PBS, APTS Push FCC on Dish Network HD

[Elkview]

Why should PBS be as you say fair & balanced, you already have the so called F & B from Fox News. Oh but they aren't are they so here we have it Fox News is conservative & PBS is liberal. That sounds F & B to me. If you don't care for PBS just don't watch or donate. But as far as there needing to be stripped of the ability to broadcast by congress. Now if there is conservative program that you want on PBS why not try to get it on there. Now explain to me how the McLaughlin Group, Nightly Business Report, and Consuelo Mack are considered as liberal programs.

I don't want my taxes supporting your programs, watch programs from other channels and shut down PBS.

 

[navychop]

The only nice thing about PBS & NPR is that their commercials are less annoying. And then they blow that by claiming they're not "commercials!"

I'm always amused by rich people like Ted Kennedy pushing to fund Arts and other "uplifting" things with the public purse! If they like it, they've the money to fund it! Quit using my money to fund YOUR idea of what's good for others!

And BTW, I do listen to NPR once in a while (mostly Car Talk). And I know damn well that studies have shown that with their higher income audience, they could survive quite nicely as fully commercial stations.

 

[dishcomm]

Why should PBS be as you say fair & balanced, you already have the so called F & B from Fox News. Oh but they aren't are they so here we have it Fox News is conservative & PBS is liberal. That sounds F & B to me. If you don't care for PBS just don't watch or donate. But as far as there needing to be stripped of the ability to broadcast by congress. Now if there is conservative program that you want on PBS why not try to get it on there. Now explain to me how the McLaughlin Group, Nightly Business Report, and Consuelo Mack are considered as liberal programs.

Oh that's rich....With your questions you expose two things which most conservatives know to be true. The Mainstream media is liberally biased and that PBS a taxpaer supported entity does not serve ALL of the public's interest. To answer your question ignoring the obvious atempt to pigeonhole the issue, PBS should be non biased. Period. I beieve the correct question is ,why should they not be?.
I never stated and neither do FOX News mgmnt manintain they are fair and balanced. FOX News Channel does lean conservative. So what. It's one tv network in a sea liberalism throughout the electronic and print media. News Corp in fact the only known news organization with a conservative bias.
Here's the difference. I don't pay for NBC,CBS, ABC , CNN, AP or Reuters. I do however have the delightful priveledge to pay part of Bill Moyers salary so HE can decide what I can hear and see and what to think about it.
The Mc Laughlin Group is a panel of media people from all points of view.
You libs are quaking in your boots because the party is over. We the people no longer have to deal with the liberal monopoly on media.
I will always maintain that if the govt is going to force me to pay for PBS, the editiorial staff should be neutral. Done.

 

[yaz96]

ok....here's the deal..PBS should be by design fair and balanced. And to inform you of your misinterpretation of the balance between lib and conservative, ..most folks would label themsleves as socially moderate to conservative and most definitely finacially conservative.
Neverthe less, it is immaterial what the leanings of the people are. PBS's sole purpose is to provide programming that fulifills the public interest. No bisases should be permitted.
PBS has been comandeered by a left wing interest groups. PBS has for three decades expressed an editorial agenda toward liberal ideology. That's a fact.
Liberals are the ones who think that because the rest of us decide to eschew the liberal pap of CNN and three of the four major networks that we are only interested in the conservative side of the news. False. The fact is liberal the intelligencia is incensed over the existence of an opposing point of view.
this is demonstrated by members of Congress far left wing attemting to ram the "Fairness Doctrine" into law. Fact is , this legislation is not fair at all. It seeks to limit conservative talk radio and by design silence any political speech in media of non-liberal ideology.
The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment and is a non- starter.

I just find it so amusing that you use the word "fact" so liberally.

 

[kb7oeb]

Its funny, the left thinks PBS leans right and the right thinks PBS leans left. I think its fair to criticize Moyers but he does frequently have conservative guests on.

I do like Jim Lehrer's position that he should be as neutral as possible.

 

[dishcomm]

I just find it so amusing that you use the word "fact" so liberally.

ok..if you are more comforatble with your head in the sand, fine by me.

 

[dishcomm]

Its funny, the left thinks PBS leans right and the right thinks PBS leans left. I think its fair to criticize Moyers but he does frequently have conservative guests on.

I do like Jim Lehrer's position that he should be as neutral as possible.

pleease keep thinking that. It wil help you with your choices in the voting booth. Sheesh.

 

[dishcomm]

In this technological age, the viewer should have the right to pick and choose what network programs he/she wants to pay for including the PBS channels. Special interest groups like the NAB or the fed gov't should not be dictating what we can or can't subscribe too or watch. Let the cable companies who have invested infrastructure in the various large and podunk cities around the US carry the local channels. Let the satellite companies, who have NO infrastructure in local cities decide if they want to carry local channels or not. If the local channels can't make it, so be it. Let the national networks pay them to exist. There are other avenues to get local information and commercial advertisements to local residents. As a satellite subscriber in Arizona, if I want to get the NY channels instead of the Phoenix locals, I can't. Just think of the bandwidth that would be available and could be put to better use if all this duplication and forced carriage crap were eliminated.

Good post/..But that is in a perfect world where consumers have unfettered options to purchase or not purchase.
But we are refering to an industry that gets it's ideas stright out of the 1950's. TV station owners and newtorks like their potential auduiences wrapped up in neat little packages. They don't want guess work. This enables them to have solid numbers to set advertising rates.
What bugs me is these people really have no idea what I am watching or how I am watching it. If I use a method other than tv or radio to get my information/entertainment, I theoretically should not count in the ratings.
I think in a few years, maybe a decade this whole thing is going to change with technology..
In my world, there are no sports blackouts, no territories, designated market areas.
The way I see it, if I am willing ot pay for it,Ishould be able to watch it.
What difference does it make what city I am in and the location of some particular tv station. I can listen to a Cardinals or Mets baseball game here in ther carolinas on AM skip at night...And that's free. In fact there are a plethora of radio stations on the internet.
SO why is tv such a stick in the mud?..Who knows.

 

[yaz96]

ok..if you are more comforatble with your head in the sand, fine by me.

Instead off making off the cuff comments why don't you back up your facts with proof?

And why do so many of your posts end up turning regular threads into PIT fodder? Maybe you should just hang out there, and post your political opinions and agendas with the other interested folks, instead of mucking up the regular forums. You have a habit of doing this.

 

[dishcomm]

Instead off making off the cuff comments why don't you back up your facts with proof?

And why do so many of your posts end up turning regular threads into PIT fodder? Maybe you should just hang out there, and post your political opininons and agendas with the other interested folks, instead of mucking up the regular forums. You seem to have a habit of doing this.

"seem"..
1. to appear to be, feel, do, etc.: She seems better this morning.
2. to appear to one's own senses, mind, observation, judgment, etc.: It seems to me that someone is calling.
3. to appear to exist: There seems no need to go now.
4. to appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems likely to rain.
5. to give the outward appearance of being or to pretend to be: He only seems friendly because he wants you to like him.

... a perception based on opinion..Not necessarily fact.
I was not the one who initially politicized this thread. And lo and behold YOU were the only one to object.
You objection is noted. Thank you.
This means were are through, finshised ,over, complete, done, with this discussion. Good bye...

 

[yaz96]

I was not the one who initially politicized this thread. ...

Just for clarification.

Check post #17. I believe that is yours. The first mention of politics or agenda.

 

[davisdog]

When both the left and the right are mad, I think that in itself Justify's PBS's existence

BTW, can somebody remind me what this thread was about?

 

[darrencp22]

Why in the world do we need PBS on 2008? I say cut all funding.

 

[dishcomm]

When both the left and the right are mad, I think that in itself Justify's PBS's existence

BTW, can somebody remind me what this thread was about?

look at the next response after this stupid thing you sent me..once again. if you have a hard time understanding "done"...my particpation in this dopey discussion is terminated. Get that?....No need for you to respond.....

 

[dishcomm]

Why in the world do we need PBS on 2008? I say cut all funding.

we don't .and I agree.

 

[AdamGott]

In this technological age, the viewer should have the right to pick and choose what network programs he/she wants to pay for including the PBS channels. Special interest groups like the NAB or the fed gov't should not be dictating what we can or can't subscribe too or watch. Let the cable companies who have invested infrastructure in the various large and podunk cities around the US carry the local channels. Let the satellite companies, who have NO infrastructure in local cities decide if they want to carry local channels or not. If the local channels can't make it, so be it. Let the national networks pay them to exist. There are other avenues to get local information and commercial advertisements to local residents. As a satellite subscriber in Arizona, if I want to get the NY channels instead of the Phoenix locals, I can't. Just think of the bandwidth that would be available and could be put to better use if all this duplication and forced carriage crap were eliminated.

Amen to that!

My locals suck and I am forced to watch them even though a couple of them still don't even broadcast in STEREO! And our CBS and FOX locals insist that HD would just be too expensive so they aren't going to do it in the near future. I will really be surprised if our local FOX is even digital by the cutoff date. If there is a loophole they will use it...

 

[qsoundrich]

We need PBS (and NPR) so the government isn't allowed to run roughshod over the people. Channels like Fox News are in the business of promoting a pro-business government. We need public broadcasting so we can get a view of the world that isn't influenced by the interests of big business.

Frontline did a documentary about the war this week. Conservatives are going to claim "liberal bias" because it was full of facts and information that is upsetting to them. I seriously doubt that a documentary like that could ever appear on a commercial station, outside of HBO, which is also viewer supported and not advertiser supported.