UPDATED: should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daclayman

Golden Member
Sep 27, 2000
1,207
0
76
700,000 sigs now and if you keep pushing F5, the number jumps all over the place....

Maybe Moveon is collecting names/addys for a midterm election spamfest! :beer:
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
big bird = communist


Kill both of them.
IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

same with the military, police, nasa, all federal research and dev, and university/school systems. cut em loose!


Coca-Cola presents Nasa.
Ford Harvard.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Basically PBS has to cave to the Republicans as the Republicans say it's our way or the highway.

6-15-2005 PBS Updates Editorial Standards

WASHINGTON - The Public Broadcasting Service is hiring an ombudsman and revising editorial practices in the face of criticism that its programming has given short shrift to conservative views.

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has specifically accused the show hosted by Bill Moyers of featuring guests hostile to conservative views.

Revisions adopted by the PBS board include a requirement that commentary and opinion be labeled as such, and that program producers offer more information on how they gathered material and made their editorial decisions.

PBS also said it would hire an ombudsman to review controversial programs.

PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise that serves the nation's 348 public noncommercial television stations, reaching nearly 90 million people each week.
Crying that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Boohoo :roll:

See my post above. If PBS wants to keep feeding at the public tit, then public sentiment is going to force its programming. If they turn to viewer contributions alone for their funding, then they don't have to worry about government interference, and its programming will be influenced solely by the desires of its viewers.
Otherwise, what you're crying about above is completely normal. You want a democracy, you got it. You want government-sponsored TV programming, then expect it to air what the democratically-elected government dictates. Get a clue for once in your life, eh?
Civil servants have a right to their opinions and they are 100% funded by the federal goverment.

Besides, the duly elected goverment doesn't represent the whole country. This isn't like it's a matter of national security. PBS/NPR is funded by ALL the people. I think it's you who needs to get a clue.
Read Dave's post again. His complaint is basically that PBS is being forced to be more balanced instead of its previous/current decidedly liberal slant. In other words, if PBS is being funded by ALL the people, then it should cater its programming to ALL the people, and not just a minority percentage. This is the price that PBS must pay in return for its government funding.

As to your comments regarding civil servants, of course they have a right to their own opinions. Off duty. On the job, they are expected to work within the law.

That's interesting, but so far all we have is your opinion. I assume you have some sort of evidence that the majority of people think PBS's programming is slanted in a bad way? My guess would be the majority of people either like PBS or simply aren't interested in the type of programming offered (as in, they want shows with sex and violence or something). I have an extremely hard time believing that the majority of people would agree that PBS needs to slant its programming more to the right.

But I don't know, that's why I didn't go throwing around arguments based on that idea. I assume you do, please share.

yea, it isn't slanted. unless you think anything not promoting homophobia and christian theocracy in america liberal:p sometimes there are no two sides. you don't put on a flat earther against a scientist with proof that the earth is round just for the sake of balance. thats how normal media works these days. supposed balance for the sake of balance.
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Actually, this is tough to answer. 30 years back, there was a need for PBS. But now with A&E, the History Channel, and others, the topics PBS provided for back in the three major network days are provided (and apparently profitably) by others.

PBS needs to do another series with the impact COSMOS had to save themselves.


.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
Actually, this is tough to answer. 30 years back, there was a need for PBS. But now with A&E, the History Channel, and others, the topics PBS provided for back in the three major network days are provided (and apparently profitably) by others.

PBS needs to do another series with the impact COSMOS had to save themselves.
.

The difference is that the PBS broadcasts those programs over the airwaves providing a very needed educational television source to the poor. All the channels you listed are subscription based.

There is no consitutional mandate for PBS or the CPB but until the department of education and all the other programs that the federal piggy shouldn't be doing are gone I'm going to oppose the cutting of fudning to the CPB simply because it does so much good.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
According to a email I got from moveon yesterday:

"Over 820,000 people have signed the petition so far'

I'd bet they'e to a million names by now.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
As stated in the repost in OT:

Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: tec699
We need to cut social programs for old people. If you didn't save up a nice pension in your prime than why should we (the tax payers) have to support you?

We need to cut down on social programs, but completely getting rid of things like Social Security just isn't feasable right now. Solving that will take a generation or two of transition into private investment and savings.

The money that's given to schools needs to be budgetted and spent better by the public school system.

Is NASA really that important? I don't think it's important enough to get such a freaking huge budget alotment by the feds. Cut back fed spending on NASA and give it to schools.

PBS needs to gain more private funding.

 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,663
4
81
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...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
According to a email I got from moveon yesterday:

"Over 820,000 people have signed the petition so far'

I'd bet they'e to a million names by now.



Have them all send in $400, problem solved.
 

Icepick

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2004
3,663
4
81
PBS and NPR are the only two news outlets where you can hear more than just 5 second sound bytes of politicians' speeches. They'll actually play 15-20 minutes of unedited content. It's the only media outlet where you can really find out what's going on in politics. Public broadcasting on both the radio and TV are the best sources of news we have. It's important for a democracy to have access to unfiltered news where only the facts are presented, not just some overpaid reporter's 3 minute interpretation of events.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: icepik
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...

i dont watch much pbs (i listen to a lot of NPR but i like the c-span stuff. tends to have a pace i can handle at the end of the day) but i have to say that i argee about the balance. there seems to be this thought that "balance" in news means a person from both sides saying "im right" rather than just a list of facts. and while i agree that anyone being interviewed has a political agenda, i think that the quality of people generally featured on public broadcasting is 100% pro. meaning they can seperate their personal feelings from the information that is there.
at the same time, opinion-based shows on public broadcasting are much more focused, much more civil and even the most heated and passionate people treat each other and their differing opinions with respect. rare are the scoffs and eye-rolling that goes on in those studios. i have hardly heard anyone even raise their voice or talk over each other during the programs.
 

da loser

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,037
0
0
if anyone watched the newshour, they said large markets will not be effected, since their percentage of public funds is small. however small towns will close down.

i actually agree with the conservatives that some of the shows have a definate slant. npr is worse than pbs. on pbs you HAD shows like NOW. however, their shows by and large are not slanted. frontline is on the edge, some of their shows have a liberal bias. but that's how documentaries have always been imo.

i could see those shows being changed. however, pbs' other shows are great. nature, science, nova were great. pbs newshour is also better than any other news show. the problem is all those shows demand people pay attention rather than the ten second spots, due to commercials. the same reason why hbo has better shows than network tv.

also, the kids programs are bar none, the best.

i would hope that if they do cut funding, large corporations would increase their donations. i would bet that many of the financial firms would donate large sums, simply for naustalgia of louis rheukeyser sp?
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
According to a email I got from moveon yesterday:

"Over 820,000 people have signed the petition so far'

I'd bet they'e to a million names by now.



Have them all send in $400, problem solved.


how about you fund the iraq war that way. and perhaps bush's "faith based intiatives" too. at about 400 dollars a person you'd need only about 445million republicans to fund the war so far.

and well.... how many republicans are there boy?

http://costofwar.com/



-site lists comparison costs of other programs.


such as Instead, we could have hired
3,091,297
additional public school teachers for one year.

Instead, we could have provided
8,647,332
students four-year scholarships at public universities .

Instead, we could have built
1,606,119
additional housing units .

Instead, we could have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for
17
years.

Instead, we could have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for
59
years


nstead, we could have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for
7
years.

Instead, we could have insured
106,813,030
children for one year.


Instead, we could have paid for
23,626,198
children to attend a year of Head Start.

now i'm not necessarily against the war. just pointing out that quibbling over the budget of pbs is just political not rational.
 

