Quote :

"How are you even arguing against that."

because he is a moron

10/5/2012 2:24:23 PM

i don't care for mitt romney, but seriously, who gives a fuck about pbs either way

if you're over the age of 6 & watch that channel, then your vote shouldn't count anyway

10/5/2012 2:24:49 PM

I'm not, when it comes to for-profit, multi-million dollar industries.

I've already said that, PBS is a different case and could operate on the same principles with advertising.

(and I've already talked about PBS donations, so yes, I know how it works)

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:24:57 PM

It's different, so it should operate by the same mechanisms. Clearly you have a mind for business and public policy.

10/5/2012 2:25:34 PM

"blah blah blah, i hear what you are saying but i am going to insert my own reality and ignore it"

10/5/2012 2:25:54 PM

^^uh, I think you read that incorrectly. I said PBS could advertise and still operate under its current principles.

^no; but you just can't assume that by advertising PBS couldn't be PBS as we know it. You are assuming that by advertising, it has to become some pandering entity. It doesn't. It's not a for-profit multi-million dollar business.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:26:19 PM

Great point. I'm sure plenty of Ford, BCBS, Harra's Casino, and Trojan condom advertisers want to advertise during Sesame Street. Surely, they would hit their target audience.


wait... no, that's not it at all.

Instead, the content of PBS would be forced to bend to the whim of their advertiser.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM. Reason : n]

10/5/2012 2:26:58 PM

nope, read it correctly

10/5/2012 2:27:00 PM

PBS doesn't have principles. It's a fucking broadcast system.

10/5/2012 2:27:34 PM

^^^ah yes, those are the only advertisers out there!

^whatever you want to call this:

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".""

PBS can operate under that regardless of its source of revenue.

And PBS, just like any other outlet, can say no to advertisers. There are plenty of advertisers out there to go around. Again, you're assuming that advertising means evil things.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:28:51 PM

Quote :

"I said PBS could advertise..."

you mean that the independent stations could advertise, or have you not been paying attention?

there is no monolithic controlling organization.

moron

10/5/2012 2:29:07 PM

PBS as a whole, meaning it's member stations as well... don't wordsmith this. You know exactly what I'm saying.

10/5/2012 2:31:00 PM

Quote :

"Again, you're assuming that advertising means evil things."

You're seriously delusional, or reading another thread, or your fat fucking swollen eyelids are blurring the words on your 13" CRT. I explained not 10 posts ago how media advertising works. No one but you is using the word "evil". You are an impossible piece of shit.

10/5/2012 2:31:31 PM

I can't make that assumption, because its clear that you think PBS is some kind of state-media

10/5/2012 2:31:35 PM

^^And there you go again. You described how it works for for-profit, multi-million dollar industries. Can you not see how it could be different for PBS? Is that an impossibility?

^created by and partially funded by the state. again, you know what I mean.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:32:31 PM

PBS = a waste of .0012 of our GDP. We need cuts, and we gotta start somewhere. Big bird is the first in a long line of sacrifices we must make. We cannot continue borrowing money to pay interest on loans.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : grammer]

10/5/2012 2:32:42 PM

^^magic?

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:32 PM. Reason : ?]

10/5/2012 2:32:49 PM

hey guise, let's change the name PBS so it doesn't have 'public' or 'service' in the acronym. those words are code for commie bullshit, right?

i need a drink...

10/5/2012 2:33:31 PM

Quote :

"^created by and partially funded by the state. again, you know what I mean."

you said state-media last page

and you are dumb

so i can't make assumptions

10/5/2012 2:33:38 PM

Quote :

"Can you not see how it could be different for PBS? Is that an impossibility?"

Yes, it corrupts. This is fact. You are basing your argument on wild guesses, slinging shit against the wall. You have no experience here. You are a child.

10/5/2012 2:33:51 PM

^^I said "state media" notice the quotation marks.

^which was my point. you assume that advertising must corrupt. I'm saying it doesn't.

It's the same general argument for most of you. Public = good. Private = bad.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:34:39 PM

Quote :

"you are dumb so i can't make assumptions"

Haha, I like this dtownral guy

10/5/2012 2:35:27 PM

so you are saying its just kinda like state media? if you were saying it out loud, would you be making air quotes when saying that?

10/5/2012 2:36:08 PM

Corrupt doesn't mean bad. Fuck.

10/5/2012 2:36:10 PM

Quote :

"You just assume that by using advertising, then PBS/NPR can't operate on the same principles?"

