Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Taxpayers should not subsidise television shows. If the show can’t raise enough support from the private sector, then it should fail.

tomd:

I suppose you watch “Desperate Housewives” and “Nip/Tuck”?

Some of us prefer something we can learn from.

The only way I would think of supporting public TV is for the liberials to loosen their stangle hold on it, and it takes NO political stand either way.

instead of arguing about and being frustrated with conservatives, why don’t you honestly develop plans which get everyone’s goals satisfied?

Personally I think PBS television is a terrific source of information and entertainment across a wide spectrum of viewers ages and interests.

I enjoy the nature presentations immensely, even those with people jumping on alligators because despite the sensationalism there is still valuable information imparted to the viewer.

The Sesame Street’s and Mr. Rogers shows are/were great for kids due to the blending of entertainment and educational formats. Even today I enjoy watching some of those type shows on PBS with my 20 month old grandson.

I too enjoy The Newshour, Frontline and related investigative journalism shows although I admit to not watching them today as much as I did before due the explosion of the internet making “real time” news readilly available.

My opinion is that network, cable and satellite television (all of which deliver PBS broadcasts)has become more about making money through advertising than it is about responsible programming.

Censorship is virtually non-existent. There is sexually suggestive material even in the commercials. TV advertising is IMO a, if not the, key reason for the rising costs of pharmaceuticals. Of course a slightly to the right conservative like myself would say you have the option of turning it off or engaging parental controls. To some extent this is true but, you would have to do it in the entire neighborhood.

Often I see PBS asking fror donations in order to sustain their broadcasting, I sometimes send in a few dollars but not always. It doesn’t seem to me that many of these shows have been knocked off the air however so they must get ample sustinance.

I am curious as to how politics, you reference the Republican Party, bears any responsibility in
the control of PBS or Network Television.

I think the profiling of dedicated animal conservationists who are driven to entertain us and, bring us “face to face” with many interesting creatures, some of which are on the verge of extinction, as you have below would be offended…

“usually with some crazed animal handler going after some creature no man or child in their right mind would chase after.”

Tomd,

So you think children should have to see 5 minutes of commercials after every ten minutes of a show they watch? If PBS allowed commercials on their shows, I bet every toy manufacturer and fast food restaurant would line up to pollute little children’s minds with commercials featuring their products. Just 8 years ago I, and every other kid I knew watched PBS shows. We should not expose our youngest and most innocent and gullible children. PBS is a vital part of our education system. It educates children with facts, not commercial ridden half-truths.

Check out PBS kids online, you might learn something

Stephen Daugherty,
Who is Marty Stouffer? Is he related to The Kratt Brothers?

The only way I would think of supporting public TV is for the liberials to loosen their stangle hold on it, and it takes NO political stand either way.

I watch the The Newshour with Jim Lehrer simply because it’s the best, most balanced, indepth news coverage in the U.S. I noticed that in the presidential/vice-presidential debates, two of the facilitators came from the show, no doubt because they were seen as being balanced.

The idea that public television is “liberal” is interesting. The McLaughlin Group, Tucker Carlson, the Wall Street Journal as liberal entities? It seems like the conservatives are the ones with a growing stranglehold on public TV.

Sure, Bill Moyers has a liberal perspective but he’s one guy with one show. Shouldn’t there be room for a single liberal voice on any given network? After all, he represents a huge hunk of the American population.

My sense is that people who criticize public TV seldom know what they’re talking about. They’ll watch a 30-second snippet of Moyers on FOX News and think they understand something. It seldom occurs to them the stereotype simply doesn’t match reality.

But the most important aspect of the proposed cuts is that they’ll hurt American kids. I think that even many conservative parents depend on public television’s kids programming due to the vast wasteland of such programming elsewhere. This don’t find it liberal despite all the utter hype and silliness about “Postcards From Buster.” If providing decent, commercial-free programming to the nation’s youth isn’t public service, it’s hard to think what is.

Here’s a crazy idea, why don’t we all just educate our children by ourselves instead of relying on PBS? I know, I know, plopping your kid infront of a television and leaving him/her their for an hour seems like such a great way to handle them, but let’s try something a lil’ more hands on shall we?

tomd-
This is not government supported series television on private networks, this is a public network partially paid for by private dollars. It’s also not a subsidy because these shows are not meant to compete in the market place, but be broadcast as a public service. You do remember that, right- where the government does things for the general public, rather than just industry?

Ron Brown-
Look, you can’t have it both ways. Fact is, Liberals and moderates are at peace with the idea of public television. It is the right, and the market fundamentalists who aren’t at peace with the idea, and therefore are less inclined to put their voices on public television.

“So you think children should have to see 5 minutes of commercials after every ten minutes of a show they watch? If PBS allowed commercials on their shows, I bet every toy manufacturer and fast food restaurant would line up to pollute little children’s minds with commercials featuring their products.”

Oh the horror, you mean parents might actually have to say no to a child when he or she sees something they want and can’t have?!?! Imagine that concept. What would be next admitting our children can be… wrong?!?

Of course if you ask me PBS is not the biggest waste of taxpayer money… that would be NPR.

Hi All:

You know, I have to hand it to you guys. You use the term “liberal” as if it were an insult. We on the left are just as bad, we sling out “right-wing” just as freely. All with the same intent, to, “Piss-Off”, the other side. That is when the “name calling” begins, and we degenerate these discussions into name calling playground arguements. We must really look mature to our children, “Don’t We”? What do you all think?

As Always,
Wayne

Stephen,

Useing Marty Stoffers “wild America” as a selling point for the great things PBS puts on tv isn’t something I would present to keep funding.

I read a very long article by a camaraman that worked on that show, he said EVERYTHING on it was faked, I mean everything!
He said it cost more, and took longer to stage everything and present phoney BS than to produce the entire show, just to forward an ajenda.

Even Jim Leher admits he’s a liberal, but I’ll often watch his show just the same.

Chris Mathews is about as left as it gets, but I watch “hardball” every day, big difference is he admits it and nobody pays for it in taxes.

Keep C-span, but PBS can lose the baggage or go in the dumpster.

You know, Carl Sagan was right in his book “The Demon Haunted World” when he talked about the failure of educational programming in the context of a capitalist environment. And the failure has nothing to do with the executives at PBS per se, but rather the hostile nature of private broadcast firms. Fact is, the stupider or less educated a person is, the more likely they are to take at face value what corporations and other business entities say about their respective products. The dumbing down of America through the conservative right wing agenda (not necessarily Republican, mind you) is probably one of the greatest lifts to business in a long time. PBS stands as a bulwark against this social trend, and to ask to tear it down is utterly ludicrous; what’s the point of a democracy if no one is educated enough to understand the issues? Capitalist tyranny perhaps, where we vote for brand names (vote for Kerry, you get Heinz; vote for Bush, you get big oil)?

I am ashamed to admit but most of the time when I participate in the Watchblog discussions I do not read all the reference material that is in the article or essay that introduces the topic.As well I do not provide references, links, etc. in my postings. It is obvious to anyone who have read things that I have posted that I do a lot of “shooting from the hip”. This is the result of 1) not being skilled enough to send links, cut and paste and so on and 2) I just like to challenge myself.

In any case after my initial post on this topic I read the subsequent posts to see if my presentation was consistent and if I had made the correct assessment of what the topic actually was. I was pleased with my initial contribution.

Then, I went back to Stephen’s original article which was preceeded by “The Republicans are after public television again”. I accessed that statement and actually was able to read the Washington Post article that inspired Stephen
to start this thread. To my amazement, the Washington Post article actually describes the issue in detail. In fact, some of the statements that Stephen makes in his article as the provocative part of the issue are then explained in detail as the “qualifier”.

Stephen provides a challenge for discussion and, gives us (at least me) the source material from which our (my) position can be presented. Having read the Washington Post material, I now have a much less tempered position on PBS.

Sorry for all the personal information but I just wanted to give you an idea of how and why some of the less elequent of us enjoy participating in this forum….to learn.

Oh the horror, you mean parents might actually have to say no to a child when he or she sees something they want and can’t have?!?! Imagine that concept. What would be next admitting our children can be… wrong?!?

I never said that having commercials during non-educational broadcasting is wrong; I think it creates a mixed message when you are watching Mister Roger’s and then a lying commercial. Also, who here wouldn’t want commercials banned on their child’s television.

Phil-
I remember not long ago being one of those kids under constant assault. I’m of the age where He-Man, the Transformers, and G.I. Joe were both the entertainment and the action figures. Not that I complained then, or complain now. But if that ended up being all I got out of television, it would have been sad.

The question is, what if we leave parents without the choice of leaving aside that Junk-food for the eyes.

Beagle-
If much of that footage involved rigged situations, I would say it’s a sad thing. But what’s sadder is that you focus on the fact that he had an agenda, rather than the fact that he lied about his documentaries. Whatever liberal or ecological beliefs he had were not the problem. It was his methods, and you should stick to a critique of them, rather than making his morality and his politics, whatever they were, equivalent.

That is your problem, right there. Not everybody lives their lives with their political identities front and center, but few people lack for political leanings. You treat the situation as if that’s all that matters, but there are things that matter more, I think we should take the lead on what matters from more than just the almighty dollar. In the end, that’s just empty idolatry. Some virtues don’t sell. That doesn’t mean we don’t need them.

What seems to be largely missing from the discussion thus far is an examination of the impact of having our news only from media funded through the “open market.” Compared to PBS, all of the “open market” news vendors (and I would include the major networks, CNN, FOX, etc.) provide news in sound-bites. PBS (and NPR) provide context and examine issues from multiple perspectives. They do this because they don’t have to be so concerned about ratings, or about pleasing corporate sponsors.

Oh, and the research I’ve heard about doesn’t support the “PBS is liberal” idea. As I recall, the vast majority of conservative viewers/listeners to PBS/NPR described the content as fair and balanced (a greater percentage than ascribed such a label to FOX News, as memory serves). I’d be happy to locate the link, if anyone is interested.

“tomd:

I suppose you watch “Desperate Housewives” and “Nip/Tuck”?

Some of us prefer something we can learn from.”

Never seen either one of them and if they can’t gain enough support from the market, they should go down too.

” Tomd,

So you think children should have to see 5 minutes of commercials after every ten minutes of a show they watch? If PBS allowed commercials on their shows, I bet every toy manufacturer and fast food restaurant would line up to pollute little children’s minds with commercials featuring their products.” Very possibly they would be loaded with commercials just like the major networks are, however, I don’t want to support it. I think Seseme Street is good for kids and probably does them a lot of good. I like American Chopper and Nascar racing too…Should the public pay for those so I can watch them without commercials? After all every 10 minutes someone will try to sell me something.

I’d be happy to locate the link, if anyone is interested.

Count me interested, Steve.

Of course if you ask me PBS is not the biggest waste of taxpayer money… that would be NPR.

I listen to NPR a lot in the evenings and I wonder how anyone could see it as liberal. All Things Considered, for example, goes out of its way to balance stories and often has conservative as well as liberal commentators. And Marketplace, my favorite show, seems to have a deal with the conservative-favorite The Economist magazine to do commentary.

Sometimes I suspect that people are using the word “liberal” simply to describe good, balanced reporting. Unless some agenda is being bashed or someone is being called an “idiot” on the radio, perhaps it doesn’t feel right to some folks. I also suspect that a lot AM radio commentators make that claim up just to keep their own listeners and sell more advertising.

Such an old subject. I am a conservative and have been for many years. I get tired of those way over in right field having a problem with PBS and NPR I have found a lot in them worth while. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me 100% on everything ( even if I am right all the time).So glean what you like and enjoy.Never could devine the big left slant in it.Must have missed it somewhere or it has changed a lot as I haven’t paid much attention lately.

If only there were some sort of mechanism available that could settle this argument about whether the shows on public TV or public radio are worthwhile, balanced and interesting. Imagine if there was some sort of “indicator” that could tell you who was interested in what programming, and the people who were interested in that programming would pay for that programming themselves, and those interested in other shows, would pay for those. Oh, wait, there is!

There is absolutely no market failure here ESPECIALLY when it comes to public radio addressed to adults. Demanding public money for those kinds of programs is just demanding that other people subsidize your interests, at the expenses of their preferences. It is simply reprehensibly, and no amount of jargon can hide that fact.

Now, when we talk about programming for children, we have a different issue because children cannot earn money to support the programs they want to watch. Moreover, children are not fully competent to select their own programming, or what is best for them to be viewing (and some children lack parents who will make a wise choice for them).

In summary, public funding for shows for adults is immoral and should not be allowed under any circumstance. Public funding for education shows for children is justifiable, and we should consider as a country whether we want to fund that sort of programming, and where that ranks in our priorities given the limited resources we have.

Misha,

“In summary, public funding for shows for adults is immoral and should not be allowed under any circumstance.”

Immoral??????

Misha please, save your hyperbole for impotence drugs and unreal “reality” shows, now that’s immorality.

Even PBS shows at the childrens level are having to be “politically correct”. I do not know who or what agency is responsible but, here is an example :

Sesame Street, arguably one of the best childrens entertainment and “learning” forums ever has had to revise the dialogue, influence or whatever you wish to call it of one of it’s primary characters —good ole Cookie Monster.

It seems that it has been determined that viewers/kids should not be encouraged to eat cookies to the extent that Cookie Monster does or implies. Now Cookie Monster has to somehow inject into his dialogue that too many cookies are not good for you and you should also eat veggies.

Childrens shows are already doing the following :
[1] having characters of various races & colors
[2] characters that speak two languages
[3] situations where characters are exposed to
homosexuality
[4] telling us what we should and should not eat

These are just the beginning. The point is that someone or something is controlling what is permissable and is required on these shows. If it is the person paying for it, fine. Even better if the person paying for it is the viewer.

Children cannot earn the money to purchase anything that they have, need and want. Their parents see that their needs are met. If parents can buy them useless or, at least controversial video games, laser guns, etc. those same parents could help support the shows they want their kids to watch.

Steve Smith-
I think the debate over political correctness often obscures the debate over what is correct behavior to begin with. Many kids shows don’t commit the sin of political correctness, but do reinforce tons of kid’s worst habits. While I’m not that much of a prude on these matters (I admire J. K. Rowlings realistic depiction of the mischeivous nature of kids) I do think taking some responsibility for what one encourages kids to do is in order. Sesame Street is an educational program, so I don’t think it can be blamed for trying to steer kids right.

I used to watch sesame street and I don’t think that they needed to defang Cookie monster just because it’s an educational program.

What about its entertainment value? If they could do that to Cookie, what are they gonna do next? Try and make Oscar the Grouch nicer? Make The Count a little more sane? Soon all the characters will become as bland as bloody Big Bird and no one will watch.

“C is for cookie” and that’s good enough for me dammit!!!

Stephen,

I do not disagree at all that Sesame Street or childrens shows in general can be excellent learning tools. In fact, I would go as far as to say that they are needed in that they supplement the learning process in many households. Sadly, there are cases where children get educated by TV only (apart from school).

I believe that Sesame Steet and related shows are primarily intended to teach ABC’s, colors, shapes, etiquette, etc. When they start getting into social and economic issues there should be a governing body to determine what issues are OK to address and how and, which are to be excluded.

This should be an absolute must if Federal Funding is involved.

Since there seems to be at least some interest in the research survey done on the question of the so-called “liberal bias” at PBS/NPR, here’s the link (survey results). It would appear that a factual examination of the issue really doesn’t support the perception of PBS or NPR as having a “liberal bias.”

there should be a governing body to determine what issues are OK to address and how and, which are to be excluded

It sure is confusing, Steve. In one post, you’re complaining that the Cookie monster is trying to deliver a public service announcement by telling kids too many cookies are bad for them. In the next post, your talking about instituting “a governing body to determine what issues are OK to address.”

This is surely a way to guarantee blandness of character. Pretty soon the Cookie monster will be demonstrating the government’s new indecipherable food pyramid. Come on. Can’t have it both ways: both political incorrectness and a governing body for censoring what goes into the show.

PS - By the way, parents do, as you say, “help support the shows they want their kids to watch.” Only about a fifth of PBS funding comes from the government. But there are a lot of poor kids whose parents lack the extra income to support public television. They’re the reason we should continue to support it, just as we support (to a much larger degree) public education.

Misha:

Moreover, children are not fully competent to select their own programming, or what is best for them to be viewing

Stephen:

Some virtues don’t sell. That doesn’t mean we don’t need them.

Recognizing the value of having programming, including for adults, which isn’t beholden to corporate sponsorship, doesn’t make one a liberal or a conservative. My biggest concern about PBS over the last 15 years has been the extent to which advertising *has* been encroaching on what used to be one of the few commercial free zones around. Will news programming be entirely independent in reporting about agricultural controversies when they know their funding is dependent on Archer Daniels Midland, for instance?

Would you go to a neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his ribs and demand $10 so your kids can watch seseme street? We get the same effect when you hire the government to collect our money for that purpose. If you don’t pay, the US Marshalls will be at your door and take you away. Please tell me how this is “fair”.

Stephen,

I don’t think I said anything about Marty Stouffers political leanings.
His ajenda is anti-hunting and anti-gun.
To promote it he presents a destorted, false, view of wildlife and sells that as the truth.

If you wish to pay taxes for children to be brainwashed by BS, thats your right, I don’t.

Mr. Rogers was a great childrens program and was on tv for decades, if he had an ajenda it must have been kindness and respect.

If PBS can’t lose the baggage, or they can lose 1/5 of their funding and those that like it can pay for it. Problem solved.

tomd-
You probably forget more in pocket change every year than you pay in taxes for Public Television. What’s so damn unfair about that? What’s really unfair is that the ideological opponents of PBS are so damn cheap about this, yet are letting endless billions build up in deficits build up for their tax cuts.

Beagle-
What it sounds like to me that he was doing was staging things for the camera. If his agenda was anti-hunting and anti-gun, the most I got out of his shows was a theme of conservation and preservation. It’s too bad he had to take the approach he did, but it’s not a bad notion.

I’d just as soon have my kids(pontential, not actual) learn the truth, rather than be lied to. I’m a liberal, not a drone. If you’re so worried about being brainwashed, get off the liberal media kick, because that is an excellent form of brainwashing in its own right. When you go around judging everything according to it’s political baggage, values of truth become lost in the mix.

Criticism of NPR is a good example of how news from well informed, middle class, knowledgeable, and decent people is construed as liberal. As if there is some sort of behind the scenes strategy going on.

The same goes for major newspapers like the Post. Do people really think management has banded together to screen job applicants for liberals - or is their news product a natural result of the highly informed?

What news outlets do you really think have the behind the scenes political strategizing?

“tomd-
You probably forget more in pocket change every year than you pay in taxes for Public Television.”

I doesn’t matter if it is $1000 or a penny. Taking my money for that is WRONG.

PBS should use commercial advertising to raise the necessary funds. Once you regulate that the Levitra, Cialis, Tampon, Alcoholic Beverage, etc. ads are inappropriate, I am sure the toy retailers, childrens clothing companies, snackfood people and so on will line up to be included.

Of course this would be offensive to those who believe that knowing about those items are all part of the educational process.

tomd-
Theft. You live in a Republic, in a country that provides you law and order, security from invading armies, and enforces a set of rights that protects you from itself. That country maintains itself because you, I, and everybody else has certain obligations that we all, from president to poor man must fulfill. Taxes are one of those obligations.

It is a great shame that today’s conservative and independent movements place such a premium on getting out of such obligations, because the basis of our Republic is agreed upon law that everybody lives under. Now, you may not agree with every law that gets passed, but as long as a law does not conflict with the constitution, it is your obligation to respect it as law.

Taxes are a burden, and one enforced by the threat of fines and imprisonment. But they are a burden that our representatives have the power to shift and change accordingly, and even to abolish, though that would be an irresponsible move in terms of our debts. Point is, it’s not theft, anymore than the arrest of a criminal is abduction, or a warranted search is tresspass.

People may like to compare it to that with emotional rhetoric, but they do so without displaying understanding of the true character of their situation.

Representatives in congress, maybe even one of yours, are deciding whether to dump federal funding of PBS. You and every other likeminded conservative or independent had your chance to change the law to eliminate PBS last time, around the time of the Contract with America. For one reason or another, yours was not the majority position, and PBS endured. If it does so again, like I hope, PBS will endure under the law. You may not like it, you may not watch it, you may not even vote for that representative, but it will not be theft. If you treat it like such, then to be consistent, you must treat any expenditure you don’t agree with as theft. Now, we fought a war to free this country, because we were being stolen from. We were being taxed, without the chance to decide what those taxes would be, and how the burden would be applied.

Here, though, we have a Republic, a government of common consent which gives us that chance, even if it doesn’t always create law that goes with our personal beliefs.

My question to you is this: do you believe in our Republic, and the right of majorities to come together to pass into law constitutionally sound measures that a minority of Americans may object to?

Or are you one of those people who believes that their will, their interests, and their beliefs should triumph over others, even when they do not represent the agreed position of most Americans?

I for one will have to accept with a heavy heart the loss of funding for PBS, if congress so decides. That is the law. But I will not let that go lightly, and neither will many people of like mind. This congress may find itself in an unpopular position if it tries something like this, and between your position and mine, we will sort out this issue. This is the way of a Republic, and I daresay this is the way things should be done.

Public television has worked all these years being very much num to the advertising rich why is it now the republi-cons wish to do away with it?

Seems to me they should keep it around for many many more I guess you forget where you once a child when you become a republi-con and dollers are more important than love for a child and having his world protected from advertising vultures.

Mabey killing babies in the middle east is more fun to watch on T.V. for some repubic-cons and they want the children here in the states to see that on T.V. instead so they grow up to be blood thristy war mongers like the republi-cons we have in the whitehouse and across the nation.

And these republi-cons call themselves lovers of
children lovers of family values lovers of Christ! hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Yea right!!! Think again $

Stephen:
“I for one will have to accept with a heavy heart the loss of funding for PBS, if congress so decides. That is the law. But I will not let that go lightly, and neither will many people of like mind.”

I too, was very upset when I first heard that govt. funding was being yanked from PBS, then, I began thinking where they could possibly get the money to make up for that enormous loss — and had a revelation!
For years rightwingers have been claiming that PBS is nothing but liberal — so I suggest we liberals now give them exactly that.
Perhaps the DNC should begin raising funding for PBS?
Keep all the wonderful stuff for kids in the daytime, and some of the other great programs, but for a pleasant change, also give themselves a large forum where their political platform and left-leaning views can be heard!
What do you guys think of that?

I don’t consider the funding of a tv station to be the job of the US Government. It should NOT be paid for by the taxpayer. You can call it anything you want, but whenever someone takes money from me with the threat of force for something that isn’t in the national interest (and I don’t think PBS and NPR are) it’s theft.

If the shows that PBS put on are so good, why can’t they be supported by the public that watches them?…If they had to compete with other networks, they would fail miserably and the libs would lose an arm with which to indoctrinate the young.

I can only hope that me and others complaining to our elected officials will change the laws and remove the government funding.

Adrienne,

I think that is a wonderful idea. I think you should push it to the limit. I don’t think it will work. I think Libs want it all, but want ALL to pay for it.

The best news program overall on TV is the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is fair and balanced and NPR’s talk shows and news programs are some of the only places to get a long complete discussion of important issues. I support these things voluntarily and would be willing to pay for them with video on demand etc. I don’t believe that the market will produce these sorts of programs if left to its own devices. This is one of the few examples where government programs are needed.

I don’t know about other programs. I am not sure showing reruns of “Are You Being Served” is really filling a public need and our PBS stations are filling too much time with old movies. I used to like “Dr. Who” when I was in college, but that is now a bit of an embarrassment to me.

Public TV is undoubtedly liberal, although they try to be balanced. You can tell the liberal bias less by the commentators or what people say than by the choice of agenda. I have been listening to “All Things Considered” for nearly thirty years. The neither the music nor the bias has changed. Think about when they talk about anniversaries. You don’t hear about the anniversary of JP Morgan’s saving the U.S. economy or some great victory of Americanism. What you get is some strike or oppression. You would think that the most important result of WWII was the internment of Japanese-Americans. They are not revealing things that are not true, but they are shining the spotlight mostly in a leftward direction.

According to the Washington Post article that precipitated Stephen’s topic for debate, the Federal Government supplies funds to The Corporation for Public Broadcasting who in turn provides funding for PBS. The amount of money that CPB supplies to PBS amounts to 15% of PBS’s total revenue. It appears that 85% of PBS operating funding is from sources other than the Goverment or CPB.

Government funding to CPB is going to be reduced initially by 25% and in two years, completely. In my mind, that means that CPB will no longer have money to give to PBS which by whatever spin or twist you wish to apply, still leaves PBS with 85% of their present funding.

This would leave PBS in a dilemma. They have to make a decision to keep all of their programming intact by raising the shortfall 15% or, reassess the programming, format, their operating budget, etc. and restructure their offerings.

Also, commercial advertising should be a strong consideration. It would not necessarilly have to be done across the entire slate of programming but, rather in selected spots.

