|
Originally Posted by Panda Phil
Would like to hear some examples of how PBS is so far left.
|
Originally Posted by Panda Phil
Would like to hear some examples of how PBS is so far left.
excerpt On the other hand, as ombudsmen often say, this came across to me more as a conversation among theologians than it did as a truly probing interview with a truly controversial person who had said some truly inflammatory things and had become deeply inserted into a tight, hard-fought and historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination. While I don’t endorse the language or the broader criticisms below, I do feel that there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft, considering the volatility of the charges. For example, after replaying at length a Wright sermon delivered the first Sunday after 9/11— in which Wright invoked America’s role in slavery, taking the country from the Indians, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libyan leader Gaddafi’s house, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Iraq, plus state terrorism against Palestinians and black South Africans to conclude that the 9/11 attacks were “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” — Moyers asked: “When people saw the sound bites from it this year, they were upset because you seemed to be blaming America. Did you somehow fail to communicate?” As Howard Kurtz wrote in The Washington Post afterwards: “Thought he was blaming America? Where did anyone get that idea?” It would be hard to formulate a more delicate way to put a question to Wright about that sermon without challenging any of its content. Moyers did seek to draw Wright out about his “God damn America” statement, and he called Wright to task, still rather gently, about Louis Farrakhan. But others of those inflammatory, and inaccurate, statements that Moyers himself laid out at the top of the program went largely unchallenged and those that did come up didn’t really get addressed until well into the hour-long program. Some comments, such as the HIV accusation, didn’t get addressed at all, nor were other questions asked about whether, for example, the U.S. should have invaded mainland Japan at the cost of countless lives, American and Japanese, rather than dropping two atomic weapons. |
Originally Posted by Groucho
Bert and Ernie's nefarious scheme to entice children into choosing the gay lifestyle, for one.
|
Originally Posted by boredsilly
I would have absolutely no problem with the government paying for it outright, if I didn't see some Elmo toy selling a bagillion pieces every 3rd christmas or the Thomas the Tank Engine section of an aisle being 16 feet long. That rubs me the wrong way, but then I'm sure there is something here that I don't understand that would explain why things are this way.
As far as PBS being too left, didn't Tucker Carlson have a show on there once? I know he may not be classically right-wing, but I don't think PBS is nearly as steadfastly leftist as some make them to be. I've got no problem with the government giving PBS any money. As mentioned, it just isn't enough to whine about. |
I'm fine with it. PBS has received less and less from the govt. over the years anyway. I don't think the short commercials they have on now are a big deal. They should have more to get rid of the annoying pledge drives altogether. In truth, I haven't watch PBS since I was a kid. They do produce some mighty fine stuff on HDTV though.
|
Originally Posted by boredsilly
Yeah, I feel sort of the same way. I would have absolutely no problem with the government paying for it outright, if I didn't see some Elmo toy selling a bagillion pieces every 3rd christmas or the Thomas the Tank Engine section of an aisle being 16 feet long. That rubs me the wrong way, but then I'm sure there is something here that I don't understand that would explain why things are this way.
|
Originally Posted by big whoppa
PBS has received less and less from the govt. over the years anyway.
CPB appropritations (in millions) 2000 $300 2001 $340 2002 $350 2003 $362.8 2004 $377.8 2005 $386.8 2006 $396 2007 $400 2008 $393 2009 $400 2010 $420 |
Originally Posted by B.A.
From what I have read - Sesame Street is entirely self-sufficient because of their merchandising.
Also not true (source ). For 2007, $52.3 million from licensing vs $99.5 million program expenses. |
Originally Posted by auntiewinnie
Also not true (source ). For 2007, $52.3 million from licensing vs $99.5 million program expenses.
|
Originally Posted by majorjoe23
Does a majority in a poll on Parade's website translate into "an overwhelming majority of Americans"?
Has anyone ever studied the history of Public Television? I did in college and I guess I feel it is still an important part of our society. When we talk about educational television, and some people bring up Discovery and National Geographic, do we forget those are all cable stations. Some people think we need some help in this country with education. Doesn't educational television seem like the least we could do? |
Originally Posted by auntiewinnie
Not true.
CPB appropritations (in millions) 2000 $300 2001 $340 2002 $350 2003 $362.8 2004 $377.8 2005 $386.8 2006 $396 2007 $400 2008 $393 2009 $400 2010 $420 |
Originally Posted by Doughboy
In theory, I have no problem with federal funding for PBS. But their politics are skewed so far to the left that I have a serious problem with my tax dollars going to them.
Get them to clean up their act and then I'd be for it. the specials Frontline did on going to war in Iraq and how the US screwed things up in the first year were right on. i'd say PBS is more fair on political issues than CNN and their idiotic specials with Andersen Cooper the educational shows on PBS seem to be a lot better researched than Discovery, Science or History Channels which pass of theories and hypotheses that aren't proven as accepted science. and PBS was one of the first stations to start HD broadcasts |
Originally Posted by big whoppa
My bad. Maybe adjusted for inflation. It's always been PBS' line during pledge drives.
|
Originally Posted by al_bundy
where is this left wing agenda?
|
Originally Posted by auntiewinnie
See post #27.
|
so he interviewed someone with crazy views? every news person does this. on msnbc they used to let some guy named savage talk
on frontline they did good interviews with administration officials and post 9/11 security without going into simple accusations that people's rights or privacy was violated. they explained things in detail including naming the silicon valley manufacturer of the network security hardware that the NSA uses to scan traffic |
There is no need to fund PBS, as the market will determine which shows are worthy of being on another network. You don't think someone will pickup Frontline? That is a great show that I enjoy very much. Other shows like Sesame Street will be picked up too, so I just can't understand why the government needs to fund a Television station, when there are hundreds of channels out there? Is just makes no sense.
|
Originally Posted by al_bundy
so he interviewed someone with crazy views?
To quote the ombudsman (again): I do feel that there were not enough questions asked and some that were asked came across as too reserved and too soft, considering the volatility of the charges It would be hard to formulate a more delicate way to put a question to Wright about that sermon without challenging any of its content |
Originally Posted by coli
There is no need to fund PBS, as the market will determine which shows are worthy of being on another network. You don't think someone will pickup Frontline? That is a great show that I enjoy very much. Other shows like Sesame Street will be picked up too, so I just can't understand why the government needs to fund a Television station, when there are hundreds of channels out there? Is just makes no sense.
Don't you think it's a mistake to let all of our societal needs be determined by free enterprise? I think there is a left leaning bent to Public Televison. One of the main reasons being that it pays less than network, or hell even cable television. Most of the producers with television experience willing to work for less money, usually have more altruistic, less right-wing mentalities. That may be a generalization, but I've worked in it, and it seems to be the case. |
Originally Posted by Bobby Shalom
Because, Public Television was created for the masses. Not everyone can spend $30 - $100 a month for cable television.
Don't you think it's a mistake to let all of our societal needs be determined by free enterprise? I think there is a left leaning bent to Public Televison. One of the main reasons being that it pays less than network, or hell even cable television. Most of the producers with television experience willing to work for less money, usually have more altruistic, less right-wing mentalities. That may be a generalization, but I've worked in it, and it seems to be the case. Don't you think it's a mistake to let all of our societal needs be determined by free enterprise? Yes, everything should be determined by free enterprise, because it works. It may swing back and forth, like the housing market, but when something booms, and also corrects itself somewhere along the line. |
Originally Posted by coli
Yes, everything should be determined by free enterprise, because it works.
And while I am not going to try to change your mind, I would like to think about that 10% who do not have cable television. |
Originally Posted by Bobby Shalom
I would like to think about that 10% who do not have cable television.
|
Originally Posted by auntiewinnie
[keith olberman]And I would like you, SIR, to think about those US Americans who don't even have televsions.[/keith olberman]
|
I've posted this before, it seems appropriate
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a41lJIhW7fA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a41lJIhW7fA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> I think the real value of public television comes from a children's programming perspective. I have far more sources of information as an adult, I could care less if some people at PBS aren't completely neutral. |
Originally Posted by auntiewinnie
No, you missed the point.
To quote the ombudsman (again): and In other words, the interviewer failed to pursue the interviewee with the vigour one would have hoped for given the circumstances. Which leads one to wonder why. a lot of times people come on TV with the questions already agreed on |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.