login
Goodbye PBS and NPR!
-
No new posts
|
 2005-06-14 3:46 PM |
Buttercup  14334    |  Subject: Goodbye PBS and NPR!"A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting." That'll larn them Northeastern elites! T'aint having no more of this h'ya high-falutin' waste of the taxpayahs dollahs. On a serious note, when does the next election cycle begin? |
| 2005-06-14 4:02 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Expert 683  Denver | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Where's the linky? No offense, but I like my quotes in context. Not that I disagree, but I'm a big picture kinda guy. Call me crazy Midterms. Of course, there are several state and local elections that not many people pay attention to or care about, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. |
| 2005-06-14 4:21 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! |
| 2005-06-14 4:25 PM in reply to: #174859 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! |
| 2005-06-14 8:50 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Elite 2777 In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats. | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Fox News. Now that' an oxymoron. Hey we can't have PBS or NPR, they may tell us something the gov don't like or want us to know. |
| 2005-06-15 8:46 AM in reply to: #174844 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Well, I'll just have to increase my NPR/PBS pledges again... |
| 2005-06-15 3:53 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! >>Hi, >> >>You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how >>Congress is >>slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. >>(Really. >>Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) >> >>Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: >> >>http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?t=2 >> >>A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and >>PBS, starting >>with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free >>children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in >>the >>history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big >>Bird, >>Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. >> >>The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year--$100 >>million--and end funding altogether within two years. The loss >>could kill >>beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," >>and >>"Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving >>low-income >>communities might not survive. Other stations would have to >>increase >>corporate sponsorships. >> >>The next vote on the cuts will take place tomorrow (Thursday). Help >>us >>reach 400,000 signatures to be delivered to the committee members. >> >>http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?t=3 >> >>Thanks! >> >>P.S. Read the Washington Post report on the threat to NPR and PBS >>at: >> >>http://www.moveon.org/r?r=745 >> |
| 2005-06-15 4:09 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Expert 1013 White House, TN | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Actaully, from all your |
| 2005-06-15 4:18 PM in reply to: #175501 |
Pro 5153 Helena, MT | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Hawkeye - 2005-06-15 2:09 PM No more need for subsidy; they can operate through listenership like everyone else. Um, everyone else operates through corporate sponsorship, not listenership. |
| 2005-06-16 7:10 AM in reply to: #175505 |
Expert 1013 White House, TN | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! kimj81 - 2005-06-15 4:18 PM Hawkeye - 2005-06-15 2:09 PM No more need for subsidy; they can operate through listenership like everyone else. Um, everyone else operates through corporate sponsorship, not listenership. Right, listenership, aka "ratings", gives a selling point to sell advertisements to corporations on particular networks at different times. Thus the reason air time goes for over a million dollars for a 30 sec. spot during the Superbowl. What other programs/ networks operate through a government-funded corporation? |
| 2005-06-16 2:59 PM in reply to: #175719 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Hawkeye, but they aren't like everyone else. They aren't meant to be like everyone. They are the Faberge' eggs of our culture, a gift from our government to its populace. Your question is irrelevant. Just because all the other kids are doing it different doesn't mean this has to be like the other kids! |
| 2005-06-16 4:26 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Veteran 147 Pittsburgh, PA | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! NPR and PBS aren't going anywhere...seriously. |
| 2005-06-16 4:27 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Veteran 317 Atlanta | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Um, I work in commercial TV. Things don't happen in commercial TV because we rely on not offending the advertisers. I could tell you about news stories the stations I worked for didn't do because we mustn't piss off McDonalds, or the Auto Mall, or Six Flags or any of the other big clients. Newspapers skipped the stories too. Wanna know why? WE MUSTN'T OFFEND THE ADVERTISERS! Good show get cancelled all the time, because they don't have the audience ADVERTISERS want. Commercial TV doesn't exist without advertisers. I make good money, and I know my bread and butter comes from said ADVERTISERS, my bennies are fabulous. Understanding that, I would go to work for PBS in an instant. Hawkeye, you're an army guy, and I realize you have real concerns about the budget, but this isn't the place to cut. This is an insignificant amount in the scheme of things, and it amounts to political payback. |
| 2005-06-16 4:40 PM in reply to: #175719 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Hawkeye - 2005-06-16 6:10 AM kimj81 - 2005-06-15 4:18 PM Hawkeye - 2005-06-15 2:09 PM No more need for subsidy; they can operate through listenership like everyone else. Um, everyone else operates through corporate sponsorship, not listenership. Right, listenership, aka "ratings", gives a selling point to sell advertisements to corporations on particular networks at different times. Thus the reason air time goes for over a million dollars for a 30 sec. spot during the Superbowl. What other programs/ networks operate through a government-funded corporation? Public schools, farm subsidies, USPS. Lots of things get government support, directly or indirectly. I think the educational nature of programming available on PBS without constant bombardment of commercial product pitches is a good thing. Introducing commercials might make it cheaper, pay for it, but then the focus is lost as you now have profit motive, and cut into the educational time available. That could be about 1/4 if you take a typical ratio of commercials to program content of a typical 30 min "major" network segment. Instead of producing educational content, that admittedly has a lower market share than the latest 'bachelorette', the drive is on content that sells advertising/increases viewership. I feel that programs like Nova, Seasame Street, Mr. Rogers, will better prepare any children I may have for success in the world than Judge Judy, The Bachelor, or Maury Povich. And *I* certainly learn a lot more about what is going on in the world from NPR than I do from Howard Stern. -Chris |
| 2005-06-17 9:04 AM in reply to: #175719 |
Champion 11641 Fairport, NY | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Hawkeye - 2005-06-16 8:10 AM kimj81 - 2005-06-15 4:18 PM Hawkeye - 2005-06-15 2:09 PM No more need for subsidy; they can operate through listenership like everyone else. Um, everyone else operates through corporate sponsorship, not listenership. Right, listenership, aka "ratings", gives a selling point to sell advertisements to corporations on particular networks at different times. Thus the reason air time goes for over a million dollars for a 30 sec. spot during the Superbowl. What other programs/ networks operate through a government-funded corporation? The marketplace usually, but not always, best serves the public good. Case in point: the flu vaccine shortage last year. Even VP Cheney acknowledged that relying strictly on market forces for the supply didn't work. The result could easily have been avoidable deaths of old and very young Americans. Children's programming on PBS is another example. The result of the money spent is better educated children in all parts of the country which is squarely in the national interest. We give tax money to McDonalds and other very large, very profitable corporations to advertise overseas. If we're subsidizing that kind of television, we can certainly justify spending money on teaching our own preschoolers to read. |
| 2005-06-17 10:20 AM in reply to: #174844 |
Extreme Veteran 476 Denham Springs | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! |
| 2005-06-17 11:24 AM in reply to: #176878 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Biseman - 2005-06-17 9:20 AMPBS NPR Yech!I didn't realize anyone actually listened to that stuff... Think of PBS and NPR as the equivalent of a Library for visual and audio media. Some of it *is* quite dry, I'll freely admit.  It has sufficient educational value to society that I feel it should continue to be something that we support.If we only supported programs that 100% of society agreed upon, we'd support nothing at all. -C |
| 2005-06-17 11:27 AM in reply to: #176980 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Heh... I just had to stir the pot... It started out innocently enough. I began to think at cocktail parties. Now and then - just to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself - but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?" One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking ..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently. She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors... They didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. As I sank to the ground, clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster. Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me. Today, I registered to vote as a Republican. |
| 2005-06-17 2:07 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Champion 11641 Fairport, NY | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! |
| 2005-06-17 2:13 PM in reply to: #175501 |
Champion 11641 Fairport, NY | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Hawkeye - 2005-06-15 5:09 PM Actaully, from all your "Whines"? I read this and had to "whine" to moveon.org in the form of another $50 contribution. Thanks for the inspiration. The moment you try to use irrelevant personal insults to belittle someone else's political viewpoint you lose. Edited by marmadaddy 2005-06-17 2:23 PM |
| 2005-06-18 7:28 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Expert 743 Minnesota | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Anyone that insists tax dollers fund PBS or NPR is quite simply putting a gun to my head in order to take my money to fund their interests and values. |
| 2005-06-18 9:44 PM in reply to: #174844 |
Expert 743 Minnesota | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! I was reminded that logic and grace are sometimes better than a slap in the face. There was a method to the madness of my previous comment and I will have to formulate a more ...... reasoned explanation. Anyway, I need to get my kids to bed and I will work on it for tomorrow. |
| 2005-06-19 6:07 AM in reply to: #177248 |
Expert 1013 White House, TN | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! The moment you try to use irrelevant personal insults to belittle someone else's political viewpoint you lose. Yeah, Renee! |
| 2005-06-19 10:38 AM in reply to: #174844 |
Expert 743 Minnesota | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! Those that justify public funding of PBS or NPR do so on the basis of the premise that such organizations act in the public interest. To prove their point, the individuals cite the educational value of the news programing, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers etc. In addition the commercial free virtues are cited. Many, believe it or not, do not value such programing. Public interest is an interesting proposition. After all, what is in the public interest is based on an individuals (or groups) values. What one individual values and finds in the public interest may be completely opposite and totally offensive to another individual. To make my point a bit more clear, I need to set up an analogous argument. Let's say that an organization, such a National Right to Life group had enough members to vote in enough candidates to the Congress. Individuals in this group clearly view eliminating abortion to be in the best public interest. Congress may then begin to enact legislation to collect taxes in order to fund what these individuals believe to be in the best public interest. Many would disagree. One need only to reverse the argument substituting a Pro Abortion group for the National Right to Lifers in order to understand the argument. Put yourself on the losing side of the argument above and you have an idea of how individuals that oppose public funding of PBS and NPR feel. As far as my gun to the head comment... Put yourself on the losing side of the above abortion argument. Now, as a protest to the government enacting legislation imposing a tax contradictory to your values, deduct from your taxes a percentage of money that would equal your normal tax contribution to that particular program. Include a note with your 1040s noting your reduction in tax payment with an explanation for the reduction. See what happens next. |
| 2005-06-19 11:02 AM in reply to: #177910 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Goodbye PBS and NPR! B-One - 2005-06-18 6:28 PMAnyone that insists tax dollers fund PBS or NPR is quite simply putting a gun to my head in order to take my money to fund their interests and values. And I reply again, if we only funded that which 100% of the population supports, we would support nothing. We all have to deal with and accept the fact that there will always be funding going to something that we personally may not support. However, due to the size of our society, there are sufficient people who do support it, that receives the support of our 'collective' government. Remember, government is intended to support the interests of *ALL* of the population, not just the majority interest. In fact, there are many provisions in the design of our system that specifically prevent the majority from imposing upon minority interests. How do you feel about public libraries? Should we raze them in favor of building Barnes & Nobles, since that would be capable of being self supporting? I mean, it's still books right, just like there'd still be TV without PBS and Radio without NPR. So yeah, I am putting a gun to your head and taking your tax money to pay for PBS and NPR. Just the same way a gun is put to my head and my tax money is taken to pay for things that I don't personally support. That's how it works. -Chris |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK