whither PBS?

[DudeMan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/arts/television/17mcgr.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

i never thought i'd see an article in the new york times arguing to kill PBS, but this is pretty interesting.

there's no question PBS has outlived its relevancy. i really enjoy NPR, and i'm not entirely against public funding of media outlets, per se. but, they need to show they are actually doing something useful to justify taxpayer funding, just like any other government program.

when was the last time PBS did something that was truly unique or even interesting? in this media multiverse we live in, PBS just doesn't need to exist anymore and it's time to pull the plug.

[upwithpeople]

Does Frontline count as PBS? Or is that something separate? Because Frontline is one of the most relevant things around.

[upwithpeople]

And Charlie Rose? Does he count? He's a pimp. A PBS pimp. A publicly-funded pimp, the best kind.

[noonan]

Does Frontline count as PBS? Or is that something separate? Because Frontline is one of the most relevant things around.

At my funeral I want Will Lyman to narrate the video retrospective of my life. Assuming there is one, of course.

[markalot]

My kids watch one show on PBS, the rest are mind numbingly dumbed down. I think the creators of Sesame Street inadvertently exposed the problem when they mused that a character like Oscar would probably not be created today, and neither would the Cookie Monster.

I think all the money should be directed to radio. We need good radio.

[Arkansas]

when was the last time PBS did something that was truly unique or even interesting? in this media multiverse we live in, PBS just doesn't need to exist anymore and it's time to pull the plug.

The Ken Burns Documentaries are interesting. The War one that was just out was really good. Nova, Frontline, Now, Bill Moyers are very relevant. They are a great contrast to the dumbed down conventional news casts that don't even bother to ask important questions anymore. It could be argued that there are better news sources online and maybe in print but saying PBS doesn't need to exist anymore is kind of extreme. Oh yeah, Austin City Limits is great too. The local political news is also important to alot of people around here. I want my PBS.

[Duemellon]

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate the library.

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate public parks

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate intrinsic appreciation of beauty, nature, science, discussion, art, & donations.

To eliminate PBS is to reward sensationalist ad-driven capitalistic networks.

[the-dude]

I enjoy Nova, that is constantly a great and worthwhile show, especially in HD.

[Buzzstein]

I like PBS. It's probably the last place on TV where you can get "real" news. Cable and network "news" suck. Nova and Frontline are important shows. And Austin City Limits is cool.

[The Sheck]

The article nails it when they say PBS needs to be more relevant to its younger audience (18-35). I'm sorry, but Austin City Limits and Frontline just isn't enough programming to make me want to watch, much less become a member.

[monkey neck]

To eliminate PBS is to reward sensationalist ad-driven capitalistic networks.

Yeah, because capitalism is bad.

[sayer_of_nay]

PBS rocks! Here in Dayton, local 16, "ThinkTV" has 5 digital stations, one of them being high-def, one of them being dedicated to Ohio programs and events. I don't have cable or dish so PBS is 5 out of 11 channels for me. I have never thought that my local PBS station was anything but relevant. TV would suck for me without Frontline, Austin City Limits, Nova, Nature, This Old House, and Americas Test Kitchen.

when was the last time PBS did something that was truly unique or even interesting?
When was the last time one of the major networks (broadcast or cable) did anything truly unique or even interesting?

[dannyboy]

If the plug were pulled on PBS tomorrow, I could see many of the more popular shows getting picked up by a niche cable/satellite channel. I could easily see NOVA and/or Nature on the Discovery Channel. I could see Frontline on CNN. I could see Austin City Limits on Bravo. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with at least having a discourse on the relevancy of the PBS umbrella.

[The Big Crunch]

there's no question PBS has outlived its relevancy. i really enjoy NPR, and i'm not entirely against public funding of media outlets, per se. but, they need to show they are actually doing something useful to justify taxpayer funding, just like any other government program.

when was the last time PBS did something that was truly unique or even interesting? in this media multiverse we live in, PBS just doesn't need to exist anymore and it's time to pull the plug.
The Ken Burns series, The War, was an excellent piece of work that would not air anywhere else. It was educational, impactful, and riveting television that also strongly influenced the larger “national conversation” in magazines and newspapers for the months surrounding its release. That alone should provide an answer to the last part of your question.

However, the Burns doc was a major media event, with cross-ties throughout the pub and retail industry, from B&N, to Amazon, to the coffee table book cross-promo merch, to the quick-release DVDs. On a smaller scale, PBS has some fantastic stuff. Nova is consistently informative and engaging to a degree that really shows how low the quality level is for the “fluffier” info-tainment on the Discovery Channel and other so-called educational/entertainment cable channels. Don’t get me wrong, for semi-interesting, somewhat dumbed-down, mostly mindless entertainment, there is some first-rate stuff on the Discover Channel, the History Channel, and other cable channels of their ilk (Mythbusters is quite entertaining), but for really solid programming on history, science, and social and cultural issues, PBS is in a league of its own. The recent series on Jewish Americans was top notch as was the feature on Abdul Rahman, Prince Among Slaves. The American Experience series continues to be turn out historical programming that is fascinating, educational, and entertaining. The America at a Crossroads series is also top-notch, thought provoking programming on contemporary issues. Although I only caught snippets, I also greatly enjoyed what I saw of the Walking The Bible series, and I thought that Country Boys, the powerful documentary series on three boys growing up in poverty-stricken Eastern Kentucky was exceptional programming. As a passionate fan (and player) of bluegrass and old-time music, I also enjoyed The Queen Family: Appalachian Tradition and Back Porch Music. Oh, and the Jane Austen movies were supposed to be quite entertaining.

Although it probably offends anyone who believes that ANY and ALL criticism of ANY GOP pol immediately means irrational, hateful, extremist Liberal bias, :p I’ve found many of Bill Moyer’s specials to be very, very good.

Maybe this post will open your eyes to some of the great things on PBS. I’d certainly recommend all the shows I’ve cited. I don’t know what the NYT had to say, nor do I really care. As someone who actually watches PBS (more than any other thing on TV save for sports) I can tell you that my first-hand experience with its programming makes me very thankful that our tax dollars go to support such a fine source of informative, educational, thought-provoking, classy, and entertaining programming. God knows there are countless things that my tax dollars go to that I find distasteful, pointless, wasteful, and outright criminal.

The article nails it when they say PBS needs to be more relevant to its younger audience (18-35).
That's a debatable point. One could just as easily argue that the typical TV watching 18-35 year old is somewhat mindless and finds anything more intellectually challenging than Modern Marvels to be too vexing a viewing experience. Hell, the absence of TV commercials probably makes it too dificult to watch simply because it requires more than 5-7 minutes of focused attention. The point of PBS is to put out programming that is measured by standards of quality, not by the market share of teens and young adults that it draws on any given night.

If the plug were pulled on PBS tomorrow, I could see many of the more popular shows getting picked up by a niche cable/satellite channel. I could easily see NOVA and/or Nature on the Discovery Channel. I could see Frontline on CNN. I could see Austin City Limits on Bravo. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with at least having a discourse on the relevancy of the PBS umbrella.

The idea that these shows would just be picked up elsewhere misses the point about quality. Do you know what Nova or Nature would look like on cable? It would be Modern Marvels. 60% show/40% commercials, with most of the show being surface level deep at best. Mindless fluff sold as informative viewing.

Frontline on cable? Have you seen most cable news? You get about 90 seconds to report a piece of "news" before a cut to the next "story"...or a commercial break. Really, on those stations, what you have are commercials that are interrupted by brief snippets of programming.

[markalot]

The Ken Burns series, The War, was an excellent piece of work that would not air anywhere else.

The article points out how it WOULD have aired in other places, like the BBC doc. There are plenty of other outlets now for well produced documentaries.

Radio is a different story.

[The Big Crunch]

The article points out how it WOULD have aired in other places, like the BBC doc. There are plenty of other outlets now for well produced documentaries.

Radio is a different story.
Maybe it's just a latent sense of patriotism, but I'd be somewhat saddened if American TV viewers had to rely on the BBC to put out quality documentaries on the exsperiences of the American soldier, and the effects of WWII on American homefront. Just saying, "someone else can do it, so we can pull the plug on the venture" kind've misses the point behind having one's own creative outlet.

[markalot]

What makes you think Ken Burns wouldn't have made a doc for Discovery or A&E or the History Channel?

[Shlep]

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate the library.

Leaving only with a few crumbs on info that can be found on this "Internet" thing I keep hearing about.

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate public parks

I don't recall ever tripping over a bum that smelled like urine, or feeling like I was being stalked by a criminal predator, while watching PBS. But it's been awhile since I watched much TV of any kind.

Did PBS go downhill really, really hard recently?

To eliminate PBS is to eliminate intrinsic appreciation of beauty, nature, science, discussion, art, & donations.

Basic cable has entire channels devoted to these things. Discovery in general has-- well, used to have, anyway-- loads of kick-ass nature shows. Especially Animal Planet.

