FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Help save NPR & PBS (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Help save NPR & PBS
Telperion the Silver
Member
Member # 6074

 - posted      Profile for Telperion the Silver   Email Telperion the Silver         Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like funding for these public services is being voted on by Congress very soon. Here is a petition you can sign to make sure they get their funding.

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?t=1

Sure it's through "MoveOn", but a petition for a good cause is a petition for a good cause. [Smile]

Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Where do you sign the petition to cut/eleminate their federal funding?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
That was going to be my question, Pixiest.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Terrible.
If PBS and NPR goes away it means no more opera broadcasts.
I grew up on PBS, discovered opera because of it and spend every Saturday during opera season listening to the Metropolitian opera on NPR. There is NO WAY federal funding should be cut for it!

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jay
Member
Member # 5786

 - posted      Profile for Jay   Email Jay         Edit/Delete Post 
Why should we fund it? Why can’t it do it on it’s own?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, Pixiest why do you want to remove their federal funding?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Because I philosophically oppose government funding of purely expressive activities when limited resources require content-based decisions to be made in selecting what gets subsidized.

I think Pixiest's objection might be far broader.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Crotalus
Member
Member # 7339

 - posted      Profile for Crotalus   Email Crotalus         Edit/Delete Post 
NPR is so far to the left. Their reporting is always so slanted. I hope they lose their funding. PBS I never watch so I don't know about that. Either way, why should the gov't fund such things as radio and tv programs in the first place?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
I figure that if PBS cannot stay afloat with all of the Seasamie Street toys sold, it deserves to go under.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ela
Member
Member # 1365

 - posted      Profile for Ela           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't want NPR and PBS to lose their funding.

On the other hand, if they are able to finance themselves totally through private grants and contributions, they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.

Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ela:
I don't want NPR and PBS to lose their funding.

On the other hand, if they are able to finance themselves totally through private grants and contributions, they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.

There's a good point... They can put all sorts of outrageous and contraversal stuff on. I know some of the best documentaries I've seen have been on PBS.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.
That is almost hilarious -- since NPR (especially) is to biggest government-funded ANTI-government programming I know of. The government is allowing their dollars to go to air propaganda that only slams the government. I have never understood that thinking!
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jay
Member
Member # 5786

 - posted      Profile for Jay   Email Jay         Edit/Delete Post 
This is great, for once I agree with a majority of the posters on a political topic. Wow…. What a feeling.
I think I might faint…….

Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

The government is allowing their dollars to go to air propaganda that only slams the government.

This makes me suspect that you have not perhaps actually listened to much NPR programming. While I'd prefer that they played less slow jazz and maybe hired somebody who didn't sound like he was on valium, I don't think you can level an "anti-American" charge at them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
romanylass
Member
Member # 6306

 - posted      Profile for romanylass   Email romanylass         Edit/Delete Post 
I've signed...I for one don't want them to lose funding.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Alcon
Member
Member # 6645

 - posted      Profile for Alcon   Email Alcon         Edit/Delete Post 
I listen to NPR all the time, and the really aren't all the far to the left. In fact, they aren't to the left at all. Of all the news organizations out there, they are the most unbaised I've ever listened to. Perhaps, in comparison to many of the others, that makes them seem like they are biased to one way or the other, but they aren't. The reporting is generally straight reporting of the facts and when they have commentary they'll have commentary from both sides of the issue.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Annie
Member
Member # 295

 - posted      Profile for Annie   Email Annie         Edit/Delete Post 
It's the only non-asinine programming available. Why on earth do we want to see it privatized?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
I only ever watch PBS anymore. If they stop broadcasting, can you imagine how out-of-touch I'd get?

I don't know how Utah supports 2 stations with a population of only 2 million.

P.S. The email they'll be sending to my congresspeople wasn't very polite. I inserted "Thank you for the many years of PBS blah blah." The "Congress must fund PBS" doesn't seem like it will go over very well. Maybe I should volunteer to help them write a letter than doesn't sound like a threat.

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
NPR is so far to the left. Their reporting is always so slanted. I hope they lose their funding.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. A recent study of NPR news reports over the past 2 decades, concluded that NPR was neutral to slightly right leaning. They based their conclusion on the number of times conservative vs liberal persons were interviewed and the slants on the interviews.

The perception that NPR is far to left comes from right wingers who are so extreme that they have no idea where the neutral ground lies.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
But that underscores my reason for not wanting it funded - someone will always be underrepresented, and thus disadvantaged in the government funded forum.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I don't think you can level an "anti-American" charge at them.
She didn't claim this. She claimed that they were anti-American government.

