Posted on 05/02/2005 10:22:53 PM PDT by nickcarraway
George Neumayr Ping
Defund the operation and privatize it. Let it find its voice and prove its worth as a commercial proposition. Tax dollars have no business funding anything but an emergency broadcast system.
If the Discovery channel can make money on its own, why not PBS?
The New York Times article seemed pretty balanced to me. *shrug*.
PBS has great kids programs and very little commercial advertising. My little girl loves Dora the Explorer.
I can't comment on Bill Moyers' program as I don't watch it, but let's be careful about what we ask for. I for one appreciate having independent non-commercial quality kids programs.
In this day and age of cable/satellite TV & the internet, PBS is beyond irrelevant. Kill it.
BUMP!
As always, thanks for the ping. George is terrific.
That's odd. I thought the New York Times article dripped with liberal bias.
Anyways, welcome to Free Republic.
And you're entitled to this at taxpayer expense, why?
In order to get support from the left to defund it, we must first turn it conservative. Then they will have the choice of ConservativePBS, or NoPBS. Just don't give them the status quo.
Yes, it's just great that my tax dollars are seized, at the barrel of a gun, so your child can watch dora the explorer.
PBS is a sham and a fraud. It's wonderful how we have to subsidize it, yet they and the producers get to rake in mechandising revenues from shows like barney, teletubbies, sesamee street and every other thing they can squeeze out of it.
The poster you are replying to is a chronic troll. All of his or her other posts apologize for liberal views. Every one of them.
NON-commercial? Every time I surf through PBS, I am inundated with "funds provided by" ADVERTISEMENTS (usually longer than the ads on regular broadcast TV) or interruptions BEGGING for "your support".
I have sent money to a local PBS station, during a pledge drive to "support" a show I really enjoyed.
After the drive was over, the show was on ONCE, one episode ONLY, at 2:30 in the morning, in the following two MONTHS!
I was DEFRAUDED by PBS to the tune of $200, and all I got was a mousepad and t-shirt.
PBS can kiss my hairy patoot. I only wish that there was a way that taxpayers could direct their tax dollars, rather than a slush fund for Congress to slop its pigs with.
Liberals are whinning like the Sunnis in Iraq.
That's their MO. Run shows that people actually like to watch like "Red Dwarf", or "Dr. Who" during their pledge drives, then run their usual tripe the rest of the time. Or they'll run a concert and interrupt it three or four times to beg for donations. I remember a Carol King concert a few months back that they interrupted 4 times, for begging and pleading, and these weren't brief little commercial time outs. They dragged one out to nearly 10 minutes! Completely ruined the rythm of the concert, and I love Carol's music.
Not just PBS but broadcasting as a concept is based on the idea that the government should enable us to get the word. But the First Amendment says something different:Each aspect of freedom mentioned in the First Amendment reinforces all the others. The federal government is explicitly forbidden to conduct the religious discussion. But the fact that government noninterference in religion, politics, or any other public discussion is mandated in a single sentence rebuts the conceit that bright lines can separate religion, journalism, and politics. The public discussion ought not to be conducted by the government.Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The law purports to assure fairness in PBS, and the "Fairness Doctrine" purported to assure fairness in all broadcasting. But he natural tendency of government is to censor dissent.
So naturally, government "fairness" censors dissent. Government attempts to enforce fairness in radio had the effect of enforcing as the Establishment the inherently arrogant, negative, and superficial perspective of "objective" journalism.And it is not to be thought that what the Establishment labels "dissent" necessarily is such in fact; "establishment dissent" is a classic oxymoron. In America only those whom the Establishment labels "conservative" truly dissent from the Establishment.
Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
How do you propose PBS do that? Should it become a cable channel where consumers have no choice but to pay for its existence if they want to have cable? That's the way cable tv works. Maybe Viacrud should pick up PBS. I've lost count of the number of channels Viacom forces cable companies to take via packaging. I would like to pick and choose which channels we receive. Even if it costs more.
Dora the Explorer is on NickJr.
BTTT!!!!!!!
It's too bad that this philosophy of government has such an awkward name.
Disestablishing the ruling elites is Job #1 for all who love liberty.
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.