers and declining revenues from advertising. In fact, given the state of the NY Times and CNN, it's more likely that they will become offically not-for-profit entities (as opposed to simply being money pits) than it is that PBS will fend for itself.


Also, when a media entity is part of a larger corporation with many revenue streams, it becomes even more complicated to determine what shit they are peddling for the bottom line.
You mean, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?


I believe they are selective with that information. Public broadcasting receives public funds in a myriad of ways so I am highly sceptical of the 2% number though it really hasn't risen to the level of me feeling the need to investigate too much. I really don't care. It should probably 100% but that is not possible in a political climate where so many think anything but Rush and Hannity is "liberal media."
No, it should be zero. State-run media is a symbol of a regime that seeks to control information.


It is not meant to be profitable.
Then they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

CSPAN is great. I imagine the long knives will come out for them sooner or later considering their lack of profit.
CSPAN is privately owned. Nobody is going to end it as long as its owners are willing to keep it in business.


Alot of garbage to sell sugary snacks and EXTREEEEEEEME MACHINES!!!
Oh, the horror. Toys and kiddie foods! Where's Michelle Obama when you need her? McDonald's? It's worse than we thought! If the First Klingon has succumbed, none of us are safe! Quick, pass the granola!

>sigh< Seriously, there are good and bad shows on the various kid's networks, and they reflect a far greater diversity of throught than you find at PBS, and I'd rather sit with my kids and explain why they don't need what's in the commercial than have to explain to them that the global warming PSA that they were subjected to was BS. Being a parent (you know, the people who actually should be raising kids, as opposed to the global village idiot that is TV) means sorting out the good from the bad.


Not in the metroplex. AM radio is nothing but blatant propaganda for the Republican Party specifically and the (usually far) right in general.
Then it balances out the far left propaganda that passes for news on NPR, the networks, CNN and the daily papers, doesn't it?


Probably. But garbage in garbage out.
Let's face it, it's not the kids' shows that would be the problem. It's the pseudo-highbrow propaganda that would have a hard time finding an audience. Bill Moyers, for example, would probably have to go back to government work, where he made his name as LBJ's hatchet man (he was the point man who ordered wiretaps on MLK, you know). In fact, it's hard to imagine any of PBS' news/propaganda unit getting picked up by anyone this side of Al Jazeera (although they will probably approve of the Williams firing).


My point is that I am denied the right to broadcast; I am denied my freedom of speech and arguably the press in order to maintain a coherent national system. If I am to be denied for the "general welfare" then I want at least a small portion dedicated for the public and not all of the vast wasteland reserved for Ancient Astronaut and 2012 Doomsday shows masquarding as science and history because more people will watch that than a documentary about research on Corvus corax.
Your point is absurd. No one denies you the right to broadcast, or speak or publish your opinions. You have the same right to seek a broadcast license as anyone, up to and including Viacom, CBS, NBC and ABC. What you lack is the means to exercise that right, i.e., capital, but that's your problem. You are free to try to raise money and start your own station, and it's not the government's job to do it for you. And if you really hate 2012 doomsday shows or other lowbrow fare, then by all means go out and either start your own network, or contribute to NPR, but take your hand out of my pocket when you do it.

Second, you keep equating PBS with being dedicated to the public. It isn't. PBS is no more concerned about informing the public than CNN, they just have a better PR gimmick, that by being publicly funded, they are somehow serving the public and not themselves. It's the same issue that you get with the NEA, where public art ends up appealing to a miniscule group of critics and hacks, or to put it another way, everyone but the public that pays for it.

Well, I find the concept that only that which can turn a profit is considered to have value to be a recipe for Idiocracy.
No, subsidizing failure is the recipe for Idiocracy. Didn't you watch the movie? The NPR-listeners were too busy preparing for life to live it ("We're not ready for a baby yet, I'm working on my masters degree...etc.,"), while the idiots were being paid to reproduce (welfare, food stamps, stimulus). Cletus didn't listen to NPR or watch PBS, but he didn't watch Fox or listen to Rush, either. He was too busy dodging ex-wives and otherwise avoiding adult responsibilities.


But I understand why people from the right are hostile to facts and why they confuse accurate information with a "liberal bias."
Tell me, do you find that patting yourself on the back that often for being a good little liberal who listens to all of the right media sources and never questions them, does that ever strain your rotator cuff? Or maybe pinch your neck muscles? It's just such an unnatural position, and you do it so often, that I wonder about it. Just curious.

wilbur
10-26-2010, 11:43 AM
Also, I do not consider NPR (or PBS) reporting to have a liberal bent.


They don't. At worst you could call them extreme moderates.

However, if at any time, you say anything that Rush, Coulter, Hannity, or Beck wouldnt say, you obviously are a far-left liberal marxist communist nazi.... its true.

What's that saying around here? Scratch a leftie, find a Marxist?

What they really mean is scratch anybody who fails to express extremist right-wing dogma, to a pathological degree, at all times... and find a Marxist Commie Fascist Nazi Gay Athiest who wants to brainwash or kill your kids and take all your money... or something like that. ;)

Molon Labe
10-26-2010, 11:44 AM
Oh, the horror. Toys and kiddie foods! Where's Michelle Obama when you need her? McDonald's? It's worse than we thought! If the First Klingon has succumbed, none of us are safe! Quick, pass the granola!

When no news story is so important that it can't be interrupted to tell us we need to try the new KFC Double down....then the news is trivial.

television news is a form of entertainment programming


the inclusion of theme music, the interruption of commercials, and "talking hairdos" bear witness that televised news cannot readily be taken seriously - Neal Postman

Arroyo_Doble
10-26-2010, 12:10 PM
Your point is absurd. No one denies you the right to broadcast, or speak or publish your opinions. You have the same right to seek a broadcast license as anyone

Too funny.