13rian

Senior member
Feb 26, 2004
254
0
0
Originally posted by: da loser
cropped
i actually agree with the conservatives that some of the shows have a definate slant. npr is worse than pbs. on pbs you HAD shows like NOW. however, their shows by and large are not slanted. frontline is on the edge, some of their shows have a liberal bias. but that's how documentaries have always been imo.

i could see those shows being changed. however, pbs' other shows are great. nature, science, nova were great. pbs newshour is also better than any other news show. the problem is all those shows demand people pay attention rather than the ten second spots, due to commercials. the same reason why hbo has better shows than network tv.

also, the kids programs are bar none, the best.

I pretty much agree and I want to add that I agree with other people saying republicans are just feeling threatened by all these documentaries dealing with today's issue.

Ex. of excellent an documentary
Also, I very recently watched (last night), a pbs documentary called POV with a small biography of a high school girl who lives in the heart of Texas in a republican town with republican parents and is Christian, but from her experience, she chose to be a democrat based on the issues around her.

How she analyzed her beliefs and values, especially about what the bible says, really reflected how I thought most people, basically republican Christians, would criticize some of the controversial issues of today, although it depends on how literal it's taken or interpreted.

Documentaries like these basically are impossible to find in any other source of media with both the organization of how it's presented, indepth detail, and the credibility of facts and sources.
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
NPR/PBS is, other than CSPAN, the ONLY fair and balanced news source within the USA. This is yet another piece of the Radical Fundimentalist Christians puzzle. How often have the Radical Fundimentalist Christians decried thier own Moderate Republikanz when they have been on PBS as liberals? If your in the middle your a liberal? How often do we hear that on this BBS?

Next up ladies and gentlemen, Education - Yet another study was looked into about the Airforce Academy and whether the Radical Fundimentalist Christians were wrong in speaking to their subordinants about proper Radical Fundimentalist Christian views.... Kansas is going to be the first state to teach their children that the Threory of Evolution is bunk and replace it with Intelligent Design, Florida is fighting over state funding of religion based pre-schools. Can you imagine NOVA presenting how the world was created in 7 days from a scientific standpoint? Oh.... I think they did that already. To liberal my a$$




SHUX
 

Shuxclams

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
9,286
15
81
http://mediamatters.org/items/200506220009


Tomlinson said CPB president approved, signed contract to monitor Moyers show

The Times reported that, in a May 24 letter to Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND), Tomlinson stated he saw no need to consult the CPB board of directors about hiring an outside consultant to monitor bias on PBS' NOW with Bill Moyers, because, he wrote, the contract was "approved and signed by then CPB President, Kathleen Cox."

But the Times reported on June 22 that a copy of the contract obtained by the paper shows that Tomlinson signed it on February 3, 2004 -- five months before Cox became CPB president. Tomlinson declined to comment to the Times on the apparent discrepancy.

CPB paid the consultant, Fred Mann, $14,170 to monitor bias on NOW. Mann worked for 20 years at the National Journalism Center, an organization founded by the American Conservative Union and M. Stanton Evans, a conservative columnist, that counts among the alumni of its training programs Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter.

In a June 20 speech on the Senate floor, Dorgan said that he had received the "raw data" Mann provided Tomlinson and was "struck and disappointed" by the methods he used in conducting the study. For example, Mann labeled certain segments of the show "anti-Bush," "anti-DeLay" and "anticorporation." In addition, Mann classified all the guests appearing on NOW as either "conservative" or "liberal," labeling Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as "liberal." Dorgan inferred that Hagel had "apparently said something that wasn't completely in sync with the White House" and concluded: "That is not the prism through which someone should evaluate whether something makes sense."










BLAH!











SHUX
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
The answers: Yes, and probably.

NPR is a biased left-wing liberal mouthpiece. Always has been, only gotten worse the last few years.

PBS is full of left-wing liberal zealots too. But not AS bad as NPR. I'd take some funding.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
The answers: Yes, and probably.

NPR is a biased left-wing liberal mouthpiece. Always has been, only gotten worse the last few years.

PBS is full of left-wing liberal zealots too. But not AS bad as NPR. I'd take some funding.

prove it. how are shows like sesame street, nova, nature, frontline, scientific american...liberal zealots?