Suggesting that Republicans, or anyone for that matter would rather watch and, have their children watch babies being killed in the Middle East so that they will become blood thirsty war mongers and, that we value money more so than children, family values and Christ as Thomas Perkins does, is a repugnent thought and comment.

I don’t know about anyone else posting here but my attention to Thomas Perkins’ future posts will be non-existent. In my mind that kind of statement should be sanctioned. If I am overreacting please forgive me.

You know it’s funny, I didn’t in my post yesterday say why I thought NPR was a waste of money, yet everyone seems to think it was because I was conservative and I thought NPR was too liberal. Well your half right! I’m a conservative. I’m a conservative who doesn’t care that there’s a liberal or conservative bias in whatever. I watch and listen to what entertains me and if something doesn’t entertain me I shut it off. I think pubic funding of NPR is a waste of money because in my opinion… it’s boring! That’s the only reason, That’s it! Nothing more to it! It simply doesn’t entertain me. I do however think it’s able to be boring because it doesn’t have to answer to anyone.

My post was in reaction to the thought that our precious children might be exposed to that terrible plague called advertising. I too had He-Mans and transformers and wanted a new everything, that those bastards put out on the screen. I would run to my mother and say that “I had to have the new king cobra with the kung fu grip, special plastic light saber, rocket launcher underwear, and laser beam eyeballs!” Not because those clever advertising executives at evil toymakers industries came up with subliminal message to make me want it but, cause I knew Chris was going to get it first darn it! I was fortunate to have two parents who were able to say “no” to me. Even after I jumped up and down, cried, stomped, held my breath, and told them they didn’t love me. While I didn’t realize it at the time, it taught me that because I want it doesn’t mean I get it.

I was also fortunate to have two parents who didn’t plop me front of a TV in the hopes that a blue sock might teach me to read. They sat next to me with books and read. They also took me on hikes and showed me deer and their tracks, and snakes and all the other wild life that kids today are relying on crocodile hunters and Mr Staufer to show them.

I’m not putting down Sesame Street or any of the other things that PBS runs for children, and I actually feel that they are such institutions that they would fair quite well in an advertiser funded situation. I’m saying that they shouldn’t be used as a replacement for parental guidance.

When it comes to NPR? I can say that I’d have much less problems footing the bill if I found NPR entertaining… In the least bit… or may be the tinyest bit…. or at all.

“I don’t believe that the market will produce these sorts of programs if left to its own devices. This is one of the few examples where government programs are needed.”

I agree the market won’t produce these programs because they aren’t profitable. Which is why they should go away. Rest assured if they were profitable, they would be funded and produced.

tomd-
Did somebody show up at your door with an AK-47 and stick you up for the money, or did elected representatives decide to fund public television? Maybe you believe yourself to be the determining authority on what theft is, but Public Television was funded with the consent of the governed as given by our congress, and if it gets taken away, it will done by the same methods. End of story.

You are obligated under the agreed-upon laws of our Republic to pay your taxes and live by the laws set down by our legislature, executed by our President, and adjudicated by our courts. If you have a problem with any one of those, you are lucky to live in the greatest, most free country in the world, where you are guaranteed the right to speak your mind and gather with others who do the same to change what the majority of Americans think. It’s not the instant gratification you’re looking for, but it better than any civilization has had in all our history.

Liberal indoctrination. Man, you talk about us getting out our point of view as if it’s actually oppressing you. Are you that thin-skinned, that easily cowed that you have to censor and interfere with our God given constitutional right to speak our minds in order to feel comfortable in this Republic? A robust political point of view does not require an empty playing field to be a good competitor. You guys have such a substantial hold on the political landscape right now that it is really pathetic that you can’t tolerate a rival political point of view without seeking to destroy it.

tomd,

So let me get this straight.
You belive that if something isn’t profitable it shouldn’t exist?
Taken only on a purely entertainment level, that would mean that shows such as MASH and All in the family would have died shortly after they first came out.

You belive that nothing should be subsidized by the government?
How about farmers? You’re only for corporate farms, right?
How about the dairymen that the government subsidize to keep your childrens milk prices artificially low?
Should we cut all funding for education too?
From your way of thinking we should tax churches also. I mean that could be considered a subsidy.

From your attitude I would guess that, if it doesn’t benefit you directly, then you don’t want anyone else to have it either.
Well, I guess that is the problem. We live in a country where we all share the load, whether you like it or not

What you get is some strike or oppression. You would think that the most important result of WWII was the internment of Japanese-Americans.

Jack, This is untrue and I consider it rightwing bias. Just as an example, here’s a link to a story of World War II veterances who wanted to go to the World War II memorial. And here’s a story on how Ronald Reagan paid tribute to 225 Army Rangers who carried out a dangerous mission during D-Day.

My biggest concern about PBS over the last 15 years has been the extent to which advertising *has* been encroaching on what used to be one of the few commercial free zones around. Will news programming be entirely independent in reporting about agricultural controversies when they know their funding is dependent on Archer Daniels Midland, for instance?

This is an excellent point, Walker. I have the same concern. It’s a very good argument for having at least one news outlet that’s has greater freedom from the corrupting influence of the marketplace (and I’m NOT arguing that public funding doesn’t carry its own potential for bias).

I think free markets are great in their own way, but they do potentially create bias in the news. I’m rather surprised that well-meaning conservatives who are concerned about bias in the media seldom remark on it.

“So let me get this straight.
You belive that if something isn’t profitable it shouldn’t exist?” I don’t think I said that. There is a multitude of things that are not profitable that should exist. I think what I said was that if a tv network can’t support itself then we as a country shouldn’t pay for it. I like Jim Hinson’s Muppets, but I don’t want you to have to pay for it so I can see it. I think my kids should see Star Wars but it’s not your place to fund it.

“Taken only on a purely entertainment level, that would mean that shows such as MASH and All in the family would have died shortly after they first came out.” I don’t know what the ratings were when they cam out but I don’t think they were on PBS. It seems they were capable to support themselves…at least the taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bill.

“You belive that nothing should be subsidized by the government?
How about farmers? You’re only for corporate farms, right?” There you go again putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that nothing should be subsidized. And as best as I remember, corporate farmers are subsidized too. I don’t like it but they are.

“How about the dairymen that the government subsidize to keep your childrens milk prices artificially low?” My children are in fact allergic to milk. I don’t see a subsidy for the high priced alternative I had to use when they were infants. But to answer your question, No, they shouldn’t be subsidized.

“Should we cut all funding for education too?”
Yes, but I won’t expand on that in this post. it would take too long.

“Should we cut all funding for education too?
From your way of thinking we should tax churches also.”
Yes

“From your attitude I would guess that, if it doesn’t benefit you directly, then you don’t want anyone else to have it either.
Well, I guess that is the problem. We live in a country where we all share the load, whether you like it or not”

You don’t know my attitude. And don’t try to second guess my thoughts. I want you and everyone, everywhere to have anything you want so long as it don’t interfere with the rights of others. When we take from some to give to others, in most cases I think we are interfereing with the rights of others.

Would you go to a neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his ribs and demand $10 so your kids can watch seseme street? We get the same effect when you hire the government to collect our money for that purpose. If you don’t pay, the US Marshalls will be at your door and take you away. Please tell me how this is “fair”.

tomd, We could put virtually anything in there to replace the words “your kids can watch seseme street.”

How about, “Would you go to a neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his ribs and demand $10 so your nation can go fight a fantastically costly, bloody and unnecessary war in some Middle Eastern country?”

Or, how about this: “Would you go to a neighbor’s house, stick a gun in his ribs and demand $10 so your representative can send millions in porkbarrel spending to those who donated to their campaigns?”

Please tell me how this is “fair.”

I got news. It’s ain’t fair. It’s democracy.

Reed

It is the relative emphasize. It would not be surprising that NPR covered D-Day, but even the coverage you linking indicates a particular point of view. If I were covering D-Day, I would emphasize the fight against totalitarianism and how we risked so much on that day and won. I might end win some reference to eternal vigilance being the price of liberty or freedom not being free. NPR covers the heroes in the old folks home and talks about Ronald Reagan “creating” the reverence for the heroes of World War II. These are not bad stories to cover, but it does show the mode of thinking.

Even “Marketplace” that I listen to most days, tends to emphasize the downsides of the economy and I don’t mean the risks of investing.

Don’t get me wrong. I am a big consumer of PBS/NPR and have been for many years. I defend the news (although I am not sure about government subsiding some of the other programs) But I have learned to compensate. I just move the sights a little to the right to get to the middle.

Listen to Nina Totenburg covering the courts and tell me about balance.

“tomd-
Did somebody show up at your door with an AK-47 and stick you up for the money,” try not paying your taxes and see if people with 9mm handguns don’t show up at your door.

“or did elected representatives decide to fund public television? Maybe you believe yourself to be the determining authority on what theft is, but Public Television was funded with the consent of the governed as given by our congress, and if it gets taken away, it will done by the same methods.” I’m well aware of how our government works.

Being a combat veteran, I don’t need a lecture from you about my obligations and benefits they provide, Nor how lucky I am to be living in the greatest country in the world.

“Liberal indoctrination. Man, you talk about us getting out our point of view as if it’s actually oppressing you. Are you that thin-skinned, that easily cowed that you have to censor and interfere with our God given constitutional right to speak our minds in order to feel comfortable in this Republic?” I don’t mind you getting your message out. I hope you can broadcast it from the hills. I don’t want to pay for it. Frankly, I think the more people who understand your message, the more people the Republicans will add.

Keep all the wonderful stuff for kids in the daytime, and some of the other great programs, but for a pleasant change, also give themselves a large forum where their political platform and left-leaning views can be heard! What do you guys think of that?

Adrienne, I think PBS will survive if the government takes away all its funding, and I think it’ll become A) more liberal, since individual contributors are more likely to be well educated and therefore more liberal, and B) more corporate, since this will be the other major source of funding.

Of course, the Ruling Republic Elite will hate it more than ever but will be in no position to complain about the “government spending” aspect. I might applaud this development if I didn’t think the content would also suffer. By keeping in government funding, we keep the network more honest, balanced, and devoted to the educational well-being of all Americans, including those who can’t afford cable television.

tomd — If I understand your reasoning, you’re arguing that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for things they don’t believe in, that don’t fit with their values, right? But society can’t work that way. There are certain issues we decide need to be funded for the common good, regardless of whether or not you agree. Take the military. Would you support those who were against the war in Iraq in witholding tax dollars that would be spent in military preparedness? (I wouldn’t support that, personally, even though I strongly feel the war was not necessary). There are some issues that are so important for the well-being of society as a whole that it is necessary to “force” (if we must use that word) people to pay for them, regardless of their point of view. I would argue that having a reasoned, well-informed populace would be one of these issues. I would also argue that many of the other news outlets are so beholden to corporate interests that they are no longer able to provide this in the way PBS/NPR can. In short, I think a strong moral argument can be made in favor of having a news source not beholden to corporate interests.

America is MORE than competition and free enterprise. MORE, MUCH, MUCH MORE!!! And where is this MORE to be seen and discussed, debated and aired out on TV? Nowhere but PBS, and a few cable and satellite channels which could not exist commercially on their own.

PBS must and does walk a fine line. Politically, if it is supported by the state, it can’t be guilty of state propaganda, otherwise it could become nothing more than Chinese TV. On the other hand, arts programming like ballet, symphonic concerts, and classic Shakespeare, as well as debate and discussion forums on all manner of topics integral to our society, would not exist at all if it were not for PBS and its public assistance.

However, I would propose public funding of PBS through a non-taxable contribution on your IRS form similar to that for Presidential Campaigns. In this way, those who are opposed to PBS content need not be obligated to support it.

If I were covering D-Day, I would emphasize the fight against totalitarianism and how we risked so much on that day and won. I might end win some reference to eternal vigilance being the price of liberty or freedom not being free.

Jack, So, what you’re saying is that you’d end the report with platitudes that make the report rather cloying in the ears of many listeners, even the most patriotic of them. Is this what conservatives demand of journalists in order for them to be seen as fair and balanced? I’m willing to bet that every WWII broadcast by the old Soviet Union used to end this way. No doubt it made for more balanced reporting.

Tomd,

“Frankly, I think the more people who understand your message, the more people the Republicans will add.”

Never has a more truthfull statement been posted!

(this is off topic for this thread), but, The Leader of the DNC has bipartisan support, never in history has there been someone from an opposing side of the isle, that BOTH sides would donate money to get his message out.

With that kind of support, you can never count the DNC out!
If PBS is worried about funding?, put on “Dean TV” 24/7, the money will roll in.

blockquote>I would propose public funding of PBS through a non-taxable contribution on your IRS form similar to that for Presidential Campaigns. In this way, those who are opposed to PBS content need not be obligated to support it

Fine, let’s do it for every single item of government spending. We’ll see how well it works.

Apologies for the poor coding above. It should read as follows:

I would propose public funding of PBS through a non-taxable contribution on your IRS form similar to that for Presidential Campaigns. In this way, those who are opposed to PBS content need not be obligated to support it

Fine, let’s do it for every single item of government spending. We’ll see how well it works.

OK, I’ve been reading where youall think this here Jim Lehner and his news hour is so “Balanced”. If I can get PBS(on a real good day it’s on of three chanels I can get) I’ll watch him. IF he really is balanced I’ll be man enough to admit it, but if he isn’t I’ll sure let youall know about that too.
tpmd, I agree with you, my tax dollars SHOULD NOT go to subsidise TV of any kind.

Ron Brown,

“IF he really is balanced I’ll be man enough to admit it, but if he isn’t I’ll sure let youall know about that too.”

And of course you have never posted anything here that would bring your objectivity or lack of bias into question.

Reed

Sometimes the most obvious things are those people don’t see.

Think of all the books about diets. The simple truth is you eat less and move more and you won’t be fat. Why are there so many fat people?

What about finances. Simple truth is spend less than you make and you will be solvent. Spend more and you will be poor. Why do people (even many with good incomes) have money management problems?

I don’t think that most people today really understand the broad sweep of American history. We spend so much time looking at the details and usually the more sordid ones that we forget the big things. About WWII, I expect that most people know about the internment camps and they can identify Rosie the Riveter. If they watched much PBS, they know about the Tuskegee airmen, although they may well confuse them with the Tuskegee experiments, which also has been featured on several PBS programs. But what about George Marshall? They may have heard of the Marshall Plan, but do they know that he was the architect of victory? Even something as dramatic as the Bataan Death march does not appear in most history books anymore, I think because it is politically incorrect.

Unfortunately, most Americans now get their history via movies and even historical movies tend not to be.

Don’t overestimate journalists, by the way, especially today’s broadcast journalists who read what they are given without much thought interfering with their cadences. I watched some of them on Jeopardy and many could not even get answers right about places they covered. Anderson Cooper ended up as the one-eyed king of the blind men. I think he got it right that Berlin was the capital of Germany. I have had to explain to a group of journalists once that concentration camps that happened to be in Poland were built by German Nazis. They didn’t seem to understand that today’s borders don’t reflect yesterday’s power. The star journalists are very good, but the rank and file can be more like ciphers. They travel in packs from story to story. This is not a liberal or conservative problem, but it is a problem.

PBS journalists tend to be a little better on this score, in my opinion. That alone is reason to keep them on the news front.

I skimmed through the posts. And from what I read I’ve determined why some conservatives think PBS has a liberal slant:

Sesame Street teaches -!gasp!- equality, a non-english language, sharing, and nutrition!!!

I am shocked that conservatives of today are offended by such things - all of which I thought were simple truths of morality.

Uhm, what’s the alternative? How sesame street could change it’s programming to make cons happy:

Hello, todays show has bring brought to you by the letter “F” - F is for Fag!

Elmo says ‘hola’, do you know what ‘hola’ means? It doesn’t matter it’s only important for you to learn what “Hello” means, because if you only can say ‘hola’ you need to go to mexico not America ok?

Big bird says “hey elmo may you share your oranges with me?” - Elmo says “No, Big bird that would be a hand out - please Big bird if you want oranges get yourself a job and earn your own money to get them!”

And finally cookie monster would encourage kids to eat whichever food product that had the best lobbyiest!

*sigh*

I bet Repugs think Bert and Ernie are Gay. Certainly, Big Bird and that brown Elephant are doing it!!!

At what point did we manage to get away from the question of funding for PBS and the education of children to where we are now which seems to be a heated political debate as to whether PBS is or, will become an outlet for advancing “liberal” views.

Public funding done in ways so that those opposed need not contribute would satisfy the conservative view, additional federal funding would thrill the liberal position.

In either case when the Federal government funds the greater portion of something, it tends to claim ownership and, in this case, regulate programming. This will result in partisan control whenever the majority political party changes.

Let PBS be it’s own entity, it’s own company/profit center, etc. and finance it’s activities in the same way all major corporations do.

Sorry for posting twice back to back. But, I just remembered something!!!