We obviously have different ideas about what the word "freedom" means; you seem to think it requires a license to exercise it.

NJCardFan
10-26-2010, 12:19 PM
If I am to be denied for the "general welfare"

Wow, a leftist quoting the Constitution only when it's convenient. However, as usual, you get it wrong. Nice of you, as liberals do, quote the so called "general welfare" clause. Well, allow me to try to educate you on something and to do that, we need to revisit the preamble:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read it? OK, now we can move on. Look at what is mentioned in the preamble: ESTABLISH Justice, INSURE domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, SECURE the blessings of liberty. Understand where I'm going? The words establish, insure, provide, and secure are not ambiguous terms. They are static terms:

Establish-To set up or to make firm.
Insure-To make sure or certain.
Provide-To make available.
Secure-To make free of attack.

Now let's look at the definition of promote(all definitions an be found at the Free Dictionary site):

Promote-To urge the adoption of.

To urge. Not provide, not secure, not insure, not establish. Basically to suggest. So, the gubment can suggest you do something, however, as per the preamble, it's up to you to do it, not the gubment.

AmPat
10-26-2010, 01:47 PM
You're delusional.

Your'e a communist, your opinion doesn't count or matter.

AmPat
10-26-2010, 01:50 PM
Please tell me how Rush and Beck are "raving lunatics" but Spitball Chrissy and Herr Olbermann are main stream.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-26-2010, 02:08 PM
The only one who is sane of the bunch you mentioned is Rush. At least he doesn't pretend he's non-ideological.

AmPat
10-26-2010, 07:14 PM
The only one who is sane of the bunch you mentioned is Rush. At least he doesn't pretend he's non-ideological.

Cite examples of Beck then. I'm trembling with anticipation,,, Apologies Spitball.:cool:

Odysseus
10-27-2010, 10:40 AM
They don't. At worst you could call them extreme moderates.

However, if at any time, you say anything that Rush, Coulter, Hannity, or Beck wouldnt say, you obviously are a far-left liberal marxist communist nazi.... its true.

What's that saying around here? Scratch a leftie, find a Marxist?

What they really mean is scratch anybody who fails to express extremist right-wing dogma, to a pathological degree, at all times... and find a Marxist Commie Fascist Nazi Gay Athiest who wants to brainwash or kill your kids and take all your money... or something like that. ;)
Hmmmm... Let's see,... Atheist? Check. Brainwash or kill kids... Would abortion on demand and advocacy of Peter Singer's take on quality of life count as being willing to kill kids? If so, check. Marxist, commie, fascist, Nazi... Aside from the advocacy of statist policies, undermining of free markets and general disdain for your own country, not so much.

Too funny.

We obviously have different ideas about what the word "freedom" means; you seem to think it requires a license to exercise it.

Hardly. But you seem to think that freedom means having someone give you something, which is equally absurd. You have the same right to compete for a slot on the airwaves as anyone else. If you fail to acquire the means to do so, that is no one's fault but your own. But demanding that the rest of us pay to subsidize your particular tastes in agitprop doesn't serve the public. In fact, it is quite the reverse. Understand that the state is not the public. They are two separate things, no matter how hard the former tries to associate itself with the latter. State ownership of the airwaves is just that, and a state-run or owned network is no more serving the public than Pravda served the former USSR. NPR/PBS/CPB are either government entities or they are not. If they are, then they need to go away, because a free society has no need for state-run media. If they are not, then they need to go off on their own and make their own way. They have no claim for special privileges.

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Hardly. But you seem to think that freedom means having someone give you something, which is equally absurd.

No, I do not. I said nothing of someone giving me broadcast equipment (I could probably put that together pretty easily).


You have the same right to compete for a slot on the airwaves as anyone else.

"[C]ompete for a slot"????

Why? I should just be able to cobble together some equipment and start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes me as a good one.

Again, I think we have different definitions of "freedom." You think it requires a license.

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 11:52 AM
No, I do not. I said nothing of someone giving me broadcast equipment (I could probably put that together pretty easily).



"[C]ompete for a slot"????

Why? I should just be able to cobble together some equipment and start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes me as a good one.

Again, I think we have different definitions of "freedom." You think it requires a license.

Thank you for completely blowing by my post about "general welfare". It's because you know you are completely wrong. Also, you still failed to answer as to why I, as a conservative, should be forced to fund an entity that is decidedly liberal in it's commentary. Or let me ask you this way, would you be all for funding NPR is they broadcast Fox News radio?

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Thank you for completely blowing by my post about "general welfare". It's because you know you are completely wrong.

I didn't get what you were trying to say. I was talking about me having my speech regulated for the "general welfare." Now, that isn't specifically mention in the (now amended) Communications Act of 1934 but it is definitely implied with the phrase, " ... the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication ..."


Also, you still failed to answer as to why I, as a conservative, should be forced to fund an entity that is decidedly liberal in it's commentary.

The same reason I am "forced" to fund roads in Alaska I will never use, I suppose.


Or let me ask you this way, would you be all for funding NPR is they broadcast Fox News radio?

I am assuming that you are asking if I would be for funding right wing paranoid fantasies about Sharia law taking over the United States and a Kenyan born Manchurian (which is kinda funny) candiate winning the White House blah blah fucking blah.

I already answered that.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 12:33 PM
No, I do not. I said nothing of someone giving me broadcast equipment (I could probably put that together pretty easily).



"[C]ompete for a slot"????

