A Win for the Voice of the People

[MicroChrome]

Text



I guess I still get to watch nova and frontline every tuesday night. Hopefully they will put nova back on track with more cool science programs... We need another Carl Sagan. I know there has to be one out there somewhere!

 

[judasmachine]

@#$%ing cool. i almost feel like crying. i was genuinely concerned about this issue. i was responsible for almost 30 signatures to the petition, i was rounding up everyone i could think of to get off their butts. PBS is tax money well spent.

edited for my inability to spell butts.

 

[Stunt]

Why no public funding for FOX News, I get it up here and it's great...I like how O'Reilly is a no bullsh!t kinda guy, he's what all americans should strive for.

:roll:

PS. Good to hear the public funding got restored, really helps people have a voice in a world masked by the masses/majority.

 

[Whaspe]

Got this from the BBC. Here's an interesting take on the whole thing:

The Dutch approach to public broadcasting is unique. Programmes are made by a variety of groups, some reflecting political or religious currents in society, others representing interest groups. These organisations are allocated airtime on TV and radio, in line with the number of members they have.

Public radio and TV channels face stiff competition from commercial stations, which mushroomed after a 1988 law lifted the ban on commercial broadcasting.

The TV market is very competitive. Viewers have access to a wide range of domestic and foreign channels, thanks mainly to one of the highest cable take-up rates in Europe. Every province has at least one local public TV channel. The three national public TV stations enjoy high audience shares.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution, as is free speech. Newspaper ownership is highly concentrated. Most titles are broadsheets; Dutch readers have not developed a taste for tabloid sensationalism.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Why no public funding for FOX News, I get it up here and it's great...I like how O'Reilly is total bullsh!t kinda guy, he's what all americans should strive for.

Fixed for ya

 

[Stunt]

Whaspe, I don't like that idea as minorities do not get a voice, as they make up a very small percentage of the population, especially in a place like Canada or Netherlands. Think about how little airtime gays and natives would get; two important groups in today's society with brutal general public opinion on both.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: Stunt
Why no public funding for FOX News, I get it up here and it's great...I like how O'Reilly is total bullsh!t kinda guy, he's what all americans should strive for.

Fixed for ya

:Q

 

[Whaspe]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Whaspe, I don't like that idea as minorities do not get a voice, as they make up a very small percentage of the population, especially in a place like Canada or Netherlands. Think about how little airtime gays and natives would get; two important groups in today's society with brutal general public opinion on both.

I was looking at this: Every province has at least one local public TV channel. The three national public TV stations enjoy high audience shares.

Compare that to our CBC and I see that as being more diverse. It would at least allow for more than just a brush over any particular group and let some real programming take front stage. Maybe that's why their national TV stations enjoy high audience shares.

BTW anyone have stats on the CBC's market share? I know for me it's real hit and miss, I love some of their stuff and hate the rest.

 

[Stunt]

CBC's news coverage is bar none some of the best I've ever seen.
Their sports coverage is great as well, of course with focus on canadian athletes.
Beyond that the rest of the channel is utter crap.

If you are going to play into majority opinion, you are just going to end up with shows like "Ann Coulter: Liberals are Retards", and "Micheal Moore: Conservatives are Idiots" back and forth. The point of public broadcast is to investigate information and culture that are not typically profitable in hopes to better society through knowledge.

 

[MicroChrome]

sorry! I meant to edit my own message!!!! Not post a new one....


Sigh....

 

[Willoughbyva]

Um that is because PBS got a new Republican leader. I forgot her name, but it was on the evening news hour. Coiencidence Huh?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

:thumbsup:

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Willoughbyva
Um that is because PBS got a new Republican leader. I forgot her name, but it was on the evening news hour. Coiencidence Huh?

You might try watching it once in a while. Then you could spell.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Next on the new pbs: Why you are all going to either support Bush remaining in office for life, or you are going to go on vacation in a happy camp, where you'll have daily exercise and dental care.

 

[1EZduzit]

The people speak out for once, good for them!!! Is this another sign of a lame duck president?

?People For the American Way called this morning for President Bush to fire Mr. Tomlinson, and we renew that call. Partisan politics has no place in public broadcasting, and independent voices must not be silenced. Mr. Tomlinson should take this vote as a sign of things to come, and step down.?

 

[conjur]

Remember that report that Tomlinson was calling for to determine just how liberal PBS is? Check out this bullsh*t!!

M is for Moronic
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050718&s=blumenthal

"I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone deafness to issues of tone and balance," Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in May. Since he was appointed to his position by President Bush, he has set about to change the "tone" and rectify the "balance." For example, he helped secure $4 million to fund Wall Street Journal Report, a round-table discussion featuring the newspaper's right-wing editorial board; no liberals or Democrats need apply. Next he collaborated with Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, to kill a legislative proposal that would have required appointments with local broadcasting experience to the CPB board. Last year, to justify his campaign for balance, Tomlinson commissioned a secret study to prove that certain programs aired on PBS radio and television are contaminated with liberal bias.

