Bush admin trying to slowly kill Public Broadcastin

[pzaur]

Bush admin trying to slowly kill Public Broadcasting

As usual, the Bush administration is trying to faze out/kill public broadcasting.
Article

Are they afraid that they aren't able to effectively control it?
Maybe FoxNews should take it over...
Heaven forbid there be another source for news that actually covers world events!

-pat

 

[Johnd]

Not to rain on the parade pzaur, but that's old news (as you so quipped in your post). Only those with their heads in the sand don't realize Bush is for big business, and has the guns to back it up. Curiously, Britain (and many other countries) has taken the opposite approach, with every household paying a flat fee for the BBC, and many good programs come of it.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Another checkmark to add to my long BSL (Bush Stupidity List.)

 

[pzaur]

Not to rain on the parade pzaur, but that's old news (as you so quipped in your post). Only those with their heads in the sand don't realize Bush is for big business, and has the guns to back it up. Curiously, Britain (and many other countries) has taken the opposite approach, with every household paying a flat fee for the BBC, and many good programs come of it.

Yeah, I know it's old news...
In a way, we already pay a fee of some sort for Public Broadcasting through our taxes. It just isn't labeled as such. If it were, then the government would actually have to allocate the appropriate funds that were collected!

-pat

 

[3db]

Wow!! Bush is real piece of work. Stomp down all independant thinkers and critics to the Bush administration. Dumb up the American public with BS pseudo reality shows, game shows, and other such crap. Sounds like a communist way of thinking to me commrads!!

 

[stratman]

Yes the good ol' BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770


Real impartial reporting just like our own "free" PBS.

 

[avaserfi]

Yes the good ol' BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770


Real impartial reporting just like our own "free" PBS.

It is near impossible for people to not be bias about certain issues they care about. The job of those who consume the news is to think while consuming rather than just blindly believing. The unfortunate truth is that this is just too much work for most.

 

[stratman]

There's never an excuse for ignorance. But whoever is bringing you the information should be forthcoming in their bias and not try and hide it as the BBC use to. I pay for PBS, I never watch it, the times that I did, I didn't care for the political bent, their other programs are not to my taste. So why should I keep paying for it? I subscribe to Direct TV, the day that I find it not to my standard I'll drop it, ditto with my phone service, why can't I drop a broadcaster that doesn't meet with my expectations? It's not about free TV, there's ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, pick one, they're free, so again why should I pay for PBS? Let them become a pay channel like all in cable.

 

[Johnd]

Yes the good ol' BBC:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411977&in_page_id=1770


Real impartial reporting just like our own "free" PBS.

Well, I didn't say they were blind strat. What's the point? They still produce a lot of good programs. Period. You haven't been in the cave so long as to think people, even producers don't allow their agendas and biases to effect their decisions, have you? Or to think that our Judges are impartial and blind when sitting on the bench? Of course this happens. There is bias everywhere in the world. The programs (not necessarily all...as if I have to state that) the BBC produce are still informative and entertaining.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Wow!! Bush is real piece of work. Stomp down all independant thinkers and critics to the Bush administration. Dumb up the American public with BS pseudo reality shows, game shows, and other such crap. Sounds like a communist way of thinking to me commrads!!

Or maybe a Nazi way of thinking.

 

[stratman]

Well, I didn't say they were blind strat. What's the point? They still produce a lot of good programs. Period. You haven't been in the cave so long as to think people, even producers don't allow their agendas and biases to effect their decisions, have you? Or to think that our Judges are impartial and blind when sitting on the bench? Of course this happens. There is bias everywhere in the world. The programs (not necessarily all...as if I have to state that) the BBC produce are still informative and entertaining.

Hello John,

Yes I understand, but my problem is I still have to pay for a broadcaster that I don't care for. Especially one that doesn't jive with my viewing preference, the removal of PBS from the public domain wouldn't hurt anyone, they can go private and their 100 supoorters can pay for it's content. PBS is not even free, so why pay for more bias?

 

[Johnd]

Hello John,

Yes I understand, but my problem is I still have to pay for a broadcaster that I don't care for. Especially one that doesn't jive with my viewing preference, the removal of PBS from the public domain wouldn't hurt anyone, they can go private and their 100 supoorters can pay for it's content. PBS is not even free, so why pay for more bias?

Hello strat.

Yes, you have a point, but one cannot selectively not pay for that ICBM either can they?

The Post reported that federal PBS funding for year 2006 was 300 million, with a 25% reduction slated for 2007. That's a dollar per caveman...c'mon. What, you got something against Big Bird? Don't tell me you never watched Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street as a kid. And that's all bad?

 

[Alex2507]

Another checkmark to add to my long BSL (Bush Stupidity List.)

I hope you are wearing a helmet.

 

[stratman]

Hello strat.

Yes, you have a point, but one cannot selectively not pay for that ICBM either can they?

The Post reported that federal PBS funding for year 2006 was 300 million, with a 25% reduction slated for 2007. That's a dollar per caveman...c'mon. What, you got something against Big Bird? Don't tell me you never watched Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street as a kid. And that's all bad?

Did you know that Big Bird, Oscar, The Count are all on PBS cable and Noggin, owned by PBS! And my 5 year old watches it!

 

[Johnd]

Did you know that Big Bird, Oscar, The Count are all on PBS cable and Noggin, owned by PBS! And my 5 year old watches it!

No I didn't. I just recently omitted cable from my repertoire so as to lessen tv viewing time. Or maybe I was watching less tv, and decided to eliminate cable. Blaspemy, I know.

The Count. I forgot about the Count!

But will Big Bird, Oscar and The Count remain on PBS cable and Noggin if their 400 million of federal funding is eliminated? C'mon, where did you get that idea way back when for latex polyurethane? You know it was This Old House...or one of those shows. There is some quality programming there, and what will happen if the federal money is eliminated? I don't think a dollar per person is that expensive.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Did you know that Big Bird, Oscar, The Count are all on PBS cable and Noggin, owned by PBS! And my 5 year old watches it!

The Mad Magazine parody The Republicans Visit Sesame Street is priceless. The republicans are there to investigate "the crime of teaching our kids to read and spell". At one point, they accuse Bert and Ernie of being gay! Hilarious.

 

[Johnd]

The Mad Magazine parody The Republicans Visit Sesame Street is priceless. The republicans are there to investigate "the crime of teaching our kids to read and spell". At one point, they accuse Bert and Ernie of being gay! Hilarious.

I didn't hear about that one. Sounds like it could make a good SNL spoof, or something.

 

[stratman]

No I didn't. I just recently omitted cable from my repertoire so as to lessen tv viewing time. Or maybe I was watching less tv, and decided to eliminate cable. Blaspemy, I know.

The Count. I forgot about the Count!

But will Big Bird, Oscar and The Count remain on PBS cable and Noggin if their 400 million of federal funding is eliminated? C'mon, where did you get that idea way back when for latex polyurethane? You know it was This Old House...or one of those shows. There is some quality programming there, and what will happen if the federal money is eliminated? I don't think a dollar per person is that expensive.

Yes, even if the funding is eliminated they'll still be there, as these channels are supported by viewers like me, who subscribe to Direct TV. As for quality programing in the last 4 years I 've seen two programs that interested me in PBS: "The Race For The JSF", I paraphrased the title, and another in NOVA dealing with tech, I can't remember that one. I just don't see why PBS can't be made a private enterprise without affecting the cash-strapped American public. It would actually benefit PBS.

 

[Johnd]

Yes, even if the funding is eliminated they'll still be there, as these channels are supported by viewers like me, who subscribe to Direct TV. As for quality programing in the last 4 years I 've seen two programs that interested me in PBS: "The Race For The JSF", I paraphrased the title, and another in NOVA dealing with tech, I can't remember that one. I just don't see why PBS can't be made a private enterprise without affecting the cash-strapped American public. It would actually benefit PBS.

So, receiving less money would be a benefit for PBS, and NPR? Hmmm.

So if we didn't spend 400 million on PBS, every person would receive $1.33.

If we didn't spend 150 billion on the global wot, every person would receive $375.00.

If we didn't spend 480 billion on defense, every person would receive $1,600.00

And it goes on, and on, and on. I think $1.00 is pretty cheap for Big Bird and Bert and Ernie, don't you strat?

And as a side note: free enterprise. Yeah, that's a great thing...sometimes. Look at all the great programming we have. The majority of it is reality shows, game shows and network news...99% useless.

BTW: the one on the JSF was good.

 

[stratman]

So, receiving less money would be a benefit for PBS, and NPR? Hmmm.

So if we didn't spend 400 million on PBS, every person would receive $1.33.

If we didn't spend 150 billion on the global wot, every person would receive $375.00.

If we didn't spend 480 billion on defense, every person would receive $1,600.00

And it goes on, and on, and on. I think $1.00 is pretty cheap for Big Bird and Bert and Ernie, don't you strat?

And as a side note: free enterprise. Yeah, that's a great thing. Look at all the great programming we have. The majority of it is reality shows, games shows and network news...99% useless.

John I find what PBS puts out useless (except for Big Bird and friends) I'm sorry I still don't see the point why PBS wouldn't succeed as a private enterprise. As for the great programming? It's useless so I don't tune. I find myself watching more and more movies at home. Unfortunately in today's world we need defense more than NPR and PBS, I'd rather keep our ICBMs until the rest of the world gives up theirs (not gonna happen.) I'd rather put the money being wasted on NPR and PBS into Social Security or Medicare where it's needed most, NPR/PBS is a luxury not a necessity, the American public shouldn't be made to pay for entertainment, besides we get plenty of that here at Audioholics and it's free!

One last item, Noggin has commercials, so it generates money.