Which is pretty accurate at the moment, but I think much of that is just because the government leans to the Right right now.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Annie
Member
Member # 295

 - posted      Profile for Annie   Email Annie         Edit/Delete Post 
If the government only supported their cheerleaders, that wouldn't do much for the free-thought atmosphere we've long been so proud of here.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I have definitely, definitely heard very left-slanted stories on NPR. The most extreme bias I have ever heard there are the stories on abortion, but the election coverage was also often blatantly biased.

I am not a right-winger, and I am not extreme.

I love NPR, and I want it to keep its funding. I don't care about PBS, but NPR is different from anything else on the radio, and I like that, even if I don't agree with everything I hear.

----

Annie, I think that's the reason it is biased. They'd rather take action than be cheerleaders, and that often means moving contrarily to the largest coherent source of power and activity, the government. That means a left-leaning voice.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jay
Member
Member # 5786

 - posted      Profile for Jay   Email Jay         Edit/Delete Post 
NPR isn’t biased??!?! Please. That is unreal to even say. That’s like saying John Kerry and Hillary Clinton aren’t liberal.
I’ve heard their news, it’s even more biased then CNN. Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?

Besides, they’ve already admitted they’re liberal:
NPR Admits a Liberal Bias

Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd say that there's bias in NPR's reporting; honestly I don't know if it's possible for a news piece *not* to have some sort of a slant, due to the fact that human beings are the ones producing the stories, and even choices such as which bits of information to include, where to cut off the sound bite, etc can't help but have an impact on how a story is going to be perceived.

For example, it's only on NPR that I've heard the recent clip in which Bush was talking about conditions in the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay played through long enough to get to the point where Bush refers to the former inmates of the camp who are telling tales of their treatment there as "disassemblers", and then goes on to explain to the reporters gathered that a "disassembler" is someone who tells lies. It's possible that more conservative news sources have aired that part of Bush's speech, but I haven't heard them doing so, and I'd be surprised if they did, since he comes off as a bit of an idiot in it.

I'm also fairly sure that I've heard more coverage of the Downing Street memos on NPR than I have from more conservative news stations.

I don't think that it's a bad thing, to have a news source that isn't completely in step with the others, and I think that it's an actively good thing to have a news source that isn't owned by a for-profit corporation. Having the news media be owned by a handful of companies and individuals is a dangerous thing, I think, and if I had my way it wouldn't be allowed. The existence of entities such is NPR, PRI, and BPS is an actively good thing, as they are news channels that by definition aren't going to be owned by the Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs of the world. I'm glad that NPR exists, and I think that it serves a purpose in this country that is well worth funding.

Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
I've never gotten the anti-government vibe from NPR, and I listen to it almost exclusively on my way to and from work every day. If anything, they tend to give more coverage to the Republican powermonger point of view.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sopwith
Member
Member # 4640

 - posted      Profile for Sopwith   Email Sopwith         Edit/Delete Post 
Yanno, I just can't get as fired up about saving public broadcasting as I used to. I'm not going to shout "Down with PBS", but its (and NPR's) survival, sadly, just gets a lukewarm, uninspired feeling from me.

Maybe it's because even though I see a need for non-commercial broadcasting, I'm just so unenthused by their programming. Once in a great while something comes on PBS that is the most interesting thing on TV at that moment. But it is once in a GREAT while.

And NPR ... man, I've had my share of opera, slow jazz and chamber music. The news is as dry and slanted as the south side of Cheop's last condo.

Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tstorm
Member
Member # 1871

 - posted      Profile for Tstorm   Email Tstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm trying my best to stay out of the political debates. However, I do enjoy some of the programming I've seen on PBS and NPR.

I hope they get their funding. I don't care how much people politicize it, and try to destroy it for their own means. If PBS is eliminated, I'll be sad for the loss to our country. I truly think they provide some good service.

Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OSTY
Member
Member # 1480

 - posted      Profile for OSTY   Email OSTY         Edit/Delete Post 
My big down of supporting PBS is that there are so many channels doing the same thing that are doing it via commercial support. National Geographic, History Channel, Biography Channel and on and on. Why do we need to be spending money on something that others seem to be able to do without national support?
Posts: 224 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Morbo
Member
Member # 5309

 - posted      Profile for Morbo   Email Morbo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sopwith:
And NPR ... man, I've had my share of opera, slow jazz and chamber music. The news is as dry and slanted as the south side of Cheop's last condo.

[ROFL] Very funny metaphor.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
screechowl
Member
Member # 2651

 - posted      Profile for screechowl   Email screechowl         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay:
NPR isn’t biased??!?! Please. That is unreal to even say. That’s like saying John Kerry and Hillary Clinton aren’t liberal.
I’ve heard their news, it’s even more biased then CNN. Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?