Why? I should just be able to cobble together some equipment and start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes me as a good one.

Again, I think we have different definitions of "freedom." You think it requires a license.

Trouble is if you "start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes(sic) me as a good one" you will be trampling on the free speech rights of others - which is one of the reasons why they required a broadcasters license in the first place. Sure they have taken it way farther by now - but . . . . such is government.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 12:34 PM
The same reason I am "forced" to fund roads in Alaska I will never use, I suppose.
National defense? Now does NPR contribute to national defense? :confused:

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 12:44 PM
Trouble is if you "start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes(sic) me as a good one" you will be trampling on the free speech rights of others - which is one of the reasons why they required a broadcasters license in the first place.

While I agree to a certain extent (that licensing is a necessary component), my point was that I do not have the right to broadcast. I cannot go into my back yard and start my own neighborhood radio station on any frequency I choose. Whether that is a good idea or not isn't germane.


Sure they have taken it way farther by now - but . . . . such is government.

It has actually been loosened up a great deal over the years.

Molon Labe
10-27-2010, 12:47 PM
lol @ those who think free speech on the air waves should require a "gubament license" to broadcast.

Now if you want to argue it's a property right......

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 12:51 PM
lol @ those who think free speech on the air waves should require a "gubament license" to broadcast.

Now if you want to argue it's a property right......

I would like to see that argument. It is like claiming copyright on pi or arguing that you own all the sunlight.

Molon Labe
10-27-2010, 01:01 PM
I would like to see that argument. It is like claiming copyright on pi or arguing that you own all the sunlight.

Try to take up for someone's side......:rolleyes:


I didn't say anything about the "air waves". I agree they are free.

See...I agree with you that you shouldn't have to purchase a what amounts to government permission.
But you don't get nor follow natural rights and specifically self ownership principles...and the strawman you just created is cute and alll...but it really doesn't apply

maybe this is pointless but here goes....

My body is my property. I can stand outside all day and spought my drivel with my mouth all I want.

I can go further and make or buy paper and a writing instrument and print my drivel all day long and distribute it.

I can then go further and purchase such things to make a radio and then spout my drivel all day long.

The perfect example is this forum. You have every right to go and get a domain name and run it how you see fit. You also allow the speech on that forum to be as free as you see fit.

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 01:24 PM
I am assuming that you are asking if I would be for funding right wing paranoid fantasies about Sharia law taking over the United States and a Kenyan born Manchurian (which is kinda funny) candiate winning the White House blah blah fucking blah.

I already answered that.
Who on Fox News has said this. Give me names then site concrete examples.

Yet on the same note, NPR's Nina Totenberg said that Jesse Helms should get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren. But since Helms was a Republican, you see no problem with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7msrF1V4NeY

AmPat
10-27-2010, 01:33 PM
What they really mean is scratch anybody who fails to express extremist right-wing dogma, to a pathological degree, at all times... and find a Marxist Commie Fascist Nazi Gay Athiest who wants to brainwash or kill your kids and take all your money... or something like that.

Oh Wilbur, did you actually believe you could slip this through without notice? Please explain exactly what qualifies as "extreme" in your book. Please provide a few examples of "extremist right-wing dogma." Especially the "pathological' kind.:cool:

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 01:36 PM
Try to take up for someone's side......:rolleyes:


I was not trying to be hostile. I was genuinely interested in the argument.


I didn't say anything about the "air waves". I agree they are free.

See...I agree with you that you shouldn't have to purchase a what amounts to government permission.
But you don't get nor follow natural rights and specifically self ownership principles...and the strawman you just created is cute and alll...but it really doesn't apply

I may not get or subscribe to them, I tend to consider "rights" to be artificial constructs a society affords the individual in that society, but it is germane to the argument.

It is like the punchline from the old joke; we've established what you are, we are now negotiating price.


maybe this is pointless but here goes....

My body is my property. I can stand outside all day and spought my drivel with my mouth all I want.

I can go further and make or buy paper and a writing instrument and print my drivel all day long and distribute it.

I can then go further and purchase such things to make a radio and then spout my drivel all day long.

The perfect example is this forum. You have every right to go and get a domain name and run it how you see fit. You also allow the speech on that forum to be as free as you see fit.

I am not sure it is the same.

Molon Labe
10-27-2010, 01:53 PM
I was not trying to be hostile. I was genuinely interested in the argument.



Ok...

All rights as property rights (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp)


Liberals generally wish to preserve the concept of "rights" for such "human" rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property.[1] And yet, on the contrary the concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.

More on the belief (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=all+rights+are+property+rights&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 02:03 PM
Oh Wilbur, did you actually believe you could slip this through without notice? Please explain exactly what qualifies as "extreme" in your book. Please provide a few examples of "extremist right-wing dogma." Especially the "pathological' kind.:cool:

I hope you're not in a hurry.

AmPat
10-27-2010, 02:05 PM
I hope you're not in a hurry.

Nah, I'm patient. I want to see what these words actually mean to somebody like Wilbur. This should be interesting.;)

Odysseus
10-27-2010, 02:39 PM
No, I do not. I said nothing of someone giving me broadcast equipment (I could probably put that together pretty easily).
No, you want someone to give you a piece of the broadcast spectrum. But, it's already taken.

"[C]ompete for a slot"????

Why? I should just be able to cobble together some equipment and start free speechifying on whatever frequency that stikes me as a good one.
In other words, you want to be able to broadcast on the same frequency as a network that has paid for the right to broadcast on that frequency. Think (I know, it's a stretch, but try) of the broadcast spectrum as a parcel of land, similar to the properties that the US sold out west in the late nineteenth century. By parcelling out the broadcast spectrum, the government allowed private companies to utilize them, in effect privatizing the air. Those licences are similar to leases to a piece of land. Now, if you want to squat on somebody else's property, knock yourself out, but hurry up before they do it for you.