To eliminate PBS is to reward sensationalist ad-driven capitalistic networks.

Not really. It's not like The McLaughlin Group loses viewers to Kevin Federline Presents: America's Next Britney Spears Backup Dancer or Who Wants To Marry A Condemned Murderer? because they can't compete with the slick production values.

People hungry for intelligent distractions-- be it for fun, news, whatever-- will find alternatives elsewhere.



Don't get me wrong: I have a soft spot for PBS.

For one thing, it's always great because no matter what you watch on PBS, it feels important. Somebody, please...back me up and join me in admitting that to some small degree, PBS is a great way to satisfy your intellectual and/or cultural vanity. Let's bear our souls, people!! :D

Plus, before every single tangible item, concept, sport, hobby, interest, fetish, or whatever had its own cable or Sat-TV channel and "teh Interwebs" was still nothing but text boards for geeks to communicate on (whereas now we have pics) assuming you had the necessary 2400 baud connection to Prodigy to do so, PBS brought in a lot of mildly subversive, hip, askew stuff. In addition to all the foreign news and entertainment they brought in that tipped me off that there was a great big (and sometimes odd) world out there, sprinkled among the stuffy fare like Upstairs, Downstairs and MAsterpiece Theater and Great Moments in Stuffy, Indecipherable British Television you had Monty Pythons' Flying Circus and FAwlty Towers.

I first was exposed to whacky Brit comedy watching PBS on the sly on my little black-and-white TV/Atari PC monitor at midnight when I was in junior high; I will always cherish the memories, and feel genuinely indebted.

[The Big Crunch]

What makes you think Ken Burns wouldn't have made a doc for Discovery or A&E or the History Channel?
If he had no other option, then as a filmaker, he'd probably be forced to go there, which would be a shame. Again, all three of those outlets are basically stations that show commercials with some programming interspersed. Burns' stuff interspliced with commercials every seven minutes? Ugggghhhh!

Furthermore, I do question whether those networks would even agree to put out something as dark as The War. They may greenlight a WWII doc with his name on it, but I could very well see them making it contingent on being something that makes folks feel good about the war in general. Not saying Burns can't talk about people dying, but make sure everyone goes away from the show with a smile. Nothing too vexing for customers, nothing that may leave them emotionally disgruntled.

IMO, the only station that may do it would be HBO.

Basic cable has entire channels devoted to these things. Discovery in general has-- well, used to have, anyway-- loads of kick-ass nature shows. Especially Animal Planet.
Again, it's the quality issue. Basic cable does have channels devoted to these things, and they do a remarkable job of treating them in the most shallow, surface-level fashion while convincing their viewers that there is actually some substance to the crap they're floating.

And Due is totally right about something else: Where will you find a channel that asks for more donations? :p

[Shlep]

And Due is totally right about something else where will you find a channel that asks for more donations? :p

Well, I always recall PBS shows frequently were prefaced by a passing-- but prominent-- mention that "Funding for <the show you're about to watch> has been provided by...." some major gigantic soulless corporate entity.

In retrospect, it kinda struck as being similar to sinners trying to tithe their way into Heaven. :D "Look, Volvo-driving liberals! We're caring enough to fund your show!!"

[REMgirl]

We don't have cable tv, so I watch a lot of shows on PBS. I like the ones that have been mentioned already: Frontline, Bill Moyers, Antiques Roadshow, Nature, America's Test Kitchen, etc. If I didn't have PBS, I'd lose out bigtime.:mad:

[ajax]

Another PBS fan here. ThinkTV 14 out of Oxford has some quality programing between all that HD content. I loved Ken Burn's "The War". I watch NOVA, ACL, Kentucky Afield and Kentucky life on a weekly basis. My son watches some great children's programing that has really improved his reading abilities. PBS is far from irrelevant.

[the happy prole]

Man, y'all are a buncha liberal pantywaists. I'd cut NPR and PBS in a flash.

The conundrum here is how do you demonstrate that you are doing something worthwhile with taxpayer dollars? If people want to see it, they'll pay for it. So the function you serve is really to sponsor and exhibit a bunch of crap that no one cares about. You just hope that somewhere down the line maybe people WILL care and we'll be glad we have it, or that this inspires people to do something eventually that is useful. But you'll never be able to show that on an audit.

Something like a museum, I can see that. Because I want to see King Tut's tomb and you want to see King Tut's tomb. But we got $40 between us, which isn't exactly going to buy much in the way of Egyptian artifacts. You get 100,000 of us organized in a pool, then we have enough cash to build a nice exhibition place with all the security and preservation technology, and enough cash to rent King Tut's stuff for a few months. And we all pay another $10 to see it and buy a t-shirt and that actually pays for the rental.

The government serves as a sort of catalyst/deep pocket organizational role by gathering up a deep reserve of funds to start the ball rolling. From there, it's not a big deal to show a Mapplethorpe even if you don't want to see it or a Gustav Klemt that I don't care about. Those expenses are relatively minor once you got the exhibition space and people trust you with the stuff.

But PBS and NPR, what value do they add? First off, NPR is liberal so you're cutting out maybe 1/3-2/3 of the population right there. Second, even if it was "objective" along political lines, it still wouldn't be truly objective. Do I really want the government sponsoring the mass media? There's a wave band on my radio that could go to some private citizens to air views. Instead the government controls that frequency and they assign it to NPR so I can hear some Big Brother crap.

*rant*

Plus, I really want to punch Terry Gross in the face. "So there has been quite a bit written about the creative process in general but I'm particularly interested in a piece by noted rock critic Robert Christgau where he described your sound as 'two sheep fucking in a canoe.' I was particularly drawn to the unique spiritual nature of that description, and so that leads me to ask you "How do you remain in contact with your inner muse?"

Less yap from you, more yap from the band. "How do you write your songs?" will do nicely next time, thanks.

*end rant*

Anyway, if we want that kind of stuff just continue to sponsor non-profits. Any group with whatever message that meets the requirement for a non-profit corporation gets tax and/or other benefits. There's no need to take additional money for a specifically government-sanctioned media outlet.

[Shlep]

Will give props ti PBS' news and info shows; they do tend to be well-researched and do a better job, most of the time, of being a bit more impartial and dispassionate in their tone and content. This is, I think, would quality, informative journalism is supposed to be. Sadly, it's not entertaining very often, and compared to MSNBC of CNN is sort of like the "book-without-cool-pictures" version of the news. Sadly and/or ironically, I think this is often a liability for them.

Though my older brother was featured semi-prominently and provided fodder for a couple quotes in a News Hour segment broadcast...well, not sure, since I saw it on YouTube...not too long ago. For reasons which are difficult to explain, it was one of the funniest damned things I ever saw, and I still watch it when I need a laugh.

[Duemellon]

Man, y'all are a buncha liberal pantywaists. I'd cut NPR and PBS in a flash.You're such a pure capitalist. Ugh. You believe the market can/will drive anything that is a true need.First off, NPR is liberal so you're cutting out maybe 1/3-2/3 of the population right there.Please note the difference:

NPR appeals to liberals becuase it is just "information". B/c NPR is listener supported, the "liberals" financially support them. The supporters pay them to remain objective; to remain how they are; and to simply provide information.

So, Liberals may like NPR, get their information from NPR, support NPR, & feel it's relevent to them, but they are not interested in affecting NPR other than keeping it going.

I do believe that is where the misonception comes from that NPR has a liberal lean.

[the happy prole]

No dude, it's liberal. No two ways about it. In fact it's the exact kind of snobby, New York liberal that I can totally understand why it makes people nuts and rail on the "intellectual elite." Big words where you don't need 'em. That stupid jazz theme song. All of it. Click and clack know waaay more than they strictly need to know to fix your car, and they like to share it. I can see how that's appealing, because I know a lot of people who aren't all into cars who love that show. But still, it's not strictly car repair, there's a bit of culture being presented and that culture leans towards the "tastefully snobbish." And intentionally or not, it tends to gets entwined with their news coverage to present a certain vibe or viewpoint where that is neither necessary nor desirable.

There are two ways to be biased. One how you present a story, the other is what you choose to present. On Fox you get a bunch of angry, opinionated idiots who attack opposing viewpoints and claim it is news. NPR isn't like that. It's "real journalism" in that respect. They don't just make up facts, they don't even just skew facts (at least not too much).

But like there are probably lots of ways in which blacks are discriminated against in society that need investigating and that people might not have thought of. And you'll get that from NPR, and it'll probably be decently and objectively presented, with some air time for opposing viewpoints.

But there are probably some (and perhaps fewer) ways in which white rich dudes get the shaft. And I don't think you get that from NPR.

You know what I mean? They present objective viewpoints when that objective viewpoint favors liberals and shows conservatives to perhaps be biased and wrong. When the shoe is on the other foot, it's ignored. And while they do separate what is news from what is editorial, the editorials are left-leaning.