Besides, they’ve already admitted they’re liberal:
NPR Admits a Liberal Bias

I don't think L Brent Bozell is a reliable, objective middle of the road source.

web page

I also think continued support of NPR is an acceptable way to spend my tax dollars.

Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?
Is there a chance you that you see a bias, because you are unaware of the extent of your own right leaning bias?

My comment was not based on my personal observations but the report of study done last year which systematically investigated bias in NPR news reports. That study found NPR reports to be neutral to slightly right leaning. The study found that over the past 15 years, NPR was more interviewed more republicans than democrats (even when democrats controlled the executive and legislative branches) and that they were more likely to present republicans in a positive light than democrats.


You, and most of the right wing in the US, are begging the question when they make accusations that the media has a liberal bias. Prove it to me. Show me where the media has selectively excluded data to make the lefts position more favorable. Show me that this is a consistent trend in reporting and not an isolated incident. Perhaps you percieve a liberal bias because the facts just don't support your conservative POV.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
yeah, Tom. I wasn't talking about the jazz (I actually like jazz) -- pretty much all I've heard on NPR is NPR News, and I wasn't very impressed.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit -- did you have a internet link to that study? I would like to read it.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
:D

I just got it. Very funny, Sopwith.

Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
screechowl
Member
Member # 2651

 - posted      Profile for screechowl   Email screechowl         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
[QUOTE]

My comment was not based on my personal observations but the report of study done last year which systematically investigated bias in NPR news reports. That study found NPR reports to be neutral to slightly right leaning. The study found that over the past 15 years, NPR was more interviewed more republicans than democrats (even when democrats controlled the executive and legislative branches) and that they were more likely to present republicans in a positive light than democrats.

I think you can find that report on the same page as the story about L. Brent Bozell in the link I give above.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is there a chance you that you see a bias, because you are unaware of the extent of your own right leaning bias?
There's a chance, but I don't think so. There's also a chance that the study you cite is crippled by its own prejudices.

Example of bias (taken from my own post on another forum):

I noticed it first during a discussion on abortion. Someone did a study that says if a certain number of justices die, are replaced by anti-abortion judges, the right case comes before the court, and the stars align in an unholy pattern, abortion may be made illegal. That was the only side presented, and the story closed with a warning that if Bush is re-elected this terrible thing may happen.

It was as if there wasn't even another side to the abortion question, and those that did not consider abortion to be a natural right were part of a dangerous fringe group instead of half the nation. I've seen the same attitude in every major publication I can think of. Even normally balanced entities (like Newsweek tried to be before it turned into a fluffy shopping mag) have wildly unbalanced abortion stories.

50% of America does not think abortion should be granted freely as long as it is the woman demanding it, instead preferring that some restictions are there. The desired restrictions range from the type of procedure allowed to the limiting abortions depending on the circumstances under which the woman got pregnant, but you'd never know that half of America objects to abortion from NPR's coverage that I've heard.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jay
Member
Member # 5786

 - posted      Profile for Jay   Email Jay         Edit/Delete Post 
Prove it? Ok. Easy enough. CBS fake documents. Dan Rather. Here’s a website that makes a living by Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias: http://www.mrc.org/
Have fun.

Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Bias at CBS, which is completely unrelated to PBS and NPR, proves bias at PBS and NPR? I am astonished.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

 - posted      Profile for UofUlawguy   Email UofUlawguy         Edit/Delete Post 
I love NPR and PBS. I agree that some of their programming has a leftward slant. I'm thinking in particular of Fresh Air, an interview program with Teri Gross (sp?). But, even though I'm mostly conservative, I love to listen to her, and much of the other programming on NPR. My kids are allowed to watch only three things on TV: 1) videos of our choice; 2) sports, with no commercials; and 3) PBS children's programming, under our supervision. They love shows such as CyberChase, Between the Lions, and DragonTales, and so do we. I grew up on Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers and Electric Company.

Many of the most valuable shows on PBS and NPR are "Dry" in the sense that they have little commercial appeal. Without public radio/television, these programs would not air at all. I don't want (im)pure market forces to decide that these shows die, while Yu-Gi-Oh and Fear Factor stay on TV and Tom Leykis stays on the radio.

I get Dagonee's point about content-based judgments, but when a large portion of the programming is educational, community-based, or arts/crafts (in the case of PBS) or news (world, national, economic), human interest, and art (in the case of NPR), then there is really only limited room for politically charged programming, anyway. Most of the programming has little to no room for political positions, because it's about something else entirely.

I say keep funding the CPB, and maybe even increase the funding by cutting other places in the budget.

Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
What I wish ANY news program would do is curb the notion that only trouble and rumors of trouble is news. I would like to hear more about the positive during a news show. What's going RIGHT in the world? What problems are being solved? Where are people cooperating and getting along?

NPR is really good at bringing up a whole host of problems, interviewing a bunch of people to flesh out those problems, and then leaving me with the impression that there is no solution and that the world is going to pot. Some days I can take the weight of all the negative news, but sometimes I have to turn the station and listen to some music. Nothing ever seems to be going well on the news.

Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

 - posted      Profile for UofUlawguy   Email UofUlawguy         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I feel like NPR does a BETTER job of covering positive news than do other sources. They often have whole programs devoted to just that. And even the more tragic and depressing news is presented in a less sensationalistic tone, and in a more matter-of-fact way.

I change the channel when I start getting too much repetition. The nature of NPR news means that you get in-depth coverage of big stories, but lots of repetition throughout the news day. That's good because people tune in at different times, but that also means you have to tune out after a while, too.

Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't get a lot of positive from Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Although Morning Edition seems to have a bit more upbeat cast to it. But yeah, a lot of other shows on NPR are positive. I think Car Talk is the best show on radio, regardless of whether you know anything about cars. I laugh through that whole show.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Speed
Member
Member # 5162

 - posted      Profile for Speed   Email Speed         Edit/Delete Post 
I personally love NPR. I don't listen to the radio that much. But when I do, that's the only station I ever tune in to. I like the music. I love the news, and the way they do stories about things that you'd never hear about elsewhere. I love programs like Car Talk and All Things Considered. And I find their internet resources and archives incredibly valuable. That being the case, I have no problem with my tax dollars supporting NPR. And the same goes for PBS.

There is an important distinction, however. While I don't mind my money funding programming that I enjoy, I don't feel comfortable with taking other peoples' money to support my own tastes in information and entertainment. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have never listened to NPR, and never will do so in the future. Whether it is because of a political opinion or just lack of interest, it is their right to choose their diversions, and not their responsibility to fund mine. They didn't ask me to chip in when they bought a ticket to Monster-in-law or picked up the latest Kelley Clarkson album, and I don't think it would be fair for me to do the equivalent.

I sincerely hope that NPR doesn't go under. I have contributed to them in the past, and if the government cuts their funding, I'll probably contribute more in the future. But if they can't stay afloat with the resources of the people that listen to them, I can't see how it would be fair to blame the government or the uninterested taxpayer.

Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

 - posted      Profile for UofUlawguy   Email UofUlawguy         Edit/Delete Post 
Car Talk is truly cool. And I don't know anything about the workings of cars, or have any interest therein.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
"What I wish ANY news program would do is curb the notion that only trouble and rumors of trouble is news."

Amen to that. This is why I generally don't watch the news. I used to watch News Hour until Paul Gigot left. Brooks seems out of his depth.

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IdemosthenesI
Member
Member # 862

 - posted      Profile for IdemosthenesI   Email IdemosthenesI         Edit/Delete Post 
Three Words:

This American Life.

That show alone is worth the price of admission. Add other fantastic programming like Selected Shorts, Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, Car Talk, Whad'ya Know, and the always wonderful A Prairie Home Companion, and I don't see how anybody could support doing away with NPR. For the love of God, don't take my NPR away from me!!

Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
I like Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion. Though he might be well-known enough to get picked up by a commercially run station. Same for Click and Clack. I wouldn't want them to have to change to be more commercially viable.

And I think the news shows tend to have positive ones more often than you think -- just today they had a funny story about a woman in Alaska's living room was trashed by an eagle with a salmon.

Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Fugu, Jay was responding to this:

quote:
Show me where the media has selectively excluded data to make the lefts position more favorable. Show me that this is a consistent trend in reporting and not an isolated incident.
It's clearly not limited to PBS/NPR.

quote:
I get Dagonee's point about content-based judgments, but when a large portion of the programming is educational, community-based, or arts/crafts (in the case of PBS) or news (world, national, economic), human interest, and art (in the case of NPR), then there is really only limited room for politically charged programming, anyway. Most of the programming has little to no room for political positions, because it's about something else entirely.
My point isn't limited to just political views. Why should craft shows get public support? Why should art, or human interest?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, in that case, the CBS thing doesn't constitute more than an isolated incident. And they didn't selectively exclude data, either, they included data based on inadequate fact checking. Very different.

As for why those shows should get public support, dag, it depends; is there a legitimate government interest in supporting that sort of show? There's a legitimate government interest in criminalizing many seemingly mild things (such as bottle rockets), and I don't see how there should be some huge barrier to having a legitimate government interest in various sorts of programming. Thus, art shows should get public support if there's a government interest in promoting art; craft shows for craffts; human interest for the appropriate topic. Fairly decent arguments can be made for all these things.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2