Again, I think we have different definitions of "freedom." You think it requires a license.
No, you are deliberately mischaracterizing my position. You have the right to seek to purchase property. You do not have the right to someone else's property. The broadcast spectrum is spoken for. You can't have a piece of it unless you are willing to pony up, and you have the same right to do that as anyone else.


I didn't get what you were trying to say. I was talking about me having my speech regulated for the "general welfare." Now, that isn't specifically mention in the (now amended) Communications Act of 1934 but it is definitely implied with the phrase, " ... the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication ..."

No one is regulating your speech. You can say whatever you want. You just can't say it on someone else's broadcast frequency.


The same reason I am "forced" to fund roads in Alaska I will never use, I suppose.

If it's any consolation, nobody else will use many of them, either. The "Bridge to Nowhere" will be the road less travelled.


I am assuming that you are asking if I would be for funding right wing paranoid fantasies about Sharia law taking over the United States and a Kenyan born Manchurian (which is kinda funny) candiate winning the White House blah blah fucking blah.

I already answered that.
I love how people who listen to nothing but left wing paranoid fantasies that are subsidized by the taxpayer object to free market content on the radio.


While I agree to a certain extent (that licensing is a necessary component), my point was that I do not have the right to broadcast. I cannot go into my back yard and start my own neighborhood radio station on any frequency I choose. Whether that is a good idea or not isn't germane.

It has actually been loosened up a great deal over the years.

No, you have every right to broadcast. You don't have a right to the part of the spectrum that you want to broadcast on unless you purchase the rights from the current owner.

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 02:41 PM
No, you want someone to give you a piece of the broadcast spectrum. But, it's already taken.

I am not asking anyone to give me a damn thing.

And how can you "take" a piece of the broadcast spectrum?

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 03:37 PM
Nothing says you can't buy a Ham radio and broadcast to your little heart's content or a CB for that matter.

RobJohnson
10-27-2010, 03:45 PM
Why do taxpayers need to support public broadcasting? I can't think of any good reasons why we should.

Odysseus
10-27-2010, 04:43 PM
I am not asking anyone to give me a damn thing.
Sure you are. You want a frequency dedicated to your rich, rewarding fantasy life, otherwise known as your political opinions.


And how can you "take" a piece of the broadcast spectrum?
You can't. It has to be allocated to you. See, if two stations broadcast on the same frequency, they jam each other, so the federal government, which has the authority to regulate interstate commerce (and broadcast signals do cross state lines), has taken responsibility for doling out the frequencies to broadcasters in each region of the country, so that people aren't stepping on each other's signals. It's just like deeding land so that people's cattle won't graze on someone else's patch. Now, what you want to do is rustle someone else's frequency, and you know what we do to rustlers in Texas, don't you?

Nothing says you can't but a Ham radio and broadcast to your little heart's content or a CB for that matter.


Why do taxpayers need to support public broadcasting? I can't think of any good reasons why we should.
There is one good reason. With the end of the Cold War, people have forgotten what life was like in the Soviet Union. Public broadcasting is like having a living museum of socialist blunders and idiocy, and preserving it guarantees that people won't forget the evils of communism. :D

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 04:57 PM
But Brawndo has electrolytes.

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 05:20 PM
The good news is I still don't need a license to find the length of the hypotenuse in a right triangle by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.

Arroyo_Doble
10-27-2010, 05:22 PM
Ok...

All rights as property rights (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fifteen.asp)



More on the belief (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=all+rights+are+property+rights&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

So if I follow the theory correctly, by treating the broadcast spectrum as "property," as long as I am investing labor and resources into that property, I can claim ownership of it until such time as I pass it along, trade it, or abandon it?

Odysseus
10-27-2010, 06:57 PM
The good news is I still don't need a license to find the length of the hypotenuse in a right triangle by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides.
No, you just need the ability to reason. Good luck with that.

So if I follow the theory correctly, by treating the broadcast spectrum as "property," as long as I am investing labor and resources into that property, I can claim ownership of it until such time as I pass it along, trade it, or abandon it?

No, because somebody has already invested labor and resources into that property, and has a deed (license) from the government that recognizes their claim to that part of the spectrum. If you can find a vacant part of the spectrum, you can claim it and do whatever you want with it, but if you do not purchase a deed (license), the government has no way of knowing that you have the claim, and can allocate it to someone else. A deed (or in this case, a license) establishes recognition of ownership by the government, and the protection of the courts in case of disputes. Without it, it's your lawyers against Viacom's.

Now, if you abandon your claim, by failing to broadcast, then it reverts to the government. If you choose to pass along or trade your license, you may be able to do so, although I'd have to look at the FCC regs to see what the limits on that are.

Is any of this sinking in?

warpig
10-27-2010, 07:04 PM
For those that want to broadcast their thoughts and ideas try:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/main.jsp?pushNav=1&cmd=home

set up and start talking.

NJCardFan
10-27-2010, 07:17 PM
Is any of this sinking in?
Why ask questions you already know the answer to.

malloc
10-27-2010, 07:35 PM
I am not asking anyone to give me a damn thing.