It's a Wall Street Journal type of bias, not a Washington Times bias. And while that's perfectly acceptable to me as still being responsible journalism from a private source, I'm not really cool with it coming from government funding.

[twentyshots]

NPR appeals to liberals becuase it is just "information". B/c NPR is listener supported, the "liberals" financially support them. The supporters pay them to remain objective; to remain how they are; and to simply provide information.

So, Liberals may like NPR, get their information from NPR, support NPR, & feel it's relevent to them, but they are not interested in affecting NPR other than keeping it going.

I do believe that is where the misonception comes from that NPR has a liberal lean.

i would agree. i know a few die hard republicans (conservatives) who listen to npr and watch pbs because of it's focus on history, nature and military programming. it seems to be appreciated by the intellectually curious folk i know of in general. however, that does not prevent them from getting their jabs in at the same time, which i find weird.

[Phreon]

No dude, it's liberal. No two ways about it. In fact it's the exact kind of snobby, New York liberal that I can totally understand why it makes people nuts and rail on the "intellectual elite." Big words where you don't need 'em. That stupid jazz theme song. All of it. Click and clack know waaay more than they strictly need to know to fix your car, and they like to share it. I can see how that's appealing, because I know a lot of people who aren't all into cars who love that show. But still, it's not strictly car repair, there's a bit of culture being presented and that culture leans towards the "tastefully snobbish." And intentionally or not, it tends to gets entwined with their news coverage to present a certain vibe or viewpoint where that is neither necessary nor desirable.


There are two ways to be biased. One how you present a story, the other is what you choose to present. On Fox you get a bunch of angry, opinionated idiots who attack opposing viewpoints and claim it is news. NPR isn't like that. It's "real journalism" in that respect. They don't just make up facts, they don't even just skew facts (at least not too much).

But like there are probably lots of ways in which blacks are discriminated against in society that need investigating and that people might not have thought of. And you'll get that from NPR, and it'll probably be decently and objectively presented, with some air time for opposing viewpoints.

But there are probably some (and perhaps fewer) ways in which white rich dudes get the shaft. And I don't think you get that from NPR.

You know what I mean? They present objective viewpoints when that objective viewpoint favors liberals and shows conservatives to perhaps be biased and wrong. When the shoe is on the other foot, it's ignored. And while they do separate what is news from what is editorial, the editorials are left-leaning.

It's a Wall Street Journal type of bias, not a Washington Times bias. And while that's perfectly acceptable to me as still being responsible journalism from a private source, I'm not really cool with it coming from government funding.

Big words when you don't need them? Stupid jazz? Would you have them talk monosyllabically against a backdrop of Kid Rock and 50 Cent? Click and Clack bantering endlessly? It's entertainment. It's comedy. They're weird yes, but so what? Are you searching for the radio version of "Pimp My Ride"? You're not the first person to raise the "intellectual elite" mantra. Why do you think folks bring it up? I never get the sense NPR or PBS are condecending; are people really intimidated by media that rises above pure schlock entertainment?


You do realize you've touched upon all of Limbaugh's talking points, don't you?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that in this world of American Idol and Desperate Housewives that the market would produce the quality and type of programming PBS does? I like a few programs on Discovery (Mythbusters), but let's be clear, they're not educational or informative in the least, they're light diversions at best. What network currently asks the hard questions Frontline does? Why do you think they'd suddenly start if PBS was killed?

Perhaps they present conservatives as biased and wrong, but honestly, as a (centrist) conservative, I don't disagree with NPR/PBS very often these days. Maybe the current power structure IS biased and wrong. Given the shit on regular TV, I can forgive PBS/NPR for being somewhat left in a sea of NEO-conservatism.

Phreon

[The Sheck]

That's a debatable point. One could just as easily argue that the typical TV watching 18-35 year old is somewhat mindless and finds anything more intellectually challenging than Modern Marvels to be too vexing a viewing experience. Hell, the absence of TV commercials probably makes it too dificult to watch simply because it requires more than 5-7 minutes of focused attention. The point of PBS is to put out programming that is measured by standards of quality, not by the market share of teens and young adults that it draws on any given night.

I don't have to tell you this, but quality is purely subjective. Most people our age think mTV shows, reality TV, and the latest SAW movie is 'quality' entertainment these days. Does it belong on PBS? Elitists might scoff, but since PBS counts on federal and private funds to keep its existence going, it might be a good idea to start catering programming to the younger crowd (Especially since in 20 years all the PBS supporters are going to croak).

If we use radio as an example, four years ago MPR started the Current, clearly aimed at younger music fans. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I think they've met their pledge drive totals all but once during their time on the air. If you offer what the younger audience wants, people will pay for it. As much as the idea of Gillian Anderson hosting the new Masterpiece Theatre appeals to me, I'll probably just watch the segments she's on and then just flip away because British Victorian-era dramas don't appeal that much to me, you know?

I am getting a little sick of the thoughts of taking away funding because of a supposed political stance Public TV/Radio has which doesn't show up in 80% of the programming or more. Just because people hate Bill Moyers doesn't mean the whole thing should be canceled, you know? ;)

[Buzzstein]

It's a Wall Street Journal type of bias, not a Washington Times bias. And while that's perfectly acceptable to me as still being responsible journalism from a private source, I'm not really cool with it coming from government funding.

Well I am. That's just dandy as far as I'm concerned.

And since when is jazz music liberal? :p

[markalot]

Good grief Prole, they bought it.

[Duemellon]

..."intellectual elite."

Big words where you don't need 'em.
That stupid jazz theme song.Big words prove you're an elitist? Every "big word" can be broken down into smaller ones, that's what dictionary does. So, therefore, every "big word" is unnecessary. Err... not "unnecessary" but without need, err... not needed,... err... too much?

It always irritates me when ppl say I'm being "snobbish" for using my vocubulary in conversations. Look, I'm not trying to demonstrate how I'm smarter than you b/c I know some other words. I just happen to feel comfortable employing those words & that's how I think. If you ever see me pause before I speak it's because I'm dumbing it down not trying to dress it up in intellectualistic phraseologies.

Stupid jazz theme... I didn't know jazz was part of the DNC. Meh. I learn something new every day.

As for the other shows? I don't listen to them. I listen to All Things Considered & their early afternoon things.There are two ways to be biased. One ... is what you choose to present.
....
And you'll get that from NPR, and it'll probably be decently and objectively presented, with some air time for opposing viewpoints.
...
You know what I mean? They present objective viewpoints when that objective viewpoint favors liberals and shows conservatives to perhaps be biased and wrong.So the information they present focuses on things that appeals to their audience, but, that information is properly framed & a non-partisan way?

Ok, I'm pretty sure if we went down the list of topics the conservative stations were covering "that day" we'd find it tit-for-tat on NPR. I don't listen to both simultaneously, nor NPR enough to say with certainty all it covers, but I think we may be able to take that challenge up. Your 1st challenge would be to find a conservative media source that will present the items relevent to the public so we can compare.

[Phreon]

Good grief Prole, they bought it.


Shit. Next time I respond thinking, "This doesn't sound like Prole", I should listen to my gut.

Phreon

[tempo]

The tax money that goes to PBS is a pittance. Small gummit conservatives love to hate it, but gimme a break -- it's probably the biggest bang for your tax buck you'll ever see.

Why get rid of a public institution that actually works?

[DudeMan]

If you ever see me pause before I speak it's because I'm dumbing it down not trying to dress it up in intellectualistic phraseologies.

it must be so frustrating for you, struggling to be understood by lesser minds, day after day after day!

[classicgrrl]

I already don't really watch tv except for PBS and what Phreon forces me to :p

get rid of PBS and I'll just sell the damn thing.....

keep the fucking PBS. if you don't like it don't watch it. tell that idiot to back under his rock and keep watching Idol. :mad:

besides, where in hell would I ever be able to watch Red Green?

and a world without Dr. Who is a world just not worth living in...

[DaHood]

They could make it the ACL network and I'd be fine with it.

[Shlep]

They could make it the ACL network and I'd be fine with it.

Well...before the advent of the 500-channel age, I'd say there's no way you could build an entire network around something as mundane as an Anterior Cruciate Ligament. But considering what a common, and troublesome, issues related to the ACL can be for athletes all the way from the pro leagues down to the average amateur jock-- from injuries, to orthroscopic surgery, recovery, therapy, etc-- you probably could make an ACL network. Maybe spin if off into a whole series of ligament-based programming:

The PCL Channel, the Infrapatellar Channel, the Rotator Cuff Network, Achilles 1, Achilles 2, Achilles En Espanol...

[DaHood]

:D Austin City Limits network, you twit.

[The Big Crunch]

Man, y'all are a buncha liberal pantywaists. I'd cut NPR and PBS in a flash.

The conundrum here is how do you demonstrate that you are doing something worthwhile with taxpayer dollars? If people want to see it, they'll pay for it. So the function you serve is really to sponsor and exhibit a bunch of crap that no one cares about. You just hope that somewhere down the line maybe people WILL care and we'll be glad we have it, or that this inspires people to do something eventually that is useful. But you'll never be able to show that on an audit...and you've got to give her credit for handling that piece of shit Gene Simmons with some tact and grace.

Something like a museum, I can see that. Because I want to see King Tut's tomb and you want to see King Tut's tomb. But we got $40 between us, which isn't exactly going to buy much in the way of Egyptian artifacts. You get 100,000 of us organized in a pool, then we have enough cash to build a nice exhibition place with all the security and preservation technology, and enough cash to rent King Tut's stuff for a few months. And we all pay another $10 to see it and buy a t-shirt and that actually pays for the rental.

The government serves as a sort of catalyst/deep pocket organizational role by gathering up a deep reserve of funds to start the ball rolling. From there, it's not a big deal to show a Mapplethorpe even if you don't want to see it or a Gustav Klemt that I don't care about. Those expenses are relatively minor once you got the exhibition space and people trust you with the stuff.

But PBS and NPR, what value do they add? First off, NPR is liberal so you're cutting out maybe 1/3-2/3 of the population right there. Second, even if it was "objective" along political lines, it still wouldn't be truly objective. Do I really want the government sponsoring the mass media? There's a wave band on my radio that could go to some private citizens to air views. Instead the government controls that frequency and they assign it to NPR so I can hear some Big Brother crap.

*rant*

Plus, I really want to punch Terry Gross in the face. "So there has been quite a bit written about the creative process in general but I'm particularly interested in a piece by noted rock critic Robert Christgau where he described your sound as 'two sheep fucking in a canoe.' I was particularly drawn to the unique spiritual nature of that description, and so that leads me to ask you "How do you remain in contact with your inner muse?"

Less yap from you, more yap from the band. "How do you write your songs?" will do nicely next time, thanks.
So what do you want? Look, I'm no fan of Terry Gross. Personally I think she manages to use vague and "deep" sounding questions to mask being continually unfamiliar and unprepared for her interviews. But...IMO it's still better than most anything I've seen on cable or broadcast. Hell, at least the questions are different.

And in terms of your museum analogy, let me present you with a different alternative. Museums are cool to fund you say? You like the fact that King Tut and stuff is shown. Well, that's good, but what about when something of less obvious value is shown. Or something you outright hate. God knows, I've seen some wretched exhibits at the National Gallery. And...I've seen some breathtaking exhibits (most recently the Hopper exhibit and the Turner exhibit). The idea is to fund the arts. To fund organizations who will make an attempt to work at bringing arts and culture of excellent quality to the country regardless of what the current trend is at the time. Do we bring Jason Mraz, Soulja Boy, and Linkin Park to play at the Kennedy Center or do we arrange for the Bolshoi Ballet, The Hungarian National Orchestra, and the Kronos Quartet? See, this also addresses the Sheck's point. The former is sure more popular...lord knows the 18-32 years old would like it more. I suppose that means that Soulja Boy is superior in all aspects to the Kirov Ballet or the Washington Symphony Orchestra performing Beethoven? Because Britney Spears currently outsells Mozart, we should just cease showcasing his work and just start showing her videos at the Kennedy Center?

The idea is to endow an organization to use public funds to produce and deliver artistic content for the enjoyment and BETTERMENT of the citizenry. Sometimes this will result in disagreement by some of the citizenry about the content, which is to be expected...you can't please all the people all the time. But is there an effort, a serious and decided effort, to meet these expectations? I believe so, and I believe such a thing is well worth funding. God knows it's worth more than a LOT of others things that my tax dollars are paying for.

The funny thing about the liberal bias of NPR is that it gets disproven time and again. The converse of this is that (editorial page aside) the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly come out as (more or less) dead in the middle in a number of "bias" studies...which are all of course somewhat subjective. Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal evaluations that I have seen were pre-Murdoch takeover. Anyway, I still say NPR is far more middle of the road than folks give it credit for. Without a host of examples, I find it to be lazy bandwagonesque mentality to just say, "It's NPR, so we KNOW it's ALL Liberal". But then again, in a sizable number of conservative minds, if even a hint of slightly negative coverage is even suggested at anyone within a light year of the conservative tent, then the entire reporting enterprise is a bunch of Liberal fascists with no ounce of objectivity and nothing but gains for Democrats in their sights, and as such it's all a bunch of fictional propaganda. What a bunch of hogwash (roll eyes).

I love commercial free content. I appreciate the fact that it is working without constraints that IMO drastically reduce the quality of most commercial programming, be it news or entertainment...or both.

[the happy prole]

Are you searching for the radio version of "Pimp My Ride"? You're not the first person to raise the "intellectual elite" mantra. Why do you think folks bring it up? I never get the sense NPR or PBS are condecending; are people really intimidated by media that rises above pure schlock entertainment?

umm... are you fucking shitting me? It's not condeScending at all to refer to "Pimp My Ride" as mindless shlock entertainment.

I was somewhat joking. I was poking fun of Rush Limbaugh because while I genuinely can't stand any of NPR, I think it's really stupid to dismiss an opinion simply because they prefer different entertainment choices.

Apparently, you're hellbent on proving him right. If you're asking me if whether I prefer "Pimp My Ride" and 50 cent to Click and Clack and NPR's crappy theme song, the answer is "yes. By a lot."

If you're asking me if I'm intimidated by your supposed incredible taste in entertainment, the answer is "No. I'm not intimidated. I just think you're an asshole."

[The Big Crunch]

If you're asking me if whether I prefer "Pimp My Ride" and 50 cent to Click and Clack...the answer is "yes. By a lot."
Good God, I'm not even sure how this can be? Is it just a preference for TV over radio? Seriously, I saw about half of an episode of Pimp My Ride (well... about seven minutes of the show and ten minutes of commercials...mostly for Axe Bodyspray) and this is just incomprehensible to me. I can see how folks don't care for Car Talk, but...well, I'm just speechless.

[the happy prole]

The idea is to fund the arts. To fund organizations who will make an attempt to work at bringing arts and culture of excellent quality to the country regardless of what the current trend is at the time. Do we bring Jason Mraz, Soulja Boy, and Linkin Park to play at the Kennedy Center or do we arrange for the Bolshoi Ballet, The Hungarian National Orchestra, and the Kronos Quartet?

You tell me. Apparently Jason Mraz, Soulja Boy and Linkin Park are not "arts" but Bolshoi Ballet is. What makes that the case, other than 1) your opinion, and 2) the conceit that your subjective opinion is better than someone else's.


Note: You kinda got me in a way on this one. I actually do hate Jason Mraz and Soulja Boy. Still, the unbelievable conceit that somehow listening to Kronos Quartet will better society whereas Soulja Boy reduces it is quite laughable.

I have an idea. How about we teach people some science instead? Do you really think that altering aesthetic taste improves this country in any way?

[jneale]

i'm too lazy to read through - i'd hate to see it go away - but until the US grows the f'up & stops trying to be moral with public funding - pbs will never be what it ought to be

its forced to be so bland as not to offend anyone that it is no longer relevant. I'd miss Nature & Nova, but who the F is watching Lawrence Welk? When I was a kid my grandmother & the 99 yr old woman next door watched -but God love them, they are all dead.

Maybe one day the US will mature & realize that art & education is sometimes necessarily uncomfortable. Public funds should be spent on the public - not the vocal few who impose their morals on the majority who, at the end of the day, don't have to be protected or spoon fed.

[the happy prole]

I don't see why a moral minority should dictate what gets seen, but I also don't see why a tasteful minority should dictate what is art. I mean, I'm still being kind of facetious about NPR but I'm also kind of serious. Do you really want the government to tell you what kind of art you should be appreciating, whether it's for moral or aesthetic reasons?

You really have a hard time justifying why NPR should be playing jazz instead of 50 cent without coming across like a snob. The broadcast station I listen to most is a non-commercial "public" radio station that plays modern rock I can't find anywhere else. I would hate to see that station get replaced by NPR.

I'm totally willing to fund the Christian Broadcast Network station with my tax dollars if it means that a college radio station gets the same amount of help. I would much rather fund that than fund NPR who are going to insist on certain programs.

There is a point where you cross the line from being inclusive and embracing all types of free speech to where you are promulgating a specific type of speech you deem appropriate. The idea is that NO ONE should be a tastemaker or newsmaker, not that NPR should get the job.

