[Republic of Texas]

I choose dishonest AND stupid, but that’s just me.

[RightResponse]

I ALWAYS love it when liberals get CBS'd by their own! How do I know she's a liberal?

"I love PBS, and have always felt that it’s a great source for independent and in-depth reporting."

[Ouderkirk]

What ?!? Where’s Merril Streep...the noted expert on the pesticide ALAR. She should have been consulted on this program and her opinions given considerable weight /sarc.

[caseinpoint]

Yet she will believe everything else she sees on the network. Years ago the advice in considering what encyclopedia to purchase (which was a major purchase back then) was to examine a subject in the work about which you know a great deal. If it is covered properly, you can probably largely trust the whole set. If it was poorly covered, you should avoid buying any of it. I think the same thing rings true for most of “public” media.

[Eurale]

1,6 - diethlyhexyl phthalate ester (DEPH) is a “plastisizer” chemical used to soften plastic such as in I.V. bags, tubing, bottled water, etc. Almost all plastics that are not hard have varying amounts of DEPH. Also, some studies have suggested that DEPH is connected to hepatic cancer, but they have not been generally (scientifically) confirmed.

[Jeffrey_D.]

Try reading this w/o laughing/barfing:

http://www.pbs.org/producers/mission.html

[fr_freak]

I love PBS, and have always felt that it’s a great source for independent and in-depth reporting. That is, until I was recently interviewed for its show NOW on the subject of phthalates, a chemical substance used in plastics, and babies’ toys.

Translation: I believed all of PBS's lies, until they lied about me.

[Mr. Jazzy]

I choose that PBS is dishonest and arrogant.

The usual liberal character attributes.

[ArrogantBustard]

PBS = MSM

I almost always find that whenever MSM reports on some subject of which I have personal or professional expertise, MSM get the story disastrously wrong.

What, then, should I think of MSM reporting on topics of which I don not have personal or professional expertise?

[VaFarmer]

One interesting feature of NOW is the geriatric character of their concerns. These people do not (can not?) find anything to discuss or any perspective from which to discuss anything that did not come from their distant youth as idealistic journalists. If you watch the show (not recommended) you will find every topic of importance from the 1970’s revisited with no insight from the intervening years. NOW is simply a collection of old men sitting around in their club chairs. They ought to have cigars and port.