That's a sexy tiger.

Mitt Romney won't be president. Mitt Romney wants to start a war with the middle east but he was a draft dodger.

10/5/2012 12:32:08 PM

yep. it's totally the same thing. PBS and Sportscenter are equivalent forms of entertainment and I should pay for both of them

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason : i actually donate to NPR so I DO pay for it. it still should be free since it's a PUBLIC good]

10/5/2012 12:33:25 PM

Yep you should pay for it. Why should I be required to pay for your entertainment? This is not a socialist nation. Pay for your own shit.

10/5/2012 12:36:17 PM

Quote :

"On NPR/PBS: I listen to NPR every day. I like NPR, and I like PBS. Many other people feel the same. The fact that I enjoy those stations and listen to them in no way justifies their funding from the federal government. I enjoy and make use of many great goods and services, and I don't mind paying for them. I reject that idea that it is ever moral to force others to help fund things that you use and enjoy. If you like them enough, you'll support them. If you don't like them enough to support them, you're kind of just a dick that wants others to pay the bill for your entertainment."

Because no one reads #49.

Quote :

"yep. it's totally the same thing. PBS and Sportscenter are equivalent forms of entertainment and I should pay for both of them [Edited on October 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason : i actually donate to NPR so I DO pay for it. it still should be free since it's a PUBLIC good]"

You shouldn't have to pay for either of them. Why should it be free? The shows cost money. If this is something the public wants, then the public will pay.

10/5/2012 12:37:22 PM

fuck a well educated and informed society. that shit costs money!

while we're at it, fuck public education, the arts, public health, and anything that contributes to the improvement of our nation.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM. Reason : you people make me sad]

10/5/2012 12:37:27 PM

you all know that PBS is considered a service, right?

10/5/2012 12:42:29 PM

nah dude. it's entertainment for nerds, poor kids who can't read, and old people who are too lazy to change the channel

10/5/2012 12:43:26 PM

Quote :

"fuck a well educated and informed society. that shit costs money!"

So you think that the trick to having a "well educated and informed" society is government funding of news media? Like I said, I like NPR, but it's not a complete picture of current events. There's decent coverage of American political theater, there's some coverage of world news, but a lot of the hard hitting issues still don't get touched.

Part of the purpose of journalism is to serve as a whistleblower when governments or other large organizations fuck up. There's absolutely zero reason for any news outlet to be getting money from the state.

Quote :

"fuck public education"

It has done a great job, hasn't it?

Quote :

"the arts"

The arts will exist whether or not the government dumps money into it. Far more government subsidies end up in the hands of big record labels/entertainment than arts endowments. The idea that art will just dry up if the state isn't paying people to make it is beyond absurd.

Quote :

"public health"

The United States spends more on health care than any other developed country, yet people are very unhealthy. Are you getting it yet? Funding does not equal results.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2012 12:47:32 PM

Quote :

"fuck a well educated and informed society. that shit costs money! while we're at it, fuck public education, the arts, public health, and anything that contributes to the improvement of our nation. "

Under this logic I shouldn't have to pay back my student loans since its for the betterment of the nation.

COLLEGE SHOULD BE FREE

10/5/2012 12:59:13 PM

college should be free.

10/5/2012 1:02:28 PM

Snoop has 10 reasons he hates Romney

10/5/2012 1:08:59 PM

http://

10/5/2012 1:15:27 PM

racist politics!

10/5/2012 1:18:08 PM

Quote :

"That's a sexy tiger."

that's a lion. they're different species.

10/5/2012 1:21:35 PM

A lion is a form of tiger.

10/5/2012 1:22:26 PM

must not have watched that PBS special on lions and tigers.

10/5/2012 1:23:51 PM

Nope I went to public school. See what I got from government mandated bullshit.

10/5/2012 1:25:18 PM

i don't think so. they're in the same genus (panthera), but they are different species.

10/5/2012 1:25:23 PM

So lions and tigers are like cousins. So this argument is like calling a white person white?

10/5/2012 1:26:24 PM

i think it's about not calling a lion a tiger.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM. Reason : it's not like cousins]

10/5/2012 1:26:45 PM

10/5/2012 1:29:45 PM

^ Exactly I saw that on PBS

10/5/2012 1:31:41 PM

Quote :

" So you think that the trick to having a "well educated and informed" society is government funding of news media? Like I said, I like NPR, but it's not a complete picture of current events. There's decent coverage of American political theater, there's some coverage of world news, but a lot of the hard hitting issues still don't get touched."

I never said it's a complete picture of current events. But it sure is an accessible picture. Lots of people can't afford expensive cable TV or the internet. Should they have NO news?

Quote :

" Part of the purpose of journalism is to serve as a whistleblower when governments or other large organizations fuck up. There's absolutely zero reason for any news outlet to be getting money from the state."

You act as if the media is some benevolent outlet that has people's best interest at heart. It's nothing more than a bunch of corporations that are trying to sell advertising- that's not whistleblowing for the sake of being altruistic...

Quote :

" It has done a great job, hasn't it? "

I'm the product of a public education. K-12, college, then junior college, then college again, then graduate school. I work in public education by teaching at a university and a community college to change things and make a difference. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than nothing. What are YOU doing to make a difference and make the world a better place?

Quote :

"The arts will exist whether or not the government dumps money into it. Far more government subsidies end up in the hands of big record labels/entertainment than arts endowments. The idea that art will just dry up if the state isn't paying people to make it is beyond absurd."

I completely disagree with pretty much every single word of this.

Quote :

" The United States spends more on health care than any other developed country, yet people are very unhealthy. Are you getting it yet? Funding does not equal results. "

Part of the reason why people are so unhealthy- and I'm sure you guessed it already- is: the lack of access to public education! Maybe if they didn't spend all of their free time watching cable television or crappy free programming they'd learn how unhealthy their eating habits and lifestyle choices really are.

Nah. But fuck that. Let's get rid of something that's trying to help educate people, in multiple ways, that's accessible to everyone to save a few pennies on the bottom line.

Again. I weep for our youth

10/5/2012 1:48:35 PM

Quote :

"I never said it's a complete picture of current events. But it sure is an accessible picture. Lots of people can't afford expensive cable TV or the internet. Should they have NO news?"

If you don't have cable or internet service, and you're able to watch PBS... aren't you also able to watch other OTA networks which also have... news...

10/5/2012 1:53:06 PM

Quote :

"aren't you also able to watch other OTA networks which also have... news."

whose programming is based on ratings and who (i think we all can admit) are often biased

10/5/2012 1:55:14 PM

is PBS not? I don't watch PBS, but if it's anything like NPR, it can be quite biased (I don't think NPR is nearly as bad as some of the major networks).

10/5/2012 1:57:09 PM

i think PBS is very similar to NPR in their bias. I realize that a commentator on NPR will occasionally say something biased, but by-and-large, they report the facts. some conservatives sometimes think that's biased (like during the war, they complained when deaths were reported, but not when a new school opened), but it's not.

10/5/2012 1:58:38 PM

agreed; some hosts are worse than others on NPR, but for the most part, I do like NPR.

So back to PBS funding. It's been said that the normal networks are ratings driven and ratings obviously tie into advertising revenue. Thus ratings are a huge issue for the major networks, which drives them to a certain bias for their customers. That's a given.

However, do you really think that by ending government funding of PBS, that it could not survive? Would it ultimately mean that PBS has to start pandering to a certain audience in order to improve ratings in order to get an audience, and therefore advertisers? Is it really that harsh?

My earlier point was getting to this: that PBS can survive on its own and not suffer a loss of quality or having to pander. Sure, it wouldn't have the ratings and thus the huge amounts of revenue; but according to many posters, PBS does have a large audience, and thus is attractive to advertisers. I just happen to think PBS/NPR could survive solely on donations and advertising revenues.

And as I said before, and as mentioned by others, Mitt was stupid for bringing this up. On its own, NPR/PBS are squat in the federal budget. No one is arguing against that, or that funding these entities is a huge problem. I'm simply asking for my knowledge; your honest opinions; and to have a respectful political discourse on the principles of government spending, no matter how small.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:00:16 PM

if you think, by definition, public broadcasting is this evil, brainwashing, entity I really don't know what to say to you.

Quote :

"However, do you really think that by ending government funding of PBS, that it could not survive? Would it ultimately mean that PBS has to start pandering to a certain audience in order to improve ratings in order to get an audience, and therefore advertisers? Is it really that harsh?"

YES!

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/5/2012 2:01:49 PM

Commentators are not reporters

10/5/2012 2:02:01 PM

^You just shocked probably 90% of the idiots on this board.

10/5/2012 2:03:14 PM

Lets talk about this for real.

PBS receives some of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the exact amount varies because the stations are independently run.

Public Broadcast Service is a non-profit network spun out of CPB.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is the Government (a publicly funded non-profit)

When Congress created CPB, it declared that developing public media is an important objective not only for private and local initiatives, but also “of appropriate and important concern” to the federal government. Congress also decided that establishing CPB as a private, not-for-profit corporation would facilitate the development of public media.
http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/

It was created by The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which requires the CPB to operate with a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature". It also requires it to regularly review national programming for objectivity and balance, and to report on "its efforts to address concerns about objectivity and balance".

The purpose of the Public Broadcasting Act is to serve the general public, as it is in the interest of the nation to support and encourage public radio and television broadcasting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Broadcasting_Act_of_1967

Among the purposes, specifically, is to target unserved and underserved and minority audiences. That is why conservatives hate it. Not because of the cost, but because of who it goes to. It is why they have always hated it.


[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM. Reason : wiki ]

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:04:56 PM

^thank you!

10/5/2012 2:05:55 PM

Quote :

"However, do you really think that by ending government funding of PBS, that it could not survive? Would it ultimately mean that PBS has to start pandering to a certain audience in order to improve ratings in order to get an audience, and therefore advertisers? Is it really that harsh?"

You're right. Without public funding, PBS would thrive like all other forms non-advertisement supported media.

10/5/2012 2:08:20 PM

6^ no, and that was never said. Bias was mentioned, as bias is a factor in any media outlet.

^^^15-50% federally funded, as has been stated multiple times. And no one is arguing for ending NPR/PBS. My question was, could it survive on its own. I don't see why not.

^Maybe you forgot where I mentioned advertising on PBS/NPR? and it doesn't need to be a multi-million/billion dollar entity to be successful.



[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:08:47 PM

Also, PBS has no central news arm or program production. All of that is done by local stations.

So talking about it like some kind of monolithic organization is dumb

10/5/2012 2:10:24 PM

omg. this is not that difficult...

what is the purpose of public broadcasting again and why doesn't it have advertising (or at least in the traditional sense- i.e corporate) ?

Quote :

"It was created by The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 which requires the CPB to operate with a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature". It also requires it to regularly review national programming for objectivity and balance, and to report on "its efforts to address concerns about objectivity and balance"."

do you really need me to connect the dots for you and explain why advertising and bias go hand-in-hand, or can you make the logical leap by yourself.




[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:14 PM. Reason : i did it for you]

10/5/2012 2:10:31 PM

And I asked why couldn't if offer advertising in order to generate revenue?

You just assume that by using advertising, then PBS/NPR can't operate on the same principles? I don't see how advertising mean PBS can't follow the guideline you just posted.

It's a non-profit. It's not fox news, which is trying to maximize profit, thus ratings, thus advertising dollars, thus pandering.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:11:38 PM

Quote :

"^You just shocked probably 90% of the idiots on this board."

how so? just because i said "commentator" when I meant "reporter"? i'm pretty sure most of us know the difference. It's in their freakin' names. Why so condescending?

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2012 2:11:38 PM

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2012 2:11:38 PM

WE CREATED THIS IN 1967 SO THAT WE COULD HAVE BROADCASTING THAT WASN'T RELIANT ON ADVERTISING AND DID NOT REPORT TO ADVERTISERS OR SHARE HOLDERS BECAUSE AT ONE POINT AMERICANS UNDERSTOOD THAT A FREE PRESS IS IMPORTANT AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC BROADCASTING IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF FREE PRESS

unfortunately, we had to go and target some things to minorities and that started us down the long road of dumb redneck conservatives hating PBS when really PBS should fit nicely into their localize everything, small government mantra. conservatives and rednecks hate minorities.

10/5/2012 2:14:18 PM

Quote :

"how so? just because i said "commentator" when I meant "reporter"? i'm pretty sure most of us know the difference. It's in their freakin' names. Why so condescending? "

I mean wdprice responded by talking about bias in NPR hosts

You guys are earning the condescension

10/5/2012 2:17:03 PM

^^Well, being a non-profit, it wouldn't be reporting to share holders and I doubt would be strangled by advertisers. And you assume that by advertising, then it can't be free press? Wasn't the idea of freedom of the press about separation of media and state? not "state media"?

Quote :

"do you really need me to connect the dots for you and explain why advertising and bias go hand-in-hand, or can you make the logical leap by yourself."

So you assume that if PBS was based on advertising and donations, then it couldn't operate on the same principles that it does now? Again, we are talking about a non-profit; you can't compare it the huge, multi-million/billion dollar mass media outlets.

I don't think advertising automatically means biased news in this case.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:17:16 PM

this isn't state media, no part of PBS is run by the state in any way

hell, the PBS stations aren't even run by PBS. PBS has no central news arm pr program development.

Its about as local and small as it gets

10/5/2012 2:18:35 PM

Quote :

"I think you need to realize that content on a channel is in part determined by what advertisers are willing to pony up the dough. By divorcing itself from advertising revenue, PBS allows itself the autonomy to broadcast educational material instead of honey boo boo"

ahem

10/5/2012 2:20:43 PM

Pretty obvious that some folks in this thread have some really off-base assumptions about what public broadcasting is and how it operates. It's a shame to see them jump to such wild conclusions and in effect shit on their own faces trying to make a point. Read some literature and come back, please.

10/5/2012 2:20:48 PM

Republicans hate small and local

10/5/2012 2:21:08 PM

And my statement was that PBS could offer advertising and still operate by the same principles. If enough people are watching, as you all claim, then advertisers will buy slots and PBS doesn't have to pander to anyone.

You automatically assume that private sector controls are evil. Great view point.

10/5/2012 2:22:08 PM

No one said advertising is evil. It clearly corrupts free information with private intersts. How are you even arguing against that.

10/5/2012 2:23:16 PM

You can tell that wdprice3 has never even watched a PBS station because if he had he surely would have seen at least one of the many fund drives they seem to always have

its funded partly to entirely by contributions (depending on station)

thats about as free and democratic and [insert american ideal] as you get

10/5/2012 2:23:52 PM