And how can you "take" a piece of the broadcast spectrum?
You can't. It has to be allocated to you. See, if two stations broadcast on the same frequency, they jam each other, so the federal government, which has the authority to regulate interstate commerce (and broadcast signals do cross state lines), has taken responsibility for doling out the frequencies to broadcasters in each region of the country, so that people aren't stepping on each other's signals. It's just like deeding land so that people's cattle won't graze on someone else's patch. Now, what you want to do is rustle someone else's frequency, and you know what we do to rustlers in Texas, don't you?


Arroyo, you are either being willfully ignorant, or simply argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Molon Labe was right when he stated that all rights derive from property, and Odysseus is correct when he says a frequency (a piece of property), or in this case permission to use the frequency, must be allocated to you.

How can this be, you ask? Well, simply put, the frequency is not your property, it is a public property. A public property, like a National Park, is not owned by the government, or a single person, but is rather owned, in equal part, by every citizen of the surrounding body politic. Just because a property is public, doesn't mean any particular individual in the public body has an equal and uncontrolled claim to use it. Like any other resource a consensus among 300 million people on how to use said public resource is impossible to reach. That is one of the reasons we have a representative democracy. We, the people, have granted the government the privilege of stewardship over this public property. Sure there are other ways of doing it, such as private standards organizations like ICANN, but this is the way our representatives have decided to handle to this particular public property.

Furthermore, on your own property, you have every right to broadcast at any frequency you desire, however, you'd better surround your property with a faraday cage, because you don't have the right to interfere with the use of public properties authorized through due process outside of your property.

This is really basic civics.

What this thread is truly about, is whether private property (my money), should be confiscated to be used for a public service (NPR). NPR is not a public property, it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, private entity. Nationalizing private property to fund NPR would be the same as nationalizing private property to fund Americans for Prosperity, CodePink, or Media Matters.

Calypso Jones
10-27-2010, 08:44 PM
This Caroline Heldman Ph. D. was on O'Reilly tonite and she said she is so far left of NPR that she considers them reasonable. That's a fair statement seeing as Caroline heldman is a freaking nutball leftist.

PoliCon
10-27-2010, 10:50 PM
I am not asking anyone to give me a damn thing.

And how can you "take" a piece of the broadcast spectrum?

No one owns an part of the broadcast spectrum - what they own is the right to broadcast on a given piece of the spectrum at a given wattage for a given period of time.

RobJohnson
10-28-2010, 12:26 AM
There is one good reason. With the end of the Cold War, people have forgotten what life was like in the Soviet Union. Public broadcasting is like having a living museum of socialist blunders and idiocy, and preserving it guarantees that people won't forget the evils of communism. :D

LOL

I see no good reason for tax dollars to help spread propaganda.

RobJohnson
10-28-2010, 12:28 AM
No, you just need the ability to reason. Good luck with that.


No, because somebody has already invested labor and resources into that property, and has a deed (license) from the government that recognizes their claim to that part of the spectrum. If you can find a vacant part of the spectrum, you can claim it and do whatever you want with it, but if you do not purchase a deed (license), the government has no way of knowing that you have the claim, and can allocate it to someone else. A deed (or in this case, a license) establishes recognition of ownership by the government, and the protection of the courts in case of disputes. Without it, it's your lawyers against Viacom's.

Now, if you abandon your claim, by failing to broadcast, then it reverts to the government. If you choose to pass along or trade your license, you may be able to do so, although I'd have to look at the FCC regs to see what the limits on that are.

Is any of this sinking in?

Good points....we can't get HBO without paying someone, local television needs commercial dollars, and PBS gets a free ride from the taxpayers......

Odysseus
10-28-2010, 09:47 AM
LOL

I see no good reason for tax dollars to help spread propaganda.
I have no problem with tax dollars spreading propaganda. That's why we had Radio Free Europe. But, that was a case of spreading pro-American propaganda to people who couldn't get any news except for the official Soviet line (and RFE was probably the most honest propaganda outlet in history). There is a compelling state interest in putting out official information, and if we had a government-run radio station that put out nothing but government information (sort of like CSPAN, but with notices of importance to all Americans, kind of like a national intercom) and could serve as an emergency broadcast station, I'd probably be okay with it. What I object to is being forced to subsidize propaganda that undermines our nation, alienates our people and erodes our political culture.

Good points....we can't get HBO without paying someone, local television needs commercial dollars, and PBS gets a free ride from the taxpayers......
Exactly.

BTW, does anyone else find it funny that now that many of the major MSM outlets, like the NY Times, are on the ropes financially, they are starting to look to government for subsidies? I guess that Pinch want to publish the National Public Times.

wilbur
10-28-2010, 10:01 AM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.

Odysseus
10-28-2010, 11:16 AM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.

Keep laughing, imbecile. Even Noam Chomsky considers NPR leftist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxGjUZH0G_8&feature=player_embedded

But, of course, that's not the whole story. NPR picks up news from Media Matters and other leftist fronts. George Soros picks their reporters. Their on-air personalities include Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins (who "has called Israel a 'colonizer' in Jerusalem, and has linked it to the Nazis in his writing" (Andrea Levin, NY Post); former Black Panther and conviced cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal; corespondent Nina Totenberg, who publicly wished AIDS on Jesse Helms and his family... How much more evidence do you need, laughing boy?

Molon Labe
10-28-2010, 11:39 AM
Keep laughing, imbecile. Even Noam Chomsky considers NPR leftist:


the Noam is a douche on most things......but this is one of those areas he tells principled truth. He understands the media better than most.

Molon Labe
10-28-2010, 11:42 AM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.

what makes mainstream media mainstream? (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm)

Arroyo_Doble
10-28-2010, 11:53 AM
Arroyo, you are either being willfully ignorant, or simply argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

No. I am engaging in the futile effort of explaining physics to a dog.

NJCardFan
10-28-2010, 11:54 AM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.

OK, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. No problem. Oh, do me a favor and look at all who are on NPR and kindly list the conservatives here. I'll wait, of course.

Arroyo_Doble
10-28-2010, 11:56 AM
OK, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. No problem. Oh, do me a favor and look at all who are on NPR and kindly list the conservatives here. I'll wait, of course.

Why is a bias necessary for reporting the news?

NJCardFan
10-28-2010, 11:57 AM
Why is a bias necessary for reporting the news?

Please read Bias to answer that question. But since you brought it up? There are no opinion or commentary programs on NPR? :rolleyes:

lacarnut
10-28-2010, 11:59 AM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.

and you have shit for brains

Arroyo_Doble
10-28-2010, 12:03 PM
Please read Bias to answer that question. But since you brought it up? There are no opinion or commentary programs on NPR? :rolleyes:

As far as I know, yes. I only listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered, though. Occassionally I will catch This American Life. They have commentary and analysis on the news shows (identified as such). I know of one almost daily piece where a left and right (politically ... more Democratic and Republican really) member of the press talk about political events. David Brooks tends to be more objective in my opinion. EJ is too much of a homer.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-28-2010, 01:47 PM
OK, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. No problem. Oh, do me a favor and look at all who are on NPR and kindly list the conservatives here. I'll wait, of course.

As if media balance should be determined by how many members of each team you have as correspondents. What a confused, FOXian way of determining bias in media.

Bailey
10-28-2010, 03:21 PM
As if media balance should be determined by how many members of each team you have as correspondents. What a confused, FOXian way of determining bias in media.

Nice dodge, now answer the question,

AmPat
10-28-2010, 03:29 PM
Still laughing at the wingnuts complaining that NPR has a significant left slant... comparing it to media matters, are you kidding?!?! You guys are out of your freakin minds.
There seems to be a positive correlation between insane, spontaneous laughter at valid, reasonable facts and opinions and complete idiot leftist liberals. Hmmmm???? I wonder. No, I'm sure, liberals are idiots.:cool:

Odysseus
10-28-2010, 03:33 PM
No. I am engaging in the futile effort of explaining physics to a dog.
No, you keep treating the facts the way that a dog treats a fire hydrant.

You haven't explained anything. You've simply made assertions based on how you think the world should be, and then mischaracterized my rebuttals. But, if it makes you feel better to see me as a dog, and we all know that for leftists, feeling good is much more important than accomplishing anything, go for it.

Woof. :rolleyes:

Why is a bias necessary for reporting the news?
It must be, since you claim that Fox is biased because it doesn't report news the way that you want it reported.

I don't have a problem with a biased reporter who comes out and says that he or she is biased. I have a problem with biased reporters who pretend to be objective and insult me and everyone who thinks like me when we refuse to play along with their charade.


As if media balance should be determined by how many members of each team you have as correspondents. What a confused, FOXian way of determining bias in media.

Leftists claim that businesses are bigoted based on the number of minorities that they employ, even though they often can't find any evidence of an attempt to exclude minorities. In this case, however, a liberal who simply strayed off message has been fired by a corporation that clearly has a party line that must be adhered to in all circumstances. Either that, or Williams' association with FoxNews was the cause of his firing, as a means of warning others not to seek employment to the right of the spectrum.

Lager
10-28-2010, 04:13 PM
If free network TV broadcast similar programming as the Civil War or Baseball documentaries by Ken Burns, or Austin City Limits or even some of the science shows such as "Nova", then I might agree that PBS is rendundant. I'm not speaking of their news or political commentary offerings, which are readily available from a multitude of other free sources. I don't think the comparison to Soviet style government run stations is completely valid, as PBS does receive significant funding from corporations, as well as private citizens.

Odysseus
10-28-2010, 06:23 PM
If free network TV broadcast similar programming as the Civil War or Baseball documentaries by Ken Burns, or Austin City Limits or even some of the science shows such as "Nova", then I might agree that PBS is rendundant. I'm not speaking of their news or political commentary offerings, which are readily available from a multitude of other free sources. I don't think the comparison to Soviet style government run stations is completely valid, as PBS does receive significant funding from corporations, as well as private citizens.

There's another reason that it isn't valid. The editors of Pravda had to print Stalin's lies or he would have had them and their families murdered. The newspeople at NPR and PBS do it willingly.

If the CPB's claims that they operate almost entirely on money from viewers and corporations is true, then they don't need the government subsidy. If it isn't, then anyone who lies to keep on the public teat deserves to be cut off, if for no other reason than that.

RobJohnson
10-29-2010, 03:34 AM
I have no problem with tax dollars spreading propaganda. That's why we had Radio Free Europe. .

That is the exeption, not the rule.

Radio Free Europe was a positive way to spread the truth to others that had no other way of hearing it.

Progaganda can be positive or negative....so I should of included "negative progaganda" should never be taxpayer supported....in fact, any one with an off air tv antenna can get plenty of that from the networks already....no need for the taxpayers to kick in...:D

RobJohnson
10-29-2010, 03:40 AM
If free network TV broadcast similar programming as the Civil War or Baseball documentaries by Ken Burns, or Austin City Limits or even some of the science shows such as "Nova", then I might agree that PBS is rendundant. I'm not speaking of their news or political commentary offerings, which are readily available from a multitude of other free sources. I don't think the comparison to Soviet style government run stations is completely valid, as PBS does receive significant funding from corporations, as well as private citizens.

The shows went to a simple credit of the sponser to now include a short commercial....so much for public TV being bias free because it does not sell or have to cater to advertisers....

About the only good thing I can think of is I know a public broadcasting station that is used by a local community college to help those seeking hands on experience while they pursue a college degree in broadcasting.....but I'm so conservative I am not a fan of public education either.....at any level....why sholuld I pay taxes (property, sales, and federal) so we can build new schools? I don't have kids....

KhrushchevsShoe
10-29-2010, 03:25 PM
Radio Free Europe was a positive way to spread the truth to others that had no other way of hearing it.

I hope this is a joke.

obx
10-29-2010, 03:28 PM
I hope this is a joke.

Poor shoe.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-29-2010, 03:28 PM
Leftists claim that businesses are bigoted based on the number of minorities that they employ, even though they often can't find any evidence of an attempt to exclude minorities. In this case, however, a liberal who simply strayed off message has been fired by a corporation that clearly has a party line that must be adhered to in all circumstances. Either that, or Williams' association with FoxNews was the cause of his firing, as a means of warning others not to seek employment to the right of the spectrum.

From now on I will not respond to any post of yours where you begin with "Leftists claim..." or anything like that. I dont care, I'm not the archetypal democrat you desperately want me to be. If you want to argue the validity of your own views I'd be glad to, but not this shit.

KhrushchevsShoe
10-29-2010, 03:29 PM
Poor shoe.

We promised to help rebellions against the Soviets on RFE. Of course when they actually happened (like in Hungary) we did no such thing. We sat back and watched them get rolled over by tanks.

Molon Labe
10-29-2010, 04:15 PM
We promised to help rebellions against the Soviets on RFE. Of course when they actually happened (like in Hungary) we did no such thing. We sat back and watched them get rolled over by tanks.

Isn't that the outcome someone with the name "Khruscehevs shoe" would have welcomed?

I mean... I agree and all with that assessment, but then I don't claim to be a Soviet hero worshiping apologist either.

lacarnut
10-29-2010, 04:22 PM
From now on I will not respond to any post of yours where you begin with "Leftists claim..." or anything like that. I dont care, I'm not the archetypal democrat you desperately want me to be. If you want to argue the validity of your own views I'd be glad to, but not this shit.

Aww shit..we are going to miss your input.:eek::rolleyes:

Odysseus
10-29-2010, 08:33 PM
That is the exeption, not the rule.

Radio Free Europe was a positive way to spread the truth to others that had no other way of hearing it.

Progaganda can be positive or negative....so I should of included "negative progaganda" should never be taxpayer supported....in fact, any one with an off air tv antenna can get plenty of that from the networks already....no need for the taxpayers to kick in...:D

Exactly. We don't need NPR, we need Radio Free America.

RobJohnson
10-30-2010, 01:53 AM
Exactly. We don't need NPR, we need Radio Free America.

I agree. :D

RobJohnson
10-30-2010, 01:55 AM
Aww shit..we are going to miss your input.:eek::rolleyes:


LOL :D How will we ever learn the truth?

Odysseus
10-30-2010, 11:06 AM
I hope this is a joke.
No joke. Radio Free Europe gave tens of millions of people the only honest news they ever heard and undermined our enemies. That's what tax dollars should be spent on in broadcasting, rather than leftist shills who parrot our enemies' propaganda and seek to undermine us.

From now on I will not respond to any post of yours where you begin with "Leftists claim..." or anything like that. I dont care, I'm not the archetypal democrat you desperately want me to be. If you want to argue the validity of your own views I'd be glad to, but not this shit.
What I want you to be is less of a tool. What you actually are has been repeatedly demonstrated by your slavish defense of Marxism and your imbecilic nostalgia for extinct dictator's. Krushchev's shoe was built on Stalin's soul.

LOL :D How will we ever learn the truth?
I guess we'll have to tune in to NPR. :D

JR Dunn had a great riff on this at American Thinker.


So here we are mere days before the Apocalypse, when the floor of the Capitol opens up to swallow the last howling Democrat -- and what's the grand plan of this pair of masterminds? Getting Juan Williams fired.




But now Soros has control of that mighty weapon of public opinion, NPR? Let's look more closely at that. A very conservative friend of mine had an older and rather ambiguous brother who would show up, turn on the radio, tune in NPR, and then walk around smirking at everybody and chuckling loudly every time an announcer said "Karl Rove." That was his method, evidently, of striking a blow for liberation from the Bush tyranny. And that is all that NPR amounts to. That is what NPR is for, with its cute Garrison Keillor Hallmark Card homilies and shows with half-clever titles like "All Things Considered." It is "Doonesbury" for the ears, a network for people who are not well-educated, not well-read, not very radical, and not very courageous, but who would like to think of themselves as all those things. In other words, NPR is a lapel button, a ritual gesture along the lines of wearing a rising doughnut t-shirt or driving a Prius.

AmPat
10-30-2010, 02:15 PM
From now on I will not respond to any post of yours where you begin with "Leftists claim..." or anything like that. I dont care, I'm not the archetypal democrat you desperately want me to be. If you want to argue the validity of your own views I'd be glad to, but not this shit.

Sure, run from the argument you can't win. Do you dispute the premise that "leftists claim?" If so, by all means, let's get on with your education. It's you leftists who believe everybody else is bigoted but you. You want affirmative action, but deny that it is inherently RACIST! Your side claims racism against non-racist organizations like Tea Party and even the GOP. You idiots post photos of Conservative events and then say stupid things like "see, no Black faces, that proves they are racist." Go ahead, deny away so that every single Conservative here can spank your lefty butt badly and prove you wrong.

