Bush to Cut PBS...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess it was no surprise that "Rrrrghhh!!! Liberal Media" crowd jump on this as a bandwagon for flaccid arguments based on a stereotypical preconceptions about how the media works. big YAWN....

I've listened to NPR radio a few times, from a journalist's perspective it is rather less emotionally charged than you see on your average primetime network news (which is geared towards ratings and competition with the other networks). Corporate news reporting, especially in the US (rather less so in Britain) tends to be an marketing exercise to promote specific personalities, like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs. Most of the actual reporting I've seen on those channels is mediocre at best, sensationalist and blurs the boundary between traditional news reporting and editorial. Which reminds me - walking to work the other day I saw a poster ad for, I think ABC (correct me if I'm wrong) with anchor Charles Gibson's face with a quote under it along the lines of:

"Its one thing to report the news, its another to help you make sense of it". - I found it rather patronizing personally.

I've not watched much PBS - though I notice they screen a lot of BBC dramas. Speaking of which:

Britain has had publicly funded Television and radio for a long time. In fact, the BBC is entirely publicly funded by an annual licence fee. For terrestrial users (who get 5 basic channels, 2 BBC and 3 commercial) the fee is compulsory which has always been controversial, perhaps more so these days as there is more choice out there with subscription services. Whether or not you agree with the licence fee - there is a marked difference in general quality between BBC programming and the other commercial stations - in fact the only thing that really comes close to the BBC in programming quality is Channel 4, and even that has been on a bit of a downturn the last few years.

The BBC has been around for so long that its become a national institution. Even when the beeb got savaged over the reporting of that David Kelly story a couple of years ago, it was the corporation who received most public sympathy, while Blair et al might as well have wiped their arses on the queen's robe ;-)

Edited February 10, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

can you two ever agree to disagree?

you both act like one day you are going to convince the other one that your point of view is the right one

That is what makes this democracy of ours balanced. The "Yin" and the "Yang" if you will. If this wasn't the case, then of course you would have a totalitarian society like communism or even worse.

Or perhaps you would have people who only open their mouths when they actually have something to say

[GaryC 7]

Or perhaps you would have people who only open their mouths when they actually have something to say

So you are saying.... what?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or perhaps you would have people who only open their mouths when they actually have something to say

So you are saying.... what?

More than Lurker, who seems to deal exclusively in insults, expletives and generalities

But please feel free to respond to the other post, where I did actually say something - and it wasn't the "90% of the media is liberal" trash. I'll go with 90% of the US media just plain stinks - no wonder politics is so polarising over here. If its not partisan you can't understand it, so you bash that square peg to fit the round hole.

[Captain Ewok 1,928]

Watch this. This will certainly say it all in a nut shell. It is six minutes and worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2883185966575573317

TV shows on PBS are broadcast worldwide and have helped hundreds of millions of kids and adults alike.

[GaryC 7]

Watch this. This will certainly say it all in a nut shell. It is six minutes and worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2883185966575573317

TV shows on PBS are broadcast worldwide and have helped hundreds of millions of kids and adults alike.

Don't get me wrong Captain. Some of what PBS does is very good. I am too old to have watched any of them as a kid but I know my little sister loved S.S..

The name of the network is the Public Broadcasting Service. I have supported it in the past and I hope the public will continue. However, they have started down the road of political activism. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it's funded by voluntary donations. But the government should not fund it with our tax money unless they want to stick to children's shows and nature programs.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Lurker 0]

Or perhaps you would have people who only open their mouths when they actually have something to say

So you are saying.... what?

More than Lurker, who seems to deal exclusively in insults, expletives and generalities

But please feel free to respond to the other post, where I did actually say something - and it wasn't the "90% of the media is liberal" trash. I'll go with 90% of the US media just plain stinks - no wonder politics is so polarising over here. If its not partisan you can't understand it, so you bash that square peg to fit the round hole.

Where is the insults? Again another demonizing bomb when your hole has no facts to back it up. The 90% of liberal media is of a poll that was taken by one of the top rated polling organizations which both democrats and republicans respect.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp and these polls were done by the Pew Research Center. Of course you will find a way to discount them one way or another...remember? It doesn't agree to your "Feel good" attitude.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess it was no surprise that "Rrrrghhh!!! Liberal Media" crowd jump on this as a bandwagon for flaccid arguments based on a stereotypical preconceptions about how the media works. big YAWN....

I've listened to NPR radio a few times, from a journalist's perspective it is rather less emotionally charged than you see on your average primetime network news (which is geared towards ratings and competition with the other networks). Corporate news reporting, especially in the US (rather less so in Britain) tends to be an marketing exercise to promote specific personalities, like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs. Most of the actual reporting I've seen on those channels is mediocre at best, sensationalist and blurs the boundary between traditional news reporting and editorial. Which reminds me - walking to work the other day I saw a poster ad for, I think ABC (correct me if I'm wrong) with anchor Charles Gibson's face with a quote under it along the lines of:

"Its one thing to report the news, its another to help you make sense of it". - I found it rather patronizing personally.

I've not watched much PBS - though I notice they screen a lot of BBC dramas. Speaking of which:

Britain has had publicly funded Television and radio for a long time. In fact, the BBC is entirely publicly funded by an annual licence fee. For terrestrial users (who get 5 basic channels, 2 BBC and 3 commercial) the fee is compulsory which has always been controversial, perhaps more so these days as there is more choice out there with subscription services. Whether or not you agree with the licence fee - there is a marked difference in general quality between BBC programming and the other commercial stations - in fact the only thing that really comes close to the BBC in programming quality is Channel 4, and even that has been on a bit of a downturn the last few years.

The BBC has been around for so long that its become a national institution. Even when the beeb got savaged over the reporting of that David Kelly story a couple of years ago, it was the corporation who received most public sympathy, while Blair et al might as well have wiped their arses on the queen's robe ;-)

Well said, erekose! Excellent! Cult of personality

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Watch this. This will certainly say it all in a nut shell. It is six minutes and worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2883185966575573317

TV shows on PBS are broadcast worldwide and have helped hundreds of millions of kids and adults alike.

Dr. Fred Rogers was a one-of-kind individual.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well I have to say... there's nothing so biased as a politicized mission statement

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

How is "Scientific Research" supposed to prove that "traditional American values" are being "undermined"?

I mean.... there's no litmus test for ideology...

Edited February 10, 2007 by erekose

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I thought it would be interesting to see who the commie libs who will be participating in the next Frontline will be

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/preview/

[DeadPoolX 9]

Just face it -- liberal or conservative, the media stinks. The only way to get a relatively fair dose of news in today's world is to go to multiple sources from varying political stances. Otherwise, you're subject to someone's ideology.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well I have to say... there's nothing so biased as a politicized mission statement

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

How is "Scientific Research" supposed to prove that "traditional American values" are being "undermined"?

I mean.... there's no litmus test for ideology...

Holy cow...Lurker, I can't believe you had the audacity to refer to them as a politically neutral source.

[Alex+R 0]

Just face it -- liberal or conservative, the media stinks. The only way to get a relatively fair dose of news in today's world is to go to multiple sources from varying political stances. Otherwise, you're subject to someone's ideology.

Yay! Let's all bash the media without knowing what we're talking about! Then we can all agree!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Just face it -- liberal or conservative, the media stinks. The only way to get a relatively fair dose of news in today's world is to go to multiple sources from varying political stances. Otherwise, you're subject to someone's ideology.

As far as reading about the media, I've found that this has some interesting articles (about the media).