Save PBS (and more importantly, NOVA)!

[Vic]

I think PBS is worthwhile, and therefore I pledge. PBS is viewer-supported programming. IMO, it should not receive government funds.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it is not political. unless you think not promoting homophobia and creationism is unbalanced

Your opinion of "homophobia" is not wanting to give detailed instructions of anal sex to 5 year-olds, and your opinion of Creationism is "flat earthers" even though the Old Testament says the earth is round. :roll:

 

[0roo0roo]

show me when pbs gave detailed instructions of anal sex to 5 year olds.

and the flat earth society doesn't necessarily require the bible. so whatever.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
Public television should not be political. PBS is too political therefore should not be funded by the taxpayers...

there are a lot of art programs that I would like to see cut, too.

Food and medicine for poor kids is a lot more important to me.

Yes, Bert and Ernie clearly represent the gay agenda

- Link may contain naked puppets.
PROOF!
that is just wrong.

 

[aplefka]

Fvck man, I just emailed Lungren about the Broadcast Flag, he doesn't want to hear from me again.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think PBS is worthwhile, and therefore I pledge. PBS is viewer-supported programming. IMO, it should not receive government funds.

just because it's viewer-supported doesn't mean it can *only* be viewer-supported.

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it is not political. unless you think not promoting homophobia and creationism is unbalanced

Your opinion of "homophobia" is not wanting to give detailed instructions of anal sex to 5 year-olds, and your opinion of Creationism is "flat earthers" even though the Old Testament says the earth is round. :roll:

i've never seen detailed instructions for anal sex on PBS

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Get private funding.

:thumbsup:

let those that want it pay for it, just like HBO

tax money doesn't need to go for "public" television anymore, it isn't like 40 years ago when there were only 4 broadcast channels

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
show me when pbs gave detailed instructions of anal sex to 5 year olds.

and the flat earth society doesn't necessarily require the bible. so whatever.

I didn't say that they did. Read it again. What I did say is that YOUR opinion of "homophobia" would be anyone opposing such a thing. I stand by that comment.

There is no "flat earth society" and never was. That's a flimsy strawman. Even most primitive peoples knew the earth was round. The horizon on flat ground (i.e. looking out over the ocean) is only 30 miles away, and the curve is clearly visible.

Originally posted by: gopunk
just because it's viewer-supported doesn't mean it can *only* be viewer-supported.

Government funds only encourage PBS to weaken and politicize its content. Making it rely on viewer support only will force it to improve its content.

 

[0roo0roo]

my opinion of homophobia is the same as that of say antisemitism. hate for no good reason and has no place on pbs for balance for the sake of balance. it is invalid and undefendable. so if you think thats somehow unbalanced political sh*t, u are just way out there man.

and no, the politicized content is all commercial corporate media. it is dumbed down partisan hackery which is cheap to produce. and its where invalid viewpoints are put on air just for the sake of balance. it doesn't matter if a guest on a commercial news media show spouts nonsense and false statistics or facts. the anchor or host won't correct it because it costs too much to check and they are too busy trying to fill the other 24 hours of news plus then they can't be accused of bias if they don't even try.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my opinion of homophobia is the same as that of say antisemitism. hate for no good reason and has no place on pbs for balance for the sake of balance. it is invalid and undefendable. so if you think thats somehow unbalanced political sh*t, u are just way out there man.

and no, the politicized content is all commercial corporate media. it is dumbed down partisan hackery which is cheap to produce. and its where invalid viewpoints are put on air just for the sake of balance. it doesn't matter if a guest on a commercial news media show spouts nonsense and false statistics or facts. the anchor or host won't correct it because it costs too much to check and they are too busy trying to fill the other 24 hours of news plus then they can't be accused of bias if they don't even try.

Q?... are you saying that having pro gay programs on taxpayer funded teevee is ok, but a show that promotes ONLY men and women pairing is wrong?

By that token, is it ok to demystify religion on taxpayer funded teevee but not have religous programing on the same station at taxpayers expense? And if one step further... is it ok for the taxpayers to have a pro muslim program but not a pro catholic...??

Is it ok to force taxpayers to foot the bill for stuff they dont agree with... or just some of what they dont agree with... and who gets to decide what the taxpayer should be forced to fund?

Seriously.. i am not trying to be argumentitive, but it seems that a lot of this thread is about pro or anti.. whatever... and it is my opinion that it is either all or nothing. both sides.. pro and anti or nothing. there are loads and loads of outlets for everyone to be heard... i just dont think that taxpayers should be forced to provide a forum.

And my original stance was political, not ethnical.

 

[jds2006]

I used to love watching Mister Rogers, Teletubbies, and Arthur

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my opinion of homophobia is the same as that of say antisemitism. hate for no good reason and has no place on pbs for balance for the sake of balance. it is invalid and undefendable. so if you think thats somehow unbalanced political sh*t, u are just way out there man.

and no, the politicized content is all commercial corporate media. it is dumbed down partisan hackery which is cheap to produce. and its where invalid viewpoints are put on air just for the sake of balance. it doesn't matter if a guest on a commercial news media show spouts nonsense and false statistics or facts. the anchor or host won't correct it because it costs too much to check and they are too busy trying to fill the other 24 hours of news plus then they can't be accused of bias if they don't even try.

Q?... are you saying that having pro gay programs on taxpayer funded teevee is ok, but a show that promotes ONLY men and women pairing is wrong?

By that token, is it ok to demystify religion on taxpayer funded teevee but not have religous programing on the same station at taxpayers expense? And if one step further... is it ok for the taxpayers to have a pro muslim program but not a pro catholic...??

Is it ok to force taxpayers to foot the bill for stuff they dont agree with... or just some of what they dont agree with... and who gets to decide what the taxpayer should be forced to fund?

Seriously.. i am not trying to be argumentitive, but it seems that a lot of this thread is about pro or anti.. whatever... and it is my opinion that it is either all or nothing. both sides.. pro and anti or nothing. there are loads and loads of outlets for everyone to be heard... i just dont think that taxpayers should be forced to provide a forum.

And my original stance was political, not ethnical.

All of which would be solved by the removal of government funding. Then PBS could air whatever they want to, so long as the viewers support it.

Otherwise, it is absolutely unconsciousable that taxpayers in a democracy should be forced to provide funding for the propaganda for their ideological and political opponents, regardless of right and wrong. And that is exactly what government funding to PBS does, and that is exactly why, so long as PBS receives government funding, there will be more and more government and political interference into its content, regardless of which political faction is in power.
0roo0roo wants his cake and eat it too, and that just ain't gonna happen.

 

[0roo0roo]

sorry, valid factual information is not propaganda. nova isn't propganda, frontline isn't propaganda, sesame street isn't popaganda. and neither are they political or unbalanced. i've seen plenty of bbc's far more numerous but lower quality "documentaries".. i think i know what unbalanced is.


anyways if the republicans are so worried about finding and fairness. how about taking the red states off the blue state funded federal welfare? the repubs clearly support redistributing blues tate wealth to the red states while claiming they aren't for weath redistributionhttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

and really, we've already seen what trash viewer supported corporate news media has created. its corrupting influence is far worse then any other.

pbs is clearly a public good for all but the bigoted or partisan insane.

its budget is nothing compared to real problems and is simply a diversion from the incompetence and inability to fix the real problems of ss and medicare by the politicians. the repubs have all 3 branches of gov now. who can they blame for not doing anything? no one, the buck stops with them. so they divert by attacking big bird.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: klah

Save PBS

No.

 

[0roo0roo]

Otherwise, it is absolutely unconsciousable that taxpayers in a democracy should be forced to provide funding for the propaganda for their ideological and political opponents, regardless of right and wrong. And that is exactly what government funding to PBS does, and that is exactly why, so long as PBS receives government funding, there will be more and more government and political interference into its content, regardless of which political faction is in power.
0roo0roo wants his cake and eat it too, and that just ain't gonna happen.

we should stop funding public education then. clearly its unbalanced with no creationism/racism/god hates fags classes.

how about some of you public university students put your money where your mouth is and pay your full unsubsidized tuition. clearly those not going to college shouldn't have to subsidize your education right?

 

[Sphexi]

I don't need to do jack, Bernie is all over this one.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my opinion of homophobia is the same as that of say antisemitism. hate for no good reason and has no place on pbs for balance for the sake of balance. it is invalid and undefendable. so if you think thats somehow unbalanced political sh*t, u are just way out there man.

and no, the politicized content is all commercial corporate media. it is dumbed down partisan hackery which is cheap to produce. and its where invalid viewpoints are put on air just for the sake of balance. it doesn't matter if a guest on a commercial news media show spouts nonsense and false statistics or facts. the anchor or host won't correct it because it costs too much to check and they are too busy trying to fill the other 24 hours of news plus then they can't be accused of bias if they don't even try.

Q?... are you saying that having pro gay programs on taxpayer funded teevee is ok, but a show that promotes ONLY men and women pairing is wrong?

By that token, is it ok to demystify religion on taxpayer funded teevee but not have religous programing on the same station at taxpayers expense? And if one step further... is it ok for the taxpayers to have a pro muslim program but not a pro catholic...??

Is it ok to force taxpayers to foot the bill for stuff they dont agree with... or just some of what they dont agree with... and who gets to decide what the taxpayer should be forced to fund?

Seriously.. i am not trying to be argumentitive, but it seems that a lot of this thread is about pro or anti.. whatever... and it is my opinion that it is either all or nothing. both sides.. pro and anti or nothing. there are loads and loads of outlets for everyone to be heard... i just dont think that taxpayers should be forced to provide a forum.

And my original stance was political, not ethnical.

Woa woa Karenmarie, don't fill his mouth with words. What I like about PBS is that it doesn't really promote anything. Except the news. They've been talking about this on NPR off and on for a while now. Who should pay for what. What bias does NPR have, etc... I commend them for taking this subject on about themselves.

I think NPR is different than PBS, because the majority of NPR funds come from the listeners. So they're not shaking. PBS though, I guess is in big trouble.

I think the aim of PBS is not to debunk or support any kind of religion, rather remain neutral in the presentations of it. I think the shows are done well, but I admit it's been a couple months since I've watched. I don't watch a whole lot of TV anyway...

Now, I don't agree with alot of what the Republican and Democratic parties are saying/doing, but alot of my tax dollars are going to fund their campaigns. It's the relm of paying taxes I guess. Some of your money is going to go for something you aren't 100% behind. (to put it nicely) With a hope and a prayer, we elect people to spend our money wisely. What exacatly happens with that money? Especially on a federal level, I have no idea. I know that those government buildings are nice, and the people that work there are well off. I wouldn't mind seeing an itemized bill though.

I think someone above coined it. The 220 million or whatever that's going to get cut might buy a tank or maybe two. Though, it will put down a service that we are fortunate to have. NPR and PBS have very few commercials, and the ones they do have, are just for their own shows anyway. That alone I think is worth it. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for it. Mainly because if it were like HBO, I could afford it, but alot of people I know couldn't. It's nice to not have to buy cable and have a station that's not just local news.

This thread may be pro-/anti- all the way but public broadcasting isn't. I think it's essential that there's a neutral forum of information avaible to everyone. So the taxpayers get the bill? I think it's along the same lines as police cars, ambulances, and libraries. All things I think make having a government at all worth it. Without PBS and speeding tickets.... F' it.. Anarchy!!

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my opinion of homophobia is the same as that of say antisemitism. hate for no good reason and has no place on pbs for balance for the sake of balance. it is invalid and undefendable. so if you think thats somehow unbalanced political sh*t, u are just way out there man.

and no, the politicized content is all commercial corporate media. it is dumbed down partisan hackery which is cheap to produce. and its where invalid viewpoints are put on air just for the sake of balance. it doesn't matter if a guest on a commercial news media show spouts nonsense and false statistics or facts. the anchor or host won't correct it because it costs too much to check and they are too busy trying to fill the other 24 hours of news plus then they can't be accused of bias if they don't even try.

Q?... are you saying that having pro gay programs on taxpayer funded teevee is ok, but a show that promotes ONLY men and women pairing is wrong?

By that token, is it ok to demystify religion on taxpayer funded teevee but not have religous programing on the same station at taxpayers expense? And if one step further... is it ok for the taxpayers to have a pro muslim program but not a pro catholic...??

Is it ok to force taxpayers to foot the bill for stuff they dont agree with... or just some of what they dont agree with... and who gets to decide what the taxpayer should be forced to fund?

Seriously.. i am not trying to be argumentitive, but it seems that a lot of this thread is about pro or anti.. whatever... and it is my opinion that it is either all or nothing. both sides.. pro and anti or nothing. there are loads and loads of outlets for everyone to be heard... i just dont think that taxpayers should be forced to provide a forum.

And my original stance was political, not ethnical.

All of which would be solved by the removal of government funding. Then PBS could air whatever they want to, so long as the viewers support it.

Otherwise, it is absolutely unconsciousable that taxpayers in a democracy should be forced to provide funding for the propaganda for their ideological and political opponents, regardless of right and wrong. And that is exactly what government funding to PBS does, and that is exactly why, so long as PBS receives government funding, there will be more and more government and political interference into its content, regardless of which political faction is in power.
0roo0roo wants his cake and eat it too, and that just ain't gonna happen.

I don't think the funds that come from the gov are forcing PBS to take a political spin. What showes are you talking about?

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
sorry, valid factual information is not propaganda. nova isn't propganda, frontline isn't propaganda, sesame street isn't popaganda. and neither are they political or unbalanced. i've seen plenty of bbc's far more numerous but lower quality "documentaries".. i think i know what unbalanced is.


anyways if the republicans are so worried about finding and fairness. how about taking the red states off the blue state funded federal welfare? the repubs clearly support redistributing blues tate wealth to the red states while claiming they aren't for weath redistributionhttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

and really, we've already seen what trash viewer supported corporate news media has created. its corrupting influence is far worse then any other.

pbs is clearly a public good for all but the bigoted or partisan insane.

its budget is nothing compared to real problems and is simply a diversion from the incompetence and inability to fix the real problems of ss and medicare by the politicians. the repubs have all 3 branches of gov now. who can they blame for not doing anything? no one, the buck stops with them. so they divert by attacking big bird.

Woa woa woa... I don't think Karenmarie was calling PBS propaganda..

Were ya KM?

 

[Icepick]

PBS is the best thing on TV. The commercial channels are owned by wealthy conglomerates whose sole mission in life is to maximize proffit. They're business model is all about catering to the lowest common denominator. It's nice to be able to let the kids watch something on TV where you don't have to worry about them being bombarded with all of the simulated violence. The children's programming is geared more toward stimulating children to get interested in things like science and education.

The commercial media is filled with advertisements that do nothing but attempt to delude people into thinking they need to buy their products. Then they delude attempt to delude people into thinking they need to buy brand X instead of brand Y. It gets very irritating. After a lifetime of watching commercial television I'm actually appreciating PBS. The best thing about it is that the programming is not interrupted by these commercials.

Politically, PBS is probably the most fair and balanced channel anywhere on TV. It is this way because it recieves government funding and contributions by private citizens in the general public. If government funding goes away and PBS has to rely more on funding from big business then you can expect to see the programming become dumbed down and more advertising. If it takes government funding to keep PBS commercial free, balanced, and full of life, then so be it.

Now, I'm not saying everything on other channels is bad either. There are some good shows I watch on the other stations: Battlestar Galactica, CSI, Survivor, etc...

 

[Jadow]

let them die if they can't survive in the free market, they deserve death!

 

[acemcmac]

If there is no PBS, what will the parents who use the TV to babysit their kids set the dial to?

Think of the children. Save PBS.

 

[virtueixi]

WTF they get half a billion dollars in public funding to air shows that cost $100 to produce, and yet they still have those stupid pledge drives.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: acemcmac
If there is no PBS, what will the parents who use the TV to babysit their kids set the dial to?

Think of the children.

that is why there are 4 disney channel and nickalodian and noggin and animal planet , etc etc
not to mention all the DVD's , kid DVD's are like $4

screw PBS, it should be a subscription channel just like HBO

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: icepik
Politically, PBS is probably the most fair and balanced channel anywhere on TV.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Did you ever watch Bill Moyers? The man was practically frothing at the mouth on his "news magazine show" from the time Bush was elected in 2000 to the time he retired.

 

[thraxes]

Right, I want to add my voice into the discussion here.

I have stated several time that I work part-time (next to studying broadcast-engineering) for one of the largest european public broadcasters ( www.zdf.de ). Before the shouting starts concerning irrelevence to an american issue, let me say that the people in the news-centre prefer to work with the PBS opposed to private corporations when doing their reports etc, also we get some programmes from the PBS (aswell as the BBC, Telévision France, Swiss and Austrian public broadcasters).

Now before I started to work at a public broadcasting station I thought they were unnecessary, biased, bulky and inefficient (kinda what some of the people here say of the PBS). Since I started working there and have gained some insight in what they do I stand corrected in the first two points. Unfortunately the bulk and most notably the inefficiency is worse than I imagined - but nevertheless, when viewed in comparison with private networks those are factors that I am prepared to live with.

The reason i say this is mainly due to Gulf War V2.0. During the course of the invasion, I was closely tied in with the news as a studio technician. Working at increadibly odd hours (ever woken up at 2 in the morning to go to work?) I started to appreciate what they were doing. While I was in the studio they a few reports condemning the American military action and then 40 minutes later made more reports condemning Saddam Husseins brutality towards political enemies. This was all eventually shown from tape within 10 minutes of another. I failed to find a private broadcaster that showed both sides of the story. Not CNN, not FOX (which BTW was deemed a waste of bandwidth by a senior engineer but was commended as "The official Presidential Propaganda channel and best source of news for events positive to the US" by our senior news editor) and not Al Jazeera (which earned a similar comment as FOX but in the other direction, if course). Since then I wince now and then when I watch or even help make stuff which is totally unnessecary, but every now and then public broadcasters do have their moments and make something good.

Ask the brits if they would give up their BBC. They pay out of the nose for TV-License fees but they get excellent programming in return. Hell just ask some of the car nuts here, they'd freak out without a regular dose of BBCs "Top Gear"

So with that I feel compelled to say "yes" to public broadcasting and I sincerely hope that PBS gets through this situation without too much damage.