Wei Wu Wei
10-30-2010, 05:25 PM
PBS rules. some shows like Seseme Street have been teaching wholesome, family friendly, progressive-thinking values for generations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTB1h18bHlY


Until now...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJvSzkVfRg


Now, people in the 70's had a problem with this, just like they do today, but every step of the way to defend this station has been righteous, in my opinion.


Here's the late, great, Mister Rogers speaking to Congress about Publically Funded Broadcasting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q


This is a great station for children and for adults alike, there is no comparable network available to families with quality programing like PBS. We should not strip it, hurting people across the nation and losing such a beautiful spark of our culture, just as a "FUCK YOU" to people we disagree with politically.

Wei Wu Wei
10-30-2010, 05:30 PM
As if media balance should be determined by how many members of each team you have as correspondents. What a confused, FOXian way of determining bias in media.

I could not agree more. Getting a barking dog and placing a D sticker on it, and a barking dog with an R sticker on it is hardly legitimate debate, journalism, reporting, or anything else of value beyond tribal shouting contests.

Just having people who call themselves a thing in front of a camera doesn't inform anyone. If this were the case universities wouldn't have classes, they'd just have professors give 30-second soundbites and let the students decide what they feel is best, with a poll being used to determine what is Correct.

Bailey
10-30-2010, 05:32 PM
PBS rules. some shows like Seseme Street have been teaching wholesome, family friendly, progressive-thinking values for generations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTB1h18bHlY


Until now...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJvSzkVfRg


Now, people in the 70's had a problem with this, just like they do today, but every step of the way to defend this station has been righteous, in my opinion.


Here's the late, great, Mister Rogers speaking to Congress about Publically Funded Broadcasting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXEuEUQIP3Q


This is a great station for children and for adults alike, there is no comparable network available to families with quality programing like PBS. We should not strip it, hurting people across the nation and losing such a beautiful spark of our culture, just as a "FUCK YOU" to people we disagree with politically.


Same thing I tell the NEA I will tell PBS if the programing is so good it should sell itself.

Wei Wu Wei
10-30-2010, 05:45 PM
Same thing I tell the NEA I will tell PBS if the programing is so good it should sell itself.

That only works if you assume that quality always maximizes profits, thus profits always correlate with quality.

This simply is not true. I can get the best and brightest professors from Ivy League schools all over the nation, courses that take tens of thousands of dollars to get into, put their full lectures on national television 24-hours a day for a year, and also put another network on the air that only plays Rap videos, reruns of Jackass and Jersey Shore, and some Jerry Springer with a little Pro Wrestling thrown in.

There's no doubt which of those is better in terms of quality (no matter how you look at it), but do you really think the ratings, and the ad revenue profits, would pair up with the quality of the material?

Rockntractor
10-30-2010, 06:36 PM
That only works if you assume that quality always maximizes profits, thus profits always correlate with quality.

This simply is not true. I can get the best and brightest professors from Ivy League schools all over the nation, courses that take tens of thousands of dollars to get into, put their full lectures on national television 24-hours a day for a year, and also put another network on the air that only plays Rap videos, reruns of Jackass and Jersey Shore, and some Jerry Springer with a little Pro Wrestling thrown in.

There's no doubt which of those is better in terms of quality (no matter how you look at it), but do you really think the ratings, and the ad revenue profits, would pair up with the quality of the material?

There are no bright professors from Ivy League schools, most of them are commie lib trash like you.

Odysseus
10-31-2010, 02:02 PM
That only works if you assume that quality always maximizes profits, thus profits always correlate with quality.

This simply is not true. I can get the best and brightest professors from Ivy League schools all over the nation, courses that take tens of thousands of dollars to get into, put their full lectures on national television 24-hours a day for a year, and also put another network on the air that only plays Rap videos, reruns of Jackass and Jersey Shore, and some Jerry Springer with a little Pro Wrestling thrown in.
Given the quality of education in our elite universities, I suspect that the former programming would look more like the latter than you'd care to admit. A PBS program that featured Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates and the rest of the faculty of Harvard would include as much sex, violence, idiotic behavior and rapping as your Springer/Reality TV/Pro Wrestling, but would lack the humility and authenticity of the WWF wrestlers, the modesty of the Springer guests and the common sense of the Jackass crew.


There's no doubt which of those is better in terms of quality (no matter how you look at it), but do you really think the ratings, and the ad revenue profits, would pair up with the quality of the material?
On the contrary, the quality would suffer. You are assuming that Cornel West is a better rapper than Kanye West, or that Henry Louis Gates would do a better job of smack talking the cops than a WWF wrestler would, or that the sex lives of the faculty would be more deplorable than those of the Springer guests , or the idiotic hijinks of tenured activists would be more entertaining than those of the Jackass crew, and with the exception of the faculty love lives, you'd be wrong (faculty sexual misadventures make the average Springer show look like Sesame Street, or would if the faculty kinks didn't both involve puppets).

I could not agree more. Getting a barking dog and placing a D sticker on it, and a barking dog with an R sticker on it is hardly legitimate debate, journalism, reporting, or anything else of value beyond tribal shouting contests.

Just having people who call themselves a thing in front of a camera doesn't inform anyone. If this were the case universities wouldn't have classes, they'd just have professors give 30-second soundbites and let the students decide what they feel is best, with a poll being used to determine what is Correct.
Isn't that pretty much how colleges operate now? The elite schools' undergrad programs are almost always taught by Teaching Assistants and grad students, while the profs spend their time writing for publications that nobody reads except other profs, or expounding on political issues that they have no knowledge of. Noam Chomsky, for example, was a linguist, not a political scientist, but it was his inane babblings on politics that made him a celebrity.

Bill Buckley said it best when he stated that he would rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.