To carry out this delicate task, Tomlinson selected Fred Mann, a conservative activist with no credentials as an expert on journalism, broadcasting or media issues, who was obscure even within right-wing circles. Mann was paid $14,700 in taxpayer money to monitor a sampling of PBS shows and file a report to Tomlinson on the political partisanship of their content. Tomlinson seems to have planned for Mann's report to become a seminal conservative document. Republicans would wave it during House appropriations committee hearings as they argued for defunding PBS and realigning its programming. Right-wing talk jocks would blare talking points based on Mann's disturbing findings, which would at last provide definitive proof of a liberal media tilt. Meanwhile, insidious liberal activists boring from within public broadcasting studios would cower in humiliation from the exposure.

While Mann diligently went about his work listening to the radio and watching TV, monitoring episodes of PBS's NOW With Bill Moyers, The Diane Rehm Show and The Tavis Smiley Show, Tomlinson concealed his activities from CPB's board. When Mann filed his detailed report, Tomlinson hid it from the CPB board. Only an internal investigation by CPB's inspector general in mid May revealed the existence of the Mann report. And only when journalists at NPR managed to secure a copy were its contents reported. Reading the study, it is clear why Tomlinson tried to keep it a state secret.

The Mann report reads as if dictated by Cookie Monster while chewing on a mouthful of lead paint chips. Names of famous political figures and celebrities are chronically misspelled. PBS guests are categorized by labels--"anti-DeLay," "neutral," "x"--for often bewildering reasons. Mann appears to have spent endless hours monitoring programs with no political content, gathering such insights as that Ray Charles was blind.

Mann begins each of his PBS program summaries with a chart showing guests' ideological leanings. An "L" denotes guests he judges to be liberal; "C" beside conservatives; "N" beside those who are neutral. Among those Mann designated as conservative is the ex-rapper and actor Mark "Marky Mark" Wahlberg, best known for his role as a well-endowed porn star in the film Boogie Nights. While Wahlberg used his June 2, 2004, appearance on The Tavis Smiley Show to promote juvenile justice programs--a liberal hallmark--he also said in passing, according to Mann, that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ "was a good thing." Another Tavis Smiley guest, Everlast, the rock-rapper who once fronted the Irish-American rap trio House of Pain, was dubbed a "C" for his opinion that some rap music is "sending a bad message to youth." And Henry Rollins, the former singer for the legendary hardcore-punk band Black Flag, was labeled conservative for stating, in Mann's words, that "people who have problems with the war should support the troops." Apparently, feeling sympathy for American servicemen and women is strictly "C."

Mann's liberals are an equally curious bunch. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, garnered his "L" after speaking glowingly of Ronald Reagan in a discussion with Tavis Smiley. Hagel is, of course, that comsymp who earned a 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition last year. Another Rehm guest, Washington Post reporter Robin Wright, earned her "L" by articulating an analytical point Mann apparently had not heard expressed before. "Ms. Wright's viewpoint was that U.S. intelligence was geared to fight the Cold War and did not adapt to the new threat of terrorism," Mann writes, describing why he put the "L" word beside her name. For investigating three of Tom DeLay's associates for illegal fundraising in Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who was interviewed on NOW, was dubbed "anti-DeLay." Dr. Arthur Bodette was slapped with an "L" after discussing on Diane Rehm's show "the unlimited possibilities of new advances in DNA chips to screen for birth defects, cystic fibrosis, and mental retardation."

Another unintentionally hilarious aspect of the Mann report is its sloppy typos. Apparently Tomlinson's budget didn't include a proofreader. Former Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr appears as "Ken Staff," former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim as "Doug Zukheim" and former Congressman Newt Gingrich as "Next Gingrich."

There are also curious asides and digressions. In a description of the March 29, 2004, episode of NOW, Mann notes that 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser filled in for Bill Moyers as host. What did he make of this? He doesn't say. In his summary of former CIA operative Robert Baer's interview with Diane Rehm, Mann writes, "Mr. Baer's viewpoint was that [Ahmad] Chalabi leaked secret classified information to Iran regarding U.S. cracking Iran's codes. As to how Chalabi new [sic] this information, Baer speculated, it was probably a drunken operative." Reporting on Gen. Anthony Zinni's appearance on Rehm's show, Mann observes, "His viewpoint was that...Saddam was not a treat [sic]." Yes, and Nixon was not a cook.