Pepsi sponsers NPR
News breaks about pepsi being bottled by abused chinese toddlers
Pepsi tells NPR that it would appreciate it if they didn't make a big deal out of all this

One of two things happens:

A - NPR doesn't make a big deal out of this. Thus not free press.

B - NPR reports it like it would anything else. Pepsi pulls all funding. Other sponsers stay away because they know they won't be given any preferential treatment.

How much coverage do you think the Rupert Murdoch phone hacking scandal got on Fox News? I don't know because I don't watch Fox New, but my guess would be "not much"

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM. Reason : NPR better example since it's more centralized]

10/5/2012 2:36:32 PM

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM. Reason : VVV]

10/5/2012 2:36:44 PM

Why the hell are you people arguing about PBS

10/5/2012 2:36:48 PM

mostly just making fun of wdprice3 for being a fat neck-bearded dumb redneck

10/5/2012 2:37:55 PM

Quote :

" you assume that advertising must corrupt. I'm saying it doesn't. "

And yet, I have a sneaking suspicion you'd be the first motherfucker to whine your fat fucking taint off, complaining about bias, if some liberal hippy company ponied up the cash to sponsor NewsHour.

10/5/2012 2:38:14 PM

^^, ^^^^^
^great contribution!

I give up; you all win. Can't have a decent discussion with you all.

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2012 2:38:34 PM

You don't have to reply. We already know you lost.

10/5/2012 2:40:32 PM

No he should, this is fun

10/5/2012 2:41:59 PM

yep, I lost. I can't compete with you all. Fat neck-bearded redneck; impossible idiot. fat cheeto fingers, etc. You guys put on convincing arguments.

10/5/2012 2:42:53 PM

i think that's the problem

the adults at the table were talking and you got scolded for interrupting and not knowing what you were talking about

now go to your room and do your homework

10/5/2012 2:42:54 PM

Quote :

"if you're over the age of 6 & watch that channel, then your vote shouldn't count anyway"

what? They have some interesting shows. This American Land, BBC World News (much better than most American "News"), interesting gardening shows, NC Now, Nightly Business Report, the Presidential Debates, Charlie Rose, Antique Roadshow, This Old House, etc. etc.

10/5/2012 2:43:36 PM

NOVA, Frontline, anything Ken Burns does....

10/5/2012 2:44:54 PM

Quote :

"entertainment for nerds, poor kids who can't read, and old people who are too lazy to change the channel"

10/5/2012 2:46:44 PM

I generally enjoy it when wdprice3 steps out on the scene to argue his idiotic stances. Looks a lot like this:

10/5/2012 2:47:40 PM

The 2nd idea out of Romney's mouth for balancing the $3.5 trillion dollar budget is cutting $450 million for fucking PBS.

That's $450,000,000

from $3,500,000,000,000

Mitt has big ideas.

10/5/2012 2:54:55 PM

I hear shit like that from my liberal peers all the time.

What they don't seem to understand is that if you cut a lot of small numbers it ends up equaling a big number.

Mind-blowing for sure.

10/5/2012 2:57:34 PM

Please explain to me how many PBSs we have to cut, I don't understand what .012% means

10/5/2012 2:58:47 PM

you'd have to find about 8,000 similarly funded programs

10/5/2012 2:59:24 PM

oh look another moron trying to debate about PBS

10/5/2012 2:59:25 PM

All of the PBSs?



How about every program catering to Muppets?

[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Reason : -]

10/5/2012 2:59:39 PM

So if congress can get its shit together, and cut a PBS at a record pace every 4 weeks then we should be able to fix this in about 600 years

sounds like a good plan


[Edited on October 5, 2012 at 3:03 PM. Reason : or a really dumb plan, I forgot]

10/5/2012 3:02:08 PM

How about we just don't spend so much money on the damn military.

I mean will we ever get to the point where we can say "You know, just spending as much as the entire rest of the world put together is probably sufficient"

10/5/2012 3:03:23 PM

nope. gotta scrimp and save, one PBS at a time if we wanna fix this whole thing

10/5/2012 3:04:36 PM

How about we just stop paying our debts. Lets file bankruptcy. We have enough nukes, no one will ask for their money back.

10/5/2012 3:06:37 PM

I'm trying to find a larger version of this, but even looking at this scale makes be question this validity of anyone parroting the abolition of PBS as "meaningful spending reduction".....

10/5/2012 3:12:55 PM

Romney broke the rules.

Quote :

"The rules of the presidential debates are clear about not bringing outside notes and presidents and aspirants have followed the rule for decades."

Video at the link
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/05/upon-further-review-mitt-romney-may-have-cheated-to-win-the-debate/

10/5/2012 3:19:19 PM