P B S (1 Viewer)

[DeeJayH]

so i am thinking about the resignation of the Con from the board of PBS
and about the Left leanings of PBS
but than i realized,

WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NEED A PUBLICLY FUNDED TV CHANNEL?

arent there enough channels to choose from ?
what is the point, or need of PBS, if any

 

[tecoyah]

I honestly think the "Slant" you percieve is a simple matter of covering the news.The reality is, if your job is to be a reporter, and tell the public what has happened today...well you are going to end up reporting on Republicans far more than Democrats, as should be obvious. The Dems have no power, nothing to say, and no backbone to change it. The Republicans have all the power, make the descisions, and will therefor be held accountable for the results.If PBS reported on the Dems all day....we would all be terribly bored right now.
Ten years ago you should have seen what they were doin' to Clinton.....heh.

I rely on PBS to by relatively unbiased, and just report fact as much as they can, is it perfect in this....hell no, but its about as good as I can hope for right now.

 

[aquapub]

I would have a heart attack if I saw Bill Moyers go one week without painting some company as a Disney Villain or perpetuating feminist myths about women and eating disorders. His coverage was pure DNC/Marxist regurgitation. His over-the-top left-wing speech to finish off his PBS career speaks for itself. The research project I did last year found PBS's Bill Moyers and most of NPR's liberal elitist snobs to be egregiously slanted media sources.

Jim Lehrer (PBS) was the ONLY publicly funded program that ranked anywhere near the middle. PBS (and to a greater extent, NPR) is a left-wing noise machine. The purpose of PBS and NPR at their inception-to provide a relatively ignorant public with TV programming that enriched and educated, filled in the gaps from corporate run programming-was flawed to begin with (because the private sector is always better at this kind of thing) and is clearly beyond its usefulness now.


Publicly funded programs are unaccountable to the public, so when PBS tried to shove its "we are the world," group hug-love fest with the gay community down the throats of the children it was supposed to be educating, parents/consumers had no voice in the matter. With the private sector, that could never happen, which is exactly why private sector needs to handle things. REAL power to the people.

 

[DeeJayH]

I honestly think the "Slant" you percieve is a simple matter of covering the news.The reality is, if your job is to be a reporter, and tell the public what has happened today...well you are going to end up reporting on Republicans far more than Democrats, as should be obvious. The Dems have no power, nothing to say, and no backbone to change it. The Republicans have all the power, make the descisions, and will therefor be held accountable for the results.If PBS reported on the Dems all day....we would all be terribly bored right now.
Ten years ago you should have seen what they were doin' to Clinton.....heh.

I rely on PBS to by relatively unbiased, and just report fact as much as they can, is it perfect in this....hell no, but its about as good as I can hope for right now.

maybe i was not clear
i was refering in particular to the NEED for PUBLIC FUNDING
with all tthe tv channels
with all the 24 news channels
with the internet

is it really necesary for $100's of Millions of Taxpayers dollars go to funding A tv station
not a liberal, not a conservative
but A tv station

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Diogenes]

There was an argument for public broadcasting back when the only way rural folks could get any radio was public funding to build repeater stations in the boondocks. With the advent of satellite TV, this argument is no longer valid.

Then there was an argument that it was the only way people could enjoy highbrow entertainment. Now that we have cable/satellite stations devoted 24/7 to niche markets like weather, shopping and golf(!) supported by advertising, that argument hardly seems valid either -- although Air America has definitely proved that there is no commercial market for liberal blather, and public funding may be the only way to keep the liberal lifeboat afloat... :mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

maybe i was not clear
i was refering in particular to the NEED for PUBLIC FUNDING
with all tthe tv channels
with all the 24 news channels
with the internet

is it really necesary for $100's of Millions of Taxpayers dollars go to funding A tv station
not a liberal, not a conservative
but A tv station

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Oh.....uh......No

 

[gwynn]

Then there was an argument that it was the only way people could enjoy highbrow entertainment. Now that we have cable/satellite stations devoted 24/7 to niche markets like weather, shopping and golf(!) supported by advertising, that argument hardly seems valid either

Because of the bias towards advertising dollars, all of the privately run stations end up reducing quality programs and catering to the lowest common denominator. Discovery covered some of the areas that PBS does, but after the first few years on the air it dropped most of the real scientific programming. For actual science and performing arts, PBS is above and beyond anything available on cable.

