• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bush Administration to cut almost all funding for public broadcasting

Status
Not open for further replies.

goodcow

Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/public_broadcasting_targeted_by_house

By Paul Farhi, Washington Post Staff Writer Fri Jun 10, 1:00 AM ET

A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue.

Expressing alarm, public broadcasters and their supporters in Congress interpreted the move as an escalation of a Republican-led campaign against a perceived liberal bias in their programming. That effort was initiated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson.

"Americans overwhelmingly see public broadcasting as an unbiased information source," Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record) (Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said in a statement. "Perhaps that's what the GOP finds so offensive about it. Republican leaders are trying to bring every facet of the federal government under their control. . . . Now they are trying to put their ideological stamp on public broadcasting."

But the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health and human services, and education asserted that the panel was simply making choices among various worthy government programs, and that no political message was intended.

The subcommittee's action, which came on a voice vote, doesn't necessarily put Big Bird on the Endangered Species List. House members could restore funding as the appropriations bill moves along or, more likely, when the House and Senate meet to reconcile budget legislation later this year. The Senate has traditionally been a stronger ally of public broadcasting than the House, whose former speaker, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), waged a high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful campaign to "zero out" funding for the CPB a decade ago.

The cuts nevertheless surprised people in public broadcasting. In his budget sent to Congress in February,
President Bush had recommended reducing CPB's budget only slightly.

Several denounced the decision by the panel, which has 10 Republicans and seven Democrats, as payback by a Republican-dominated House after years of complaints from conservatives who see liberal bias in programs carried by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. Broadcasters noted, for example, that the 25 percent cutback in next year's CPB budget was a rollback of money that Congress had promised in 2004.

PBS, in particular, drew harsh criticism in December from the Bush administration for a "Postcards From Buster" episode in which Buster, an animated rabbit, "visited" two families in Vermont headed by lesbians. And programming on both PBS and NPR has come under fire in recent months from Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the CPB, who has pushed for greater "balance" on the public airwaves.

A spokeswoman for NPR, Andi Sporkin, directly blamed Tomlinson for yesterday's action, saying, "We've never been sure of Mr. Tomlinson's intent but, with this news, we might be seeing his effect."

Tomlinson did not return calls seeking comment. In a statement, he said, "Obviously, we are concerned [by the cuts], and we will be joining with our colleagues in the public broadcasting community to make the case for a higher level of funding as the appropriations measure makes its way through Congress."

John Lawson, the president of the Association of Public Television Stations, a Washington-based group that lobbies for public broadcasters, called the subcommittee's action "at least malicious wounding, if not outright attempted murder, of public broadcasting in America." He added, "This action could deprive tens of millions of American children of commercial-free educational programming."

Rep. Ralph Regula (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ohio), the subcommittee's chairman, said the cuts had nothing to do with dissatisfaction over public radio or TV programs. "It's pretty simple," he said in an interview. "The thinking was, there's not enough money for everything. There are 'must-do,' 'need-to-do' and 'nice-to-do' programs that we have to pay for. [Public broadcasting] is somewhere between a 'need-to-do' and a 'nice-to-do.' "

The subcommittee had to decide, he said, on cutting money for public broadcasting or cutting college grants, special education, worker retraining and health care programs. "No one's out to get" public broadcasting, Regula said. "It's not punitive in any way."

In fact, none of the Republican members of the subcommittee publicly denounced public radio or TV funding at yesterday's markup. Public broadcasting drew supportive statements from Obey and Rep. Nita Lowey (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.).

Regula suggested public stations could "make do" without federal money by getting more funding from private sources, such as contributions from corporations, foundations, and listeners and viewers.

But the loss of $23.4 million in federal funds for children's educational shows -- which PBS calls its "Ready to Learn" programs -- could mean the elimination of these programs, said an official at Alexandria-based PBS who asked not to be named because the network still hopes to regain the funding. PBS's revenue totaled $333 million in fiscal year 2004.

The Ready to Learn group includes "Sesame Street," "Dragontales," "Clifford" and "Arthur," among others.

The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format.

Small public radio stations, particularly those in rural areas and those serving minority audiences, may be the most vulnerable to federal cuts because they currently operate on shoestring budgets.

"This could literally put us out of business," said Paul Stankavich, president and general manager of the Alaska Public Radio Network, an alliance of 26 stations in the state that create and share news programming. "Almost all of us are down to the bone right now. If we lost 5 or 10 percent of our budgets in one fell swoop, we could end up being just a repeater service" for national news, with no funds to produce local content.

Stankavich, who also runs a public radio and TV station in Anchorage, said public radio is "an important source of news in urban areas, but it's life-critical in rural areas," especially in far-flung parts of Alaska unserved by any other broadcast medium.
 

Scrow

Still Tagged Accordingly
If the Australian government did shit like that to ABC there'd be protests in the street organised by groups like Friends of the ABC.

ABC has the best news and current affairs programs. SBS is pretty good for that too, but more for international topics, whereas ABC deals more with national issues.

Oh yeah and Bush sucks.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
In Houston, we probably have the worst PBS channel in the country. No original programming, all crap produced by some other channel. It is on a college campus, but no student produced content. Basically it really sucks. And then they have the nerve to ask for money every month. If there was anything worth paying for, I would but seriously there is nothing on PBS that you can't get anywhere else. Actually the Sesame Street stuff is about it.

Not that I agree with this move, but PBS really needs to step their game up. Every other channel has had to, why do they feel they are different?
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
PBS will be replaced by PBLCN (President Bush Loves Christ Network!). It'll feature such top-notch entertainment as "Bush Tells It Like It Is!" and "World's Funniest Terrorist Videos" and "Why You Should Enlist in the Armed Forces".
 

Phoenix

Member
Willco said:
PBS will be replaced by PBLCN (President Bush Loves Christ Network!). It'll feature such top-notch entertainment as "Bush Tells It Like It Is!" and "World's Funniest Terrorist Videos" and "Why You Should Enlist in the Armed Forces".


This may not be far from what actually happens. Bush and co. have this way of cutting funds from public programs, show that faith based groups can handle it, then request money for faith based groups.
 

Do The Mario

Unconfirmed Member
Scrow said:
If the Australian government did shit like that to ABC there'd be protests in the street organised by groups like Friends of the ABC.

ABC has the best news and current affairs programs. SBS is pretty good for that too, but more for international topics, whereas ABC deals more with national issues.

Oh yeah and Bush sucks.

The ABC rocks!!! It gets all the gold from the BBC.
 

Ponn

Banned
I know some people will not like this move but it has been talked about in the past. Too me it seems PBS has become irrelevant. Some of these programs would probably get picked up for syndication or join the likes of Nick Jr. or The Disney Channel. I guess the real question to pose is how many think the government should still be giving money to PBS and why?
 

Scrow

Still Tagged Accordingly
Ponn01 said:
I guess the real question to pose is how many think the government should still be giving money to PBS and why?
probably for these very reasons...
catchphrase2.gif


a TV station that is able to report without conflicts of interest basically. I dunno if that is the purpose of CPB in America, but it's certainly one of the main reasons ABC is around here.
 

Ponn

Banned
I don't even know if PBS even has a news program. If they do just goes to show how irrelevant it is. So Scrow believes government should not give money to public television. Which I agree for those exact same reasons. If they do stick around it should be solely on their own fund raising through the public. The funny thing is I don't believe the government has actually even tried to use our PBS station in anyway. It could be argued by quite a few they control Fox News more.
 
Ponn01 said:
I don't even know if PBS even has a news program. If they do just goes to show how irrelevant it is. So Scrow believes government should not give money to public television. Which I agree for those exact same reasons. If they do stick around it should be solely on their own fund raising through the public. The funny thing is I don't believe the government has actually even tried to use our PBS station in anyway. It could be argued by quite a few they control Fox News more.

Jim Lehrer's NewsHour for one. Frontline for another. Furthermore, did you read the article? IT DOESN'T JUST COVER PBS, IT ALSO COVERS NPR. (which is also a member of the cpb)

At least know what you are arguing against before you argue against it.

Also: Scrow did not say he believes government should not fund public broadcasting. You fucking put those words in his mouth. He said government needs to fund Public Broadcasting for the purpose of keeping it independant.
 

WedgeX

Banned
Ponn01 said:
I know some people will not like this move but it has been talked about in the past. Too me it seems PBS has become irrelevant. Some of these programs would probably get picked up for syndication or join the likes of Nick Jr. or The Disney Channel. I guess the real question to pose is how many think the government should still be giving money to PBS and why?

