<p>The White house is making its play to control the media, the Bush administration has put out propaganda videos to have them play as news and now they want to take over public television and public radio to make sure “Their kind of news” is on the air. Will the Republicans and Christian Conservatives force Big Bird into carrying a bible in the near future. Will Carl Rove be approving the nightly and weekly news programs? Where will it end (and when)</p>
<p>Obviously I am not happy with this turn of events, how are you feeling.</p>
Who said that? Or are those just scare quotes?</p>
<p>PBS kind of lost me when they decided to turn Cookie Monster into Veggie Monster in response to reports of childhood obesity. Anyway, I’ve always resented having my tax dollars fund Bill Moyers, just as most of you lefties would resent having your tax dollars fund Rush. I don’t know why we need a government broadcasting service, with all the outlets available. If you guys want to listen to “All Things Distorted” on NPR every morning, then let them get some advertisers for you to patronize.</p>
<p>I’ve seen very few political analysis pieces on NPR where there wasn’t a very smart, very articulate Conservative taking part in the discussion. They make an effort to be certain that both view points are heard.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t consider myself to be to the left or the right but I do have to admit that Al Franken has a gosh darn funny spin on the whole situation.</p>
<p>I would say the U.S. needs an articulate broadcasting service…and with PBS they have one. Unfortunately, I can only access PBS radio online. There is a pretty decent Iraqui news service run by the U.S. but the news is in Arabic, duh! And I can guess the slant, but that’s o.k. It’s a point of view. Some programming on it is PBS style. I got rid of the pay satellite with CNN and Fox & friends because they are so alike and the money wasn’t worth it. The news is so junky. We have BBC which is wonderful. TV 5 in French which is interesting. Euronews. Would be nice to get the US perspective at the same level of programming as the Beeb.</p>
<p>Am I nuts or do you think that the regular junk on US T.V. can compare to PBS? No one here does. Am I so out of touch with my culture?</p>
Nothing that isn’t already being done equally well on The History Channel, The Learning Channel, etc. If the programs are good, people will watch. They don’t need a government subsidy.</p>
<p>That is a great point, driver. It is about money because the History channel is not free at least where I am, but BBC is. What do you think most people watch across the globe that comes from the U.S. if they are lucky enough to have hooked up to a satellite besides the Iraqui channel? They can’t afford the high fees people pay in most countries for special programming like the history channel. They watch Bay Watch and the Bold and the Beautiful on local channels. Ah, America. Really helps our imagine! No, they watch BBC for English programming. Unlike the British government, the U.S. stays out of the pool. I wonder how wise that is. But then this is another topic altogether.</p>
<p>I think the real issue here is appointing the ex-head of the Republican National Convention to a board which by definition is suposed to be un-biased and insure non-biased programing. There is no need to get into the partisan politics of liberal vs. conservative media in this discussion. I simply to not believe that a person whose previous job included deciding a party platform can be truly fair when it comes to the boards responsibilities. This is essentially the same thing as appointing lobbyists to the very positions they sought to influence from the private sector.</p>
<p>Tomadog02, I was off base on the nature of this discussion so I just spent a few minutes to try and figure out what this is all about. I read up on the backgrounds of all the members of the board and though it seems to be a “political” appointment, the board seems to be made up of folks with a variety of opinions. What have I missed? I know the Republicans are upset about what they consider a liberal bias in the press. ?!? I find that laughable actually. Which of the group is the Head? The ex-Reader’s Digest, VOA guy Tomlinson?</p>
<p>Driver, I think you’ve put your finger on it, even if it wasn’t the point you meant to make. We basically have media owned and operated by and for big business. They own the media, they buy the ads, they call the shots. I’m not suggesting that PBS is courageously providing an opposing viewpoint - far from it - but I think there is a legitimate need for a media outlet which isn’t directly beholden to the economic powers that be. Under the existing economic structure I can’t think of any source for that other than foreign broadcasters and whatever feeble counterweight PBS can provide. I can certainly see why that enrages the right wng, and why they’d want to destroy it.</p>
<p>Anything that questions the powers needs to be destroyed by the powers that be. Its happening. And its curious how certain journalist who make mistakes are lambasted and shunned and forced out, while others who lie, and make things up on purpose are honored.</p>
<p>When NYC was in dire economic straits, it sold the NPR outlet, WNYC, to the WNYC Foundation, i.e., to the listeners. Without the government subsidy, the station is now completely independent and can broadcast anything it wants. There are enough people in this country who love PBS and would be willing to support it – who might love to see Bill Moyers get even more airtime, and to see news shows where hard questions get asked – that I don’t necessarily think it would be a bad thing if the government stopped subsidizing it. And the conservatives who thought they were going to change it to something to the right of Fox news might just discover that their efforts bite them in the rear end.</p>