DeeJayH
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,728
- Reaction score
- 1,688
- Location
- Scooping Zeus' Poop
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
tecoyah said: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.
DeeJayH said: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 said: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
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.gwynn said: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.
DeeJayH said: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
quietrage said: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.
DeeJayH said: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
DeeJayH said: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
http://www.google.com/appliance/pbs.htmlA 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.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=173The 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.
Trajan Octavian Titus said: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.
hipsterdufus said:90 million and rising. Got that?
FinnMacCool said:I watch PBS. ITs got some good programs on there.
Vader said:PBS provides educational programming, such as Sesame Street, for younger viewers. It's a good thing to have.
Liberal Because I Care said: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 said: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 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?