Discussion:
pbs?
(too old to reply)
kay & wand
2004-08-13 12:39:39 UTC
Permalink
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?

is it government owned?

jim lehrer syndicated?

what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state broadcaster.

is it cable or free to air?

many thanks in advance,

leslie
Larry J.
2004-08-13 14:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Waiving the right to remain silent, "kay & wand"
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
Not very well.
Post by kay & wand
is it government owned?
No, but it's inefficiency and bad management would lead you to
believe that it is. PBS gets something like 15 percent of its
funding from the gov't. (Maybe less than that...)
Post by kay & wand
jim lehrer syndicated?
Dunno. I think just PBS.
Post by kay & wand
what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state
broadcaster.
Boring.
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
Free broadcast, as well as inclusion in most basic cable packages.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
Send an e-mail to: avfreelancers-***@topica.com
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
Richard Crowley
2004-08-13 14:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry J.
Waiving the right to remain silent, "kay & wand"
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
Not very well.
Post by kay & wand
is it government owned?
No, but it's inefficiency and bad management would
lead you to believe that it is.
LOL! :-)) Mr. Jandro nailed it!
nappy
2004-08-13 14:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
is it government owned?
not owned but funded, by our tax dollars
Post by kay & wand
jim lehrer syndicated?
IS he syndicated? I don't think PBS synidcates
Post by kay & wand
what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state broadcaster.
boring m mostly liberal tilt,any NEWS shows are COMPLETELY biased, some
shows for kids mostly politically correct papf.. again with liberal left
bias. I have been watching PBS since the sixties mostly out of curiosity and
now I have a better idea of why PBS should NOT be funded by our taxes. Tax
dollars should go towards neutral entities and PBS has had its hands deeply
on one side political and social argument in the US for decades..
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..
Post by kay & wand
many thanks in advance,
leslie
Richard Crowley
2004-08-13 14:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
is it government owned?
not owned but funded, by our tax dollars
Post by kay & wand
jim lehrer syndicated?
IS he syndicated? I don't think PBS synidcates
Post by kay & wand
what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state broadcaster.
boring m mostly liberal tilt,any NEWS shows are COMPLETELY biased, some
shows for kids mostly politically correct papf.. again with liberal left
bias. I have been watching PBS since the sixties mostly out of curiosity and
now I have a better idea of why PBS should NOT be funded by our taxes. Tax
dollars should go towards neutral entities and PBS has had its hands deeply
on one side political and social argument in the US for decades..
AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)
Post by nappy
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..
It is also FTA on satellite. Check Lyngsat.
nappy
2004-08-13 14:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by nappy
boring m mostly liberal tilt,any NEWS shows are COMPLETELY biased, some
shows for kids mostly politically correct papf.. again with liberal left
bias. I have been watching PBS since the sixties mostly out of curiosity
and
Post by nappy
now I have a better idea of why PBS should NOT be funded by our taxes. Tax
dollars should go towards neutral entities and PBS has had its hands
deeply
Post by nappy
on one side political and social argument in the US for decades..
AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)
LOL!!!
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-13 15:42:39 UTC
Permalink
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure make
sure you get exposed to all points of view there.

I know some people who consider CNN and USA Today to be "liberal". Some
of us liberals think that's hysterical, but politics is obviously highly
relative.

So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of "balance"
and please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his little hole.
Post by Richard Crowley
Post by nappy
nt in the US for decades..
AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)
Post by nappy
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..
It is also FTA on satellite. Check Lyngsat.
nappy
2004-08-13 19:03:24 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Van Dyk" <***@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message news:***@christian-horizons.org...
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure make sure you get exposed to all points of view there.

I know you won't believe this Bill, but FOX is far less biased than CNN or KNN as it should be called. HOw the left likes to bash FOX... and they often get to do it on FOX, and then go whine about it. Assholes..






I know some people who consider CNN and USA Today to be "liberal". Some of us liberals think that's hysterical, but politics is obviously highly relative.



NO.. MOST people KNOW that CNN is biased... ever seen CNN INternational? Probably not...







So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of "balance" and please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his little hole.


Sure as soon as the last shovel of dirt is thrown on Carville & Begala's GRAVE.. Come on bill.. Novak is probably the ONLY conservative on CNN.. Get with it man.. You;re so brainwashed you don't even know who is doing it to you.


AND EASE UP ON THE DANG HTML.






Richard Crowley wrote:

nt in the US for decades..

AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)

is it cable or free to air?
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..

It is also FTA on satellite. Check Lyngsat.
Seattle Eric
2004-08-13 20:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure
make sure you get exposed to all points of view there.
I know you won't believe this Bill, but FOX is far less biased than
CNN or KNN as it should be called.
<eye roll> Oh yes, so they keep telling us. I guess it MUST be true.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of
"balance" and please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his
little hole.
Ah yes: the "Douchebag of Liberty". Shouldn't the law and order people
be throwing his ass into jail for clear violations of that esponiage
exposure law?
nappy
2004-08-13 20:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seattle Eric
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure
make sure you get exposed to all points of view there.
I know you won't believe this Bill, but FOX is far less biased than
CNN or KNN as it should be called.
<eye roll> Oh yes, so they keep telling us. I guess it MUST be true.
I have no problem using my own experience to make the decision for myself.
Post by Seattle Eric
Post by Bill Van Dyk
So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of
"balance" and please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his
little hole.
Ah yes: the "Douchebag of Liberty". Shouldn't the law and order people
be throwing his ass into jail for clear violations of that esponiage
exposure law?
No, he's a journalist.Whoever gave him her name 'may' be in trouble but the
case is not what Wilson cranked it up to be and there are a lot more caveats
to it than you've been led to believe.. I know you by now, Seattle.. You're
not about to spend time listeneing or reading anything that doesn't come
from moveOn.org or The Nation.. I figure its either the amount of drugs
consumed in Seattle or the Rain.. ;)
TonyP
2004-08-14 01:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure make
sure you get exposed to all points of view there.
They, like CNN are not supported by my hard earned tax dollars.
MSu1049321
2004-08-14 02:13:15 UTC
Permalink
to the patient Aussie that made the original post:

g'day;-)


As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of PBS
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers"). Corporate donations
and sponsorships fill the gap between the ever-shrinking government subsidy and
shrinking pool of citizen subscribers. You can't run "normal" commercials on
PBS (that may change soon, there's a movement to loosen up the rules about
this), but you can pay for your company to be "mentioned", to "sponsor" a
program.... this is pretty low-key compared to regular American commercial TV.
You get one soft and fuzzy 30-second plug at the top of the program, and one at
the end. No interruptions of the show. A famous example of this used to be
"Masterpiece Theater", for years, "Sponsored by a grant from Mobil
Corporation". The running gag from this used to be that PBS then stood for
"Petroleum Broadcasting System". But since M.T. was always pretty much
historical costume dramas, there wasn't much chance to add-in any pro-petroleum
bias to the programming. I say, if you don't like the commercial influence
creeping in, STFU and pay in some pledge money or something.

I think most of the neocon hooting and hollering against PBS involves the
news/documentary programming, shows like "Frontline", "POV" and maybe "The
American Experience", and smaller one-shot docs that get aired here and there
on the network. Shows that do have a point of view, one not usually in step
with the government line. Often, they uncover another side of a debate, which
I find a helpful counterbalance. Very often, you find great stories that are
never aired anywhere but PBS and NPR.

As to the daily schedule, at least in my area, a weekday may start early in the
pre-dawn hours with taped math and english classes/tutoring, for high school
thru early college level, and for folks who need remedial help. These are run
in conjunction with thru-the-mail coursebooks. Also, the sidebands of many PBS
stations are used to broadcast books and newspaper/ magazine readers for the
blind, thru special decoders. As more folks wake up, you get mostly
children's programming, educational cartoons like "Arthur", "Clifford the Big
Red Dog", "Sesame Street", etc.from about 8 till 4. Late afternoons, after the
kiddy block, you get the dry and neutral "Nightly Business Report", and Jim
Lehrer's Newshour. Into the evening, you get arts programs, science shows like
"Nova" (aka "Horizon"),or "Scientific American Frontiers", or a "National
Geographic" special. (that lost one is more rare now the nat geo has a cable
channel of it's own) One of the afore-mentioned docs, and/or some music
programming: symphony, jazz, opera, bluegrass, the multi-genre "Austin City
Limits", etc. late at night they ofen play old Monty Python shows, Fawlty
Towers, Are You Being Served, Doctor Who, HitchHiker's guide to The Galaxy, The
Prisoner... basically, brit sci-fi or brit comedies. If there is a national
news event like the political conventions, or the impeachment of the president,
or state of the union address, etc. it gets gavel-to-gavel coverage, without
interruption or commentary, until it's over. Usually, a panel of NPR and PBS
newspeople will discuss what's going on, interview some guests, fill the time
slot to the top or bottom of the hour. This was very useful just recently at
the Democratic national Convention coverage, where outstanding keynote speaker,
Illinois state senator Barack Obama, made perhaps the best speech I've heard
since Kennedy.... and the major three US network stations all missed it, going
instead to sports or comdy or 'reality' shows. C-SPAN and PBS gave it to us
live, without commercial breaks or commentators handicapping over the top of
what was being said.

So, to recap: educational programming, cultural "enrichment", unblinking
presentation of essential government activity...

Yeah, Larry, real radical, foaming at the mouth stuff pinko commie shite there,
hide your children! Light the torches!

What PBS does mostly is provide a sheltered place for programming of many types
that just isn't commercial enough to survive the American broadcasting
money-machine, but the folks in power think is useful and uplifting to have
anyway. Stuff that has some kind of intrinsic value for the extra depth and
color it brings to the airwaves, that has some kind of generally agreed upon
"social value"... it's the plate of green veggies you didn't like to eat as a
kid, though they were "good for you". Unlike the Beeb and NHK, you aren't
forced to support it directly, except by that federal subsidy that some folks
get so cranked up about. Honestly, it's like a tenth of one penny on your tax
dollar, if that, and shrinking every year; of all the obscene waste our feds do
in our name every day, surely THIS is not the first thing on the list to carp
about.

Of course, everybody loves to bitch and joke about the pledge drives, telethons
the stations do several times a year to get people to call in and pledge
subscriptions. To try to make these beg a thons less annoying, they will
usually pick out a really good movie or pay per view concert type event to hold
your attention, and interrupt it every 20 minutes or so with a five to ten
minute pledge break, also hawking items like coffee mugs, tote bags, VHS copies
of the show you were just now taping, etc. Afer a while, you pledge just to get
them to STFU and resume the good programming. It's a lot of bother , but if
you watch the shows for free without paying, I don't see why you have the
authority to complain. You could always switch over to the commercial TV show
where the five mostly naked people trapped for a month in a house full of
cameras have to eat bugs while being lit on fire to see who will marry the
hunchback, or whatever they call it.

Is there something similar in ozz?
Gary P
2004-08-14 11:23:57 UTC
Permalink
--
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of PBS
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers"). Corporate donations
and sponsorships fill the gap between the ever-shrinking government subsidy and
shrinking pool of citizen subscribers.
SNIP

Thanks for an intelligent and informative post in the midst of all the
right-wing bullshit here.

PBS usually seems to me more intelligent and better informed than the
commercial channels. Maybe what annoys the Fox-lovers is that intelligent
and better informed so often adds up to a view somewhere to the Left of
theirs.
Bill Fright
2004-08-14 17:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Well done MSu...

I wrote a private Email to Leslie that was similar but less eloquent
then your post. I just wanted to avoid the political crap that had
already started up here. I must say I love the way you wrote your
description.

Last night I directed the Lance Armstrong Celebration here in Austin for
the same folks that hire me to direct the Austin City limits Festival.
It is always about the quality with PBS. Sadly that was not mentioned by
the earlier replies which just talked politics. I don't think there is a
tougher broadcast spec sheet in existence than the one PBS uses.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post.

Bill
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of PBS
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers"). Corporate donations
and sponsorships fill the gap between the ever-shrinking government subsidy and
shrinking pool of citizen subscribers. You can't run "normal" commercials on
PBS (that may change soon, there's a movement to loosen up the rules about
this), but you can pay for your company to be "mentioned", to "sponsor" a
program.... this is pretty low-key compared to regular American commercial TV.
You get one soft and fuzzy 30-second plug at the top of the program, and one at
the end. No interruptions of the show. A famous example of this used to be
"Masterpiece Theater", for years, "Sponsored by a grant from Mobil
Corporation". The running gag from this used to be that PBS then stood for
"Petroleum Broadcasting System". But since M.T. was always pretty much
historical costume dramas, there wasn't much chance to add-in any pro-petroleum
bias to the programming. I say, if you don't like the commercial influence
creeping in, STFU and pay in some pledge money or something.
I think most of the neocon hooting and hollering against PBS involves the
news/documentary programming, shows like "Frontline", "POV" and maybe "The
American Experience", and smaller one-shot docs that get aired here and there
on the network. Shows that do have a point of view, one not usually in step
with the government line. Often, they uncover another side of a debate, which
I find a helpful counterbalance. Very often, you find great stories that are
never aired anywhere but PBS and NPR.
As to the daily schedule, at least in my area, a weekday may start early in the
pre-dawn hours with taped math and english classes/tutoring, for high school
thru early college level, and for folks who need remedial help. These are run
in conjunction with thru-the-mail coursebooks. Also, the sidebands of many PBS
stations are used to broadcast books and newspaper/ magazine readers for the
blind, thru special decoders. As more folks wake up, you get mostly
children's programming, educational cartoons like "Arthur", "Clifford the Big
Red Dog", "Sesame Street", etc.from about 8 till 4. Late afternoons, after the
kiddy block, you get the dry and neutral "Nightly Business Report", and Jim
Lehrer's Newshour. Into the evening, you get arts programs, science shows like
"Nova" (aka "Horizon"),or "Scientific American Frontiers", or a "National
Geographic" special. (that lost one is more rare now the nat geo has a cable
channel of it's own) One of the afore-mentioned docs, and/or some music
programming: symphony, jazz, opera, bluegrass, the multi-genre "Austin City
Limits", etc. late at night they ofen play old Monty Python shows, Fawlty
Towers, Are You Being Served, Doctor Who, HitchHiker's guide to The Galaxy, The
Prisoner... basically, brit sci-fi or brit comedies. If there is a national
news event like the political conventions, or the impeachment of the president,
or state of the union address, etc. it gets gavel-to-gavel coverage, without
interruption or commentary, until it's over. Usually, a panel of NPR and PBS
newspeople will discuss what's going on, interview some guests, fill the time
slot to the top or bottom of the hour. This was very useful just recently at
the Democratic national Convention coverage, where outstanding keynote speaker,
Illinois state senator Barack Obama, made perhaps the best speech I've heard
since Kennedy.... and the major three US network stations all missed it, going
instead to sports or comdy or 'reality' shows. C-SPAN and PBS gave it to us
live, without commercial breaks or commentators handicapping over the top of
what was being said.
So, to recap: educational programming, cultural "enrichment", unblinking
presentation of essential government activity...
Yeah, Larry, real radical, foaming at the mouth stuff pinko commie shite there,
hide your children! Light the torches!
What PBS does mostly is provide a sheltered place for programming of many types
that just isn't commercial enough to survive the American broadcasting
money-machine, but the folks in power think is useful and uplifting to have
anyway. Stuff that has some kind of intrinsic value for the extra depth and
color it brings to the airwaves, that has some kind of generally agreed upon
"social value"... it's the plate of green veggies you didn't like to eat as a
kid, though they were "good for you". Unlike the Beeb and NHK, you aren't
forced to support it directly, except by that federal subsidy that some folks
get so cranked up about. Honestly, it's like a tenth of one penny on your tax
dollar, if that, and shrinking every year; of all the obscene waste our feds do
in our name every day, surely THIS is not the first thing on the list to carp
about.
Of course, everybody loves to bitch and joke about the pledge drives, telethons
the stations do several times a year to get people to call in and pledge
subscriptions. To try to make these beg a thons less annoying, they will
usually pick out a really good movie or pay per view concert type event to hold
your attention, and interrupt it every 20 minutes or so with a five to ten
minute pledge break, also hawking items like coffee mugs, tote bags, VHS copies
of the show you were just now taping, etc. Afer a while, you pledge just to get
them to STFU and resume the good programming. It's a lot of bother , but if
you watch the shows for free without paying, I don't see why you have the
authority to complain. You could always switch over to the commercial TV show
where the five mostly naked people trapped for a month in a house full of
cameras have to eat bugs while being lit on fire to see who will marry the
hunchback, or whatever they call it.
Is there something similar in ozz?
Moving Vision
2004-08-14 17:26:20 UTC
Permalink
An excellent reply from MSu to the foaming at the mouth brigade and the
other knuckle scraping 'good ole boys'. It'll take them a while to find
a chink in such a morally unassailable testimonial for why America
should treasure it's PBS service.
--
John Lubran
nappy
2004-08-15 00:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
I think most of the neocon hooting and hollering against PBS involves the
news/documentary programming, shows like "Frontline", "POV" and maybe ...
Now that just makes my point. If you don't agree with PBS you get a label
Post by MSu1049321
Yeah, Larry, real radical, foaming at the mouth stuff pinko commie shite there,
hide your children! Light the torches!
Again, to a PBS'er the very thought there may be a bias problem there
yields.. mockery.
Post by MSu1049321
What PBS does mostly is provide a sheltered place for programming of many types
that just isn't commercial enough to survive the American broadcasting
money-machine, but the folks in power think is useful and uplifting to have
anyway. Stuff that has some kind of intrinsic value for the extra depth and
color it brings to the airwaves, that has some kind of generally agreed upon
"social value"... it's the plate of green veggies you didn't like to eat as a
kid, though they were "good for you".
Again.. they think anything they put on is good for you. Even though it may
be erroneous, politcal, or just plain boring as hell. Which is why they can
not survive ..

PBS has competition in the commercial arena that seems to be doing just
fine. TLC, Discovery, and a thousand other channels that cover the same
topics, albiewt with more entertainment value..


Unlike the Beeb and NHK, you aren't
Post by MSu1049321
forced to support it directly, except by that federal subsidy that some folks
get so cranked up about. Honestly, it's like a tenth of one penny on your tax
dollar, if that, and shrinking every year; of all the obscene waste our feds do
in our name every day, surely THIS is not the first thing on the list to carp
about.
There is absolutely no reason for PBS not to brave the real world instead of
hiding behind my money.

I can think of a million other places for that money to go. If PBS is so
friggin good, let 'em fight for their money like everyone else. Truth is,
PBS is more arrogant than entertaining.

And that's the news.
MSu1049321
2004-08-15 03:41:08 UTC
Permalink
"nappy" said:

<< Again, to a PBS'er the very thought there may be a bias problem there
yields.. mockery.>>

I mock because your argument sounded ridiculous to me. Not you personally, your
argument.

I have found no program, viewed critically, on PBS that I didn't think was
pretty even-handed in presenting two and sometimes three sides to a particular
issue, unless maybe it was one of those "personal rememberances" type things.
Many of the shows on PBS cover issues that are addressed nowhere else on
commercial TV in America. I saw PBS shows that bothered me a bit... "Shtettl"
was one such. I'm Polish by heritage, and the documentary was unforgiving in
it's raw look at anti-semitism in Poland during the war, and it showed that
some of that, sadly has not changed, probably can't change until that
generation has all passed away and younger, more "open" minds take over the
country. I didn't like to see it, had been sheltered from it to a great extent
growing up, was ashamed it was factual, but I didn't go around saying it was
some sort of zionist propaganda plot or something. There were good and bad
people then as there are now. What nappy sees as a political "bias" is I
think filtered thru his perceptions and personal beliefs, as my perceptions are
filtered by my personal frame of reference. It's as "biased" as the value
judgements I choose to apply to it. Maybe if you could cite some specific
programming examples (just a short paragraph you disagree with would do, I
think, no need to go page after page), we could try to analyze what you think
is "biased" about it.
How biased can PBS be against the government anyway, when they are funding
PBS?

Nappy again:
<< they think anything they put on is good for you. Even though it may
be erroneous, politcal, or just plain boring as hell. Which is why they can
not survive ..
PBS has competition in the commercial arena that seems to be doing just
fine. TLC, Discovery, and a thousand other channels that cover the same
topics, albiet with more entertainment value..
There is absolutely no reason for PBS not to brave the real world instead of
hiding behind my money.
I can think of a million other places for that money to go. If PBS is so
friggin good, let 'em fight for their money like everyone else. Truth is,
PBS is more arrogant than entertaining.
Erroneous, you'll have to prove. Political, certainly, as far as there is lots
of programming that looks at political issues. Aside from the Sunday-morning
public affairs "ghetto" of commercial TV, are you saying there's anything like
enough coverage of the political process on American TV that people can
understand?
And as for not entertaining, I dunno, maybe my tastes are more eclectic than
yours: I can listen to and appreciate many different arts type programs, even
if I don't go out of my way to lsten to Wagner marathons or Thelonius Monk
marathons or (shudder) bluegrass or rap/hip-hop music... I can appreciate
something in most any genre that's obviously executed with skill and artistry.
I look at art I don't understand, and sometimes find I like it. But I would
never have found it had there not been a place for me to find it AT. Like PBS.

Nap says PBS should take it's chances like any commercial station.

I hear this Adam-Smith-like argument for the valuation and competition of
programming a lot. Instead of the "invisible hand", it's the "invisible
remote". The idea that all programming can and *should* "duke it out" for the
right to be seen and heard based on some majority of viewership. That only what
is popular is good or of value. We see how well this has worked in commercial
broadcast television in this country. A lot of crap is popular. E! channel on
cable seems to do well broadcasting lots of soft-core porn for underage men to
wank over because mom and dad locked out the hardcore channels on the cable
box. It's the only
explanation for Howard Stern's TV show and the "Wild on" and "calendar shoot"
series there. A lot of quality stuff is not "popular". Cable is no help: look
at the basic cable version of Discovery Channel: When it started, it was very
similar to PBS programming, but has now evolved into mostly a "lifestyle"
channel. How much "learning" do we really get from three different
motorcycle-building shows, a couple dating/relationship/wedding shows, three
or four (can't keep track) home or garden remodeling makeover shows, and lots
of forensic crime solving shows and a few techno-gadget shopping showcases...
all on one channel, and there are several that are copying this formula to a
lesser or greater extent. As long as the venue is "commercial", measuring
success by ratings and advertising, it will always be thus. PBS short-circuits
this madness, by putting on what their management and advisors think is
valuable, whether or not it's "commercial". Like classic clothing that's not
this years hot/next year's not/ throw-away coture'.

And while we're at it, I find it a refeshingly "democratic" way to go. Just as
our Constitution has protections for the minority against a "tyranny of the
majority", PBS programing, for good or bad, keeps a place open for programming
no one else has the guts to put on, stuff that will never make them rich
because it's not "popular". But that enriches all of us.

Cable's so-called "variety" and "diversity" of programming is a very recent
phenomenon: only in the last decade or so has it really started to cater to the
"niche" audiences previously ONLY served by PBS. Does this mean it's outlived
it's usefulness, that the torch has been passed? I give you my TLC channel
example as the reason it is not yet that time.

Nappy, your argument of 'arrogance' on PBS's part deserves more detailed
explanation. What DID they do to you to piss you off so? Hawk one tote bag too
many? As a child, were you perhaps abused by some guy using a fuzzy puppet?
Terminal fear of cardigan sweaters and French cooking shows? Hate Wagner?
What?;-)
nappy
2004-08-15 14:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
<< Again, to a PBS'er the very thought there may be a bias problem there
yields.. mockery.>>
I mock because your argument sounded ridiculous to me. Not you personally, your
argument.
I have found no program, viewed critically, on PBS that I didn't think was
pretty even-handed in presenting two and sometimes three sides to a particular
issue, unless maybe it was one of those "personal rememberances" type things.
Many of the shows on PBS cover issues that are addressed nowhere else on
commercial TV in America. I saw PBS shows that bothered me a bit... "Shtettl"
was one such. I'm Polish by heritage, and the documentary was unforgiving in
it's raw look at anti-semitism in Poland during the war, and it showed that
some of that, sadly has not changed, probably can't change until that
generation has all passed away and younger, more "open" minds take over the
country. I didn't like to see it, had been sheltered from it to a great extent
growing up, was ashamed it was factual, but I didn't go around saying it was
some sort of zionist propaganda plot or something. There were good and bad
people then as there are now. What nappy sees as a political "bias" is I
think filtered thru his perceptions and personal beliefs, as my perceptions are
filtered by my personal frame of reference.\
You are basically saying that every thing is relaitve here.. I disagree..
There is a difference between black and white.
News Hour with Lehrer is just one example of an excessively biased left wing
nutcase. But it permiates all of their programming.. You are convinced that
PBS is what it set out to be so you may be unable to see it.
Post by MSu1049321
How biased can PBS be against the government anyway, when they are funding
PBS?
Come on man.. what kind of silly question is that? I don't think you would
offer that PBS is a government mouthpiece .. NPR either. ?

Oddly, it is usually the fringe groups getting Gov funding that propagate
anti-American, anti-Government media. Mainly because viewpoits on the other
side are popular enough to make it in the marketplace. PBS is a continuation
school for those who never wanted to leave college. Politically.
Post by MSu1049321
Erroneous, you'll have to prove. Political, certainly, as far as there is lots
of programming that looks at political issues. Aside from the
Sunday-morning
Post by MSu1049321
public affairs "ghetto" of commercial TV, are you saying there's anything like
enough coverage of the political process on American TV that people can
understand?
Ghetto? Again you are exhibitng typical 'PBS' arrogance. You're saying that
the Sunday Morning talk shows , some of which have been on for decades and
routinely interview the leaders and giants of the political world, are a
ghetto? That's sounds like jealousy..
Post by MSu1049321
And as for not entertaining, I dunno, maybe my tastes are more eclectic than
yours: I can listen to and appreciate many different arts type programs, even
if I don't go out of my way to lsten to Wagner marathons or Thelonius Monk
marathons or (shudder) bluegrass or rap/hip-hop music... I can appreciate
something in most any genre that's obviously executed with skill and artistry.
I look at art I don't understand, and sometimes find I like it. But I would
never have found it had there not been a place for me to find it AT. Like PBS.
EVERYTHING on PBS is vailable in the real world. Get off the couch.
Post by MSu1049321
Nap says PBS should take it's chances like any commercial station.
I hear this Adam-Smith-like argument for the valuation and competition of
programming a lot. Instead of the "invisible hand", it's the "invisible
remote". The idea that all programming can and *should* "duke it out" for the
right to be seen and heard based on some majority of viewership. That only what
is popular is good or of value. We see how well this has worked in commercial
broadcast television in this country. A lot of crap is popular. E! channel on
cable seems to do well broadcasting lots of soft-core porn for underage men to
wank over because mom and dad locked out the hardcore channels on the cable
box. It's the only .....
yak yak (damn, man.. you post way too long...)

Yes, they should most definately be unfunded and compete like everyone else
does. Or drop political programming completely.
Post by MSu1049321
And while we're at it, I find it a refeshingly "democratic" way to go. Just as
our Constitution has protections for the minority against a "tyranny of the
majority", PBS programing, for good or bad, keeps a place open for programming
no one else has the guts to put on, stuff that will never make them rich
because it's not "popular". But that enriches all of us.
No,,,, that's completely wrong. selecting one forum, PBS, over any other
forum is not democracy..

And the thought that PBS airs stuyff no one else would put on is ludicrous.
There is competition for PBS in the commercial arena now.
Post by MSu1049321
Cable's so-called "variety" and "diversity" of programming is a very recent
phenomenon: only in the last decade or so has it really started to cater to the
"niche" audiences previously ONLY served by PBS. Does this mean it's outlived
it's usefulness, that the torch has been passed?
Torch? Look PBS is NOT the chrome god you make it out to be..,

Yes.. it has run its course..
Post by MSu1049321
Nappy, your argument of 'arrogance' on PBS's part deserves more detailed
explanation. What DID they do to you to piss you off so?
lie repeatedly. Use my tac dollars to do it?

Hawk one tote bag too
Post by MSu1049321
many? As a child, were you perhaps abused by some guy using a fuzzy puppet?
Terminal fear of cardigan sweaters and French cooking shows? Hate Wagner?
What?;-)
You are the perfect example of the type of arrogance of PBS. I don;t think a
longer explanation is necessary. You're the one calling successful
commercial TV a ghetto. As a subscriber to the politically correct PBS I
would think you would be above that.

n
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 01:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Oddly, it is usually the fringe groups getting Gov funding that propagate
anti-American, anti-Government media.
If you're unable to make such a basic distinction and
understand that someone can be anti-government without being
anti-American, then there's little point in trying to argue any deeper
issues with you.
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 02:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Ghetto? Again you are exhibitng typical 'PBS' arrogance. You're saying that
the Sunday Morning talk shows , some of which have been on for decades and
routinely interview the leaders and giants of the political world, are a
ghetto? That's sounds like jealousy..
Once again, you fail to grasp the meaning of "ghetto" in this
context. It has nought to do with arrogance or jealousy. Obviously
subtlety and nuance are not your strong suit.
twobirds
2004-08-15 06:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
There is absolutely no reason for PBS not to brave the real world
instead of hiding behind my money.
PBS hasn't accepted money directly from the Fed since 1999. Again, their
public funding (public money - tax dollars) is dolled out through education.
Where colleges that teach broadcasting and/or journalism have a broadcast
PBS station, then they can accept as much as 12% public money (tax dollars)
for their funding. That funding also has controlls. Some programming is
generated through public money in the way of grants. That is also strictly
controlled, and you must realize that the same programming could end up
anywhere - not just PBS - because it was partially publically funded. If I
get a federal grant to shoot a documentary about the Pig Dig in the South
Dakota Badlands, I can submit it to whoever I want. Though, it will
probably end up on PBS, and I may even approach PBS for additional funding,
I could go to the Discovery channel with it if I want to instead...

Are you anti-education? You don't want to see young people entering
broadcasting or journalism? Is your worry about the left-slanting news on a
couple of hours of programming so strong that you would prefer college kids
don't have an opportunity to learn this subject matter in a hands-on way?
Tony
2004-08-15 07:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by twobirds
Are you anti-education?
Just a note: it is a logical fallacy to assume that someone who doesn't
believe in Federal funding of education is AGAINST education.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 13:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Just as it's a logical fallacy to assume that someone who believes that
the government should fund SOME television programming thereby believes
that the government should decide what art and culture is.
Post by Tony
Post by twobirds
Are you anti-education?
Just a note: it is a logical fallacy to assume that someone who doesn't
believe in Federal funding of education is AGAINST education.
Tony
2004-08-16 17:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Just as it's a logical fallacy to assume that someone who believes that
the government should fund SOME television programming thereby believes
that the government should decide what art and culture is.
They have to make some decision as to what is supported. I'd rather they
just stay out of it completely.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Post by Tony
Post by twobirds
Are you anti-education?
Just a note: it is a logical fallacy to assume that someone who doesn't
believe in Federal funding of education is AGAINST education.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 17:51:52 UTC
Permalink
There's some sense to that. Maybe they should not fund any arts
programs at all, no museums, no ballet, no orchestras, no military brass
bands, war monuments, statues, theme parks, ball parks, etc.

Each of those choices, when funded by the government, involve
value-laden judgements about what should be celebrated or contemplated
or esteemed.

I think I could live with a government that chooses to stay out of the
business of telling people what is "holy".
Post by Tony
They have to make some decision as to what is supported. I'd rather they
just stay out of it completely.
nappy
2004-08-15 14:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by twobirds
Are you anti-education?
PBS is not education. It is programming. Not sure how you would derive that
I am anti-education.


You don't want to see young people entering
Post by twobirds
broadcasting or journalism?
Frankly, no , I don' until they realize that the job entails REPORTING and
not trying to CHANGE THE WORLD. Our current crop of talking heads is
confused about that issue..


Is your worry about the left-slanting news on a
Post by twobirds
couple of hours of programming so strong that you would prefer college kids
don't have an opportunity to learn this subject matter in a hands-on way?
oh, give me a break. College kids have COLLEGE for that.. they don' need
PBS.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 13:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Gosh. You mean the way the commercial networks reported what Bush did
for the first seven minutes after being told that the U.S. was "under
attack"?
Post by nappy
Frankly, no , I don' until they realize that the job entails REPORTING and
not trying to CHANGE THE WORLD. Our current crop of talking heads is
confused about that issue..
Ty Ford
2004-08-15 22:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

If you know of anyone who need a good little book about location audio for
video, I've just spent the last six months writing one. One of teh local arts
schools has picked it up.

More info at: http://home.comcast.net/%7Etyreeford/AudioBootcamp.html

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 01:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
I think most of the neocon hooting and hollering against PBS involves the
news/documentary programming, shows like "Frontline", "POV" and maybe ...
Now that just makes my point. If you don't agree with PBS you get a label
In much the same way as the shrieking rightwingers (maybe they
should call themselves rightwhingers) label libs as sushi-eating,
Evian-drinking bleeding heart, Volvo-driving, tree huggers.Vitriol is
obviously easier to come by than rationality.
Post by nappy
Post by MSu1049321
Yeah, Larry, real radical, foaming at the mouth stuff pinko commie shite
there,
Post by MSu1049321
hide your children! Light the torches!
Again, to a PBS'er the very thought there may be a bias problem there
yields.. mockery.
Most of the mockery comes from such painkiller-addicted
hypocrites like Rush who want everyone else who does drugs to be
flushed through the depths of the penal system. Somehow he still seems
to have his job.
Post by nappy
Post by MSu1049321
What PBS does mostly is provide a sheltered place for programming of many
types
Post by MSu1049321
that just isn't commercial enough to survive the American broadcasting
money-machine, but the folks in power think is useful and uplifting to
have
Post by MSu1049321
anyway. Stuff that has some kind of intrinsic value for the extra depth
and
Post by MSu1049321
color it brings to the airwaves, that has some kind of generally agreed
upon
Post by MSu1049321
"social value"... it's the plate of green veggies you didn't like to eat
as a
Post by MSu1049321
kid, though they were "good for you".
Again.. they think anything they put on is good for you. Even though it may
be erroneous, politcal, or just plain boring as hell.
When did the discussion turn to the Fox network? I missed that
one.
Post by nappy
Which is why they can
not survive ..
PBS has competition in the commercial arena that seems to be doing just
fine. TLC, Discovery, and a thousand other channels that cover the same
topics, albiewt with more entertainment value..
Unlike the Beeb and NHK, you aren't
Post by MSu1049321
forced to support it directly, except by that federal subsidy that some
folks
Post by MSu1049321
get so cranked up about. Honestly, it's like a tenth of one penny on your
tax
Post by MSu1049321
dollar, if that, and shrinking every year; of all the obscene waste our
feds do
Post by MSu1049321
in our name every day, surely THIS is not the first thing on the list to
carp
Post by MSu1049321
about.
There is absolutely no reason for PBS not to brave the real world instead of
hiding behind my money.
I can think of a million other places for that money to go. If PBS is so
friggin good, let 'em fight for their money like everyone else. Truth is,
PBS is more arrogant than entertaining.
And that's the news.
... from the loonies.
Tony
2004-08-15 03:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of PBS
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
Just a question:

If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all?
MSu1049321
2004-08-15 03:46:33 UTC
Permalink
<< As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of
PBS
Post by MSu1049321
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
Just a question:

If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all? >>


See my response to "nappy" in the same thread, I think I covered it pretty
comprehensively there. Basically, because art and culture should not always be
a "business" decision.
Tony
2004-08-15 07:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
<< As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of
PBS
Post by MSu1049321
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all? >>
See my response to "nappy" in the same thread, I think I covered it pretty
comprehensively there. Basically, because art and culture should not always be
a "business" decision.
So the Government gets to decide what's art and culture, then?