Hey, I love my Nova, American experience, National Geographic and News Hour with Jim Lehrer, among other things.
 

aoi tsuki

Member
Ponn01 said:
I know some people will not like this move but it has been talked about in the past. Too me it seems PBS has become irrelevant. Some of these programs would probably get picked up for syndication or join the likes of Nick Jr. or The Disney Channel. I guess the real question to pose is how many think the government should still be giving money to PBS and why?

Frankly, a public-supported stations can never be truly irrelavent in the age of ad-supported mediums, although i do see your point. This topic was mentioned a few weeks ago on NPR. A lot of the shows that PBS carries are competing with similar shows shown on cable. Frankly, i prefer PBS's less produced style than that of its competitors, though i'm sure i'm in the minority. i mainly like the fact that PBS is less dependant on advertisers, so the integrity of the content is more likely intact than on similar shows on commercial tv. But my local PBS station is pretty poor compared to the when i lived in Michigan, so i'm more apt to tune into one of the cable stations.

i listen to NPR a lot more than i watch PBS these days, and sadly, that'll be affected as well. i really think NPR will benefit from podcasting, as a couple of shows ("The Connection" for one) are available. If i had the money, i'd definitely be donating.
 

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Public broadcasting is filled with "reality propaganda" which is part of the axis of evil.

Anyhoo, I listen to NPR. There's a station that plays that in the daytime and classical music at night, it's good.
 

Ponn

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
Jim Lehrer's NewsHour for one. Frontline for another. Furthermore, did you read the article? IT DOESN'T JUST COVER PBS, IT ALSO COVERS NPR. (which is also a member of the cpb)

At least know what you are arguing against before you argue against it.

Also: Scrow did not say he believes government should not fund public broadcasting. You fucking put those words in his mouth. He said government needs to fund Public Broadcasting for the purpose of keeping it independant.

I explained what happened with the scrow comment. I don't quite see how government funding a broadcast station really makes it independant. I'm not a black helicopter type person, but I also try not to be so naive to think government control of a broadcast station is whole good thing. Al-Jazeera?

As far as funding i'm not really arguing anything, I was just stating my current opinion on the subject and asked what everyone elses was. If you have a different viewpoint please state and your reasons. I'm pretty open to ideas.
 

kablooey

Member
Even if this wasn't politically motivated as the Republicans say, it's still their damn fault for passing those fucking stupid tax cuts and running up our deficit. Argh, this administration is so frustrating. :(
 

GG-Duo

Member
They need to make these news articles into bite-sized sentences and feed it to the soccer moms.

"Bush kills Sesame Street" has a nice ring to it...
 
I vaguely remember reading something the other day where the Bush freaks plan on ensuring the hiring of one of their "boys" to the helm of the national public broadcasting corporation.

it really shouldn't surprise anyone. just another shot directly into the gut of the conservative's movement #1 enemy: that liberal media!
 
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505130006

In an interview with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson denied ever discussing the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) -- which Tomlinson has publicly criticized for airing programming that he says shows a liberal bias -- with Bush administration officials, a statement O'Reilly did not challenge. In fact, The New York Times reported that as CPB chairman, Tomlinson has previously worked with White House officials, including senior presidential adviser Karl Rove, on issues related to public broadcasting. Moreover, Tomlinson hired the director of the White House Office of Global Communications "on the recommendation of administration officials," according to the Times.

On the May 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked Tomlinson, "Now, you said that you have never had any conversations with any Bush administration officials about PBS? Is that true?" Tomlinson replied, "That's true."

In fact, according to a May 2 Times article, Tomlinson had worked with White House officials on "public broadcasting issues":

Last year he enlisted the presidential adviser Karl Rove to help kill a legislative proposal that would change the composition of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board by requiring the president to fill about half the seats with people who had experience in local radio and television. The proposal was dropped after Mr. Rove and the White House criticized it.

Tomlinson was elected chairman of the CPB board of directors in September 2003.

"On the recommendation of administration officials," Tomlinson hired Mary Catherine Andrews, director of the White House's Office of Global Communications, as a senior staff member in late March, according to the Times. She helped set up the CPB's new ombudsman's office while she was still working at the White House, though she says that she "was careful not to work on this project during office hours during my last days at the White House," the Times reported.

