House protects public broadcasting - CNN.com

Quote:

---

The House on Wednesday evening overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's plan to eliminate the $420 million federal subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The 357-72 vote demonstrated the enduring political strength of public broadcasting. The outcome was never in doubt, unlike a fight two years ago when Republicans tried but failed to slash public broadcasting subsidies.

---

Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.

I think there are more important things for the President to worry about than Sesame Street. I guess people forget the days before 1000 cable channels were available. I don't see the harm. I just tune them out if they have a show I don't care for. PBS should stay.:)


Bobby

My question is when they reintroduce the fairness doctrine will PBS be subject to it's terms ? Let's say for every Bill Moyer's bias report we have a Sean Hannity counterpoint.

NK, is there some innate need to at least fudge the truth when it comes to Bush? He didn't try to "end PBS", he wants to "end the federal subsidy" for CPB, which accounts for about 15 percent of its budget. I'm all for it if PBS is not going to carry out its mission, which CNN acknowledges was "created the corporation in 1967 to shield public broadcasting from political influence." That it's failing in that mission is about as questionable as whether Donald Trump has bad hair.

Quote:

---

the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate to ensure "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."

---

The opening lines of Bill Moyers' Essay; Beg Your Pardon, which aired on June 15, 2007:

Quote:

---

Welcome to the Journal. Iraq is a bloody mess and getting bloodier every day. So what's been all the buzz this week among the people who took us to war from the safety of their beltway bunkers - I mean Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites? Their passion of the week is to keep Scooter Libby from going to jail. I'm not making this up.

---

Please be my guest and highlight the "strict adherence to objectivity and balance" in those lines. After his 'welcome', he paints a bleak and bloody picture of Iraq, followed by criticism and ridicule, used a favorite liberal pejorative and ended with condescion - all directed toward conservatives/Republicans. I resent the fact that part of my tax money is funding bias and insult toward me, especially when there's more than enough of that already from the mainstream media.

If you have a problem with the content of one program then send it to the ombudsman, that's what he's there for:
PBS | Ombudsman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

If you have a problem with the content of one program then send it to the ombudsman, that's what he's there for:
PBS | Ombudsman

---

And you don't think people have complained of Moyers' bias before? Has it changed anything? Nevertheless, I think I'll do just that and see where it gets me.

I don't think that PBS should be eliminated. I just think that they should have to make their money the old fashioned way... through advertising, rather than though government grants.

If Sesame Street is such a terrific show, and I believe that it is, then it should be able to support itself without my tax dollars. The Sesame Street character licensing agreements are big money for them. They don't need tax dollars to support it, and they don't need an entire tax-supported network just for that one show. Other PBS shows have made the change ove to commercial TV, like Ghostwriter and The Magical Schoolbus. To say that popular PBS kids shows "wouldn't be able to survive without government funding" is pure BS.

And the idea that Sesame Street is the reason that we need an entire PBS chanel is ludicrous. Are you aware, Karma, that the average age of a PBS watcher is 38 years old? If he's still watching PBS just for Sesame Street or to learn how to read, there's a problem that is muh larger than any that PBS can solve.

Furthermore, the entire justification for the existence of PBS was that PBS was the place to air the shows that nobody else would air. That was true back in the days before cable TV became popular. But now there's

The History Channel for historical programs,
Discovery Channel for educational TV,
A&E for artsy films,
CNN for news,
BBC America for British TV programs,
Disney Channel and Discovery Kids for childrens' educational programming,
ION television and ABC Family for family programming,
Lifetime, Oxygen and WE for womens' programming,
BET for African American programming,
Telemundo for Hispanic programming,
Here and Logo for gay and lesbian programming,
Animal Planet for animal/biology/ecology programming,
Turner Classic Movies for classics,
The Food Network for cooking shows,
etc.

And each one of these channels does the job of PBS. We don't need PBS as our sole outlet for these tpes of programs, because there are now other outlets for them.

In short, there is no justification for PBS to be funded by our tax dollars. None of the justifications for the existence of a government-assisted PBS still exist.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And you don't think people have complained of Moyers' bias before? Has it changed anything? Nevertheless, I think I'll do just that and see where it gets me.

---

Here is what it got me so far:

Quote:

---

Thank you for your thoughts. Michael Getler values viewers' submissions, and he and his assistant try to read all letters. The ombudsman's column will address significant issues related to how PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.

---

It won't even get you a guarantee that they'll even look at a complaint.

Quote:

---

PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.

---

That about says it all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And each one of these channels does the job of PBS. We don't need PBS as our sole outlet for these tpes of programs, because there are now other outlets for them.

---

Part of that etc.:

In addition to Telemundo, you also have Univision and TeleFutura for Hispanics, the English language Latino themed Sí TV, the English language network of China CCTV-9, Starz inBlack, and Colours TV - "The Muliticultural Network."

Then we have:

HGTV and DIY for home, garden and do-it-yourselfers
Healthy Living Channel for people that have no life
C-Span if you need a nap
Fine Living for the rich and snobby
RFD-TV for the average Joe Bob
Fox Reality for people without a brain
Angel for Christians
BYUTV for Mormons

And last and perhaps least, Free Speech TV for moonbats. :D

By bush taking out the funding for PBS he is basically turning it into everyother newstation... man we americans need it! Our media is an embarassement... its all privately owned. We're not going to get rid of our publicly funded one right... dont twist this and think because bush just wants us to have PBS become a business too that it doesn't mean he doesn't want to get rid of it. He wants to get rid of its content! This will affect its content. Is there anyone who agrees??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I don't think that PBS should be eliminated. I just think that they should have to make their money the old fashioned way... through advertising, rather than though government grants.

---

And let advertisers dictate the content? That's precisely what they are trying to avoid. Do you have any idea of the amount of PBS materials that educators use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

And let advertisers dictate the content? That's precisely what they are trying to avoid. Do you have any idea of the amount of PBS materials that educators use?

---

So you've found the answer to our failing public schools?

Your public schools are failing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

House protects public broadcasting - CNN.com

Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.

---

Just as soon as someone wants to cut the budget, in come the opposition- how dare they- who wants to allow the opposing party any credit for cutting the budget.

So now Bush is against education... what flawless logic

Yeah bush is pretty bad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario3

By bush taking out the funding for PBS he is basically turning it into everyother newstation...man we americans need it! our media is an embarassement... its all privately owned. we're not gonna get rid of our publically funded one right...dont twist this and think because bush just wants us to have PBS become a business too that it doesnt mean he doesnt want to get rid of it. he wants to get rid of its content! this will affect its content. is there anyone who agrees???????????

---

You mean like that 97:1 ratio male dominated "everyother newstation"? I must have missed the part where Bush wanted "to have PBS become a business", since private dollars account for 85 percent of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding - like corporate sponsors Intel, Ford, Siemens and Starbucks.

Wow Crow, you sound bitter. I think more people would like to see the war budget pared down instead, I believe that was the point.

No we are talking the change to come - u need to follow

Hahah the war and religion budget. Almost 1/3rd of the KAtrina dollars from the BUSH ADMINISGTRATION went to religious institutions... lets break a lot of things down to see what is going on