Pat Richards knows what's best for us
Posted on 05/24/2005 4:47:21 PM PDT by JewishRighter
PBS gets taxpayer's money.
Ahem. Well yes. The "public" in our survey is the same as the "public" in PublicBS. We asked ourselves if we are biased and the answer was Nooooooooo.
BS, you "progressive" skank.
Progressive. Dontcha just love that word? Progress defined by anything that heaps excrement on the greatness of this country.
5/2/05 NYtimes hit piece on attempts to 'reform' PBS's blatant bias. Nowhere was this more obvious then in a PBS piece shown just a few days before the election comparing the careers of Bush and Kerry. I watched this piece and was appalled at the biases and omissions seen throughout it. I wasn't the only one, here are some comments viewers wrote PBS afterwards.
But this idea of 'reforming' PBS is a unfortunate, but typical, reaction of present day Republican politicians to the bloated and failing government programs they inherit. Why should it be reformed? What is the point of PBS? Though PBS's ratings have stabilized lately after several years of decline, the network has faced criticism that much of its programming - shows like "Antiques Roadshow" and "Masterpiece Theater" - is little different from what can be found on cable television. Though a huge bequest to National Public Radio from the estate of Joan Kroc, widow of the founder of McDonald's, has furthered the independence of public radio, corporate support and state financing for public television have slipped in recent years, making the nearly $400 million in federal money annually funneled through the corporation increasingly important.
We run into another pattern, 'free' government programs competing with the private sector. NPR is just as biased as PBS, if not more so, and receives millions of taxpayers money per year. For what purpose? Why are we spending $400 million on poor quality and biased PBS? Abolish it!
Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
I don't remember her being linked "romantically" with anyone, but who knows what happens in a Kennedy building? Her bio doesn't mention a past/present Mr. Collins, either.
She's even busier than I thought - here's more stuff, from http://www.eomega.org/omega/faculty/viewProfile/bc286508bb7bcb7441491b6332d4249d/
"She is one of the founding members of the American chapter of Mikhail Gorbachev’s environmental organization, Green Cross International, and a member of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council."
Think having 'ol Ted in bed nakked would be romantic?
That's like a trifecta: CommieFeminaziEnviroWhacko
Tossing Cookies Ping. Thanks alot.
WHO DARES TO COME BEFORE THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ?
M-m-m-y n-n-name is, is Dorothy and I'm a, a Re, uh Republican.
GO AND DO NOT COME BEFORE OZ WITHOUT PAT RICHARDS.
Thats my point, they act no different than all other media companies, so why are they on the dole?
I live adjacent to Vermont...I get beat over the head with that word on a daily basis until I am ready to puke.
Love it!
Once a government program is started it's almost impossible to defund it.
"The facts do not support the case he makes" for political bias, Mitchell said of Tomlinson. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of the public does not perceive bias in public broadcasting, she said."
What she means is "...the majority of the public that actually watches this liberal pap does not perceive bias....." THAT would be more accurate.
Why would an inherently biased person see bias in her midst? If she can justify Moyers, Smiley, the now liberal MacLaughlin Report, etc. as "balanced," then she is surely unbalanced.
I bet she thinks FOX News is biased though.......
...and Dewey defeats Truman!
"The fact that she considers Gigot as a balance to him is interesting. Gigot is a pretty bland moderate."
Exactly! That's the clincher about this whole speech. It's like a right-wing station saying "we have views ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Joe Lieberman". There's a pretty clear inequity in the paradigm there.
Also, Gigot goes one on one with Shields(who is a liberal) and is recognized as opinion. Moyers on the other hand, had/has(i'm not sure if he's still on) his own show, with no counterweight on the right, and it is a "news" show, not commentary.
It's the same problem where liberals try to equate Rush Limbaughs bias with Dan Rathers. Rush Limbaugh is commentary! Dan Rathers was supposed to be reporting news! That's all the difference in the world.
 Plagiarizers |
 Boozers |
 Shills |
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.