That doesn't worry you at all?

Also - I would like to know where the Constitution says the Government is
supposed to subsidize art.

Finally, if they cut out the Government portion of their funding, would it
really change what they're doing? Somehow, I doubt it.
Gary P
2004-08-15 08:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
Post by MSu1049321
<< As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of
funding
Post by MSu1049321
of
Post by MSu1049321
PBS
Post by MSu1049321
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all? >>
See my response to "nappy" in the same thread, I think I covered it pretty
comprehensively there. Basically, because art and culture should not
always be
Post by MSu1049321
a "business" decision.
So the Government gets to decide what's art and culture, then?
That doesn't worry you at all?
Also - I would like to know where the Constitution says the Government is
supposed to subsidize art.
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives. Not everything can, or should
necessarily be, judged by the market place. I'd hate a world that had only
Michael Jackson and no Mahler. That isn't to say that government art subsidy
doesn't have some problems too.

On the other hand, there are many aspects of what my government does that
don't much benefit me personally (like money on AIDS - or rarer disease
research for example). I do not begrudge them doing these things because
they benefit others, or minority tastes or cultures, rather than me.

Gary
nappy
2004-08-15 14:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary P
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives.
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
Moving Vision
2004-08-15 16:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Gary P
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives.
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
Did you really sat that?!
--
John Lubran
Gary P
2004-08-15 23:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Gary P
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives.
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
Did you really say that?!
I don't expect any sense from Nappy's posts, particularly on politics, which
is why I stopped reading them quite a while ago. If there was a thought in
his head - fat chance - he might have realised that "minority culture" has
much broader (and non-racial) meaning than the limited one he infers. It
refers to any cultural creation that's not completely driven by the market
or predicated on majority rules, whether it's the Metropolitan Opera, jazz,
or a Twyla Tharp ballet. Or even those racial and cultural "minorities"
that Nappy seems to fear so much.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 13:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Congratulations. It only took you seven posts to get around to comparing
your opponents to Hitler. Amazing. If you really work at it, I'm sure
you could get it down to two or three.

And in all fairness, people on the other side of the political spectrum
tend to do it too. But it's always a pretty good indicator of a
failing argument.
Post by nappy
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
nappy
2004-08-17 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
The comparision was clear... I wasn't comparing anyone to Hitler. .ya big
baby It isn't a failing argument. It isn't even an argument.. I simply
disagree that PBS is worthy of tax money and I agree that it is a biased
media outlet.

It is clear to me that anyone who thinks there is a race or class of people
that should have an advantage because of their race or class that parallels
can easily be drawn.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Congratulations. It only took you seven posts to get around to comparing
your opponents to Hitler. Amazing. If you really work at it, I'm sure
you could get it down to two or three.
And in all fairness, people on the other side of the political spectrum
tend to do it too. But it's always a pretty good indicator of a
failing argument.
Post by nappy
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 02:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Gary P
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives.
Now that simply blows my mind.. That someone can actually qualify a
culture. Amazing. Amazing in that its simply racism and sheer stupidity. And
he wrote it without a second thought. That kind of BULLSHIT is exactly what
PBS has been programming these last 30 years. Exactly. Hitler had that
culture thing all worked out too, eh?
Braaaapppppp!!! Under Godwin's Theorem, you have just
defaulted the discussion to the other side.
Tony
2004-08-15 19:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary P
Post by Tony
So the Government gets to decide what's art and culture, then?
That doesn't worry you at all?
Also - I would like to know where the Constitution says the Government is
supposed to subsidize art.
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives. Not everything can, or should
necessarily be, judged by the market place. I'd hate a world that had only
Michael Jackson and no Mahler. That isn't to say that government art subsidy
doesn't have some problems too.
There are usually enough people to ensure that a specific form of "art" is
supported - assuming those that want that particular art are willing to step
up and support it. If they're not, then, frankly, the art doesn't need to be
made or exhibited.

Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we should go back
to that and get away from Government subsidy. IMO, Government support of
"art" tends to lower the quality of "art", since the artist no longer has to
produce QUALITY work to get money.
Post by Gary P
On the other hand, there are many aspects of what my government does that
don't much benefit me personally (like money on AIDS - or rarer disease
research for example). I do not begrudge them doing these things because
they benefit others, or minority tastes or cultures, rather than me.
I feel that the private sector can accomplish those tasks much better.

And that said - this is going WAY off-topic for this NG, so I'm going to bow
out of the political side of the discussion, I think.
Larry J.
2004-08-15 22:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we
should go back to that and get away from Government subsidy.
IMO, Government support of "art" tends to lower the quality of
"art", since the artist no longer has to produce QUALITY work to
get money.
Like those warehouses in Sweden full of government sponsored "art."
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
Send an e-mail to: avfreelancers-***@topica.com
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
nappy
2004-08-15 22:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry J.
Post by Tony
Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we
should go back to that and get away from Government subsidy.
IMO, Government support of "art" tends to lower the quality of
"art", since the artist no longer has to produce QUALITY work to
get money.
Like those warehouses in Sweden full of government sponsored "art."
Ikea?
Post by Larry J.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
Gary P
2004-08-15 23:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry J.
Post by Tony
Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we
should go back to that and get away from Government subsidy.
IMO, Government support of "art" tends to lower the quality of
"art", since the artist no longer has to produce QUALITY work to
get money.
Like those warehouses in Sweden full of government sponsored "art."
Hmm. Cites please.

Factually, I do remember this happening in one former Middle-European
communist country, mostly because what got sponsored was actually propaganda
rather than art. That's what happens when groups are allowed to co-opt art
to their own ends. But to say that all government-sponsored art would
necessarily be propaganda is absurd.

Also, the fact that there's bad government-sponsored art should surely be
measured against the fact that Hollywood and the music industry produces a
HUGE amount of immoral and artistically arid shit. A government sponsored
dance performance versus "Catwoman"? Hmm. Wonder which one of those is
likely to be a bigger waste of an hour and a half of my life? Just how many
records does society need about the teen (and older) desire to hump? Looked
at any of the chart music programmes lately?
MSu1049321
2004-08-16 00:03:06 UTC
Permalink
I'm still waiting for Nappy's top ten programming list, to see what I should be
watching instead of PBS...
No doubt the word "factor" will be in there somewhere
;-)
Larry J.
2004-08-16 13:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary P
Also, the fact that there's bad government-sponsored art should
surely be measured against the fact that Hollywood and the music
industry produces a HUGE amount of immoral and artistically arid
shit. A government sponsored dance performance versus
"Catwoman"? Hmm. Wonder which one of those is likely to be a
bigger waste of an hour and a half of my life? Just how many
records does society need about the teen (and older) desire to
hump? Looked at any of the chart music programmes lately?
That misses the point. If private eterprise produces drek for sale,
then those investors have gambled and lost money, not the public, who
have no choice in the matter.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
Send an e-mail to: avfreelancers-***@topica.com
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 14:22:29 UTC
Permalink
All of this debate taking place on the internet. Not a bad system, is
it? Some people would even say that the internet is a great invention,
of tremendous value to all users, and almost indispensible for a modern
business.

Now what profit-driven private corporation, do you imagine, came up with
this wonderful system?

And would you like high definition television? The technology did not
improve for 50 years (!!), and would not be about to improve now if the
government had not stepped in and forced commerical broadcasters to
upgrade.

Sometimes all that faith in private enterprise and the free market is
misplaced.
Post by Larry J.
That misses the point. If private eterprise produces drek for sale,
then those investors have gambled and lost money, not the public, who
have no choice in the matter.
Tony
2004-08-16 17:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Van Dyk
All of this debate taking place on the internet. Not a bad system, is
it? Some people would even say that the internet is a great invention,
of tremendous value to all users, and almost indispensible for a modern
business.
Now what profit-driven private corporation, do you imagine, came up with
this wonderful system?
Not the Government. I suggest you look into the history of the internet and
how it developed.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And would you like high definition television? The technology did not
improve for 50 years (!!), and would not be about to improve now if the
government had not stepped in and forced commerical broadcasters to
upgrade.
Force them to provide a service that the public isnt' really demanding.
Really efficient, isn't it?
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Sometimes all that faith in private enterprise and the free market is
misplaced.
I'm guessing you don't think the developments in higher-capacity DVD's (like
the blue-laser DVD) and faster CPU's are a result of private enterprise and
market forces?
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 17:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Check your facts. The Internet was created by the government, on a
non-profit basis, and supported by publicly funded universities and by
the military.

The public absolutely wants HDTV. Most people are blown away by it
once they actually see it. Do you really believe that the public has
chosen to stay with a technology that reached it's peak of development
in 1965, along with "Mr. Ed" and Gumby?

It has never been offered to the public by the big commercial
broadcasters because they have a "cooperative monopoly" going-- if none
of them offer this expensive (to them) upgrade, then they can all
maximize profits by continuing to offer cheaper and inferior technologies.
Post by Tony
Post by Bill Van Dyk
All of this debate taking place on the internet. Not a bad system, is
it? Some people would even say that the internet is a great invention,
of tremendous value to all users, and almost indispensible for a modern
business.
Now what profit-driven private corporation, do you imagine, came up with
this wonderful system?
Not the Government. I suggest you look into the history of the internet and
how it developed.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And would you like high definition television? The technology did not
improve for 50 years (!!), and would not be about to improve now if the
government had not stepped in and forced commerical broadcasters to
upgrade.
Force them to provide a service that the public isnt' really demanding.
Really efficient, isn't it?
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Sometimes all that faith in private enterprise and the free market is
misplaced.
I'm guessing you don't think the developments in higher-capacity DVD's (like
the blue-laser DVD) and faster CPU's are a result of private enterprise and
market forces?
Steve Guidry
2004-08-16 19:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Bill,

If you think you'll be getting HDTV when the government finally coerces
broadcasters to spend all that cash to go digital ( And the mandate is to
go "digital" _NOT_ to go "HDTV" ), then I've got this bridge for sale . .
.

The only financial model that makes sense for broadcasters is to use the
additional bandwidth to transmit multiple streams of SDTV. Oh sure, you may
see HD for some sports and the occasional movie, but that's about all
you'll be seeing for years to come. The ad revenue just won't support
it - - at least not yet.

Steve
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Check your facts. The Internet was created by the government, on a
non-profit basis, and supported by publicly funded universities and by
the military.
The public absolutely wants HDTV. Most people are blown away by it
once they actually see it. Do you really believe that the public has
chosen to stay with a technology that reached it's peak of development
in 1965, along with "Mr. Ed" and Gumby?
It has never been offered to the public by the big commercial
broadcasters because they have a "cooperative monopoly" going-- if none
of them offer this expensive (to them) upgrade, then they can all
maximize profits by continuing to offer cheaper and inferior technologies.
Post by Tony
Post by Bill Van Dyk
All of this debate taking place on the internet. Not a bad system, is
it? Some people would even say that the internet is a great invention,
of tremendous value to all users, and almost indispensible for a modern
business.
Now what profit-driven private corporation, do you imagine, came up with
this wonderful system?
Not the Government. I suggest you look into the history of the internet and
how it developed.
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And would you like high definition television? The technology did not
improve for 50 years (!!), and would not be about to improve now if the
government had not stepped in and forced commerical broadcasters to
upgrade.
Force them to provide a service that the public isnt' really demanding.
Really efficient, isn't it?
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Sometimes all that faith in private enterprise and the free market is
misplaced.
I'm guessing you don't think the developments in higher-capacity DVD's (like
the blue-laser DVD) and faster CPU's are a result of private enterprise and
market forces?
Gary P
2004-08-17 00:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Bill Van Dyk
All of this debate taking place on the internet. Not a bad system, is
it? Some people would even say that the internet is a great invention,
of tremendous value to all users, and almost indispensible for a modern
business.
Now what profit-driven private corporation, do you imagine, came up with
this wonderful system?
Not the Government. I suggest you look into the history of the internet and
how it developed.
He did not say it was the government. You provided the answer and then
labelled yourself wrong. What he said was that it was not a profit-driven
private corporation, and he's right. (Incidentally, military usage - i.e. US
Department of Defense - might seem to count as government)
Post by Tony
Post by Bill Van Dyk
And would you like high definition television? The technology did not
improve for 50 years (!!), and would not be about to improve now if the
government had not stepped in and forced commerical broadcasters to
upgrade.
Force them to provide a service that the public isnt' really demanding.
Really efficient, isn't it?
I agree with this to some degree. But on the other hand a major agenda of
government in all this is to push digital transmission and free up bandwidth
to allow other uses of that bandwidth to proliferate. And even private
companies might well find that useful.
Post by Tony
Post by Bill Van Dyk
Sometimes all that faith in private enterprise and the free market is
misplaced.
I'm guessing you don't think the developments in higher-capacity DVD's (like
the blue-laser DVD) and faster CPU's are a result of private enterprise and
market forces?
He did say "sometimes". But on the other hand, if an advance does not
benefit "private enterprises and market forces" )and even if it benefits
consumers) if those are all you support it will NEVER see the light of day.
As I said before, producing drugs to fight certain minority diseases is a
waste of time to many big companies, selling AIDS medication to Africa at
low cost is not something they want to do. They are not in it for our
benefit, if our benefit doesn't also bring profit.
Gary P
2004-08-17 00:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry J.
Post by Gary P
Also, the fact that there's bad government-sponsored art should
surely be measured against the fact that Hollywood and the music
industry produces a HUGE amount of immoral and artistically arid
shit. A government sponsored dance performance versus
"Catwoman"? Hmm. Wonder which one of those is likely to be a
bigger waste of an hour and a half of my life? Just how many
records does society need about the teen (and older) desire to
hump? Looked at any of the chart music programmes lately?
That misses the point. If private eterprise produces drek for sale,
then those investors have gambled and lost money, not the public, who
have no choice in the matter.
No. Your reply misses two points:

One is that the government - and tax money - provide many things that make
societies and places better environments, even if we don't all want them all
of the time. As I said, I might think government money spent on sports
stadia is wasted, but that's only because most sport bores me. For those who
want to see it purely in dollar terms, places with a good cultural mix
attract not only cultural tourists, but also creative people who'd rather
not live in an artistic or entirely commerce oriented wasteland. And that
DOES translate into creative industry.

The other is that the private investors are very often NOT losing money on
the drek. They are producing it solely because it has commercial, and not
necessarily artistic, potential, and they succeed in that.

There needs to be a middle road between the lowest common denominator taste
and the tyranny of the "cultural elite". Some subsidy helps to provide one.
Gary P
2004-08-15 23:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
Post by Gary P
The US Constitution is not comprehensive, although it's a pretty
praiseworthy document. But many of us even outside the US feel that our
governments would do well to ensure that minority culture, which is often
the very best of culture, survives. Not everything can, or should
necessarily be, judged by the market place. I'd hate a world that had only
Michael Jackson and no Mahler. That isn't to say that government art
subsidy
Post by Gary P
doesn't have some problems too.
There are usually enough people to ensure that a specific form of "art" is
supported - assuming those that want that particular art are willing to step
up and support it. If they're not, then, frankly, the art doesn't need to be
made or exhibited.
No there aren't enough people to "support" every art. The point is that it
costs more to run a symphony orchestra than a rock band. It costs more to
run a good ballet company than a one man mime show or a street magician, and
only a fool would assume the mime or magician is somehow necessarily more
valid art because of that. I lived with a dancer for four years, and I can
tell you that government grants to artists do not make them rich, as could
anyone who knows how most performing artists actually live.

Good governments make some attempts to maintain "minority" cultures because
they are part of an overall creative scene. Often creative ideas come from
those areas that are later co-opted by the mainstream and used in more
profitable ways. A lot of research has been done, by the way, on cultural
tourism and the revenue (and talent) it brings into communities that shows
it more than pays its way. You can find much of it even through Google. Not
everything worthy of production has to have the market as its immediate aim.

Much good art makes us question our assumptions and frame new paradigms. Not
enough people are comfortable enough about that for this most creative of
functions of art to thrive if it were only supported by mass dollars.
Post by MSu1049321
Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we should go back
to that and get away from Government subsidy. IMO, Government support of
"art" tends to lower the quality of "art", since the artist no longer has to
produce QUALITY work to get money.
It's a fallacy to assume that rich patrons necessarily have any more taste
or discernment than panels of grant-givers within the government (who often
have close connections to the arts). This argument is akin to the old
right-wing Randian: "Let's get rid of social security and let people live on
charity from the rich".

All well and good, except that somehow those "charitable" hearts tend not to
quite make up the funds. Anyhow, as has been pointed out, most of PBS's
funding DOES come from patrons, and that still seems to piss some people
here off no end.

I'd add that there's no reason to assume that the skills it takes to make a
lot of money necessarily make one a better judge of art than anyone else.
Post by MSu1049321
Post by Gary P
On the other hand, there are many aspects of what my government does that
don't much benefit me personally (like money on AIDS - or rarer disease
research for example). I do not begrudge them doing these things because
they benefit others, or minority tastes or cultures, rather than me.
I feel that the private sector can accomplish those tasks much better.
Not if those suffering from the disease are (a) a small enough group, (b) a
poorer group, or (c) a relatively voiceless group. Witness the controversy
over AIDS medicine and the world's poorer countries.

Most sport bores me shitless, but how many here really want their
governments not to get involved in sports infrastructure, including stadia
etc?

Gary
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 13:20:34 UTC
Permalink
You mean, not like Fox TV or the Olsen twins?
Post by Tony
Remember the old system of "patrons"? Personally, I think we should go back
to that and get away from Government subsidy. IMO, Government support of
"art" tends to lower the quality of "art", since the artist no longer has to
produce QUALITY work to get money.
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 02:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
Post by MSu1049321
<< As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding
of
Post by MSu1049321
PBS
Post by MSu1049321
comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all? >>
See my response to "nappy" in the same thread, I think I covered it pretty
comprehensively there. Basically, because art and culture should not
always be
Post by MSu1049321
a "business" decision.
So the Government gets to decide what's art and culture, then?
That doesn't worry you at all?
Also - I would like to know where the Constitution says the Government is
supposed to subsidize art.
Same article where it says the government should subsidize
your internet access by initially funding the infrastructure. Are you
willing to terminate your ISP account to back up your dependence on
Constitutional argument?
Post by MSu1049321
Finally, if they cut out the Government portion of their funding, would it
really change what they're doing? Somehow, I doubt it.
Steven J. Weller
2004-08-15 07:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by MSu1049321
g'day;-)
As they point out during pledge breaks, the largest amount of funding of
PBS comes from voluntary donations by viewers ("subscribers").
If that's the case, then why Government subsidy at all?
The thing was set up by the gov't to be an alternative to purely
commercial television. Something not bound by ratings, and so not
beholden to the financial bottom line. Originally, it was mostly
funded, in terms on infrastructure and suchlike, by Uncle Sam and the
pledge drives plus corp. invesment paid for producing the programs.
Another part of the idea was that programing would be produced away from
New York and Los Angeles, to reflect a more balanced view of the whole
United States.

Gov't funding, though, has been problematic at best because of the way
the beast is set up. It tends to get whittled away when ever there's a
conservative administration because PBS is overwhelmingly liberal in its
slant and it tends to be fairly critical of who ever's in power.

Corp. sponsorship is also problematic, because corporations wealthy
enough to sponor programs tend to be in bed with whoever's in power at
the moment. The result is that you get a lot of shows about cute furry
animals with big eyes in far-off places.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven
MSu1049321
2004-08-15 13:04:20 UTC
Permalink
As to the "liberal slant" argument, it's a poor syllogism (sp?) that "whatever
is not right-wing must needs be left wing". It could just be neutral, but in
the eyes of neocons, "you're with us or you're agin' us", and there's no room
for a middle ground.

Questioning your government doesn't make you disloyal. It means you are engaged
in it, as the founders wanted you to be.
nappy
2004-08-15 14:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
As to the "liberal slant" argument, it's a poor syllogism (sp?) that "whatever
is not right-wing must needs be left wing". It could just be neutral, but in
the eyes of neocons, "you're with us or you're agin' us", and there's no room
for a middle ground.
Questioning your government doesn't make you disloyal. It means you are engaged
in it, as the founders wanted you to be.
Questioning Government? What has that got to do with anything.. Are you
reading from the moveOn.org playbook?


Moral relativism.

No, my friend I am sorry. There is a black and there is a white.. You
repeatedly use the term "neocon" as if everyone who you disagree with
deserves a label. Well, just who couned that term? And who uses it in an
attempt to nulify arguments against them? Liberals. Not that I would paint
you with that brush but.. You are a perfect example of the type of bias I
am eluding to in PBS. This new term neocon refers to newly minted
conservative and is a veiled reference to Jews. I fit in neither camp so try
and get along without popping people in boxes. Try and have a discussion
with the assumption that your opponent may not be as narrow minded as you
are.

Your posts in this thread so shed light on why you see no bias in PBS and
believe it should be governmetn funded. You bought it hook, line and
stinker.
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 02:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
As to the "liberal slant" argument, it's a poor syllogism (sp?) that "whatever
is not right-wing must needs be left wing". It could just be neutral, but in
the eyes of neocons, "you're with us or you're agin' us", and there's no room
for a middle ground.
Questioning your government doesn't make you disloyal. It means you are engaged
in it, as the founders wanted you to be.
Exactly -- one of Nixon's major character flaws was his
inability to distinguish between dissent and disloyalty.
GMAN
2004-08-16 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
--------------040302070703040400070701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure make
sure you get exposed to all points of view there.
Except our damn tax money doesnt go to fund fox news. Our tax money does go to
fund PBS and its leftist liberal views and towards funding so called
artist freakos who shit (Literally shit) on an american flag and display it in
a major museum and get away with it cause its supposedly art. I dont work hard
as i do to fund that liberal crap!!!!
I know some people who consider CNN and USA Today to be "liberal". Some
of us liberals think that's hysterical, but politics is obviously highly
relative.
So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of "balance"
and please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his little hole.
Post by Richard Crowley
Post by nappy
nt in the US for decades..
AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)
Post by nappy
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..
It is also FTA on satellite. Check Lyngsat.
--------------040302070703040400070701
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
And what would you consider "unbiased"? &nbsp;Fox News? &nbsp;Gosh, they sure
make
sure you get exposed to all points of view there.<br>
<br>
I know some people who consider CNN and USA Today to be "liberal". &nbsp;Some
of us liberals think that's hysterical, but politics is obviously highly
relative. &nbsp;<br>
<br>
So would you be in favor of dropping the bullshit pretense of "balance" and
please, please, please send Robert Novak back into his little hole.<br>
<br>
Richard Crowley wrote:<br>
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">nt in the US for decades..
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
AMEN, BROTHER! The lib/PC tilt is pervasive and insidious.
They likely need special DSP processing just to make the picture
appear to be rectangular by the time it reaches our screens. :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is it cable or free to air?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I've been on cable for years but I believe PBS is still air..
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It is also FTA on satellite. Check Lyngsat.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040302070703040400070701--
david.mccall
2004-08-16 13:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by GMAN
--------------040302070703040400070701
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
And what would you consider "unbiased"? Fox News? Gosh, they sure make
sure you get exposed to all points of view there.
Except our damn tax money doesnt go to fund fox news. Our tax money does go to
fund PBS and its leftist liberal views and towards funding so called
artist freakos who shit (Literally shit) on an american flag and display it in
a major museum and get away with it cause its supposedly art. I dont work hard
as i do to fund that liberal crap!!!!
As has been pointed out in several posts, you aren't funding much of
PBS unless you are an active contributer. FOX is a commercial network.
It's mandate is to make a ton of money while catering to the Radical Right.
I've always thought O'Riley leans somewhat to the right, but he reads
mail almost every night lambasting him for being too easy on the liberals
and even acusing him of being a traitor to the Radical Right.
Post by GMAN
I know some people who consider CNN and USA Today to be "liberal".
Some of us liberals think that's hysterical, but politics is obviously
highly relative.
That's right. It's all pretty relative. The parties feel the need to come
off
as being righteous about the party's agenda, but the individual politicians
like Bush and Clinton have to wander to towards the middle if they
want to get enough votes to win an election. There just aren't enough
extremist on either side to get anybody voted into office. Thank God.
Any God, take your pick.

These liberal/Conservative names never made much sense to me. What
is so conservative about announcing to the world that it is time to choose
up sides, and then proceed to take over countries that choose to disagree.
Sounds pretty Radical to me, but I guess his approach seems a bit
conservative to people that would like to bomb the middle east into a
glass desert. I don't find the liberals to be all that liberal either. Seems
like
they are constantly making up new laws that restrict people's freedom to
do as they please.

I'm sick of all of this black and white crap being shoveled out, especially
on the Radical Right side of the isle. I don't like my video that way, nor
do I want my country and its politics. I want lots of nice grays to fill in
between the whites and blacks. You know what? I'd even like a little
color in there to spice things up a bit.

I'm only using the term Radical Right to be fair and balanced with the
folks than insist on using "Liberal Left". In reality, I think either of
those
titles show a person to be uninformed and narrow minded, no matter
which side of the isle they come from.

David
Albert Zanucki
2004-08-14 07:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
boring m mostly liberal tilt,any NEWS shows are COMPLETELY biased, some
shows for kids mostly politically correct papf.. again with liberal left
bias.
I thought in a democracy everyone has a right to voice their opinion.
Whether you agree with it or not, that's your problem :) And, Fox is
biased too. So, what's your point exactly?

alb
Steve McDonald
2004-08-14 08:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, MSu and Albert. I was beginning to wonder what sort of
Stone Age throwbacks were populating this group, until I read your
well-based messages. Leslie in Oz, you won't find a better and more
accurate description of PBS, which is a national treasure, than was
given by MSu. PBS, as well as NPR, its companion public radio network,
are the places where cultured and thinking people in the U.S. turn for
quality programming and a straight look at the news. You can find a lot
of NPR's shows archived on their website and available on demand online,
so you can judge for yourself. It would be nice if PBS could send out
streaming video of its shows and give the world a look at the better
side of this country.

PBS and NPR use only the very best audio/video professionals for
their productions. It's understandable why those who have never made
the grade with them, would be resentful and full of the crap you read in
many of the replies here.

Steve McDonald
david.mccall
2004-08-14 15:14:27 UTC
Permalink
I agree. It's nice to see that some people here appreciate a little culture
on the TV.
They give us views into nature, history, and science, that you just don't
find in an
action, or "reality" show.

You can't count on Fox or CNN to let us know how fragile the Tundra in
Alaska
is, so you can factor that into your vote for government officials that want
to drill for oil EVERYWHERE (except in their back yard). 90% of what is on
PBS would never be covered on the "for profit" networks. I think it's nice
that we as a country are willing to support such an effort. Now that there
are some commercial choices for "home
improvement, nature and science fare, we are seeing some of that content
moving to where the money is, but there is still a huge vacum in other areas
of child education and culture.

What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be politically
correct)?

The thing that sux about our political environment is that the two parties
feel the
need to discount everything and everyone that agrees with the oposing party.
If there was more interest in doing what was good for the people and the
planet we live in, then we would have a much better society and environment.

David
Richard Crowley
2004-08-14 16:44:05 UTC
Permalink
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believeing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "indidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
nappy
2004-08-15 14:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve McDonald
Thanks, MSu and Albert. I was beginning to wonder what sort of
Stone Age throwbacks were populating this group, until I read your
well-based messages. Leslie in Oz, you won't find a better and more
accurate description of PBS, which is a national treasure
my bullshit detector just exploded.
Post by Steve McDonald
PBS and NPR use only the very best audio/video professionals for
their productions. It's understandable why those who have never made
the grade with them, would be resentful and full of the crap you read in
many of the replies here.
PBS and NPR use only the best what? Where did you get that ?

And are you assuming that any of us ever tried to get work there?

Sir, your post is rediculous.
Post by Steve McDonald
Steve McDonald
Moving Vision
2004-08-15 16:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Steve McDonald
Thanks, MSu and Albert. I was beginning to wonder what sort of
Stone Age throwbacks were populating this group, until I read your
well-based messages. Leslie in Oz, you won't find a better and more
accurate description of PBS, which is a national treasure
my bullshit detector just exploded.
Post by Steve McDonald
PBS and NPR use only the very best audio/video professionals for
their productions. It's understandable why those who have never made
the grade with them, would be resentful and full of the crap you read in
many of the replies here.
PBS and NPR use only the best what? Where did you get that ?
And are you assuming that any of us ever tried to get work there?
Sir, your post is rediculous.
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
--
John Lubran
Richard Crowley
2004-08-15 18:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moving Vision
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
You are not aware of the widespread criticism of the Beeb
even in your own country? Are you really that single-minded?
Moving Vision
2004-08-16 20:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
Post by Moving Vision
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
You are not aware of the widespread criticism of the Beeb
even in your own country? Are you really that single-minded?
Making allusions to the famous 'BBC sexed up a story' accusation is
spurious. What's particularly relevant is that the sexing up was
actually relatively minor compared to the Foaming at the Mouth media.
One little 'sexed up report' caused the whole institution of the BBC to
go into convulsions of shame and self reviling and the resignation of
several top management including the highly respected Director General.
The event actually underlines the peerless integrity of the BBC as a
news medium. Especially when compared to the highly corrupted and
laughably parochial TV news generated many other outfits.
--
John Lubran
nappy
2004-08-15 18:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moving Vision
Post by nappy
Post by Steve McDonald
Thanks, MSu and Albert. I was beginning to wonder what sort of
Stone Age throwbacks were populating this group, until I read your
well-based messages. Leslie in Oz, you won't find a better and more
accurate description of PBS, which is a national treasure
my bullshit detector just exploded.
Post by Steve McDonald
PBS and NPR use only the very best audio/video professionals for
their productions. It's understandable why those who have never made
the grade with them, would be resentful and full of the crap you read in
many of the replies here.
PBS and NPR use only the best what? Where did you get that ?
And are you assuming that any of us ever tried to get work there?
Sir, your post is rediculous.
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
Well put, John. I do consider the BBC an entity that is on the loose, Having
lost two of its main people a few months ago because they LIED about Blair!!
YOu probably did not know that becasue they said NOTHING about it on PBS.
Post by Moving Vision
--
John Lubran
Guy
2004-08-15 19:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Moving Vision
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
Well put, John. I do consider the BBC an entity that is on the loose, Having
lost two of its main people a few months ago because they LIED about Blair!!
YOu probably did not know that becasue they said NOTHING about it on PBS.
Post by Moving Vision
--
John Lubran
Actually Nappy the passage of time has shown how accurately the Beeb
portrayed events. Gilligan's report has been shown to stand up to scrutiny
as much of what he said was actually correct whereas much of what the UK
Government said at the time has shown to be much less reliable. Fact!
nappy
2004-08-15 20:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by nappy
Post by Moving Vision
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
Well put, John. I do consider the BBC an entity that is on the loose,
Having
Post by nappy
lost two of its main people a few months ago because they LIED about
Blair!!
Post by nappy
YOu probably did not know that becasue they said NOTHING about it on PBS.
Post by Moving Vision
--
John Lubran
Actually Nappy the passage of time has shown how accurately the Beeb
portrayed events. Gilligan's report has been shown to stand up to scrutiny
as much of what he said was actually correct whereas much of what the UK
Government said at the time has shown to be much less reliable. Fact!
Naw.. they resigned because they had nothing to backup what they printed.
Regardless of whether it eventually turned out in their favour, they lied in
print and resigned for it.
Moving Vision
2004-08-16 20:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Naw.. they resigned because they had nothing to backup what they printed.
Regardless of whether it eventually turned out in their favour, they lied in
print and resigned for it.
The Hutton report is widely regarded as a government whitewash and its
conclusions profoundly discredited, but probably it was more because Dr
Kelly the Government scientist was compromised by the BBC's Andrew
Gilligan resulting in Dr Kelly committing suicide.

Ironically, as with being discovered to be mistaken in ones assumptions,
the trouble with making incognisant statements based on things one has
only the most cursory knowledge of, is that it tends to undermine the
integrity of everything else that comes from the same source. Those with
integrity apologise and resign.
--
John Lubran
MSu1049321
2004-08-16 23:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Still waiting for Nappy's list of ten programs he watches that are better than
PBS.
nappy
2004-08-17 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Well why would that matter? I could certainly give you more than ten.. but
that is my personal opinion.. you can find programs to watch on your own I
hope? Since Mr. Rodgers (Rogers?) died that network has gone to hell
anyway.. ;)
Post by MSu1049321
Still waiting for Nappy's list of ten programs he watches that are better than
PBS.
MSu1049321
2004-08-17 00:30:49 UTC
Permalink
<< Well why would that matter? I could certainly give you more than ten.. but
that is my personal opinion.. you can find programs to watch on your own I
hope? Since Mr. Rodgers (Rogers?) died that network has gone to hell
anyway.. ;)

I take this as evidence you were just talking out of your butt before, and have
run out of arguments. Not that you had any good ones on this topic to start
with, just a lot of nonspecific railing against liberals, taxes, and whatnot.
But I gave you a chance; I read your arguments, and I tried to respond in a
complete and reasoning manner. Between your obvious confusion of/between PBS
and the National Endowment for the Arts grants, non-comprehension of the term
"tyranny of the majority" and the Godwinning arguments about Hitler, I conclude
you to be of about high school age, obnoxious, and plonk-worthy, good day.


*plonk*
Post by MSu1049321
Still waiting for Nappy's list of ten programs he watches that are better than
PBS.
Gary P
2004-08-17 00:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
Between your obvious confusion of/between PBS
and the National Endowment for the Arts grants, non-comprehension of the term
"tyranny of the majority" and the Godwinning arguments about Hitler, I conclude
you to be of about high school age, obnoxious, and plonk-worthy, good day.
It's rather contradictory how many of these right-wingers say that "tyranny
of the majority" is a bad thing when it comes to politics and electing their
leader (hence their defence of electoral colleges and - incidentally - Shrub
being in office), but suddenly think it's the greatest good when it comes to
defining cultural worth.
nappy
2004-08-17 02:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
Post by MSu1049321
Between your obvious confusion of/between PBS
and the National Endowment for the Arts grants, non-comprehension of the
term
Post by MSu1049321
"tyranny of the majority" and the Godwinning arguments about Hitler, I
conclude
Post by MSu1049321
you to be of about high school age, obnoxious, and plonk-worthy, good day.
It's rather contradictory how many of these right-wingers say that "tyranny
of the majority" is a bad thing when it comes to politics and electing their
leader (hence their defence of electoral colleges and - incidentally - Shrub
being in office), but suddenly think it's the greatest good when it comes to
defining cultural worth.
Oh, fuck.. the electoral college is a brilliant device to protect minority
states... Give me a fucking break.

nappy
2004-08-17 02:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MSu1049321
<< Well why would that matter? I could certainly give you more than ten.. but
that is my personal opinion.. you can find programs to watch on your own I
hope? Since Mr. Rodgers (Rogers?) died that network has gone to hell
anyway.. ;)
I take this as evidence you were just talking out of your butt before, and have
run out of arguments. Not that you had any good ones on this topic to start
with, just a lot of nonspecific railing against liberals, taxes, and whatnot.
But I gave you a chance; I read your arguments, and I tried to respond in a
complete and reasoning manner. Between your obvious confusion of/between PBS
and the National Endowment for the Arts grants, non-comprehension of the term
"tyranny of the majority" and the Godwinning arguments about Hitler, I conclude
you to be of about high school age, obnoxious, and plonk-worthy, good day.
dipshit.. I'm 50 and you are not only a bad judge of people probably just an
arrogant punk. I am not confiused at all. Oh, shit.. mention Hitler and the
goofballs in this NG get wanky... try reading the post I was responding
to.. a perfectly legitimate response.. The fact that you have a problem with
it is probably a good thing.
Post by MSu1049321
*plonk*
Post by MSu1049321
Still waiting for Nappy's list of ten programs he watches that are
better
Post by MSu1049321
than
Post by MSu1049321
PBS.
Moving Vision
2004-08-16 20:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Moving Vision
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
Well put, John. I do consider the BBC an entity that is on the loose, Having
lost two of its main people a few months ago because they LIED about Blair!!
YOu probably did not know that becasue they said NOTHING about it on PBS.
and again.........


Making allusions to the famous 'BBC sexed up a story' accusation is
spurious. What's particularly relevant is that the sexing up was
actually relatively minor compared to the Foaming at the Mouth media.
One little 'sexed up report' caused the whole institution of the BBC to
go into convulsions of shame and self reviling and the resignation of
several top management including the highly respected Director General.
The event actually underlines the peerless integrity of the BBC as a
news medium.
--
John Lubran
nappy
2004-08-17 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moving Vision
The event actually underlines the peerless integrity of the BBC as a
news medium.
um.... yeah. ok.
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 01:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by Moving Vision
Post by nappy
Post by Steve McDonald
Thanks, MSu and Albert. I was beginning to wonder what sort of
Stone Age throwbacks were populating this group, until I read your
well-based messages. Leslie in Oz, you won't find a better and more
accurate description of PBS, which is a national treasure
my bullshit detector just exploded.
Post by Steve McDonald
PBS and NPR use only the very best audio/video professionals for
their productions. It's understandable why those who have never made
the grade with them, would be resentful and full of the crap you read
in
Post by Moving Vision
Post by nappy
Post by Steve McDonald
many of the replies here.
PBS and NPR use only the best what? Where did you get that ?
And are you assuming that any of us ever tried to get work there?
Sir, your post is rediculous.
Nappy, just to gain a little more insight about your judgement, how
would you describe the BBC, probably the ultimate manifestation of a
PBS?
Well put, John. I do consider the BBC an entity that is on the loose, Having
lost two of its main people a few months ago because they LIED about Blair!!
YOu probably did not know that becasue they said NOTHING about it on PBS.
Post by Moving Vision
--
John Lubran
Nice try -- it was widely covered on PBS.

You have provided a good example of logic -- specifically the
proof from blatant assertion.
Steven J. Weller
2004-08-14 08:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
is it government owned?
jim lehrer syndicated?
what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state broadcaster.
is it cable or free to air?
many thanks in advance,
leslie
PBS is an odd, odd animal. It's run by the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, which is private, but was created by gov't mandate and is
funded in part by our tax dollars. Individual stations are affiliates,
sort of like network affiliates, and take a network feed for some
programming and have other material (including syndicated material)
programmed locally. Producers must raise funds for their independent
productions (most are created through a few larger PBS affiliates, like
NYC and Boston) from corp. sponsors and can apply for funding (never
more than partial) from the CPB.

A normal day's programming will typically start with the kid's stuff -
Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Zoom, etc, which is network
feed but is broadcast on the local station's schedule. For instance,
some stations will run 4 half-hour eps of Mr. Rodgers, back-to-back, to
give mom a little quiet time. Afternoons will generally be cooking
shows and local-interest politics, then the News Hour, then the
prime-time line-up. PBS seems to be very flexible as to scheduling;
local stations will air whatever shows, on whatever nights and in
whatever combinations, that the local market seems to support.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary

Steven
Richard Crowley
2004-08-14 16:53:15 UTC
Permalink
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
MSu1049321
2004-08-15 02:52:44 UTC
Permalink
<< Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now. >>


"One of these things is not like the other..."
nappy
2004-08-15 14:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
You hit it on the nose.
Moving Vision
2004-08-15 16:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Crowley
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
How does that compare with the commercial sector, whose only remit is to
make money and support the position of their sponsors? In a society as
rich and powerful as the USA , for whom democracy is declared as a
fundamental tenet of a morally aspiring constitution, as opposed to the
belief mistakenly held by those who think democracy is about letting
only the biggest sharks control and own everything, it seems incredible
to me that their are people so apparently bitter about their multi
faceted society that they'd want to remove the only counter point to a
gigantic and merely expedient commercial television sector.

The argument raised by Nappy elsewhere on this strand that PSB was
actually comparable to Hitler's Nazis is probably the best example of
'double talk' yet. In Hitler's day these PBS folk would have been
amongst the first sent to the camps.

It's so sad to see some of the statements being presented about this
issue. I can only hope that as utterly entrenched as I'm sure they are,
they don't represent the majority view over there amongst our beloved
American cousins.
--
John Lubran
Richard Crowley
2004-08-15 18:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moving Vision
How does that compare with the commercial sector, whose
only remit is to make money and support the position of their
sponsors? In a society as rich and powerful as the USA , for
whom democracy is declared as a fundamental tenet of a
morally aspiring constitution, as opposed to the belief mistakenly
held by those who think democracy is about letting only the
biggest sharks control and own everything,
And the word from the producers that I have heard is that PBS
is the biggest shark in the pool.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 13:17:16 UTC
Permalink
I suppose that in some extremely strange and bizarre context, this
statement might mean something useful to us, but I can't figure out what
that context might be. Do you mean in terms of producing documentaries
or something?

I think I've got it. You mean that among the pool of media outlets that
produce programming that is free of a pro-corporate, pro-military,
pro-establishment slant, PBS stands like a colossus. Right?
Post by Richard Crowley
And the word from the producers that I have heard is that PBS
is the biggest shark in the pool.
Bill Van Dyk
2004-08-16 12:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Actually, PBS viewers are more likely to believe that no ideologically
driven network from anywhere on the political spectrum is 100% right, so
diversity is good. I find conservatives are far less likely to read or
view alternative points of view and consider alternative ideas. They
seem to believe they have a hotline to heaven.
Post by Richard Crowley
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 01:23:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:53:15 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
Post by Richard Crowley
"david.mccall" wrote...
Post by david.mccall
What is so bad about being correct (even if it happens to be
politically correct)?
What is so bad is that you have apparently been brainwashed
into believing that everything you see on PBS or hear on NPR
is "correct". Didn't you watch enough Sesame Street to know
the definition of "pervasive" and "insidious"? If not, its not too
late to look it up now.
What is really, really bad is that, having nothing to add, you
simply repeat your earlier post, word for word.
twobirds
2004-08-14 17:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by kay & wand
could someone please explain to an aussie exactly how pbs works?
It looks like you've received some replies from people who have been
disapointed by PBS (probably submitted programming ideas and were shot down)
Post by kay & wand
is it government owned?
No. There isn't any Federal money involved (unless spent for this purpose
by a State, but once a State receives Federal money, it becomes State
money), but each State makes a determination of whether or not to fund based
on State interest programming and on how much educational funding should be
used if broadcasts are done from college campuses where they teach
broadcasting and journalism. No more than 12% of their money can come from
such sources.
Post by kay & wand
jim lehrer syndicated?
PBS doesn't do syndication.
Post by kay & wand
what's the normal day's program like on, say, a mid state broadcaster.
Usually about 6 to 7 hours educational programming (including children's
programming), 2 to 5 hours "news" or informational (quote marks are because
I agree with the left slant comments already made), depending on State and
area there can be as much as 4 hours local or State related programming.
The rest is gained through many sources and it varies regionally (for
instance, they get a few things from the BBC that are broadcast in North
Western States, and they get a few things from Mexican Broadcast that are
aired in South Western States etc etc)
Post by kay & wand
is it cable or free to air?
Both, but offered "free" as part of basic cable.
Post by kay & wand
many thanks in advance,
Public radio and Public TV rely on private funding and are often broadcast
from colleges. They rely much on volunteers and almost completely on the
generosity of the public (their viewers and listeners as well as businesses
big and small even though those businesses can't get commercials and can
only get the occasional logo or mention).

Those who complain that the news is left slanted can do something about it
because it is public. They can donate enough money to have a say in what is
aired. They can form a corporation, a conglomerate, or just a group of
donors with enough pull to be part of the decision making process. They can
also make a difference in how the money and time resources are managed by
volunteering or again by donating enough money to be part of the decision
making process.

I coach little league baseball every spring. When parents gripe and
complain about how I manage a team or about my coaching decisions, I tell
them that they can pitch in and help. Then they can become part of the
decision-making process. The same applies to Public TV and Radio. If you
don't like how it works, get off your lazy ass and pitch in and help.
Become part of the process and make the changes you want to see made.
Moving Vision
2004-08-15 16:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by twobirds
Public radio and Public TV rely on private funding and are often broadcast
from colleges. They rely much on volunteers and almost completely on the
generosity of the public (their viewers and listeners as well as businesses
big and small even though those businesses can't get commercials and can
only get the occasional logo or mention).
Those who complain that the news is left slanted can do something about it
because it is public. They can donate enough money to have a say in what is
aired. They can form a corporation, a conglomerate, or just a group of
donors with enough pull to be part of the decision making process. They can
also make a difference in how the money and time resources are managed by
volunteering or again by donating enough money to be part of the decision
making process.
I coach little league baseball every spring. When parents gripe and
complain about how I manage a team or about my coaching decisions, I tell
them that they can pitch in and help. Then they can become part of the
decision-making process. The same applies to Public TV and Radio. If you
don't like how it works, get off your lazy ass and pitch in and help.
Become part of the process and make the changes you want to see made.
Hey Twobirds! Stop trying to confuse the discussion with facts.
--
John Lubran
twobirds
2004-08-15 18:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Moving Vision wrote:
<snip>
Post by Moving Vision
Hey Twobirds! Stop trying to confuse the discussion with facts.
I guesse you are right... I've seen some odd discussions here in the past,
but this one might just take the cake. Most of the "discussors"
(participants in the thread) are completely uninformed. They seem to have
no idea whatsoever how PBS works or where PBS funding actually comes from.

I'm going to add a few facts just to make things worse:

PBS quit directly taking federal funding in 1997. What remains of a couple
of Federal grants is only used for maintenance on broadcast towers. In
fact, they were offered federal money to help with the 2006 change-over to
hi-def. They had to refuse it because of their own existing policy. They
will vote in September on wether or not to accept a policy similar to that
of the three major networks to be able to accept the same federal funds that
the big three are accepting for the changeover.

Some programming is created partially from Federal funds, but those people
creating that programming do not work directly for PBS. They are
independant and can submit their programming elsewhere if they so choose
(and in some cases, indeed they do).

PBS does not do syndication perse'. They have their own contracting system
and they share some programming with Mexican Broadcast, the BBC, and (I've
forgotten what it is called, but) whatever the Public TV system is in
Canada.

Education funds are provided by State governments, not the fed. More than
two thirds of PBS broadcast stations are located at colleges and
universities. Those schools teach broadcasting and/or journalism and PBS is
a very direct way for the students to learn how the broadcast business
actually operates. Therefore, education funds are used *for education* with
PBS broadcast stations that exist on such campuses. That is nearly
identicle to the situation with Public Radio, but Public Radio broadcast
stations on college campuses account for more than 90% of those in
existance.

I've dealt with Public TV and Public Radio in one capacity or another my
entire career. They don't operate like any commercial broadcast company
anywhere in the world as far as funding and programming. They are entirely
different, and that isn't a bad thing. As I said before, because they are
public, anyone who wants to see changes can become a donor, a volunteer, or
persue a job with them = and make the changes themselves.

Just to reitterate one other fact: I happen to agree that there is some PBS
national/world news programming that is very left slanted. My political
views are fairly far right. However, that has little or nothing to do with
the facts at hand for the thread topic.

Those who assume that their tax dollars are being used to support political
views they don't agree with are off the mark. Furthermore, even if that
idea _did happen to be_ accurate, not only can they do as I suggested and
make changes directly to the PBS system, but those people also have the
power to vote for governmant representatives who think more like they do (or
even run for office themselves) or write their congressmen and tell them
their opinion or create a petition or organize a protest or any of a million
other things that can lead to change in a free society like ours. They can
get off their lazy asses and change what they don't like. Crybabies suck.
nappy
2004-08-15 18:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by twobirds
<snip>
Post by Moving Vision
Hey Twobirds! Stop trying to confuse the discussion with facts.
I guesse you are right... I've seen some odd discussions here in the past,
but this one might just take the cake. Most of the "discussors"
(participants in the thread) are completely uninformed. They seem to have
no idea whatsoever how PBS works or where PBS funding actually comes from.
PBS quit directly taking federal funding in 1997. What remains of a couple
of Federal grants is only used for maintenance on broadcast towers. In
fact, they were offered federal money to help with the 2006 change-over to
hi-def. They had to refuse it because of their own existing policy. They
will vote in September on wether or not to accept a policy similar to that
of the three major networks to be able to accept the same federal funds that
the big three are accepting for the changeover.
Earlier I believe you said it was 1999. A simple search on google ... might
help. I believe PBS is still taking millions from the USG.
Post by twobirds
Just to reitterate one other fact: I happen to agree that there is some PBS
national/world news programming that is very left slanted. My political
views are fairly far right. However, that has little or nothing to do with
the facts at hand for the thread topic.
Yes.. let's take that asshole Bill Moyers. For fuck's sake.. he wouldn't
last a day even at CNN with his propaganda.. I watched his show once and was
so enraged..
Post by twobirds
Those who assume that their tax dollars are being used to support political
views they don't agree with are off the mark.
PBS uses tax dollars to propagate liberal, socialist points of view. That's
going to piss some of us off. I don't think that is off the mark at all.
twobirds
2004-08-15 19:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
<snip>
Earlier I believe you said it was 1999. A simple search on google ...
might help. I believe PBS is still taking millions from the USG.
Bitching about typo's? Hmmm. Pretty lame arguement.
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/media-television.htm has a little bit to say
about how it all works.

And do you not understand that the USG funds ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS as well?
Any broadcast company that does free-to-air receives USG money for upkeep
and construction of broadcast towers and equipment (I see you snipped that
part of what I said).
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
Just to reitterate one other fact: I happen to agree that there is
some PBS national/world news programming that is very left slanted.
My political views are fairly far right. However, that has little
or nothing to do with the facts at hand for the thread topic.
Yes.. let's take that asshole Bill Moyers. For fuck's sake.. he
wouldn't last a day even at CNN with his propaganda.. I watched his
show once and was so enraged..
I didn't disagree. And, again, my political views are fairly far right.
That, however, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
Those who assume that their tax dollars are being used to support
political views they don't agree with are off the mark.
PBS uses tax dollars to propagate liberal, socialist points of view.
That's going to piss some of us off. I don't think that is off the
mark at all.
And you don't suppose that any programming carried on the big-3 or others is
just the opposite? If you don't like it - Change it.
nappy
2004-08-15 20:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by twobirds
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
<snip>
Earlier I believe you said it was 1999. A simple search on google ...
might help. I believe PBS is still taking millions from the USG.
Bitching about typo's? Hmmm. Pretty lame arguement.
http://www.usembassy.de/usa/media-television.htm has a little bit to say
about how it all works.
I wasn;t bitching about a typo. You spelled 1999 correctly.
Post by twobirds
And do you not understand that the USG funds ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS as well?
Any broadcast company that does free-to-air receives USG money for upkeep
and construction of broadcast towers and equipment (I see you snipped that
part of what I said).
no, on the whole they are not funded by the government anymore than I am for
any tax credits I take.
Post by twobirds
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
Just to reitterate one other fact: I happen to agree that there is
some PBS national/world news programming that is very left slanted.
My political views are fairly far right. However, that has little
or nothing to do with the facts at hand for the thread topic.
Yes.. let's take that asshole Bill Moyers. For fuck's sake.. he
wouldn't last a day even at CNN with his propaganda.. I watched his
show once and was so enraged..
I didn't disagree. And, again, my political views are fairly far right.
That, however, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Post by nappy
Post by twobirds
Those who assume that their tax dollars are being used to support
political views they don't agree with are off the mark.
PBS uses tax dollars to propagate liberal, socialist points of view.
That's going to piss some of us off. I don't think that is off the
mark at all.
And you don't suppose that any programming carried on the big-3 or others is
just the opposite? If you don't like it - Change it.
big 3? You mean the waning, desperate NBC, CBS and ABC? those big 3? I
don't care what they carry as long as they pay for it and have to face their
sponsors. I am fully aware of the propaganda the big 3 peddle.. They're
almost as bad as PBS.. Which in my opinion is the very worst.
Bill Davis
2004-08-17 00:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by nappy
Yes.. let's take that asshole Bill Moyers. For fuck's sake.. he wouldn't
last a day even at CNN with his propaganda.. I watched his show once and was
so enraged..
Ah, nappy's tunnel vision "facts."

I'll see your Bill Moyers and raise you Wall Street Week and Capitol Gang
- oops - such LIBERAL bastions, huh?
PBS is exactly what it purports to be. Public broadcasting. It carries
stuff from the right and the left in pretty equal measure - unless of
course you think ALL ARTS programming is "leftist" - in which case - you
can feel comfortably correct within your own fevered bias.

Heck, I suppose Peter Paul and Mary clips on a funds drive must be
EVIDENCE of a left bias.
(after all everyone knows Puff the Magic Dragon WAS all about permissive
drug use and not just a kids song!)

(snort)
--
Bill Davis
NewVideo


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Richard Crowley
2004-08-15 18:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moving Vision
Post by twobirds
Public radio and Public TV rely on private funding and are often broadcast
from colleges. They rely much on volunteers and almost completely on the
generosity of the public (their viewers and listeners as well as businesses
big and small even though those businesses can't get commercials and can
only get the occasional logo or mention).
Those who complain that the news is left slanted can do something about it
because it is public. They can donate enough money to have a say in what is
aired. They can form a corporation, a conglomerate, or just a group of
donors with enough pull to be part of the decision making process. They can
also make a difference in how the money and time resources are managed by
volunteering or again by donating enough money to be part of the decision
making process.
I coach little league baseball every spring. When parents gripe and
complain about how I manage a team or about my coaching decisions, I tell
them that they can pitch in and help. Then they can become part of the
decision-making process. The same applies to Public TV and Radio. If you
don't like how it works, get off your lazy ass and pitch in and help.
Become part of the process and make the changes you want to see made.
Hey Twobirds! Stop trying to confuse the discussion with facts.
Yeah, I tried that. People who don't share their lib/PC view
are not made welcome, even as volunteers. First hand experience.
Hows them facts?
MSu1049321
2004-08-15 23:02:14 UTC
Permalink
nappy, what DO you watch on TV, or at least, recommend, if you don"t mind
sharing? What are your shining examples?
k***@sonic.net
2004-08-17 01:36:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:52:42 +0100, Moving Vision
Post by twobirds
Post by twobirds
Public radio and Public TV rely on private funding and are often broadcast
from colleges. They rely much on volunteers and almost completely on the
generosity of the public (their viewers and listeners as well as businesses
big and small even though those businesses can't get commercials and can
only get the occasional logo or mention).
Let's not go too far here. As much as I like PBS (watching and
been a member for forty years), I know for a fact that the "occasional
logo" first turned into a single identifying sentence. This morphed
into a mini-ad where the single sentence was stretched into a full
paragraph, albeit with the clauses strung together with conjunctions,
but ending with a single period. Soon they gave up on that charade and
are now running full-on ads for Ford and Lexus, among others. Most of
the cooking and home repair shows are also run by sponsors of related
products who include one or two of their ads at the end of each show.
You may have noticed that PBS in general has dropped the word
"non-commercial" from all of their self-descriptions.
Post by twobirds
Post by twobirds
Those who complain that the news is left slanted can do something about it
because it is public.
They might also consider the prominence of Charles
Krauthammer, Patrick Buchanan, Tony Blankley, et al. when complaining
PBS is left-slanted.
Post by twobirds
They can donate enough money to have a say in what is
Post by twobirds
aired. They can form a corporation, a conglomerate, or just a group of
donors with enough pull to be part of the decision making process. They can
also make a difference in how the money and time resources are managed by
volunteering or again by donating enough money to be part of the decision
making process.
I coach little league baseball every spring. When parents gripe and
complain about how I manage a team or about my coaching decisions, I tell
them that they can pitch in and help. Then they can become part of the
decision-making process. The same applies to Public TV and Radio. If you
don't like how it works, get off your lazy ass and pitch in and help.
Become part of the process and make the changes you want to see made.
Hey Twobirds! Stop trying to confuse the discussion with facts.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...