Besides which, public funding actually makes up a small portion of PBS funding ( ~15% ).

 

[debate_junkie]

We mostly watch PBS for the science shows, many of the documentaries, and a way to get to see some plays and or concerts we wouldn't otherwise be able to see. While it has it's uses, I would say perhaps the amount of public money it should get should be enough to cover what family and corporate donation doesn't cover?

 

[Diogenes]

Because of the bias towards advertising dollars, all of the privately run stations end up reducing quality programs and catering to the lowest common denominator. Discovery covered some of the areas that PBS does, but after the first few years on the air it dropped most of the real scientific programming. For actual science and performing arts, PBS is above and beyond anything available on cable.

It could equally well be argued that publicly funded stations seek the lowest common denominator to protect their funding by shading their programming to avoid presenting facts and analysis which would make their (liberal) viewer base uncomfortable. The fact that the viewer base is too small to make the station viable is hardly a rational reason to pick everbody else's pocket to make it available to the minority.

 

[ngdawg]

I voted no, but it's conditional. When PBS first came about, it was two things: mostly viewer supported and not on 24/7. Sesame Street and maybe 10-20 shows and series (anyone remember An American Family?) plus news and that was it. Three or four times a year, they'd run begathons and show documentaries and Broadway plays.
Now there isn't just one PBS station per viewing area, there's 3 or 4. They DO run 24/7 and not always the best or most enlightening programs one could see. In many ways, they've outgrown their usefulness.
But, not everyone can afford cable or satellite. Commercial tv services the lowest common denominator-when's the last time the major stations showed anything even remotely 'educational'? So there is a service PBS provides, and maybe it's time it got back to its roots-nonpartisan information, education with some entertainment thrown in.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

so i am thinking about the resignation of the Con from the board of PBS
and about the Left leanings of PBS
but than i realized,

WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NEED A PUBLICLY FUNDED TV CHANNEL?

arent there enough channels to choose from ?
what is the point, or need of PBS, if any

WTF is a PBS? Nobody watches it anyways so who the **** cares which way they slant, unless they start putting politically motivated dialogue on Sesame St. I really don't care cuz like I said nobody watches that crappy station anyways.

 

[quietrage]

Of course there is a need for PBS. If you totally ignore the politics of the station you get to the part of the station I like best. That is the scientific shows that broadcast things that most people do not understand. If PBS was a commercially funded channel those things would never be broadcast again. Look at Discovery Channel and TLC they used to broadcast scientific shows like PBS, but they stopped because companies were not willing to advertise on those channels because of low ratings.
The only way that I learned about string theory was by watching NOVA do a bunch of shows about it. There would not be four shows dedicated to string theory on commercially funded channels.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Of course there is a need for PBS. If you totally ignore the politics of the station you get to the part of the station I like best. That is the scientific shows that broadcast things that most people do not understand. If PBS was a commercially funded channel those things would never be broadcast again. Look at Discovery Channel and TLC they used to broadcast scientific shows like PBS, but they stopped because companies were not willing to advertise on those channels because of low ratings.
The only way that I learned about string theory was by watching NOVA do a bunch of shows about it. There would not be four shows dedicated to string theory on commercially funded channels.

Ya I do love their scientific shows like nova, however, I usually find their documentaries to be pretty biased.

 

[Vader]

so i am thinking about the resignation of the Con from the board of PBS
and about the Left leanings of PBS
but than i realized,

WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NEED A PUBLICLY FUNDED TV CHANNEL?

arent there enough channels to choose from ?
what is the point, or need of PBS, if any

PBS provides educational programming, such as Sesame Street, for younger viewers. It's a good thing to have.

 

[hipsterdufus]

so i am thinking about the resignation of the Con from the board of PBS
and about the Left leanings of PBS
but than i realized,

WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NEED A PUBLICLY FUNDED TV CHANNEL?

arent there enough channels to choose from ?
what is the point, or need of PBS, if any

Don't automatically assume that all Americans can pay $50 - $100 a month for cable sevice. I also think it's vitally important to have a media outlet that is non-profit and not beholden to advertisers. That's also the case for NPR too.

PBS also has strong ties to the local community. In my town, PBS has over 3 local shows that feature local issues. There aren't ANY on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or FOX. In fact, the budget cuts that Republicans want to pass end up hurting the ability of the cities to produce local shows.

A critical goal of PBS.org is to engender loyalty in users by providing comprehensive program information along with deep educational and background content related to its wide range of noncommercial programming. The organization’s public site, PBS.org, is the most visited dot-org site in the world, with an average of more than 16 million visits and over 200 million page views per month. The site features companion pages for more than 500 regular programs and specials plus online learning activities for children, parents, educators, and other engaged viewers.

http://www.google.com/appliance/pbs.html

The stated mission of the 1967 Public Broadcast Act, which authorized the establishment of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is to develop “programming that will be responsive to the interests of the people.” Both PBS and NPR broadcast programming of merit, but it’s unclear as to whether such programming couldn’t find a home on such commercial broadcast alternatives as cable, satellite radio and TV, and the Internet.

http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=173

 

[hipsterdufus]

WTF is a PBS? Nobody watches it anyways so who the **** cares which way they slant, unless they start putting politically motivated dialogue on Sesame St. I really don't care cuz like I said nobody watches that crappy station anyways.

Mr. (George) Will suggested that too few people watch public television for it to be relevant. In fact, nearly 90 million people watch public television each week, up 10 percent from the same time last year. PBS viewership is more than twice that of Discovery or the History Channel, and more than six times that of Bravo. PBS’ audience is larger than that of any cable channel on any night, making it the only broadcaster whose ratings are actually rising, not falling.

90 million and rising. Got that?

 

[DeeJayH]

90 million and rising. Got that?

1 out of every 3 americans watch it?
i highly doubt that
I dont know anybody personally that watches it

 

[FinnMacCool]

I watch PBS. ITs got some good programs on there.

 

[The Mark]

I watch PBS. ITs got some good programs on there.

I watch it occasionally. It has some good programs and some bad ones (bad IMO, of course)

 

[The Mark]

PBS provides educational programming, such as Sesame Street, for younger viewers. It's a good thing to have.

But look what it turned YOU into. :lol: :rofl :mrgreen:

 

[Liberal Because I Care]

I agree with the previous posters who say that PBS may appear to have a liberal bias only because they tell the whole story and that just happens to make the Republicans look bad from time to time. If you're looking for news that won't criticize the Republican party tune in to FOX News. Let's face it, when a channel reports without bias it's going to make the left or the right look bad at times.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I agree with the previous posters who say that PBS may appear to have a liberal bias only because they tell the whole story and that just happens to make the Republicans look bad from time to time. If you're looking for news that won't criticize the Republican party tune in to FOX News. Let's face it, when a channel reports without bias it's going to make the left or the right look bad at times.

So why did the media try its hardest to make Clintons illegal campain donations, White water realestate scandal, perjury, and sexual harassment cases, all just look like it was all about getting his dick sucked and not worthy of debate?

 

[dragonslayer]

On PBS and Cspan, it is possible to hear information without being given Neo conservative propaganda or Democratic propaganda.

They don't support Republican or Democrat. they let people think for themselves.

I know that the NeoCons hate thinking Americans, and want little fascist robots , so they hate PBS, CSpan, and the public schools. It is just that simple.

 

[Liberal Because I Care]

So why did the media try its hardest to make Clintons illegal campain donations, White water realestate scandal, perjury, and sexual harassment cases, all just look like it was all about getting his dick sucked and not worthy of debate?

Even if this were true, how can you twist this into supporting Clinton? I heard many reports on the harassment allegations, the Whitewater scandal, and, of course, Monica Lewinsky. They just didn't do it in the entertainment news style of the cable news channels. I appreciate PBS's "just the facts" style of news reporting. Sounds like you want juicy gossip type news.

 

[DeeJayH]

On PBS and Cspan, it is possible to hear information without being given Neo conservative propaganda or Democratic propaganda.

They don't support Republican or Democrat. they let people think for themselves.

I know that the NeoCons hate thinking Americans, and want little fascist robots , so they hate PBS, CSpan, and the public schools. It is just that simple.

:2rofll:

you are too funny
gee, any bias on your part that may color your perceptions?