A lot of people are complaining about their tax dollars going to PBS! Yet, do they complain about the deficit that Bush created? Or he increasing debt?

I don’t know how much tax dollars were spent on PBS in 2004 but I’m guessing it was a lot less then $321,566,323,971.29 ($320billion)! That’s how much was spent last year on the interest on the national debt!

At least money spent on PBS is for ‘something’? Somebody look up how little was spent on PBS! $320 billion went to NOTHING at all! Just interest!

Let’s keep our eye on the ball ok?

And eliminating PBS would not eliminate the debt! But, the botom line is we must cut spending and/or increase taxes and pay off the national debt. In a Debt free America we’d have $320 billion extra to spend of give to tax cuts…

And cons might argue that bush didn’t MAKE the deficits/debt, but what is he doing to fix them?

Please sign the debt free America petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/debtfree/petition.html

Who’s against a debt free America?

Hi All:

Just thought I’d add my two bits worth.

Have any of you ever watched or listened to a PBS Broadcast? We are talking about NPR’s “Cartalk” with “Click an Clack”, the two New England Brothers Tom and Ray Magliozzi who humoresly guide us through the ins and outs of car ownership.
How many of you also discovered the delights of British Humor Saturday or Sunday evenings? Watching the likes of “Monty Pythons Flying Circus” or “Fawltey Towers”. Both starred John Cleese. Who can say that their children have not learned or least reemphasized their alphabet or numbers from the likes of “Big Bird” or one of the other delightful characters of “Sesame Street” or the “Electric Company”.
Like it or not, these shows have had a “positve” impact on our lives. I hope that “Big Bird” and the other characters in these shows will continue to delight us and our children, for many more generations to come.
I ask you this, How can any of you find any of these messages to be in support of a Liberal cause? When in fact, they contain no “Political Messages” at all.

As Always,
Wayne

Jack-
The problem is, Republicans are playing a zero-sum game with public opinion, when it’s really a matter of Nash Equilibriums. You can’t destroy liberalism in America, you can only bargain it to the other side. Whether the negotiation is a draining, obnoxious affair where every detail is fought over, or a much more civil, mutually beneficial affair is up to the people playing the game. The marketplace of ideas is not a gladiatorial arena, but a bargaining table.

My point? Y’all should be less concerned about making Liberalism obsolete and more concerned about keeping Conservatism relevant, a living philosophy. Its been fossilized into a set of hardline party platforms, and it’s responses to the needs of this country have become dangerously rigid, unyielding even at the price of plunging the country into crisis.

Y’all got to give yourselves the room to change your minds, the space to compromise. Otherwise, we Democrats will start to look mighty good to voters dealing with Republican platform anxieties.

tomd-
They’re not showing up to collect when you fail to pay your taxes, they’re showing up to arrest you for breaking the law. A law agreed upon by the people, which applies to all.

This is not a question of legitimacy in terms of government power. That’s what all the civics 101 language was about. This is a debate about policy. Is PBS sufficiently better than the alternatives to merit its continuance? I think so. Others consider it to be an intrusion into the free market. That is a matter of personal principle, and I think a better point of debate. But what you’re arguing is that this funding is illegitimate.

As for who gets added to whom when our arguments are made, we’ll just have to see who plays the best game, runs the best debate.

Even something as dramatic as the Bataan Death march does not appear in most history books anymore, I think because it is politically incorrect.

Jack, We agree that the American public isn’t educated enough in regard to history. This is particularly true for young people. I used to teach high-school age kids and was astonished to find they couldn’t tell me which came first, World War II or Vietnam. They didn’t even know who the U.S. fought during World War II. It’s a very sorry state of affairs, indeed.

Now, public radio and TV aren’t going to change this by themselves, but they’re a lot more likely to show history-oriented programming than the other broadcast channels. You mentioned Batann, for example. Here’s part of a November 11, 1999 report from All Things Considered:

Fifty-eight years ago, on the province of Bataan in the Philippines, 25-thousand US soldiers and 50-thousand Filipino troops surrendered to the Japanese army. The troops that surrendered were already in terrible physical shape, half starved because food, supplies and reinforcements had never arrived from the US government—although it had been promised. The troops in Bataan felt abandoned. As prisoners of war, under Japanese control, they were subject to savagery — such as a death march — and the harsh conditions and cruelty of POW camps.

Good stuff there, I’d say. No political correctness. Just the facts, savagery and all.

Big bird says “hey elmo may you share your oranges with me?” - Elmo says “No, Big bird that would be a hand out - please Big bird if you want oranges get yourself a job and earn your own money to get them!”

Yes, excellent stuff, Scott.

This is off the subject but given the enthusiasm with which you guys attacked Big Bird and the boys I just read that the Governor of Texas has mobilized the evangelicals and religious right leaders for a bill signing in front of a church.

The two bills signed were 1) Imposed more limits on late term abortions and 2) banishment of same sex marriages.

This was in front of a Christian church with televangelists and other religious conservatives shared the stage for the signing.

tomd:
“Frankly, I think the more people who understand your message, the more people the Republicans will add.”

Yeah, the right also thought that Air America would fail, but instead, its BOOMING. If people didn’t like the messages they’re broadcasting this would not be the case.

Reed:
“Adrienne, I think PBS will survive if the government takes away all its funding, and I think it’ll become A) more liberal, since individual contributors are more likely to be well educated and therefore more liberal, and B) more corporate, since this will be the other major source of funding.”

I agree that PBS will probably survive, and that there is the possiblity that could get more liberal, but I still think it is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to step in and buy a weekly hour or two of choice airtime.

“Of course, the Ruling Republic Elite will hate it more than ever but will be in no position to complain about the “government spending” aspect. I might applaud this development if I didn’t think the content would also suffer. By keeping in government funding, we keep the network more honest, balanced, and devoted to the educational well-being of all Americans, including those who can’t afford cable television.”

I wasn’t suggesting that Democrats step in and start dictating a desire for dishonest or imbalanced content to existing PBS news and shows — I wouldn’t like that at all either. I was thinking more in the way of them being able to buy up some airtime for themselves, thereby creating a situation where two good things could happen.
The first would be the fact that by helping to save PBS from drastically cutting or altering its current schedule of great shows, they would put themselves in a very good light with America at large — including many independents and moderate Republicans who love certain shows dearly. And second, they would get a weekly chance to lay out Democratic views with the American people, and also discuss the ways they feel the Republican controlled administration, House and Senate are doing wrong by the entire country. Real in-depth investigative reporting of what is really going on in this too-secretive White House — now that would be fascinating television, yes?
Hell, this is a splendid idea for the Greens and the Reform Party, too. Lord knows all the third parties could use some airtime to carry their viewpoints, as well.

steve smith:
“At what point did we manage to get away from the question of funding for PBS and the education of children to where we are now which seems to be a heated political debate as to whether PBS is or, will become an outlet for advancing “liberal” views.”

It is quite easy to reach this point, because it is obvious to many of us that this is yet another example of the Republican’s attacking anything that carries the word PUBLIC in it’s title. And because it is the Republican controlled House and Senate that will surely cut the funding of the last vestige of unbiased news and real investigative reporting that America has simply because they dislike the fact that it is one place in the media where they haven’t been able to control the message.

Reed

You are joking about the NPR report not being politically correct.

Look at what you quoted. It makes a special point of criticizing the U.S. government, which was responding to a surprise attack.

It says the victims were subject to cruelty such as the death march. The Japanese are bit players in what looks like a U.S. failure. This is exactly what I find offensive about NPR.

The supposed talk about the death march doesn’t tell you anything about the actual death march or the Japanese cruelty. It would not give anyone the facts needed to make even a bad judgment.

I guess we can look at the same thing and see different ramifications.

I find that report of the death march appalling. My opinion of NPR was higher before.

Adrienne,

According to the reference article that Stephen prefaced his initial post with, the government is going to cut its funding to the CBP by 25% now, and completely in 2 years.

PBS gets only 15% of it’s money from CBP and 85% of it from non-government sources. I honestly don’t think that a 15% cut in PBS operating capital will run it off the air. They can either raise that money and continue as now or, revisit it’s budget and make adjustments.

It seems that everyone has taken the position that PBS is going to become non-existent and that is not the case at all.

The casual observer might conclude that some are using this to once again launch an attack on the conservative Republicans. IMO this is a gross overreaction to the actual magnitude of this issue.

Steve Smith-
It matters where that fifteen percent is coming from. If you read closely, that fifteen percent is going to hit the smaller, more rural station first, effectively denying them public television and radio. Also getting hit would be the satellite distribution, school programs, and a program helping to convert analog stations to digital.