Besides scrutinizing political PBS guests, Mann was paid to watch countless hours of nonpolitical programming and report back to Tomlinson with his insights. Thus Tomlinson was secretly informed that during one Diane Rehm episode, "Carole King talked about her career.... James Taylor inspired her." Or that, during The Tavis Smiley Show, actor Jamie Foxx "discussed the career of the late Ray Charles and the obstacles (blind and black) that he had to overcome to achieve success." Next to Foxx's name Mann affixed a lowercase "x," which, because Mann labeled neutral guests with an "N," may mean that Foxx's politics are beyond neutral. Either that or he's become a secret black Muslim.

Who is Fred Mann? For all we know, he could be a werewolf with supersensitive hearing that detects liberal bias inaudible to the average human's ear. But since he and Tomlinson have not provided the same level of accountability they are demanding from others, it is impossible to know. Reporters who have attempted to locate him, including NPR, have all failed. Perhaps only Van Helsing could uncover Mann's tracks. What is known is that in 1980, Mann worked on the senatorial campaign of Dan Quayle. Then, during Reagan's second term, Mann went to work at the Virginia-based National Journalism Center as its job bank and alumni director until he retired last year. The National Journalism Center is directed by M. Stanton Evans, a former editor of the conservative Indianapolis News, and a founder in 1960 of the right-wing youth group Young Americans for Freedom. Through the center, Evans nurtured movement activists like Mann and trained aspiring young media players, including Ann Coulter and Maggie Gallagher, the conservative Catholic columnist who took federal money from the Bush Administration to promote its policies.

The Mann report may be one of the strangest documents ever produced by the federal government; however, it is not totally without value. Though it may be botched as an indictment of liberal media bias, it inadvertently offers an unfiltered glimpse into the recesses of the conservative mind.

The conservative media game was neatly summarized by Matt Labash, a former senior writer for The Weekly Standard who now writes for National Review, in a 2003 interview on the website journalismjobs.com. Labash explained: "The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective.... It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket."

But until Ken Tomlinson, no conservative imagined that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would provide taxpayer funding for the "great little racket."

Great...with minds like this working to determine what we see and hear in the news, we are fvcking doomed.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Great...with minds like this working to determine what we see and hear in the news, we are fvcking doomed.[/quote]

All the more reason to roll your eyes at PBS and embrace the free market system of commercial broadcast.

PBS is a holdover from the good old days when network TV dominated the airwaves and there was a need for cultural and scientific programming that, while not necessecerily commercially viable, were deemed socially important. Today less than 15% of americans even use the "airwaves' choosing instead to receive their TV diet through cable or satellite where Discovery, TLC, A&E, History Channel, etc. all essentially handle that role on a commercial basis. And quite sucessfully I might add. If PBS is so important let it survive or fail on its own merrits. If it can't garner high enough ratings to survive on its own commercially then there is no need for it.

 

[cwjerome]

Kinda sums up my thoughts:

PBS? Whatever...

-----------------------------------------

"The liberal-conservative thing, however, is a sideshow. Public television was created to help poor people, educate young people, and to promote diversity on TV. Today, the average PBS viewer is in his late 50s. Somewhere around two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV. Even more have DVD or VCR players. When PBS was created in 1967, it increased the number of television stations by 25 percent. Today PBS stations constitute a rounding error among the choices available to most consumers.

More relevant, with the obvious exception of ?Sesame Street,? the target audience for PBS isn?t remotely the poor. It?s the well-to-do. Yes, some poor folks enjoy symphonies and entire shows dedicated to shiitake mushrooms and fennel. I have no doubt that there?s some lunch bucket Joe who races home after clearing roadkill all day just to catch ?Washington Week in Review.? But, come on, who?re we kidding?

And that?s the great irony of the restored PBS budget cuts. Because budget rules said the money had to come from somewhere, Congress raided social programs for the poor to give Big Bird back his $100 million.

Which brings up another bogus argument. When public broadcasting?s integrity is attacked, the PBSers harrumph that government money is only a tiny fraction of their budgets. But, they say without taking a breath, if you take even one penny of it away, it will destroy us.

---------------------------------------

Overall, it seems pretty strange for there to be a government-run tv station. If any of the shows are worth there salt, they'll survive in a free marketplace. Things change, and PBS no longer fulfills a legitimate role in this day and age.

But do I REALLY care about the funds being restored? Uh.... whatever.

 

[piasabird]

I am in favor of funding for PBS and even for the public radio. NPR often has quite funny programs on saturday morning that I like. It is refreshing to hear people do radio and TV because they like what they are doing.

 

[rustynails]

Most who give any thought to PBS also holds tight hands with the BBC. Is it any wonder that these government sponsered religions are the lefts guiding light. Recently the BBC has revealed that during live broadcast coverage, they will delay the feed to the masses, filtering the spectrum. Typical leftist hypocrisiy. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unless that freedom flows in the wrong direction of their agenda.

The only thing worse than a republican hack is a democrate.

~nails

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
If PBS is so important let it survive or fail on its own merrits. If it can't garner high enough ratings to survive on its own commercially then there is no need for it.

That's all that needs to be said, really. If all the people who get so bent out of shape every time PBS public funding cuts came up would just cut the CPB a check, they could get off the dole and we'd be spared this annual ruckus. If PBS is a good and worthy thing, it's worth supporting with your own money; if not, stop trying to give 'em everyone else's.

 

[randym431]

Remember that report that Tomlinson was calling for to determine just how liberal PBS is?

Yes, and it came back just the opposite of what they wanted to hear, not liberal at all, infact just the opposite, so it was burried. Typical right wing BS. Hey, maybe the BS in PBS will really mean something now?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rustynails
Most who give any thought to PBS also holds tight hands with the BBC. Is it any wonder that these government sponsered religions are the lefts guiding light. Recently the BBC has revealed that during live broadcast coverage, they will delay the feed to the masses, filtering the spectrum. Typical leftist hypocrisiy. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unless that freedom flows in the wrong direction of their agenda.

The only thing worse than a republican hack is a democrate.

~nails

All I hear is a bunch of empty rhetoric. Got any, you know, PROOF, to back any of that up?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Kinda sums up my thoughts:

PBS? Whatever...

-----------------------------------------

"The liberal-conservative thing, however, is a sideshow. Public television was created to help poor people, educate young people, and to promote diversity on TV. Today, the average PBS viewer is in his late 50s. Somewhere around two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV. Even more have DVD or VCR players. When PBS was created in 1967, it increased the number of television stations by 25 percent. Today PBS stations constitute a rounding error among the choices available to most consumers.

More relevant, with the obvious exception of ?Sesame Street,? the target audience for PBS isn?t remotely the poor. It?s the well-to-do. Yes, some poor folks enjoy symphonies and entire shows dedicated to shiitake mushrooms and fennel. I have no doubt that there?s some lunch bucket Joe who races home after clearing roadkill all day just to catch ?Washington Week in Review.? But, come on, who?re we kidding?

And that?s the great irony of the restored PBS budget cuts. Because budget rules said the money had to come from somewhere, Congress raided social programs for the poor to give Big Bird back his $100 million.

Which brings up another bogus argument. When public broadcasting?s integrity is attacked, the PBSers harrumph that government money is only a tiny fraction of their budgets. But, they say without taking a breath, if you take even one penny of it away, it will destroy us.

---------------------------------------

Overall, it seems pretty strange for there to be a government-run tv station. If any of the shows are worth there salt, they'll survive in a free marketplace. Things change, and PBS no longer fulfills a legitimate role in this day and age.

But do I REALLY care about the funds being restored? Uh.... whatever.

While in most situations I applaud the free market, television and TV news in particular seem to be areas where chasing the money gives us much lower quality programming than we've had in the past.

TV news used to be a trusted and reliable source of information. Now we have cases of shoddy reporting (a la CBS and Dan Rather), reporting the easy stories at the expense of real news (a la CNN) and "reporting" that is intentionally biased to attract a particualar political group (a la Fox News). These actions are taken because they represent more profit. Fox News can attract viewers who don't really care about the news as much as they care about being told their views are the right ones. CNN can save money reporting on Michael Jackson for weeks on end instead of covering the Middle East, and it's what American viewers really want anyways. CBS can attract viewers with a very important story without taking the time and money to find out if it's really true or not. The free market doesn't punish these guys, because enough conservatives don't care that Fox News is biased, enough Americans don't care about Middle Eastern coverage, and CBS and others don't get caught enough to bother most people.

The success of the free market depends on the ability of the average consumer to make intelligent decisions about what products they consume. When it comes to TV in general, and TV news in particular, I'm not convinced consumers are intelligent enough to make the free market the best option. I'm not sure government funding is any better, but free markets aren't magic, it requires intelligent consumers to make them work. And I'm just not sure that's the case here.

 

[rustynails]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: rustynails
Most who give any thought to PBS also holds tight hands with the BBC. Is it any wonder that these government sponsered religions are the lefts guiding light. Recently the BBC has revealed that during live broadcast coverage, they will delay the feed to the masses, filtering the spectrum. Typical leftist hypocrisiy. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unless that freedom flows in the wrong direction of their agenda.

The only thing worse than a republican hack is a democrate.

~nails

All I hear is a bunch of empty rhetoric. Got any, you know, PROOF, to back any of that up?

Here's some rehtoric


What the hell are you talking about; BBC and PBS are not state sponsered?
Are you crazy and blind? The last time anybody swallowed that much koolaid, a lot of people died. Unless you are a Nazi, this is as dagerous as it gets, having the government funnel your news...

Did i mention the only thing worse than a replublican hack is a democrate.