Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PBS "Objective?"
Our Future ^ | 5-11-05 | TheRobb7

Posted on 05/11/2005 8:02:18 PM PDT by TheRobb7

This link gives information about this convention: http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2005/about.cfm

Among other things, we find this statement: "we need to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard."

The "progressives" were outvoted by 3.5 million votes, a historic margin.

On this page, they also rant about "George Bush and the right wing of Congress". Therefore, this convention is not right wing or conservative. It is therefore liberal.

The list of speakers at the 2005 convention is found at: http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2005/agenda.cfm

It lists Bill Moyers of PBS as one of the speakers.

I thought PBS was "objective".


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Believe it or not, I work with people who, upon seeing this, will still NOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.
1 posted on 05/11/2005 8:02:18 PM PDT by TheRobb7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
I thought PBS was "objective".

You don't think well, do you???

2 posted on 05/11/2005 8:07:34 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

Believe it or not we actually have the votes to turn off the spigot of funding to this left-wing propaganda machine. The question is, does the majority in Congress have the backbone to do it?


3 posted on 05/11/2005 8:11:04 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

PBS needs to drink bleach. Sell it to Al Gore.


4 posted on 05/11/2005 8:11:23 PM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaysun

Why do we need to pay for the socialist /communist network that also supports islamic fascism -- known as PBS? Let them work like every other network or die


5 posted on 05/11/2005 8:14:58 PM PDT by GaryMontana (The future belongs to the bold, not the cowards who hide under rags (ragheads)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
The voters have really got to put some pressure on Washington to stop funding this radical propaganda machine. Let them use the free market like everyone else in broadcasting.

It's hard to believe tax payers are actually forced by their own government to pay for this crap!!

6 posted on 05/11/2005 8:30:32 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Vote Republican - Vote morally correct!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
It lists Bill Moyers of PBS as one of the speakers. I thought PBS was "objective". Bill Moyers is a whacked out sycophantic, panting, drooling groupie, butt-kissing each any and every marxist nutcase and tyrant to come into his scent range. He makes the rest of PBS look objective by comparison. Maybe that's their point- they want to stake someone out so far over the left that they look like they're in the center.

People won't buy it though.

7 posted on 05/11/2005 8:33:40 PM PDT by John Valentine (Whoop dee doo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
It lists Bill Moyers of PBS as one of the speakers. I thought PBS was "objective".

Bill Moyers is a whacked out sycophantic, panting, drooling groupie, butt-kissing each any and every marxist nutcase and tyrant to come into his scent range. He makes the rest of PBS look objective by comparison. Maybe that's their point- they want to stake someone out so far over the left that they look like they're in the center.

People won't buy it though.

8 posted on 05/11/2005 8:34:03 PM PDT by John Valentine (Whoop dee doo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
I thought PBS was "objective".

No, no, no... They're not "objective." PBS HAS an objective. Big difference! Sort of like the Harvey Keitel quote from Pulp Fiction. "Just because you are a character, doesn't mean you have character!"

Mark

9 posted on 05/11/2005 8:35:37 PM PDT by MarkL (I've got a fever, and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaryMontana
Why do we need to pay for the socialist /communist network that also supports islamic fascism -- known as PBS? Let them work like every other network or die

Roger that. I didn't say we need to pay for them. I don't know what you're talking about.
10 posted on 05/11/2005 9:00:52 PM PDT by Jaysun (No matter how hot she is, some man, somewhere, is tired of her sh*t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

What do you expect?

The last thing one can expect a biased person to see is their own bias; that's what makes them biased. It doesn't matter whether they are biased right or biased left; it is just bias.

What is disturbing is this insistence by the media that we must be biased either to the left or the right -- and if you're biased to the left, it's not bias. These are not deep thinkers.

The real solution is not more partisanship or even more bi-partisanship but people who fairly see the whole picture. In the media bias, such a thing is not possible.


11 posted on 05/11/2005 9:13:11 PM PDT by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeHu

Liberals and leftists think they are not biased and prejudiced.

They're biased and prejudiced about different things; their worst bias is this notion that they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else -- which is the greatest human flaw of all.


12 posted on 05/11/2005 9:20:49 PM PDT by MikeHu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7
Liberals are blinded by their own hypocrisy.

They actually think they are objective and fair and balanced.
That just shows how deep their mental dysfunction is.

13 posted on 05/11/2005 10:16:38 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
It's hard to believe tax payers are actually forced by their own government to pay for this crap!!

It just goes to show how loose they are with the taxpayers' money.

14 posted on 05/11/2005 10:19:08 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7; Sidebar Moderator

Your link has nothing whatsoever to do with PBS. It goes to a "Take Back America Conference" page.


15 posted on 05/11/2005 10:22:50 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

do you have a direct link?


16 posted on 05/11/2005 10:26:16 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeHu; Bullish; headsonpikes; beyond the sea; E.G.C.; Military family member; TexasTransplant; ...
To claim objectivity is to claim wisdom. To claim wisdom is to reject the idea that you have anything to learn - thus, to reject the need to listen to the facts and logic of others.

Obviously you cannot get away with that sort of arrogance without power. PBS is part of the Establishment which has that power - and uses its power to maintain itself. That Establishment is Objective JournalismTM, and membership in that Establishment is available for a price. The price of membership in the Establishment is conformity to it, and furtherance of its agenda.

The first objective of Objective JournalismTM is self-preservation, of itself and its members. To do that it must protect its brand - which it aggressively uses its propaganda power to do. That is why the objectivity of, say, CBS News is never questioned by the Establishment.

Never mind that 60 Minutes was caught in bed with a dead girl, a live boy, a smoking gun, and a hand in the cookie jar. CBS can institute an "independent investigation" of the "TANG Memos" for the purpose of not learning that the "memos" were patent frauds. And the rest of the Establishment studiously avoids noticing a thing. There can be no piling on a "competitor" for a failing like that.

There is only one cardinal sin to the Establishment, and that is breaking ranks with the Establishment. Piling on a member of the Establishment is just not done. Now if a Bernard Goldberg, say, breaks ranks and announces that broadcast journalism is tendentious then he is not a member of the Establishment from that very moment, if not indeed retroactively. It is not failing to make a good-faith effort at objectivity which excludes you from the Establishment; if that were the case there would be no members of it. But pointing out tendentiousness in the product of a member of the Objective JournalismTM Establishment.

You are a member of the Establishment if you are useful to the Establishment. You are useful to the Establishment if you facilitate the profitable operation of its members. And the profitable operation of the members of Objective JournalismTM depends on second-guessing and cheap criticism of the people and institutions upon whom the suckers public depends. Because Objective JournalismTM is simply cheap talk.

You do not have to be a journalist to be a member of the Objective JournalismTM Establishment; all you have to be is willingly useful to its cheap self-aggrandizing criticism of the people we depend on. For example, if you announce that an innocuous chemical used to help produce high quality food inexpensively is a threat to public health, you are useful to the Establishment. And if you are critical of politicians who want the economy to grow smoothly and who favor values which will facilitate the growth of the middle class, you are useful to Objective JournalismTM and are a member of the Establishment.

And that is why there is a revolving door between journalism and the Democratic Party. And why Republicans - be they never so numerous in seats of political power - are not accepted in the Establishment. Republicans are useful to Objective JournalismTM only as bogeymen.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

17 posted on 05/12/2005 6:36:56 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Media bias bump.


18 posted on 05/12/2005 6:43:22 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

"...progressive majority must be heard..."



Progressive=communist/socialist

I never knew the USA has a communist majority. I didn't know PBS made it their objective to push the communist agenda.

Need we hear any more proof that the CPB, NPR, and PBS should be privatized? Let them fight it out in the open market where "the majority" will decide whether to view their programs and buy advertising or not.

Let's test it in the free market.


19 posted on 05/12/2005 2:01:33 PM PDT by sully777 (If anyone asks, I'm a monger-monger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson