Posted on 10/21/2009 1:56:16 PM PDT by Dem Guard
Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.
Let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from the ping list
To make the article clearer: The FCC wants the private broadcasters to pay these large fees so that the fees can then support Public Broadcasting. The FCC would then revamp the content of PBC to be more “diverse”, and to cover local, state and national government proceedings etc etc.
Come to think of it, this seems strikingly similar to some other govt projects, where the gov requires private industry to fund a publicly-sourced competitor which also happens to have the full weight of the government’s treasury behind it.
However, the idea of a PBS "news" operation is absurd and smacks of propaganda not information. the recent National Parks program could have been a great one if not for the boring script and the droning narration coupled with the limp music. Bleh!
Barack wants to make war on the opposition. Lib radio has failed. So has MSNBC and CNN is in the process of losing its audience. PBS is the last liberal bastion for leftist thought.
Its perfect for Obamaites because its supported by tax dollars. Doesn’t it really make you happy to sign that check April 15th?
Like Obama said to Joe the Plumber, “I think spreading the wealth around is a good thing.”
The last liberal broadcast bastion...that is.
I can only guess that the NPR crowd is tired of running telethons. Why be a non-profit dependent on donations when bammy can set you up with a trust? And to think, this crowd likes to make fun of Jerry Lewis.
Question, if the programming is not broadcast but only delivered via cable would the programmers then have to sponsor the begging Nazis?
The left has long chafed under the harsh reality of the immense popularity and influence of conservative talks radio (mostly on once near-defunct AM stations) and this is another way to silence the conservative talkers, by bankrupting their local outlets. No doubt, a 2010 version of the ironically-named 'Fairness Doctrine' is next.
As Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have often pointed out; the left can't sustain a logical argument for their policies so they want to stifle the competition - conservative talk radio. This is a dead-end for the Obama FCC.
The lefties just can't get their little minds around the fact that the free market (the American people) picks the winners and losers and that market has overwhelmingly chosen conservative talk radio over liberal talk radio -every time.
This article was original published in 8/09. The reason I thought it was news worthy again, is due to Obama’s recent assault on Fox News. He is saying that Fox News is not a news organization. One could argue this may work for or against Fox under this plan.
Time for an assessment from the eff U czar!
This is a guy that is frustrated that he can’t just go in with guns and take them over like his “beloved Hugo”..much like the rest of the administration.....
That question's been asked periodically over the entire 10 year time I've been coming to this forum. Not that it doesn't have merit, it certainly does. The FCC, it appears, has decided to answer the question by taking the fight to the private sector. The purpose of the FCC wasn't to attack the private sector, but under zerO it is now.
"It seems to me there are a lot of shows on PBS that are hardly non-profit enterprises."
The government doesn't consider filling people's heads with their propaganda visa vi their PBS pipeline profitable. No dollars & cents are exchanging hands. I submit taxes collected from us & dispensed to PBS proves that wrong. To those at PBS this method of survival's very profitable.
"This article was original published in 8/09. The reason I thought it was news worthy again, is due to Obama’s recent assault on Fox News. He is saying that Fox News is not a news organization. One could argue this may work for or against Fox under this plan."
Explain.
No doubt, but to achieve the intended results methinks a move to regulate the Internet must occur, first. THEN go after all of radio to get to AM Talk.
"The lefties just can't get their little minds around the fact that the free market (the American people) picks the winners and losers and that market has overwhelmingly chosen conservative talk radio over liberal talk radio -every time."
Precisely why they'll move to block the Internet, first; because, it's to the Internet the conservative market will flee, or has already gone. This is shaping up to be a tactical assault in every way designed so one won't know it occurred until it's over. The ones behind all this are truly evil.
Yet curiously not peep one from the loyal opposition [read: right-wing] on this. Which makes me go, "Hmmmmmmmmm".
Explain:
Well it is a rather simple premise. Obama wants to tax public news programs. If he considers Fox News to be “just entertainment”, it would follow he would have to consider their shows in the same category as Entertainment Tonight, 60 Minutes, or other shows that aren't traditional public news broadcasts like ABC, NBC, CBS etc. I'm thinking he may have slipped up with his vendetta against Fox by reclassifying them publicly.
But I would profess that PBS does charge for advertising, they just call it some kind of donation from corporations etc. My point is they could conceiveably do without the tax support if they improved their programing and increased their advertising to rival private networks.
zerO's going through an awful lot of trouble to collect dough. The imbecile loves edicts. Easier.
Methinks zerO's simply trying to damage, or at least slow down the runaway success of Fox. Fox presents an alternative POV and to this particular creep-Marxist that cannot & will not be tolerated. Just my take.
>No dollars & cents are exchanging hands.
"But I would profess that PBS does charge for advertising, they just call it some kind of donation from corporations etc."
And I would profess you're absolutely correct. LOL!!
It's all in the definition of words, eh?
Redefining language ranks up among the Liberal-Socialist's favorite tack, tool *and* weapon.
"My point is they could conceivably do without the tax support if they improved their programing and increased their advertising to rival private networks."
But-but why?
When the PBS deadbeat leeches can have both? ;^)
But-but why? When the PBS deadbeat leeches can have both?
Yeah that would be a stretch to think they would actually open anything up to free market forces, please forgive me. (:-)
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.