Save PBS (and more importantly, NOVA/FRONTLINE)!

[KC5AV]

I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

So they should be ad funded like the rest of the commercial channels? Then there's no difference between "public" broadcasting and "commercial".

 

[Red Dawn]

I think we should stop funding the Iraq war first. Those W*** are going tio ah heck and butcher each other no matter what we do why waste money on their uncivilized asses

 

[KC5AV]

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

So they should be ad funded like the rest of the commercial channels? Then there's no difference between "public" broadcasting and "commercial".

Bingo.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

So they should be ad funded like the rest of the commercial channels? Then there's no difference between "public" broadcasting and "commercial".

Bingo.

Well ok. I think we have plenty of commercial channels already but to each his own.

 

[KingPhil]

SAVE THE CLOCK TOWER!

 

[skimple]

I listen to NPR almost exclusively now. NPR & PBS are getting cut because their reporting is not objective. Their reporters and staff are politically liberal, and the way they report and program is influenced by that. This is not some right-wing theory, the hosts of almost every NPR shows admit they are liberal. Which is fine. They should have every right to voice their viewpoint as the myriad of conservative talk shows do. HOWEVER - they should not be recieving public money to voice a particular political view, unless they also voice dissenting views. NPR continually criticizes republican and conservative politicians, and now they are crying because those politicians are going after them. Big suprise.

 

[CPA]

Like Nova, Sesame Street or Frontline wouldn't be picked up by a commercial channel. Please give me one good reason why government should be funding a media outlet, that includes NPR.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: novon
Message sent to representative! Stupid government trying to take the last good source of news off the air.

 

[KC5AV]

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

So they should be ad funded like the rest of the commercial channels? Then there's no difference between "public" broadcasting and "commercial".

Bingo.

Well ok. I think we have plenty of commercial channels already but to each his own.

There are plenty of outlets available for quality programming. If PBS and NPR started selling ads, businesses would be beating their doors down to buy time. I don't think my tax dollars should be going to programming that I don't agree with. If these networks are going to be funded by public monies, they need to cover both sides of a story instead of the liberal side only.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

There is little or no reason for government funding of farmers anymore either.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

There is little or no reason for government funding of farmers anymore either.

government doesn't fund farmers, they pay farmers NOT to plant. But either way, they shouldn't pay them either.

 

[Feldenak]

Like I said in the other thread....get private funding.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: CPA
Like Nova, Sesame Street or Frontline wouldn't be picked up by a commercial channel. Please give me one good reason why government should be funding a media outlet, that includes NPR.

Because when you don't have to have commercial breaks, there's enough time to call people out on partisan hackery.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: Zanix

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

So they should be ad funded like the rest of the commercial channels? Then there's no difference between "public" broadcasting and "commercial".

Bingo.

Well ok. I think we have plenty of commercial channels already but to each his own.

There are plenty of outlets available for quality programming. If PBS and NPR started selling ads, businesses would be beating their doors down to buy time. I don't think my tax dollars should be going to programming that I don't agree with. If these networks are going to be funded by public monies, they need to cover both sides of a story instead of the liberal side only.

What do you mean? They have republicans on NPR all the time...

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: CPA
Like Nova, Sesame Street or Frontline wouldn't be picked up by a commercial channel. Please give me one good reason why government should be funding a media outlet, that includes NPR.

Public funding ensures an unbiased view. If it's privately funded, the people who are paying for the progam often try to steer the direction of the show. They might want to use it to forward their own commercial or political interests.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: KC5AV
I'm sorry, but there is little to no reason for government funding of public broadcast anymore. Stop giving them hand-outs and let them fend for themselves.

There is little or no reason for government funding of farmers anymore either.

The problem with that is that you can get much more money from selling your land to housing developers than you can from farming it. My gf's grandparents own a farm. If it wasn't for government money, they'd be broke. When is the last time you saw a guy driving a Porsche from being a farmer?

Do you like to eat food? If everyone became engineers and computer geeks (like me) there would be nobody to produce the country's food.

Near me, all the farms are getting torn down and a bunch of closely spaced McMansions are going up. It's sickening. The trees, farms, and lakes are what makes the country look nice.

PS- they get more money from the government paying them NOT to farm the land than they do actually farming it. Figure that one out.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: CPA
Like Nova, Sesame Street or Frontline wouldn't be picked up by a commercial channel. Please give me one good reason why government should be funding a media outlet, that includes NPR.

Public funding ensures an unbiased view. If it's privately funded, the people who are paying for the progam often try to steer the direction of the show. They might want to use it to forward their own commercial or political interests.

Which is why NPR is so unbiased. :disgust:

 

[Leper Messiah]

Compared to fox (faux depending on your politcal beliefs) news and all the other crap outlets out there, Frontline is a lot more balanced. Nova is frickin' awesome.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Torghn


Which is why NPR is so unbiased. :disgust:

While it does seem a bit liberal to me, I'd bet that it's closer to neutral than the mainsteam media is. You can't really think that Fox news is neutral.

 

[everman]

Public funding ensures an unbiased view.

How does it ensure an unbiased view?

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Torghn


Which is why NPR is so unbiased. :disgust:

While it does seem a bit liberal to me, I'd bet that it's closer to neutral than the mainsteam media is. You can't really think that Fox news is neutral.

Its amazing that whenever these discussions come up Fox News is waved around like a bloody shirt as if the fact that they skew middle of the road/conservative is a threat to the republic when there is still CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS all skewing left.

 

[sandorski]

PBS is an oasis in a Cultural Desert. If all you want is fluff, then go ahead and kill it.

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Torghn


Which is why NPR is so unbiased. :disgust:

While it does seem a bit liberal to me, I'd bet that it's closer to neutral than the mainstream media is. You can't really think that Fox news is neutral.

Fox just seems so biased because all of our other media is so far left. Sure fox has a right slant to it but I'd say they have a better record of covering all sides of an issue then most of the other news outlets.

 

[skimple]

No, Fox is certainly not neutral. But the difference is that they don't get "directly" subsidized. I think that NPR should get funded as long as they make clear attempts to be objective. However, the head of the Public Broadcasting Corporation basically refused to "bow to political pressures", and insisted that they do not have a political bias. He won't even acknowledge the possibility that there is a bias, which shows that he is either stupid or covering up.