We’ve compromising on things like this for long enough. This has got to stop.

Ron Brown,

“tpmd, I agree with you, my tax dollars SHOULD NOT go to subsidise TV of any kind.”

Then you’d be against Radio and TV free Europe, Middle East, Radio and TV Free China, and Government Sponsored internet information sites too, eh? It is all tax subsidized programming for public consumption, eh?

Stephen Daugherty,

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

PBS and those that support it would be well served to focus their attention on developing a plan to come up with the 15%. That would be the best way in the world to demonstrate to the government that you are firmly committed to the cause. IMO you are taking the easy way out by pointing fingers.

Nothing gives supporters of a cause more satisfaction and more importantly, lends credibility to the cause itself than the successful “roll up your sleeves and pick up a shovel” approach to solving a problem.

It seems very much like the supporters in this thread have decided to take their ball, go home and watch the rest of the game from inside the house.

Ok, can someone please enlighten me? Why do we need PBS?

Zeek,

PBS would seem to be the last bastion of real news programs, untainted by the stench of rampant capitalism, or tabloid journalism, funded by all, but without the mandate for propaganda.

The entertainment programs are just that, entertainment. Nowhere else will you find such a diverse collection of shows that don’t need to rely on tittilation or violence.

The educational programs it produces and broadcasts are of a quality unmatched by any other network.

That is why we need to support PBS.

Why do we need PBS?

They can be fearless. Without a bottomline to watch, they can experiment and work with material that might be considered too untrendy, too nerdy, too foreign, or too old fashion for the networks target audiences. Do you think any of the other networks would have broadcast The Civil War? Because of the risks taken, PBS has brought many cultural phenomenon to the foreground that might have been suffocated by the all-knowing competitors of network TV.

They can also risk taking on corporations without having to hear about it from affected sponsors. Frontline’s dissections of American business practices would have never seen air on the standard news networks. Frontline viewers, for example, saw material on the problematic approval process for drugs in 2002 or 2001, long before the Vioxx scandal broke.

Public television can also take on politically controversial news and subjects that the highly audience anxious networks fear to approach. This means taking on the Bush administration at the height of its popularity, and in the time leading up to the current war.

All in all, we need at least one television station that has our interests at heart by default. Public television serves that purpose.

Suggesting that Republicans, or anyone for that matter would rather watch and, have their children watch babies being killed in the Middle East so that they will become blood thirsty war mongers and, that we value money more so than children, family values and Christ as Thomas Perkins does, is a repugnent thought and comment.

I don’t know about anyone else posting here but my attention to Thomas Perkins’ future posts will be non-existent. In my mind that kind of statement should be sanctioned. If I am overreacting please forgive me.
Posted by: steve smith at June 12, 2005 10:56 AM

Steve confessing ones guilt is good for the soul I’m glad you are feeling this it means one thing you are now facing the truth sad tho you are reacting in a strange way let me see if I can help you through your sickness…

Let me get this straight the repli-con party has people like you brainwashed to believe you have a right to say what you want say but what I say must be screened???…
Man this is bad you must lay on the couch and tell me more because right now you remind me of one of those guys in a China ya know one of those sick guys that shoot people like me or just run em over with a tank for speaking the truth is the neo cons have done you great damage you will be free from your guilt of gutting the social programs to fund GWs war chest and the drum beats of war will stop dancing in your head your heart and you will love children again but first you must convert to a party that loves children…that’s right Steve Democrat.
But you need to leave the dark side but the only way to do it is to confess neo-cons sin that has been planted in people like you ,confess with thy mouth and ye shall be set free…You know don’t lay there looking stupid!!! Thou shall not steal…the innocence of a child.

The Japanese are bit players in what looks like a U.S. failure. This is exactly what I find offensive about NPR.

Jack, I was curious about whether you react this way. It helps me understand your idea of balance. Back to part of the original quote:

The troops that surrendered were already in terrible physical shape, half starved because food, supplies and reinforcements had never arrived from the US government—although it had been promised. The troops in Bataan felt abandoned. As prisoners of war, under Japanese control, they were subject to savagery — such as a death march — and the harsh conditions and cruelty of POW camps.

Here’s the part that probably gets your goat: “although it had been promised. The troops in Bataan felt abandoned.”

Here’s the part you probably don’t object to: “As prisoners of war, under Japanese control, they were subject to savagery — such as a death march — and the harsh conditions and cruelty of POW camps.” Actually, I imagine you don’t like the passive voice here. You want something more like, “The Japanese subjected them to harsh conditions and cruelty,” or likely something even stronger. But, of course, the interviews with the prisoners no doubt provides that (though I couldn’t make the audio work, so I can’t say for sure).

I suspect that what you really don’t like is the sense that the U.S. was partly to blame for their plight. Maybe a lot of them said they felt abandoned in the interviews - and of course many historians still second guess MacArthur’s screwups and the Hitler-focused priorities of the administration - but that’s not the point, right? Stuff happens, like Pearl Harbor.

The thing is, what you construe as bias, others see as historical balance. The Japanese were savage and cruel, and this has changed the course of human history. But this occurred within a larger historical context that also needs some explanation. We could get into a much larger discussion here since this has implications for what’s happening now in Iraq, but let’s just say it’s hard to report these kind of events in a balanced way in such a short written piece.

The point is, NPR is reporting on Bataan and giving voice to its victims even while the rest of talk radio is a dead zone polluted with shock jocks, sports shows and the briefest of news spurts.

Jack,

Another NPR story related to Bataan can be found at Hampton Sides on Ghost Soldiers. For some reason, I can hear the audio on this one but not the other. Anyway, the audio begins, “Heroism is a word that’s probably greatly overused. However, in a few instances, no other word applies.” It gets a little into the reasons so many soldiers were left on Bataan but mostly focuses on the heroism involved in the rescuing of some of the soliders who survived.

Hi All:

Why do we need PBS?

That is a good question, I will try to sum it up like this; What exposure do you or your family have to Theatre or the Arts? Do you not consider this exposure to be an enlightening experience? If not given the opportunity to display their talents to the world, these Artists(Musicians, Painters, Sculpters and Poets, Playrights)would the world be better off? If, you answered yes, I think you are mistaken and hope you will take a look at this same question in 10 years, 20, 30 and answer it again. If you answered no, you already know why we can’t let PBS and NPR disappear. Oh, By the way all of the PBS and NPR outlets Run telethons throughout the year, to raise monies so that Taxpayers’ funds won’t be used but sparingly.

I have this question for those of you out there that insist on referring to All Democrats, as Liberals, and to all Republicans, as Conservatives, Why? Labeling only breaks us down, it serves no purpose Except to put up walls! Agreed?

Posted by Ron Brown at June 11, 2005 12:38 PM

“The only way I would think of supporting public TV is for the liberials to loosen their stangle hold on it, and it takes NO political stand either way.”

You give me one example of the liberal slant of PBS or NPR. I’ll give you one commentary from, “Cokie Roberts” Tell me the others just because you “Don’t Agree with something they say, don’t go calling them liberals or conservatives as insults” At that point agree to disagree and be done with it.

As Always,
Wayne

You can call it anything you want, but whenever someone takes money from me with the threat of force for something that isn’t in the national interest (and I don’t think PBS and NPR are) it’s theft.

I call it illogical.

Our elected national representatives are Consitutionally empowered to determine the national interest. They determined that NPR and PBS are small parts of the national interest.

Of course, you’re free to disagree with that determination, but calling it theft because you didn’t get what you want is terribly immature.

I didn’t like the Iraqi War. I felt it went against the greater national interests (for many reasons - no need to argue them here). Does that inherently make the funding of the Iraqi War theft because I didn’t get what I want.

Of course not.

Hi all:

In summary, public funding for shows for adults is immoral and should not be allowed under any circumstance. Public funding for education shows for children is justifiable, and we should consider as a country whether we want to fund that sort of programming, and where that ranks in our priorities given the limited resources we have.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at June 11, 2005 07:00 PM

Misha, You oughta be given a Pulitzer Prize for the underlined, that is the funniest line I have ever read, this is afterall the US Govt, with a GOP house and senate. You crack me up. I think I just broke rib.

Thomas Perkins,

Your posts are a perfect example of attacking intelligent discussion with character assault and name calling.

I am not “brainwashed”, nor am I “one of those guys in a China ya know one of those sick guys that shoot people like me or just run em over with a tank for speaking the truth”.

It is obvious that you fit the mold of those who have only questions, no answers except those that assign blame to the conservative administration and, so much hatred in your heart that you lash out blindly at anyone not agreeing with your position.

Actually in retrospect it was wrong of me to be so angered that I wanted to sanction your post. I apologize to you.

It is now obvious to me now after seeing your rantings and ravings that your continued posting will go farther than imaginable to discredit those who share your views.

I can’t believe that this issue has became an issue of mud throwing for political parties.

It is a numbers issue, just like every other TV program.

I loved Kato Kaelin’s stupid “houseguest” show, but I was about the only one and it got cancelled. Please send your checks to put it back on.

The truth of the matter is that kids these days are just not watching PBS (I full heartedly believe it is much better programming than the crap they are watching, but it dosn’t change the reality).

We did a PBS program at the preschool I taught at and the kids were just NOT into it! We live in a technology ridden society and Sesame Street is just not competing. Once again: I think it is very sad but its the truth….most people tune into Disney or Cartoon Network for their children because it’s simple and 24hrs.

So please stop throwing political mud around, because I guarantee if it was the highest rated childrens programming….this issue would not even be an issue.

Well said Traci.

We dont need NPR. All we need is Fox News, Rush, and the Wall Street Journal. Oh yeah - and a labotomy.

Traci:
“The truth of the matter is that kids these days are just not watching PBS (I full heartedly believe it is much better programming than the crap they are watching, but it dosn’t change the reality).
We did a PBS program at the preschool I taught at and the kids were just NOT into it!”

Because of one program you’re convinced that kids would never get into anything that PBS has to offer?

“Once again: I think it is very sad but its the truth….most people tune into Disney or Cartoon Network for their children because it’s simple and 24hrs.”

Yeah, and if adults offer kids the choice between a healthy diet or happy meals and candy, they’ll pick the latter, too.
But responsible folks don’t leave that choice up to children, knowing that watching endless hours of crap TV will stunt their brains, the way an endless diet of junk food will ruin their health.

Adrienne~

I am not disputing anything you just stated.
BUT……You need to convince all the parents to change their ways of thinking. Not just attack a political party.

Rocky,

That is why we need to support PBS.

Ok, so if you are the person that watches PBS you should be the one paying for it no?

You seem to think that PBS is the last chance for man-kind to survive. I got through my childhood without ever watching Sesame street or any other PBS show. I would like to say that I turned out fine (you may disagree :P), so why exactly do you feel PBS is so essential? It may indeed be the “best” television channel in existance, but that doesn’t mean it serves a purpose that parents couldn’t do better.

Traci-
Look, when a political party takes a position you don’t like, how do you disagree with them without confrontation?

This is a party issue. I do remember the last attempt to close down PBS, following the rise of the Republicans to power. This looks like more of the same, for the same reasons. Y’all want everything to be a contest. No Public Service, people only contribute when they feel like it.

Yet much of the funding for public television comes from private individuals, who pledge their money because they get something valuable out of it: a fearless, robust, TV-watching experience.

Additionally, I think Sesame Street is better for some ages than others. I watched it until about age eight, after which I outgrew it. Still, it was a nice show to watch when I was the age for it.

I think the emphasis on competition as being the determinant of what is good and not good is blind. Frontline is a better investigative show than much of what counts for journalism on TV, and it doesn’t depend on ratings for its funding. Nova, Nature, and The American Experience produce excellent documentaries, without the need for ratings success.

I think the question is whether or not we need to predicate what is good television solely on popularity. PBS may not necessarily be the most popular network, but it has some of the finest quality program, and in any real measure of the worth of Television, the quality of the product should not be ignored in favor of purely market-oriented criteria.

Zeek-
Parents need all the help they can get nowadays. If they are going to use television as a babysitter, they can do worse than to have that babysitter be a good teacher and positive influence.

Zeek,

“Ok, so if you are the person that watches PBS you should be the one paying for it no?”

I do support both NPR and PBS with regular donations.

It seems to me that the right has been doing it’s best to silence anything that resembles divergence from it’s morality mantra, and the network news has wall to wall coverage of the crisis of the nano-second.

We all need every source available to be able to sift out any semblance of the truth about what exactly is going on.

I too, grew up without the benefit of Sesame Street, but that is because it didn’t exist when I was a child in the fifties.

Media today is a vast wasteland of crap. PBS and NPR are an oasis of sanity in that wasteland. I don’t watch or listen to every program, I don’t even agree with with every opinion espoused, but I am thankful that these sources exist, and it will be a sad day for America if they get cut.

First, TV is probably the last place you should look to for education. Amidst the piles of steaming crap you have one or two educational channels that actually have their uses. If PBS dies out, that just shows the majority of Americans aren’t interested in that sort of thing.

Second, I still don’t get why people are so dependent on Sesame Street to educate their children. I learned the alphabet the “old fashioned way,” and it was no worse than learning it from a TV.

“If PBS dies out, that just shows the majority of Americans aren’t interested in that sort of thing.”

No Zeek, if PBS dies out, it is because the right has capitulated to their corporate masters.

Reed

Let me begin by how I see bias. Everyone has a point of view and every story WILL be told from a point of view. There is no way around this. This does not bother me. There are some points of view that I don’t think are good or useful.

That story did bother me emotionally. I would say that in a long piece that included a lot of detail about the nature of the siege, Pearl Harbor etc, it might be appropriate to mention that the aid that was promised didn’t come. You would also have to have enough room to explain the circumstances.

The particular slice of reality presented by NPR left me with the impression that U.S. failures were the important part of the story. They are not. It is a lot like a story of an assault talking about the woman walking into a sleazy bar. The behavior contributed to the result, but what not the important cause.

It makes perfect sense that men would be in bad condition after enduring a siege. It makes perfect sense that the U.S. would not be able to send aid. After all, if we could have sent sufficient aid, we would have won the battle. Talk about repeating an obvious point. It is a gratuitous slap and a blame the U.S. first mentality.

This has actually had a profound effect on my point of view. Before reading this excerpt, I was defending NPR and PBS to my conservative friends and saying that funding should not be cut. While I still personally believe that we should continue to fund NPR from public sources, I can no longer conseqently advocate this position. So I have pulled back to a neutral stance on the debate.

Sorry, Wayne, I totally forgot. Money grows on trees when you are in power. I am sure Bush is writing thank you notes to the Congressional dems. every day for killing the balanced budget amendment in the 1990s.

Rocky- my point was very simple. If you force others to support your tastes in TV viewing with the force of government, that is immoral. Thats not hyperbole- that is a moral judgment that I think you would have trouble refuting.

This has actually had a profound effect on my point of view.

Jack, If a sentence and half of an introduction to a story that you apparently didn’t even hear has a such a “profound” impact on you, then you’re a true believer indeed. One minute you’re complaining that NPR won’t address this kind of story at all, the next you’re making vast judgments about the story based on its introduction. Honestly, I don’t think the problem here is with NPR. This is a case of political correctness on your part. I suggest listening to the story with the good audio link before you go off half cocked.

Rocky,

No Zeek, if PBS dies out, it is because the right has capitulated to their corporate masters.

It’s not always about corporate America, Rocky… To be quite honest, I would like to see PBS gone simply because of the laziness it encourages. The very idea of teaching your children via the TV is repulsive to me. Of course, I wouldn’t foster this belief on anyone else, but I would ask that they not foster theirs on me.

Why do Republicans insist on focusing on such nonissues when there are real problems out there. Have morons like Rick Santorum come to my complex and just in that small area he will find a litany of suffering. There are people here that work three jobs and still can’t make ends meet, children who get substandard medical care due to lack of insurance, teenagers who can’t even read at a third grade level thanks to an underfunded public school system, qualified people who can’t find work, not to mention the constant presence of crime and drugs. The truth is Republicans as a whole have never been intelligent to create a working program so all they do is complain and attempt to destroy the programs liberals have made. When they fail at that then they focus on nonsense like canceling Sesame Street so at least they appear to be doing something.

Oh and tomd…you’re a bloody moron. Quit whining about taxes. It’s not “robbery” to pay taxes, it’s your duty as a citizen. I know your conservative puppetmasters like to whip you drones into a frenzy over taxes every four years but taxes would be lower if Republicans wouldn’t waste the money on corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, and a mismanaged, overfunded, unnecessary war. I’m sorry you don’t have a little extra money to buy more Jeff Gordon hats and Toby Keith c.d.’s. You don’t want to pay taxes? Move to a third world country or shut the hell up.

I seem to recall an event in which my 3 year old son was graced with Janet Jackson’s boob!(It was no