[the-dude]

I saw a very interesting piece on Dessert Oasis produced locally in SD. You ever notice on PBS how many shows have a logo of a specific PBS station at the beginning? Many times shows start as a local thing on PBS then become national. PBS's local programming is 10-100x better than public access or any other medium, because networks control content. There is a lot of content (on late at night mind you) that is high quality educational HD programming produced from San Deigo's PBS station about regional ecology/culture/arts. These are very well made and incredibly informative.

http://www.kpbs.org/localprograms

That is the one thing PBS provides that I think the major networks can't. Quality local interest programming that may end out being of national interest. Now do I think this one thing makes it worth while in and of itself? Probably not, but I grew up on PBS and its the sole reason that I am interested in astronomy, physics, geology, anthropology, and so many other things that enrich my life. Its hard for me to give that up. I love PBS and I want it to stay, but I completely understand the arguments against it. Its just nice to turn on the TV at 1 AM and be able to learn. Also, PBS doesn't show quack science BS like Ghost Hunters, so thats a plus. PBS is one of, if not the biggest supplier of video for use in the classroom.

And I think its naive to simply assume that, for example, Carl Sagan's Cosmos would be created today in a non PBS setting. Or Wild America. "Cosmos was produced in 1978 and 1979 by Los Angeles PBS affiliate KCET [see the local affiliate connection again?] on a roughly $6.3 million budget, with over $2 million additionally allocated to promotion." - wikipedia.

[Motti]

Good God, I'm not even sure how this can be? Is it just a preference for TV over radio? Seriously, I saw about half of an episode of Pimp My Ride (well... about seven minutes of the show and ten minutes of commercials...mostly for Axe Bodyspray) and this is just incomprehensible to me. I can see how folks don't care for Car Talk, but...well, I'm just speechless.

I love those ads!

http://bp0.blogger.com/__KxmfXWIVDY/Rwq5anOiPeI/AAAAAAAABU0/9y_aBqFQb_s/s400/axe-1.jpg

:)

[classicgrrl]

i'm too lazy to read through - i'd hate to see it go away - but until the US grows the f'up & stops trying to be moral with public funding - pbs will never be what it ought to be

its forced to be so bland as not to offend anyone that it is no longer relevant. I'd miss Nature & Nova, but who the F is watching Lawrence Welk? When I was a kid my grandmother & the 99 yr old woman next door watched -but God love them, they are all dead.

Maybe one day the US will mature & realize that art & education is sometimes necessarily uncomfortable. Public funds should be spent on the public - not the vocal few who impose their morals on the majority who, at the end of the day, don't have to be protected or spoon fed.


and this is why I like you.

and anyone who doesn't like car talk is just plain un-Amercian.

[Duemellon]

If you ever see me pause before I speak it's because I'm dumbing it down not trying to dress it up in intellectualistic phraseologies.it must be so frustrating for you, struggling to be understood by lesser minds, day after day after day!Geez, you have no idea how difficult it is Capt. Troll.

I have to use simple words instead of words like assholic, cancerous, detrimental, deadweight, disruptive, petty, predatory, vindictive, malicious, indignant, & other things.

Instead, I'll just reduce it to say you're unnecessarily being a jerk.

[Duemellon]

and anyone who doesn't like car talk is just plain un-Amercian.Well take away my SS# & apple pie recipe b/c I can't stand it. When I accidentally listened to it 4-5x I cringed at how annoying it was.

[peedub]

i'm not going to read the whole thread to see if this has been brought up, but...

as a non-cable viewing/subscribing pbs/npr supporter, i just want to point out that comparing/contrasting the content of the two (pbs and cable) is irrelevant...let's not forget what the B in pbs stands for.

[miami2112]

pbs is a very worthwhile expendature of my tax dollars.

where else would i see explosions in the sky, the shins, the decemberists, what made milwaukee famous, and the flaming lips in concert?

frontline, nova, nature, and the various specials are the best tv out there. they often incorporate real science and have the researchers discussing their discoveries.

btw, mythbusters is not science in any way shape or form, and my students are stunned to hear me tell them otherwise.

elitist? whatever. i'd rather have the dso playing than a pop phenom anyday.

the last special on the plight of the red knots and horseshoe crabs was poignant.

[peedub]

the last special on the plight of the red knots and horseshoe crabs was poignant.

no doubt. people are stunned when i reveal to them that a qt. of horseshoe crab blood is worth $15k. the highest guess i've heard so far is $80....

[Duemellon]

btw, mythbusters is not science in any way shape or form, and my students are stunned to hear me tell them otherwise.I know. Geez. I remember there was the one where they tested if it was better or worse to run through the rain or walk. They did 2 tests, one where they walked under a rainfall, then a 2nd where they ran & found (as I knew) that when you run you catch up with rain you wouldn't've normally gotten, so therefore you get pretty much as wet whether you walk or run.

It's just all your wetness is in front instead of from above & below.

The thing I wish they did was have varying rates of rainfall & varying rates of walking/running. I'm sure the difference would show some benefits to either.

[dannyboy]

btw, mythbusters is not science in any way shape or form, and my students are stunned to hear me tell them otherwise.


It may not be strict research science, but it is applied engineering.

[Lidja]

I think you'd get a lot of pissed off mothers who don't pay for cable, thus not having Noggin. When I was growing up, we seldom had cable - sometimes the place we moved into (we moved a lot, thanks USAF) already had cable hooked up and that was totally rad. Otherwise, I watched PBS kids shows during the day and TGIF at night.

As an adult who just recently got cable after more than a year without, there were nothing but infomercials and religious programming on during a Sunday morning--- so I would watch cooking shows on PBS.

And who didn't say... "from viewers like you" at the end of every show right when the announcer did? Don't kill my childhood any further, Mr. Man.

[Lidja]

Side note, a Facebook search yields HUNDREDS of PBS related groups and in a group called "Save NPR and PBS" there are 3200+ members. Remember, facebook members widely consists of high school and college kids.

[wombat18]

If we canned PBS, what would we do with the money raised when we sold off the public airwaves? Pay down the debt to foreign governments?

Sheesh, at least we own PBS. It's like a museum - it's a repository of the nation's arts and culture, a venue for the unmarketable, a babysitter that everyone can afford.

[Macpherson]

we should cut the plug on the NY Times. a shell of what it used to be, it's just a joke now.

[Arkansas]

How many tax dollars have gone to this stupid fucking war?

PBS/ NPR are institutions that work, make a difference, and mean alot to alot of people. These networks have never killed anybody. What is so bad about keeping the funding going to them instead of buying some more bombs or something? I know I am simplifing things but this is one thing I actually want my money going to.

If you think that NPR and PBS are Liberal then you just don't listen or watch or your world veiw is just so simple it's hard for you to think beyond the bullshit that Rush and his type spew. They don't listen or watch I'm am sure of it. Of course Rush is a drug addict that employs illegal immigrants so maybe he is a closet fan of PBS.

If you think this sounds acidic and hateful, it is. I am sick of the hypocritical conservatives whining about liberals taking away christmas, questioning the war, wa wa wa. I am tired of the freaking myopic world view of these people.
Learn what it is to question and learn about the world. Learn that it doesn't always fit into your little fairytale world of wrong and right, of jesus vs. the sinners. That is where this coming from. PBS doesn't conform and they question government policies too much. They did the same amount of investigating during the Clinton terms. It just another example of this administrations attempt at quieting the media because questioning is un- patriotic.

I do agree that PBS needs to dump the Welk and update to something that younger people will watch. NPR could get rid of that lake wobegon crap and I wouldn't miss it at all.

[wombat18]

I do agree that PBS needs to dump the Welk and update to something that younger people will watch. NPR could get rid of that lake wobegon crap and I wouldn't miss it at all.

Ah, but herein lies the rub. Those shows bring in beaucoup dollars! There's a reason why Garrison Keilor is a multi-millionaire and that Minnesota Public Radio couldn't financially succeed without him.

If we could replace the reliance on listener-support and sponsorship with a true level of public funding, then PBS and NPR could be much more creative and experimental in their offerings. Let's face it, younger people (did someone say entitlement generation?) usually aren't as willing to financially support (or as deep-pocketed) as the crusties.

[The Big Crunch]

These networks have never killed anybody
I don't know...they can become quite agitated when you forget to renew your membership :p

There's a reason why Garrison Keilor is a multi-millionaire and that Minnesota Public Radio couldn't financially succeed without him.
If I were to make a list of my 25 Favorite Things in the World, A Prairie Home Companion would very likely compete for a spot in that list. I looooooooooooooooooooove that show! :)

[the happy prole]

The amount of funding that NPR gets from the government is really not all that much of their budget, and definitely not much of the government's budget. That's not really the issue.

I don't know the exact figures, but picture it like this. The majority of the radio spectrum goes to people with outrageous amounts of money both to buy the frequency as well as to fund the behind-the-scenes power to lobby Congress. So basically, Clear Channel.

There's just a tiny bit left over for the relative minnows of the broadcasting world. And in the world of minnows, NPR is the top of the heap. They have just enough money and friends in Congress to ensure they get a slice of every market. Religious broadcasters are the other group.

So basically, that's your radio spectrum: CC, religion, NPR. What NPR wants you to do is look at that spectrum and go "Man, I'm glad we have NPR because otherwise it'd be all Clear Channel and religion."

It's like a three-party system. Just like Democrats want you to think the only other party is the GOP, NPR wants you to think they're the only thing standing between you and Clear Channel and religious broadcasting.

But the thing is, behind the scenes those Democrats are busy shutting down the Greens and Libertarians and every other smaller, independent voice. And behind the scenes, NPR does the same thing.

The little slice of frequency that NPR owns could be going to any number of truly independent voices. A college or HS radio station, or a third party political group, or even just a bunch of hardcore indie fans who want to start their own station.

In the end, it hopefully won't matter because anyone will be able to have website and stream broadcasts. NPR won't need funding anymore, but NPR will still disappear because no one really cares enough about NPR to keep it going once they are presented with a true variety of choices.

[Arkansas]

It's like a three-party system. Just like Democrats want you to think the only other party is the GOP, NPR wants you to think they're the only thing standing between you and Clear Channel and religious broadcasting.

But the thing is, behind the scenes those Democrats are busy shutting down the Greens and Libertarians and every other smaller, independent voice. And behind the scenes, NPR does the same thing.

The little slice of frequency that NPR owns could be going to any number of truly independent voices. A college or HS radio station, or a third party political group, or even just a bunch of hardcore indie fans who want to start their own station.

In the end, it hopefully won't matter because anyone will be able to have website and stream broadcasts. NPR won't need funding anymore, but NPR will still disappear because no one really cares enough about NPR to keep it going once they are presented with a true variety of choices.

I agree and disagree at the same time.

I by no means think that the democrats are innocent of trying to quiet the voices of descent in their own ranks but I don't think they care that much about the smaller parties... at least not from what I see. Btw I'm a member of the Green Party but I'm voting for Obama. Loyal huh.

I think that NPR has more resources to work with to apply for and obtain that funding that the smaller fish are trying to get. I have friends that work for independent community radio stations. They go through eb and flow with funding. The pledge drives usually yield constant results while the grants and underwriting they recieve is in direct correlation to the amount of work that goes into obtaining those funds.

There already are a variety of choices and people still support PBS/ NPR. I'm not worried about them going away. I just grow tired of it popping up as a topic for conservatives every couple of years. It's always the same old they're so liberal, bla bla bla. If the tax funding goes away then there will be more pledge drives from NPR and more promises of healing from religious stations. It also makes me kinda feel sick when I hear the list of corporate underwriters before every NPR/ PBS show. Especialy Exxon and other oil companies.

[Angel30]

besides, where in hell would I ever be able to watch Red Green?

Exactly and I have been enjoying and watching Nature due to the Masterpiece Theatre versions of Jane Austen's novels.

I'd rather fund NPR and PBS than some of the other government sponsored programs that DO NOT work.

[Duemellon]

When was the last time an upstart party took votes away from a Republican in a major election and it didn't also take votes away from the Democrats?

Repubs don't care (& are happy) if you vote for the Green Party b/c they know it didn't take a vote away from them. What independent/3rd party do the Repubs fear cutting into their vote count?

NPR is competing with Clear Channel. Clear Channel competes with those 3rd parties (& tries swallowing them like minnows). Therefore, through association, NPR competes with the small market radio stations.

HOWEVER, NPR is no where near as aggressive. They aren't interested in actively outcompeting the 3rd parties. They definitely aren't waging a campaign to put those 3rd parties out of business. Again, those who support & listen to NPR are in it for the information & stuff, not for the new music, celeb news, or sensationalist journalism. They are a non-competitive entity but they are concerned about self-preservation.

The local 24-hour NPR station here teamed up with other 3rd party non-commercial stations, namely GUC (Classical music) & WOXY. That's not someone who's competiting with the 3rd parties, but is aligning with them for survival.

[Jumpman]

The local 24-hour NPR station here teamed up with other 3rd party non-commercial stations, namely GUC (Classical music) & WOXY. That's not someone who's competiting with the 3rd parties, but is aligning with them for survival.

But those stations aren't owned by NPR, they purchase NPR's content. So then NPR is in a sense competing with WOXY. I don't have a clue what the terms of the agreements are, but that would be competition right?


Just so you know I totally want NPR and PBS to stick around. But I also don't want them to be the only alternatives either.

[DudeMan]

Geez, you have no idea how difficult it is Capt. Troll.

I have to use simple words instead of words like assholic, cancerous, detrimental, deadweight, disruptive, petty, predatory, vindictive, malicious, indignant, & other things.

Instead, I'll just reduce it to say you're unnecessarily being a jerk.
c'mon due. maybe i am a jerk, and sure, you're a smart enough guy, and you're certainly gifted creatively. but unless you are a trainer at a dog obedience school or you work at a center for the mentally challenged, it's just not plausible that you have to 'dumb down' what you're saying in the average conversation you have on any a given day. so i don't believe what you're saying there.

[the happy prole]

Yeah, you nailed it jumpman.

NPR is not public radio. NPR is a content provider, whose content is often picked up by public radio stations. NPR can't stop WVXU from picking up WOXY, but they'd probably prefer it if you didn't.

When we listen to Mike and Shiv, we're not listening to Terry Gross and Nina Totenberg. WOXY and NPR are competitors in that sense, and NPR can't fight for it's own survival without fighting against WOXY.

I'm in favor of keeping a certain amount of frequencies available for noncommercial, "educational" radio (aka public broadcasting). And by "public," I mean ALL of the public for whatever content they want. NOT specifically NPR. NPR doesn't like that and yes, they have actively lobbied against non-NPR public radio causes, like low power FM.

All you tweed jacket, pipe-smoking white males earning $80k a year will still have stuff to listen to while you do the NY Times crossword, so don't worry about it being all Fitty and Pimp My Ride. :p Afropop Worldwide, Prairie Home Companion, Whad'ya know?-- none of that is NPR content. WVXU can still carry WOXY, and Minnesota Public Radio will have Babs and Sound Opinions. In fact, there will be MORE of that kind of stuff because the airwaves will be more public, not less.

[Duemellon]

c'mon due. maybe i am a jerk, and sure, you're a smart enough guy, and you're certainly gifted creatively. but unless you are a trainer at a dog obedience school or you work at a center for the mentally challenged, it's just not plausible that you have to 'dumb down' what you're saying in the average conversation you have on any a given day. so i don't believe what you're saying there.When you have a vocubulary, and you use it, people who aren't used to using such words fluidly take that as an attempt to demonstrate superiority. When in fact, you just happen to remember more words than they did & are used to leveraging them.

So yah, when you say to someone "hello" instead of "salutations" they tend to think you're being more familiar even though they basically mean the same.

When people say I speak like I'm some smart guy because I use big words I have to avoid them just so they're comfortable. Their unfamiliarity doesn't reflect on their overall intelligence or capacity for comprehension, it just means they know different things than I do. However, they take it differently.

[Duemellon]

Yeah, you nailed it jumpman.

NPR is not public radio. NPR is a content provider, whose content is often picked up by public radio stations. NPR can't stop WVXU from picking up WOXY, but they'd probably prefer it if you didn't.The local station when from a station providing local content for most of the day to a station that solely provides NPR programming for the day. They did so with the assistance of the local Classical Music station.

Yah yah, I get the idea they don't "own" stations but they do own programming. It's safe to call VXU an "NPR" station tho' b/c you understood what's being said.When we listen to Mike and Shiv, we're not listening to Terry Gross and Nina Totenberg. WOXY and NPR are competitors in that sense, and NPR can't fight for it's own survival without fighting against WOXY.True & not true. I know the consumer only has limited resources to give to their provider but there is a bit of a corporate strategic approach to consider. I know you love pure capitalism, but not all business must have the approach of excelling/superceding their competitors, some simply look for a market share.

NPR doesn't need to get the lion's share of the market. That doesn't have to be their corporate approach & doesn't appear to be. I've seen ads for other stations (with purchased nationalized content) but I haven't seen an ad for NPR. They pretty much exist without focusing on competition.

[Shlep]

How many tax dollars have gone to this stupid fucking war?

I understand the figure is around $1.3 trillion, though that's a bit vague for a number of reasons.

PBS/ NPR are institutions that work, make a difference, and mean alot to alot of people.

PBS/NPR have some really, really nice shows. Let's not get melodramatic here.

These networks have never killed anybody.

Well, the one time my old man *did* catch me watching Monty Pythngs' Flying Circus after 11:30 on Sunday when I was supposed to have gone to sleep at 9:00, I thought I was done for...

...whatever. Claiming something is worthwhile because it hasn't killed anyone is a bit silly, and quite frankly really lowers the proverbial bar, as it were.

What is so bad about keeping the funding going to them instead of buying some more bombs or something? I know I am simplifing things but this is one thing I actually want my money going to.

Yes, you are. The old "If we can spend money on X, then why not on Y?" or "If we didn't spent tax money on just *one* fighter plane, we could buy..." argument, while venerable and always fashionable, stinks. PBS isn't getting chumped off because someone decided we needed a few extra JDAMs.

Besides, if we agree that this line of "reasoning" is valid, someone else could say "Well, do you wanna leave the troops short-handed so you can watch PBS?! I bet you'd just love to see somthing like this:"

"Echo Six! Echo Six! This is Echo-Two-Five! Be advised, we're under heavy fire! Need immediate fire support! Grid to follow: five...seven...niner..."

"This is Six...uhhh, negative on that fire mission, Echo-Two-Five. Over."

"WHAT?!?! Uhhh, Six, say again, over!"

"This is Six...confirm 'negative' on that fire mission. How copy? Over."

"This is Two-Five! Be advised, I need fire support NOW! I have taken multiple casualties and need to clear a landing zone for immediate medevac! Grid to fol..."

"Two-Five, this is Six...I say again 'negative' on that fire mission. Be advised, we ran out of bombs. Over."

"Six...WHAT THE FUCK?! ARE YOU SERIOUS?! OVER!!"

"Roger that, Two-Five. The money went to PBS. Over."

"Six, this is Two-Five! Be advised, we are getting SLAUGHTERED!!! OVER!!!"

"Two-Five, this is Six...be advised, there is a really fascinating and informative discussion on PBS News Hour about the insurgency at this time. You might wanna catch it. Over."

If you think that NPR and PBS are Liberal then you just don't listen or watch or your world veiw is just so simple it's hard for you to think beyond the bullshit that Rush and his type spew

I loathe Rush Limbaugh. And while I do not agree with the contention that NPR is a veritable hippie commune, it routinely struck me as left-leaning, even during programs that seemed to be struggling like hell to stay "balanced."

They don't listen or watch I'm am sure of it.

It's a well-known fact that many conservatives watch "liberal" media just like many liberals take in "conservative" versions of same. If only to reaffirm their hatred of the other side.

. Of course Rush is a drug addict that employs illegal immigrants so maybe he is a closet fan of PBS

So...drug addicts and guys who employ illegal immigrants are the sort of folks who like PBS? That's kinda harsh.

If you think this sounds acidic and hateful, it is.

Actually, I thought it sounded silly and illogical. Because it is.

I am sick of the hypocritical conservatives whining about liberals taking away christmas, questioning the war

I'm sick of people dredging up Rush Limbaugh and the Iraq War in discussions that have nothing to do with either just to make sure everyone knows how much they hate conservatives.

wa wa wa.

....wonder!!!
Why, why why why why why she ran away
And I wonder where she will stay
My little runaway, a run run run run runaway

They don't make music like *THAT* anymore!!

Learn what it is to question and learn about the world. Learn that it doesn't always fit into your little fairytale world of wrong and right, of jesus vs. the sinners.

Arkansas: if you are somehow setting yourself up as an example of how consumption of the fine programming on PBS makes you better at critical thinking, analysis, and defensible argument...please stop.

PBS doesn't conform and they question government policies too much. They did the same amount of investigating during the Clinton terms. It just another example of this administrations attempt at quieting the media because questioning is un- patriotic.

The most recent figures I can find regarding PBS' budget (FY2005) shows that 17% comes from government sources (the CBP plus "Other") with the rest from corporations (yes...big, evil, rapacious, capitalist CORPORATIONS cough up the largest share, 22% in '05) foundations and private producers.

Hence, the evil Bush Administration could pull every last dime from PBS and they would still have the bulk of their funds. Of course, it can't since contrary to what a lot of folks who could probably benefit from a really nice PBS series about American government and civics seem to think, Bush is not the king of US and needs approval from Congress-- that is, the two entities with Democratic majorities that approve everything, such as how much money the CPB gets-- to do so.

[the happy prole]

It's safe to call VXU an "NPR" station tho' b/c you understood what's being said.

I do, but it really is different in a material way. WVXU is owned by Cincinnati Public Radio. And admittedly, I don't know that much about your market but I would assume Cincinnati Public Radio views their mission as freeing up airwaves for the public. NPR as simply one of many other alternatives to commercial radio, and hopefully they try to give an equal voice to all of them.

I know you love pure capitalism, but not all business must have the approach of excelling/superceding their competitors, some simply look for a market share. NPR doesn't need to get the lion's share of the market. That doesn't have to be their corporate approach & doesn't appear to be.

Yes, that's true. NPR has neither the desire or the means to challenge Clear Channel for number one supremecy. But really, that's the problem. The way you maintain your present share of the market is by beating down smaller competitors, not taking on the big guns.

The rules say that there is X amount of frequency for commercial broadcasting and Y amount of frequency for public radio. So Clear Channel and NPR aren't really competitors in a lot of respects. CC is not eligible for the space of the radio dial NPR inhabits.

NPR is fighting for dominance over the public radio frequencies only. Their competitors for those frequencies is other public radio programming. Their advantage over those competitors is not that people prefer them, but rather that they lobby Congress and use dirty tricks.

Morning Comes Eclectic? Not NPR. Sound Opinions? Not NPR. KEXP? Not NPR. The Current? Not NPR. WOXY? Not NPR. So you really have to look long and hard at exactly what NPR is offering that we, the public, want.

I mean, the thing is NPR is not really funded by the government anyway. It's funded by corporate fatcat sponsors just like KEXP. The major advantage NPR has is their insider power, and that's precisely why they are not serving the public but rather beholden to Congress. And I don't know if people realize this, but PBS is basically run by conservative Republicans now. So if you're wondering why PBS is not as good as it used to be and why Tucker Carlson is on your TV screen, that's your answer.

I believe in supporting public radio, I just don't believe NPR represents public radio. The programs we all like on NPR can't compete with Fox and Clear Channel, but in the limited realm of reserved for noncommercial broadcasts they can hold their own. They won't go away if we remove NPR funding. In fact, they'll probably still get government funding via CPB.

[The Sheck]

Ah, but herein lies the rub. Those shows bring in beaucoup dollars! There's a reason why Garrison Keilor is a multi-millionaire and that Minnesota Public Radio couldn't financially succeed without him.

Don't know if this is true. MPR is the second largest Public Radio group in the country, owning stations in five different states. Keillor is a part of their success, but that's just programming related.

[TripleShockPowa]

there's no question PBS has outlived its relevancy.

WHAT?!?!? Without this last bastion of culture and taste the American landscape would fall even faster into that double-IQ-point mentality in Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)!

Not to mention, w/o PBS there would have never been Dr. Who, Monty Python, Benny Hill, etc. etc.!

(disclaimer=never have been in the U.S. on U.S. airwaves. PBS did not produce these shows, I know!)

If I had my way, networks would all have to shovel off a % of their profits to PBS. That way, the moronic drivel that captures the populace would at least indirectly benifit quality programing.

Hell, didn't Bill Gates have to give Apple some $$$ recently in order to maintain/foster "competition" in the market?!

[silentpaul]

We don't have cable tv, so I watch a lot of shows on PBS. I like the ones that have been mentioned already: Frontline, Bill Moyers, Antiques Roadshow, Nature, America's Test Kitchen, etc. If I didn't have PBS, I'd lose out bigtime.:mad:

I would add The News Hour to the list.

Saying we could do without PBS is akin to saying we could do without music outlets like woxy.

[ThomasC]

Hell, didn't Bill Gates have to give Apple some $$$ recently in order to maintain/foster "competition" in the market?!
I wouldn't call it recently, but yeah, it happened. And here's a PBS article on the subject!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/july-dec97/apple_8-6a.html

[Angel30]

Not to mention, w/o PBS there would have never been Dr. Who, Monty Python, Benny Hill, etc. etc.!

(disclaimer=never have been in the U.S. on U.S. airwaves. PBS did not produce these shows, I know!)


A couple weekends ago I caught this series that BBC6 (I think that was the channel, it was out of Bristol) had done on music. I watched quite a few of them. Learned all about Pop music machine. You can thank them for the boy bands. ;)

I am sure a series like could have run on Ovation or something but what if you don't have cable or digital cable? It is nice to have the option of watching quality programming, not only produced by Americans but also Canadian and British (and others??).

[Shlep]

When was the last time an upstart party took votes away from a Republican in a major election and it didn't also take votes away from the Democrats?

Never, because political parties don't "steal votes" from other parties. People vote for candidates, the candidate with the greatest number of required votes (and by extension, their party) wins.

The idea that any party *NOT* calling itself "Democrats" or "Republicans" steals votes from those parties when they manage to get a candidate on the ballot during an election and field him/her as a candidate is as absurd saying you're trying to steal paychecks from other job-seekers when you submit a resume for an open position.

Again, those who support & listen to NPR are in it for the information & stuff, not for the new music, celeb news, or sensationalist journalism.

Actually, I've known people who listen to (and support) NPR solely for the music. My buddy John back in DC, for instance, was an ardent fan and devoted listener to their offerings in the way of modern jazz. The icing on the cake was that his support was tax-deductable and he got to write it off every year on his 1040.

Anyway, I'm fairly that as with PBS, the amount of money that NPR gets directly from its actual listeners is fairly small relative to its overqall budget, which is largely covered by corporations, foundations, and such.

I by no means think that the democrats are innocent of trying to quiet the voices of descent in their own ranks...

Well, I wish they would; I'm sick and damned tired of all yelling and screaming from falling Democrats, and it's high time they started policing their own.

Surely, I am not the only one who finds it hard enough to follow what's happening on C-SPAN without it being further clouded by some clumsy liberal losing their footing somewhere within the Senate chamber and going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!"

What's worse is-- as anyone who's been to DC can attest-- there's hardly anywhere in the entire damned city limits, never mind Capitol Hill, high enough for someone to fall off of where they'll at least be knocked unconscious when they hit the ground, thus sparing us their further vocalizing. No, it only gets worse: "OHMIGOD!! AAAH!! MY LEG!!" or "I THINK I BROKE MY ARM!!! CALL 911!!! AAAAGH!! GET ME TO A HOSPITAL!!!"

And don't get me started on Robert Byrd...I swear, if I hear that old bag of bones scream "I'VE FALLEN, AND I CAN'T GET UP!!!" one more friggin' time...

[the happy prole]

PBS doesn't make any shows. It buys shows other people make. How it works is that someone (often a local community station) creates a show. PBS buys the show using $$ from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. PBS then charges their affiliates $$ to run those shows. How do the affiliates get their money? Pledge drives and funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yep, that's right. CPB gives money to local stations to pay for CPB shows.

There's too many organizations and too many extra steps here. Fund local community stations and they can produce and buy whatever shows they want. Done.

Now, if you think that the key entity in this convoluted system is actually the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and not PBS, you're right. The board of CPB is appointed by Bush. Which should tell you all you need to know about how much the board knows or cares about culture, science, teaching, and arts.

So really, the more liberal you are the LESS you want PBS funded by the government, unless you enjoy paying for FOX News II.

[Phreon]

umm... are you fucking shitting me? It's not condeScending at all to refer to "Pimp My Ride" as mindless shlock entertainment.

I was somewhat joking. I was poking fun of Rush Limbaugh because while I genuinely can't stand any of NPR, I think it's really stupid to dismiss an opinion simply because they prefer different entertainment choices.

Apparently, you're hellbent on proving him right. If you're asking me if whether I prefer "Pimp My Ride" and 50 cent to Click and Clack and NPR's crappy theme song, the answer is "yes. By a lot."

If you're asking me if I'm intimidated by your supposed incredible taste in entertainment, the answer is "No. I'm not intimidated. I just think you're an asshole."

Are you kidding? Who are you and what have you done with Happy Prole?

Phreon

[DaHood]

A couple weekends ago I caught this series that BBC6 (I think that was the channel, it was out of Bristol) had done on music. I watched quite a few of them. Learned all about Pop music machine. You can thank them for the boy bands. ;)They also promoted crap like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX3S1f_7dI4) and apparently the Brits ate it up since it was at the top of the charts. Although I will admit that it's a bit amusing. :D

[Duemellon]

Before you (tHP) try getting me all riled up about the Conservative puppetmasters at the top, you can forget it. Bush recently did that to PBS because he wanted to "monitor how liberal it was" as well as steer the direction. All the other prez's before him I can think of pretty much left it as is.

So, Bush did do so. I'm aware. His term will be over soon & hopefully someone will re-introduce the idea that PBS should be independent of partisanship,... as it was for the decades I knew before now.

[markalot]

New avatar alert.

I don't think PBS has ever really been independent, but let's at least agree that liberals make better programs.

[the happy prole]

Are you kidding? Who are you and what have you done with Happy Prole?

Phreon

Don't worry about it Phreon. I was kind of on a roll there and it was just too much fun. I really don't like NPR, and I really do like Pimp My Ride way more than Click and Clack. That much is true.

I really don't like NPR that much and the only time I listen to it is when it's on in one of my friends' cars (which is pretty often). But I'm not squirming in agony when they listen and I'm not really all fired up over it or anything. NPR does not represent all that is wrong with the world, it's just not to my taste is all.

[the happy prole]

Duemellon, I think those days are gone or at least they won't be coming back for awhile even if the Democrats win. OTOH, I think even the GOP has learned the hazard of trying to micro-manage every last thing to juice out the maximum amount of conservativeness possible.

The heavy-handedness cost them a lot with fiscal conservatives and I think even those who are socially conservative (but not insane) see that it set them back on what they were trying to do. It'll come back a little, but like markalot said, PBS was never truly independent.

I'm only trying to highlight the potential danger of the current structure. And anyway, if the Bush administration wants to waste their time micro-managing PBS and NPR I say let them. With all the internet and other technology, it's easier than ever for people to learn and share ideas whether it's science or art. It used to be that there were five channels and eight radio stations so regulating mass media was more important than it is today.

They've been steadily de-funding PBS and NPR for awhile now anyway and there is plenty of decent cultural and educational programming still being put out. If you don't have cable or HBO, maybe the government could just fund HBO subscriptions. Or they could take the money and fund more independent art exhibits and whatever.

I'm not in favor of cutting funds to arts and culture. I don't have a problem with splitting things between commercial and non-commercial. I just don't see the point of NPR and PBS anymore. They're based on an outdated model of mass communication. Continuing to fund those outlets under decades old assumptions actually sets back artistic development rather than promote it.

[Shlep]

Nearly every dyed-in-the-wool liberal I know swears "The Media" is run by conservatives and they dictate most public discourse. The same percentage of strident, die-hard conservatives I know use the expression "The liberal media" as a euphemism for everyone except Rush, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity. Each accuses the other of constantly stinking up the marketplace of ideas, each swears up and down that their preferred source of news and news analysis is the only place to get the straight dope and the real deal and thus serves as a critically-needed antidote "to all the bullshit" that their ideological opposites are "ramming down our throats."

PBS is not immune from this phenomenon. Don't expect it will be, you'll only be disappointed.

[the happy prole]

Probably the majority of my friends fall into the "dyed in the wool liberal" category, but I don't think most of them believe in the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

They think that Fox sucks ass, but I mean-- that's just kind of undeniably true. They worry about conservatives dominating public discourse, but not so much due to media saturation but rather a few really crappy, very right-wing sources like Fox, Ann Coulter, Rush, etc. being heavily viewed and wielding too much influence.

I think my conservative friends are more of the opinion that "Hey, we're getting outnumbered here 10 to 1." And it doesn't help that most of them don't count Fox as a useful conservative news source because they know it sucks ass too.

Most of my conservative friends think NPR is slightly liberal, but they still listen because it's still quality news. It might highlight something they haven't thought about, or they might just want to hear a different take, or they might reach a slightly different conclusion than the reporter does. Or probably most of the time, they think it's objective and they have no problem taking it at face value. But even most of my liberal friends agree that NPR is slightly left-of-center.

OTOH, most of us agree that WSJ is slightly right-of-center but we'll all read it from time to time for the same reasons. Just use your head. Be a little skeptical of everything you read and try to get a few different takes on it or at least confirmation from more than one source if possible.

[Shlep]

Iteresting take, THP.

Most of the time I was in college, I paid the bills working in a gas station. Among the benefits of this job (such as learning that job-related benefits are, sometimes, what you make them) was that I had four or five newpapers in the paper rack to read for free. One thing I used to do was read the left-leaning Washington Post and the right-leaning Washington Times and look for the truth in the middle.

Beyond that: here's a piece from PJ O'Rourke I always love to throw into these discussions.

I Agree With Me: When was the last time a conservative talk show changed a mind? (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200407/orourke)

I usually agree with Rush Limbaugh; therefore I usually don't listen to him. I listen to NPR: "World to end—poor and minorities hardest hit."

[the happy prole]

Yeah, I just the Washington Times didn't suck so bad. It's much farther right than the Post is left and somewhat less trustworthy as a result, but that isn't the real problem.

It's sorta like if you're going to be sketchy at least be interesting. I don't mean you need to rant and rave a la Fox but the Washington Times formula is basically take a regular AP news article that everyone already knows about and rewrite it with a standard and very predictable conservative slant. I feel like PJ O'Rourke: I don't need to read the Times because I already know what it's going to say.

Know what I mean? Like go do some investigative journalism. You might uncover something the Post doesn't because they spent 60% of their budget muckraking the GOP and 40% muckraking Dems, whereas you spent 100% of your budget on muckraking Dems.

At least that way you can get a scoop and I learn something. Clinton took a massive bribe? Hey, I might know that the GOP takes bribes too and you just didn't investigate that, but I still learned something I didn't know. And it still doesn't excuse what Clinton did. So you added something of value right there.

The Times did have better local sports coverage, if that counts for anything. I'm also not saying the Post was so great, either. It's kind of pitiful how bad their coverage of politics is considering their location.