Media Matters for America previously noted the Times' omission of key facts about the two new CPB ombudsmen: One of the two, William Schulz, is an avowed conservative with close ties to Tomlinson, and the other, Ken Bode, is a former journalist and a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute who last year endorsed Indiana Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels.

O'Reilly also asked Tomlinson whether he was "firing any Democrats" at CPB; Tomlinson replied, "No," adding: "No witch hunts in there at all. That's why I'm so surprised about this." But according to an April 22 Washington Post article, "in recent months ... at least three other senior CPB officials" with "Democratic affiliations" departed or were dismissed following the appointment of Ken Ferree, a Republican who had been a top adviser to former Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell, as CPB chief executive.

At the conclusion of his interview, Tomlinson thanked O'Reilly and stated: "We love your show."

Though a "CPB representative" reportedly told The Washington Post in advance of a May 13 article that "Tomlinson was not giving media interviews," Tomlinson seems to be doing just that, and not just on Fox News. He is also scheduled to appear on the May 13 edition of PBS' Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered.

— R.S.K. & J.W.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
WedgeX said:
Hey, I love my Nova, American experience, National Geographic and News Hour with Jim Lehrer, among other things.


If you don't have cable, I can see how you would miss these shows. But on cable there are equivalents to all these shows. National Geographic has it's own network even.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
This is quite simply the GOP's eagerly awaited strike against the last segment of the media it hasn't been able to corrupt(or if it hadn't done so on its own). PBS's news programming may or may not be relevant, but NPR and PRI are paramount.

dskillzhtown said:
If you don't have cable, I can see how you would miss these shows. But on cable there are equivalents to all these shows. National Geographic has it's own network even.
Most of them, paticularly the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, suck. Hardly what you'd call equivalent. :p
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
NPR gets money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting too, so there is no "next" to this story. PBS, NPR, and PRI are all getting hit at the same time.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Hitokage is just bitter because NPR is about to become a NO SPIN ZONE!

billoreilly_narrowweb__200x181.jpg


TALKING POINTS MEMO

In response to the bipartisan House vote to withdraw funding from the outdated and slanted Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lefitst bloghawk on the Gaming-Age Forums named Hitokage moved to derail the decision by targeting the Republican party. I've got news for you Hitokage, America is not going to take it anymore. Your ridiculous ideology has no basis in fact, and nobody should pay out of their pocket for an obsolete news format that publically embraces a leftist agenda. The Bush administration is saving hard working, blue collar citizens, like you and I, millions of dollars that could be better spent on the War on Terror. It's almost unanimous that public broadcasting is a waste of money, and you, Hitokage, should get a clue.

And that's tonight's Talking Points Memo.
 
Willco said:
Hitokage is just bitter because NPR is about to become a NO SPIN ZONE!

billoreilly_narrowweb__200x181.jpg


TALKING POINTS MEMO

In response to the bipartisan House vote to withdraw funding from the outdated and slanted Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lefitst bloghawk on the Gaming-Age Forums named Hitokage moved to derail the decision by targeting the Republican party. I've got news for you Hitokage, America is not going to take it anymore. Your ridiculous ideology has no basis in fact, and nobody should pay out of their pocket for an obsolete news format that publically embraces a leftist agenda. The Bush administration is saving hard working, blue collar citizens, like you and I, millions of dollars that could be better spent on the War on Terror. It's almost unanimous that public broadcasting is a waste of money, and you, Hitokage, should get a clue.

And that's tonight's Talking Points Memo.

:lol :lol That was pretty good.
 

Scrow

Still Tagged Accordingly
Ponn01 said:
I don't quite see how government funding a broadcast station really makes it independant.
Let’s say a TV station has McDonald's as one of its sponsors and a big news story hits which uncovers some really shocking things about their food. Because they're the station's sponsor it's highly likely you won’t hear a single thing about it on that station's news program. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If your funds come from the government however you're free to report what you want. Like I said, no conflicts of interest.

Ah yes, but then you say, "but then they wont report bad news about the government because then their funding will be cut and the government will control what sort of stories are broadcast to show them in a positive light."

And yeah, that has been a real problem in the past, but people have wizened up for the most part and when the government gets a little too close to the ABC and tries to place methods of control over them people start piping up (see Friends of ABC) and the ABC themselves will simply report it on the news which makes the government look even worse. So the government stays away from the ABC, otherwise it starts costing them votes come the next election.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
1) Al Jazeera isnt run by a government, and as bad as they are, compared with the options in the region, their coverage is really really good...

2) PBS rocks, so does NPR. PBS produces kids programming that is actually good for kids. Things that stimulate their imaginations, teach them, etc. Nick Jr, Disney Kids, Cartoon Network are nothing but mind numbing shit... sure kids like it, but given an option kids would eat candy all day long too.

3) PBS/NPR news is the shit. Best in the country bar none, its unbiased and doesnt pander to party line bullshit. They actually tell you what is going on, not the spin put on what is going on, from either side.

4) Austin City Limits is the best music program on TV. Unlike MTV, artists dont have to pay to get on TV.. which means good musicians can find a national outlet to play on. Yeah, ACL would get picked up by another network if PBS goes under, but whoever did pick them up would whore the stage off to the record company with the biggest pocketbook.
 

Scrow

Still Tagged Accordingly
i was talking about news and current affairs programs, but yes... breasts are always a good thing. got to love those foreign flicks.
 
Pledge season starts up again in the fall. Yeah, the pledge drives are annoying, and they're going to get even louder now, but it's time to step up if you've got a local station you'd like to have stick around. Support Link TV (if you receive it) and community radio stations, too.
 

Phoenix

Member
jiji said:
Pledge season starts up again in the fall. Yeah, the pledge drives are annoying, and they're going to get even louder now, but it's time to step up if you've got a local station you'd like to have stick around. Support Link TV (if you receive it) and community radio stations, too.

And don't forget that its tax deductible.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
PRI (Public Radio International) frequently gets lost in the mix because their programs are usually carried on NPR affiliates, but Marketplace(which is outstanding) and This American Life are PRI programs.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Hitokage said:
PRI (Public Radio International) frequently gets lost in the mix because their programs are usually carried on NPR affiliates, but Marketplace(which is outstanding) and This American Life are PRI programs.

wow, I didnt know that. Marketplace is far and away my favorite news program on our local NPR affiliate. I love when the market tanks and they just start cracking jokes, even though you know they likely lost a ton of money on the day themselves.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Hah, I was just looking to check what else PRI had, and it seems Tavis Smiley ended up moving from NPR to PRI(not that I really care, but we had a thread about his departure from NPR). Anyway, from www.pri.org...

PRI & NPR:
Public Radio International and National Public Radio (NPR) are the two major public radio networks. Individual public radio stations can be affiliates of PRI and members of NPR, selecting programming offered by each. The phrase “public radio” is a generic term, while “Public Radio International” and “National Public Radio” refer to each individual network.
 

Pimpwerx

Member
Bah! I might not follow any news these days if I didn't get NPR or PBS. I listen to the BBC feeds on both, and the Newshour. Frontline is awesome, and they also run some stuff like the Elegant Universe piece on unified theory. Public broadcasting needs more money, not less. The damn fund drives are ridiculous enough as is. It's only gonna get worse. PEACE.
 
Scrow said:
i was talking about news and current affairs programs, but yes... breasts are always a good thing. got to love those foreign flicks.
Okay. News = SBS. Analysis and Interviews = ABC. To me they both have their place though ABC produced 'comedy' should die.
 

Macam

Banned
impirius said:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/16/1329245

There's an interesting speech by Bill Moyers about PBS in general and Kenneth Tomlinson in particular. It's worth a listen if you're into this kind of thing.

I wanted to quote this again because for anyone who's kind of blowing by this link, IT'S TOO GOOD TO PASS UP. Please read it, as it's an accurate summary not only of the situation regarding PBS which many people here seem to care about, but the status quo in general. Circulate the article to anyone who may be interested, because I think Moyers is nailing this on the head in a way that needs to be read. It's long, but I cannot stress enough how poignantly Moyers nails it from start to finish:

Apparently there was apoplexy in the right wing area, particularly when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting a flag in my lapel and said – well, here’s exactly what I said. Here’s a copy of what I said: “I wore my flag tonight, first time. Until now I haven’t thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustain me, whose armed forces protected me and whose ideals inspired me. I offered my heart’s affection in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love. Mother knew where I stood. So does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15th. So what’s this doing here? I put it on to take it back. The flag’s been hijacked and turned into a logo, the trademark – the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On most Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it’s the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration’s patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official labels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao’s Little Red Book of orthodoxy on every official’s desk, omnipresent and unread.

”But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapel while writing books and running web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They’re in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks, even as they call for spending more on war.

”So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks. or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the ‘Coalition of the Willing.’ I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government, and it reminds me that it’s not un-American to think that war, except in self defense, is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.”


That did it. That did it. You should have heard Ann Coulter at the next conservative convention. I think that’s where she got the title for her book, her book about Democrats and treason. That did it. And our continued reporting on overpricing at Halliburton, chicanery on K Street and the heavy, if divinely-guided hand, of Tom DeLay.

When Senator Lott protested that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has not seemed willing to deal with Bill Moyers, a new member of the board, a Republican fundraiser named Cheryl Halpern, who had been appointed by President Bush, agreed that CPB needed more power to do just that sort of thing. She left no doubt about the kind of penalty she would like to see imposed on the malefactors.
 

Shinobi

Member
Willco said:
Hitokage is just bitter because NPR is about to become a NO SPIN ZONE!

billoreilly_narrowweb__200x181.jpg


TALKING POINTS MEMO

In response to the bipartisan House vote to withdraw funding from the outdated and slanted Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a lefitst bloghawk on the Gaming-Age Forums named Hitokage moved to derail the decision by targeting the Republican party. I've got news for you Hitokage, America is not going to take it anymore. Your ridiculous ideology has no basis in fact, and nobody should pay out of their pocket for an obsolete news format that publically embraces a leftist agenda. The Bush administration is saving hard working, blue collar citizens, like you and I, millions of dollars that could be better spent on the War on Terror. It's almost unanimous that public broadcasting is a waste of money, and you, Hitokage, should get a clue.

And that's tonight's Talking Points Memo.

:lol :lol :lol






“I wore my flag tonight, first time. Until now I haven’t thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustain me, whose armed forces protected me and whose ideals inspired me. I offered my heart’s affection in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love. Mother knew where I stood. So does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15th. So what’s this doing here? I put it on to take it back. The flag’s been hijacked and turned into a logo, the trademark – the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On most Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it’s the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration’s patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official labels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao’s Little Red Book of orthodoxy on every official’s desk, omnipresent and unread.

”But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapel while writing books and running web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They’re in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks, even as they call for spending more on war.

”So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks. or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the ‘Coalition of the Willing.’ I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government, and it reminds me that it’s not un-American to think that war, except in self defense, is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.”

That was so on point it's almost unnerving...particularly the sentence I underlined.
 
Scrow said:
Let’s say a TV station has McDonald's as one of its sponsors and a big news story hits which uncovers some really shocking things about their food. Because they're the station's sponsor it's highly likely you won’t hear a single thing about it on that station's news program. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

If your funds come from the government however you're free to report what you want. Like I said, no conflicts of interest.

I'm absolutely enamored with public Radio, I’d go bug-wild crazy and throw my undergarments at Ira Glass if I ever got near him. He routinely gets my love(sadly just money) during all his pledge drives.

But come on Scrow! Even with my love for the Glass-man I'm not blinded. If I go eat at McDonalds and then find out a week later from a friend/other source that my food now secretly contains baby rats as flavoring tools. Different news source time, along with many thousands of my other viewer friend, the Market Strikes Back!

It’s extremely inefficient in giving people maximum joy out of life, to take money from them and then put that in some random media that can’t sustain itself without forcefully taking money. (Please note: we are talking about something that obviously the private sector can handle just dandy, nor is it key to life)

At least in U.K. and Japan if you don't watch it, you don't have to pay. In America you have to pay and then you zero recourse (besides a single vote) about the content. If republicans get more of a majority in congress, they would be smart little buglings to try and start maneuvering Public Radio into their pockets.

Especially with the forthcoming of BLOG Land and the internet, which is not limited to any amount of potential stations/messages, the reasoning for any type of forced publicly-funded media is getting more and more asinine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom