Do we have to think twice now before letting the kiddies watch Sesame Street?
http://newsbusters.org/blog...gainst-conservatives

quote On its Twitter account today, PBS explicitly thanked MoveOn.org for their campaigning to "save public broadcasting" from the conservatives who would cut the budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A special thanks to @moveon for its help and support this week. www.moveon.org #savepublicbcasting This certainly clashes with a story on Wednesday by Katy Bachman of AdWeek, in which executives expressed a slight embarrassment to be so fervently associated with the radical-left promoters of Bush-is-Hitler ads: Public broadcasting executives appreciate the support—to a point. But several who spoke with Adweek wish MoveOn would have stayed quiet. They’re concerned that the group’s support will help opponents paint public broadcasting as a tool of the left wing, rather than a thoughtful, educational and often high-brow approach to news and culture. “We’re embarrassed,” one exec said. The MoveOn petition language sounds exactly like the PBS and NPR lobbyists: "Congress must protect NPR and PBS and guarantee them permanent funding, free from political meddling." What that means is that supposedly "public" broadcasting is supposed to be hermetically sealed by liberals from any attempt to question the fairness and accuracy of what PBS and NPR put on the air. It's considering "meddling" to try and enforce the spirit of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which called for "fairness and objectivity in all programming of a controversial nature." It's considered "meddling" for members of Congress to question whether public-broadcasting subsidies are being well-spent -- hence the call for "permanent" funding, as in some form of endowment that cannot be touched by politicians. Bachman balanced her article with the impression all this PBS-MoveOn canoodling has created: As if on cue, Brent Bozell, the founder and president of the Media Research Center, a conservative press watchdog, seemed to confirm public broadcasters’ worst fears. Bozell entered the debate by tweeting: “Earth to media reporters: If PBS and NPR subsidies are being promoted by MoveOn.org, doesn’t that hint at WHOSE media these are?” Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS, disagrees with that sentiment. "When you look at the breadth of people talking about us right now, they aren't all left- or right-wing crazy people,” Kerger told Adweek. “MoveOn is out there, but so are others. It's a stretch to point to them and say, 'See, they're all one.’ It's a polarizing time, and there are some people who look for these opportunities." It's rich for Kerger to talk about "polarizing" people at PBS, considering it's PBS that makes Frontline documentaries like its 2006 Dick Cheney documentary "The Dark Side." Their Twitter tag is precious: "PBS is committed to making a positive impact on the lives of people young and old. Join us here for conversation and sharing." Or join us here for left-wing lecturing and conservative-bashing. In a new PBS video they promoted on their Twitter account, Kerger trots out the old talking points, with no regard for their veracity: PBS is “America’s largest classroom, the nation’s largest stage for the arts, and a trusted window to the world, all at the cost of about one dollar per person per year.” She laments how PBS won't be able to help "underserved rural populations" and children who can't attend preschool. The presumption at the heart of all this talk is that somehow, without federal programming money, the entire PBS and NPR networks and bureaucracies would wither and blow away. Kerger doesn't feel the need to explain whether perhaps in today's digital age, you can still argue that "rural populations" are tragically "underserved" with TV or educational services. Many Americans do not find PBS to be a "trusted window." It's a broken window, with PBS shoving broken glass at conservatives.

I remember some white supremacist groups coming out in support of the McCain presidential campaign, does that make McCain a white supremacist? I think he was, but thats not proof and I never cut and paste all the articles that irresponsibly and without proof said that, either. Maybe I should start? Either way, Good job.

Earth to Avengador: Brent Bozell is nothing more than a paid stooge who parrots and totes the party line, regardless of the truth.

Just because MoveOn.Org supports family and public programming DOES NOT make PBS do its political bidding... there are a lot more people and groups supporting PBS for its value to family and educational programming than just MoveOn..The fact that PBS was not keen on MOveOn publicly supporting them should tell you they are not interested in being identified with polarizing politicians or movements on either side of the aisle. The answer is right there in the article, yet Bozell goes on to blast PBS anyway, regardless of their stated positions.

What cracks me up about the retards who dont like PBS is they think its some kind of drain on the economy and funding must be cut. I have stated before that less than 7% of their entire operating budget is federally funded, and cost each individual taxpayer LESS THAN A DOLLAR PER YEAR (for just PBS, not NPR) You know what happens if their funding gets cut? Their educational and children's programming will suffer a bit, but they will still be there... and if their support only comes from private donors, they will likely run with stories and themes that their donors want to see.. so that would pretty much cut out anything that interests the brainwashed Right, wont it? Then the flood gate of complaints from people like you will really open up about their "liberal slant" because without government funding, they will no loger have to be unbiased. Just like Fox and all the other Fundy media outlets you worship and promote.

They wont have to be fair and unbiased anymore because of governement regulations. Then you can talk about how their programming is furthering an agenda, but not until then. They do a pretty dang good job representing both political sides of issues and even employ conservatives like Buchanon, Krauthammer and Crowley to represent them... most people like you cant see that, but thats because you dont watch it and dont take the time to find out anything other than what your "political brains" on TV and the internet tell you what to believe. Why dont you form your own opinon for once before posting this schlock liked your told to, messenger boy?

You and the author of this article may not realize, but many kids have learned their ABCs and 123s in their pre-K years from PBS shows over the decades, and not everybody can afford cable.. so what other children's programming that is educational is there? Or dont you know, because you have enough money that you dont have to worry about broadcast TV. Well good for you, glad your kids can watch Discovery channel, but many in rural areas cannot afford cable or satellite and this is the only educational programming they get at home. Of course, you'd like to see that taken away, presumably because you are in favor of keeping the poor and ignorant more poor and ignorant. Hey, I can jump to conclusions too, cant I?

Thanks for posting this it plainly shows you once again do not care about the actual content of your ENDLESS cut-and-paste stories, just so long as they contain as far-Right of a message as possible. So who cares if its complete bullcrap, right? As long as you believe whatever they want you to believe, thats whats important. Right??????

You dont want your kids watching Sesame Street? Then dont let them watch.. no big loss. However, inferring that PBS has some broad "evil left wing agenda" because of who might come out in support of it is ignorant. The contributions you make to this forum are nothing more than cutting and pasting political stories that only tell one side, and much of the time its just an unresearched and biased opinion or a lie. But you cant be responsible enough to check any facts of the things you cut and paste.. and post them anyway, in vast numbers, like they are the gospel truth. The trash you re-post is often sickening BS that I have a hard time believing even YOU believe it. I can only imagine the other websites you subscribe to. But you didnt write it, right? You are just re-posting it.. no harm no foul, right?

By the way, your title of your message is misleading (what a surprise) .. no one in PBS tweeted anything of the sort, as demonstrated in the very article you cut and pasted. Just shows the lengths you will go to to misrepresent what you dont understand or appreciate.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-19-2011).]

PBS...the Pinko Broadcasting System

quote Thanks for posting this it plainly shows you once again do not care about the actual content of your ENDLESS cut-and-paste stories, just so long as they contain as far-Right of a message as possible. So who cares if its complete bullcrap, right? As long as you believe whatever they want you to believe, thats whats important. Right?????? ...Brent Bozell is nothing more than a paid stooge ...What cracks me up about the retards who dont like PBS ...that would pretty much cut out anything that interests the brainwashed Right...Fox and all the other Fundy media outlets you worship and promote...you dont watch it and dont take the time to find out anything other than what your "political brains" on TV and the internet tell you what to believe...posting this schlock ...who cares if its complete bullcrap...etc., etc.

By the tone of your comments, I'll guess you have something against the right, someone piss in your cheerios, or you don't like the "crap" I post. Please tell me I am wrong.

FYI, I like PBS and watch many programs on it. I have even been a contributor since the 80s to help keep them on the air. What I don't care for is far left organizations like MoveOn getting involved with them, or even far Right ones for that matter. It really paints PBS in a bad light, whether they like it or not.

quote you'd like to see that taken away, presumably because you are in favor of keeping the poor and ignorant more poor and ignorant. Hey, I can jump to conclusions too, cant I?

That certainly is a very big jump you are taking there as I didn't mention any opinion on this subject until now. I was just passing along some information. I may or may not believe what the author of the article is saying and I don't really need to post any opinion about it. I just thought people should be aware that this story is out there.
Since it seems that you can't handle that and it seems that this really upsets you very much, I suggest you put anything I post on your ignore list. It will make your life a lot easier and happier to live in ignorant bliss.

quote The contributions you make to this forum are nothing more than cutting and pasting political stories that only tell one side, and much of the time its just an unresearched and biased opinion or a lie

If that is true, where is your proof of this? Do a search under my name on the forum and see how many posts I have in other sections. I guarantee most of my posts on this forum are not political, and I have over 28,000 you can go through.

quote But you cant be responsible enough to check any facts of the things you cut and paste.. and post them anyway, in vast numbers, like they are the gospel truth. The trash you re-post is often sickening BS that I have a hard time believing even YOU believe it. I can only imagine the other websites you subscribe to. But you didnt write it, right? You are just re-posting it.. no harm no foul, right?

I leave the fact checking for you to do or do you just like people to feed you Pablum that doesn't require a bit of work on your part?

The "titles" (I guess you meant topic) I get for most of my posts are a direct quote from the "titles" of the articles in the links I post. I don't make them up, as someone else already has done so. I don't believe everything I post either and I take everything I read with a grain of salt. I just find some of the stories amusing enough that I feel others should see them too. If you don't like that, that's too bad, as I will continue to post whatever I want to post, for whatever reason I want to post, as long as it is within forum rules. So cry me a river, rate me negatively, and put me on your ignore list. I don't care. If you have something that refutes my postings or even shows more proof, put it up. If all you are going to do is cry that you don't like the source, author, or topic of an article I post, you are wasting your time, forum space, and are not adding anything valuable to the discussion.

As for as "no one in PBS tweeted anything of the sort, as demonstrated in the very article you cut and pasted."

quote On its Twitter account today, PBS explicitly thanked MoveOn.org for their campaigning to "save public broadcasting" from the conservatives who would cut the budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

" executives expressed a slight embarrassment to be so fervently associated with the radical-left promoters"


Did you even read the article or are you just set to a criticize Avengador1's posts mode? Add something useful to the discussion or keep it to yourself. We all know you don't like what I post already, so there's no need for you to sound like a broken record repeating this. Your point has already been noted several times.
I know my posts will not change your opinion or that of many others, but there are those who appreciate some of the stories I post. If one doesn't listen to both sides of a story, one will never get close to the truth. Suit yourself.


------------------

"THE GREAT GOD AND MASTER OF THE CUT AND PASTE WORLD"

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-19-2011).]

No, I read your article, and I saw nowhere in there that PBS tweeted its love for Moveon.org. Nowhere. Rather, only a sheepish recognition that any kind of association with MoveOn would lead to personal attacks on them from small minded political entities intent on trying to railroad them out of existence. And they were right, your pasted article is proof. If you read the article yourself, you would have realized your title was misleading. And why post any opinion about anything you dont agree with? Because the facts be damned, it fits your agenda. You can title your post any way you want, it's America, jack. If you don change it, i have to assume you agree with it. If you dont agree with it, why post it? You can hide behind "I just wanted to put the info out there".. if you want to, but your motives seem fairly clear to me. If I am wrong, so be it, its happened before and will again. But I dont think I am in this case.

And for the record, when you actually start cutting and pasting political articles without the one purpose of smearing anyone or group not of the same political mind as you, I will give you wider latitude and less criticisms.. until then you are just perpetuating someone else's political beliefs, and deserve the same ire as the original poster. Just as many of us have posted articles and gotten the "horns" because it did not pass muster with any basis in what the critical person sees as reality, you shall as well.

Present both sides, like you say you look at, and I will congratulate you on your attempt at fairness. Until then....

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-19-2011).]

I don't smear any one side over the other. They are both fair game if they are not holding up their end of the bargain and the official duties they were sworn into office with, like defending the constitution for example. Unfortunatly, the Democrats seem more prone to break their sworn duties, so there are plenty more articles on them. I also don't control any replies of other members, so you'll have to live with that too.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-19-2011).]

The "newsworthy" part here is that PBS is expressing gratitude toward moveon for moveon fighting in the same corner as PBS. Newsworthy is in quotes because everyone who doesn't have his head up his ass knows that PBS is a leftist organization. That said, they also have some pretty cool shows.

Tbone, no need to take offence to someone pointing out discrepancies in the way PBS conducts itself, it wasn't an assault on your wife.

quote Originally posted by TommyRocker: The "newsworthy" part here is that PBS is expressing gratitude toward moveon for moveon fighting in the same corner as PBS. Newsworthy is in quotes because everyone who doesn't have his head up his ass knows that PBS is a leftist organization. That said, they also have some pretty cool shows. Tbone, no need to take offence to someone pointing out discrepancies in the way PBS conducts itself, it wasn't an assault on your wife.

I can appreciate that tommy. And I dont take it as an attck on her and such. Being 'leftist' would mean, though, that they only show one side of the argument. PBS has conservative(Many) and liberal "talking heads" on their shows, and are careful to do so because of their public funding. This fact gets glazed over and ignored when convenient by most, unfortunately. The only "liberally" aligned action they ever take is pehaps their science shows rely to heaily on global warming science and Republicans dont like that. Tough titty.. its science that is supported by more than those that say its BS. However, the Right has a voice on PBS and often exercises it "liberally".. those who dont know are often those that do not watch.

You got me there... I don't watch PBS.

I don't have cable and I don't get antenna reception.

quote A good way to do so would have been making an effort in the title or body of your post to show that it is not your opinion, or what points you agree or disagree on

I do this when I feel it is neccesary. On some occasions I want to see other people's reactions first, before I post an opinion I already have. Don't hate the messenger, hate the messages.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I do this when I feel it is neccesary. On some occasions I want to see other people's reactions first, before I post an opinion I already have. Don't hate the messenger, hate the messages.

Fair enough.. still, the article says nothing about "PBS tweeting its love for MoveOn.org's Campaign against Conservatives." The title is misleading and incendiary. And probably would have gotten a better reaction from me if had not been. I still believe Bozell is doing nothing here but trying to incite more support to get funding cut from PBS by saying whatever he thinks will make them look worse, right or wrong. If you dont agree with that, thats just where we see things differently. My apologies for any conception of a personal attack.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-19-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I do this when I feel it is neccesary. On some occasions I want to see other people's reactions first, before I post an opinion I already have. Don't hate the messenger, hate the messages.

Maybe people would accept these opinion pieces better if you did comment about the article first. Don't be afraid to speak up for what you believe in otherwise we will probably all think you actually believe some of the junk that gets copied and pasted disguised as actual journalism. Not saying that everything you post is junk just that a lot of it is obvious right wing filtered and heavily agenda riddled opinion and not newsworthy.

C'mon grow a set and tell us when you agree with what you post or not.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-19-2011).]

Even I will admit that some of the stuff I post is for the tin foil hat crowd. I will usually mention that when I post that kind of article because they are so over the top that they are ridiculous. I am amazed at some of the things that pass for news.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Even I will admit that some of the stuff I post is for the tin foil hat crowd. I will usually mention that when I post that kind of article because they are so over the top that they are ridiculous. I am amazed at some of the things that pass for news.

I know, you've mentioned that before so my comment wasn't actually a slag against you just more that I think I could respect you and the posts more if you took a position on them before others did. But that's just me and not saying that you are looking for my or anyones elses respect.

Tbone, I like PBS but think the news programs are very leftist point of view and should not be funded by the Federal Government. Does that make me a retard?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Tbone, I like PBS but think the news programs are very leftist point of view and should not be funded by the Federal Government. Does that make me a retard?

No,you said you like PBS.. besides more than likely you are just underinformed or misinformed. Give me some data that proves what you say, I will look at it and respond with my own. Who knows you may even prove me wrong. As much as I know about PBS, I would say there are slim chances of that, but you are always welcome to try. I'm always happy to see where you are coming from. There are tons links loaded and ready to go showing conservative opinions and commentary that actually contribute at least half (or dominate) the opinions from the news and political shows. Google it.

By the way, its likely you will get your wish regardless of it being 'leftist' or not... propaganda often speaks louder than the truth. Still, PBS will be around. And boy when the Right tries to shut you down, I imagine it will definitely be seen as "leftist" from then on to be sure. Why support those who attack you? Anyways, the big stations with big markets in cities will be just fine, the real victims of funding loss will be the small market stations in rural areas and financially depressed areas that need that money more. Rural areas that are also more likely to have residents that cannot afford to have Cable or Satellite.

A few points I would like to make:

1)Our government actually spends more a year on Military Music Bands (500 million) than it gives to help PBS funding. ( 200ish million, cant say exactly because unfortunately PBS and NPR are o the same grant.. so it gets split) So roughly 2 1/2 times as much money go to Military Marching Bands and their functions yearly as PBS. I dont see a need for the marching band expense, but NOBODY is suggesting cutting from that with their talk of "Deep Cuts across the board".
http://www.guampdn.com/arti...fund-public-TV-radio

2) Our Government helps subsidize FOX (A "Rightist leaning media outlet") in a MAJOR WAY by not making Rupert Murdoch pay taxes on his income since he is Australian. Perhaps those looking for "Deep Cuts across The Board" should be aware that one of their patrons isn't paying dime one into the system in taxes. Pretty good scam, being Australian and running a media company in the US.
http://www.juancole.com/201...ubsidies-to-fox.html

3)There are also provisions for tax breaks and subsidies for other television stations besides public broadcasting, but that does not get the same amount of attention because they are not known as "public owned".. its a witch hunt, really. In fact, here is an article from Washington (and thats just one state) that plans on extending said cuts for 13 more years for commercial TV. Why? They need to ante up and kick in too, dont they? Why do they get government assistance in this form if they are getting money from commercial advertising?
http://www.bellinghamherald...rease-tax-break.html

4) Just for posterity, I repeat, ONLY 6 1/2% of budget comes from a government grant, which results in just under $1 a year per citizen in the USA. Compare what you are getting there in lasting value like Sesame Street and the Electric Company for your kids to, say, your daily $4 starbucks coffee. Every other cent for PBS comes from private donors, underwriters and charitable foundations. How much money does Murdoch save in taxes? Hint: More than PBS takes total in grants in a year by almost 150 million.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...yclopedia/302366.stm

5) PBS engineers provide valuable free tech support to poor and disabled viewers. Our local station gets over 20 calls for help daily, and many times requires field work including antenna mounting and other services that just cant be done over the phone.) and when commercial stations get callers who need help, thats who they get referred to. In fact, during the digital transfer a few years back, PBS was the only station that had the right info on the converter boxes and their troubleshooting to help people who could not figure it out. That service will likely disappear the minute the grant does.

6) PBS has cool shows, and the news programs only run between 6 and 830pm.. they are : Newshour (Nightly 6-7pm) , Nightly Business Report, McLaughlin Group (Conservative talk show with Pat Buchanon and Monica Crowley on the Right and Clarence Page and Elenor on the left) John Moderates in the middle, but he's pretty conservative. Also there is BBC world news (which PBS has no control over the content) and Washington Week on Fridays.(Also a split panel of political affiliates, but this time moderated by Gwenn Ifill, a liberal) Otherwise, the entire channel is made of Kids shows (Sesame Street, Clifford, Dora the Explora, Electric Company), Home Improvement (This Old House and New Yankee Workshop) and Garden Shows (Victory Garden, others) Science shows (Nova), Current events (Frontline) Travel SHows (Rick Steves, Rudy Maxa) Car Shows (Autoweek) Music (Evening at the Met) and Food Shows. (Too many to list) The only show that leans left (SOMETIMES) is Frontline. Big deal. That has to be less biased than FOX which has no agenda except what Rupert Murdoch wants.

As I said before, this has been part of the Right's agenda for many years, even when the finacial situation was in good shape in the US. We hear about liberal agendas all the time, but its no secret this has been part of a Fundy agenda for over a decade. Its one of their personal crusades to cut funding for PBS, and its my personal opinion that its because they will report on anything, regardless of who it makes look bad. And they have gone after both parties (Larry Craig as much as John Edwards and many more of our scandalous "leaders") too many times to count. And corporations, too. You should have seen them lambasting BP during the oilspill in the gulf, and thats one of their biggest underwriters. I believe they more fairly represent the news and the truth than any commercial news outlet.

Now, if you (Anyone still here????) made it through that entire post, I would say you are open minded enough to give PBS a chance based on its merits and provided evidence. If you didnt, its likely no matter how much evidence is presented, your mind wont change on the subject.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-19-2011).]

McLaughlin is a very fair moderator. I would have ***** slapped Clift years ago for always trying to shriek over other people talking. As you said its also 2 left 2 right. Washington Week and Inside Washington usually 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 left over right.
What about BIlly Moyers who has had terrible show after terrible show. All the POV shows, independent lens. I love wathcing Charlie Rose but he can't hid his liberalism and his guests are always from the NYT. Tavis Smiley is even worse.
Why not get rid of the "news programs" if they are causing so much controversy?
The Rupert Murdoch thing is rediculous. If you even choose to go there the Govt is also subsidizing George Soros because hes a big bad rich guy too.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: McLaughlin is a very fair moderator. I would have ***** slapped Clift years ago for always trying to shriek over other people talking. As you said its also 2 left 2 right. Washington Week and Inside Washington usually 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 left over right. What about BIlly Moyers who has had terrible show after terrible show. All the POV shows, independent lens. I love wathcing Charlie Rose but he can't hid his liberalism and his guests are always from the NYT. Tavis Smiley is even worse. Why not get rid of the "news programs" if they are causing so much controversy? The Rupert Murdoch thing is rediculous. If you even choose to go there the Govt is also subsidizing George Soros because hes a big bad rich guy too.

Why not get rid of the news programs? Because they are likely the only ones in America that has differing points of view almost every time.. that is more valuable than any other network on TV. Do you see CBS doing that> Do you see Fox doing that? As often and as many varied guests? No. I know 2 CEOs that rely on PBS for their evening news, they are donors and must remain unnamed, but would you be surprised if I told you one of them was ultra conservative? For that matter, our PBS CEO locally is a big time conservative, and he runs the joint.

Ha! I totally agree with you on Elenor.. I would like to see her phased out because she is so annoying. But John seems to enjoy her presence. And yes, John is a very fair moderator, he clamps down on anyone talking too mch and gives everyone a chance.Sometimes not much of a chance.. hes funny. Thats good stuff and should not be ridiculed.

Inside Washington is a panel of 5, so that number you gave cant be right. Usually 2 on the left (Nina and Colby) , two on the right (Charles and Gordon) , and Evan Thomas, who I see come down on different political sides depending on what they are talking about. (And he even sits in the middle, go figure) So we have to make him a moderate, maybe with a bit of a liberal bend. However, the much respected Krauthammer usually gets the lions share of the talk time... and thats okay, because he is well spoken and tells it like it is.. No liberal slant that I see , once again. If so, barely because of who comes on as a guest sometimes. (Mark Shields, etc..) Nina annoys me.

Washington week, as I admitted, already has a liberal slant, so no news there. Big deal.. McLaughlin has a conservative slant, so theres your balance of power. Both shows only occur once a week, and at least there is always 1 conservative on Washington Week, so its not like they are leaving them out completely. How abot Fox?

Bill Moyers no longer has a show on PBS and has not for over 2 years. Hes boring, you got that right on the money.

Tavis is a black man from Southern Indiana and a devout Christian. Whether or not he is seen as a liberal is not important to me, he is a rare animal on TV. I give him some leeway, but you would have to expect that many of his guests would be black, so I can understand his liberal leaning reputation. Sometime he does not help that image, but why should he? If the balance of PBS is so out of whack because of one show, so be it... humans arent perfect. Why expect them to be?

Charlie Rose mostly does celebrity inteviews, and when he does have politicians on, they talk about whoever it is and the issues they ar involved in. Thats not biased, thats talking to your guest. He talked to Laura Bush about her issues and ideas, just like he talked to Rahm Emmanuel about his and the Beastie Boys about theirs. (WORST INTERVIEW EVER) His interview with George W. was real good as well.. and was not about liberalism, but about the president. Even if Charlie is a Lib, he's doing the job of a talk show host. No different than Leno or Letterman, just a little less fanfare and no house band.

The newshour doesnt actually cause that much controversy, mostly they just report the news. Newshour very rarely reports on anything political without a witness from both parties. Ever. By the way, I enjoy newshour for many reasons, including the weekly roll of honored dead American Soldiers killed in conflict. Also Shields and Brooks (Liberal and conservative) do a nice job breaking down the week in political news for both parties.. Anyway, as you can see, it is not just a left-leaning bunch of shows.. they do try hard to get many opinions represented. How hard does Fox try to get lierals to weigh in on issues? Just saying..I see a lot of misrepresentation about this show, and it is generally by people who have never watched it and assume since its on PBS its liberally biased. Talk about being lazy and not finding out the facts... its become a battlecry against PBS, but it is not an informed one. Their guys say it, so they parrot it. That makes neither right.

But it goes beyond how many bodies from which party are on the shows.. it also has to do with the stories they cover as well as what they dont. I think they do a good job ignoring most of the fluff you get spoonfed from the pay networks, and thats worth its weight in gold. How many times do I have to sit through the breakdown of this year's American Idol on Fox News? THAT IS NOT NEWS! It should be on entertainment tonight or something.. they could definitely trim that fat out, and PBS does. PBS is not tryin to advertise their pop culture shows, so you are actually mostly getting.. *gasp* ...news!

Now..
As far as Murdoch and Soros go, I believe they both should be paying more taxes. If Murdoch is paying 5% and Disney is paying 31%, that is a major disparity... and my point was Murdoch saves more money on taxes yearly than PBS costs in grants. That is undisputable, regardless of whatever happens to that Soros clown and his money. Have them both kick in more, you wont see me defending either's right to such low income taxes in this country. They're making billions here from our taxpayers, its time for them to pay up.If you went and looked Soros up, it would not surprise me if you told me he hardly paid any taxes, I would say "You're right, he should pay more. Murdoch too." Thats just how I feel about that... billionaires should not be paying 5% just because they are not AMerican Citizens if they make all their money in this country. Its a loophole that needs closing immediately.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-19-2011).]

I started this post with more counters to all the points you made but this is the problem. We can go on forever and never agree whether something is biased or not because what I see as liberal you see as normal and vice-versa. I only wish people could step out of themselves once in a while and see things from the other person's side rather than providing laundry lists of facts that only support their view.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I started this post with more counters to all the points you made but this is the problem. We can go on forever and never agree whether something is biased or not because what I see as liberal you see as normal and vice-versa. I only wish people could step out of themselves once in a while and see things from the other person's side rather than providing laundry lists of facts that only support their view.

You know what? I'm kinda glad you didnt, and I agree with you on your last post.. so come on over and try to see some things from my side sometimes, and I will objectively try to do the same for your points. Not everybody has the same opinions in this world, we can accept them or beat our head against them.. but neither will really change anyone's opinion, no matter how you work to help them see what you think is "the light." Besides that, how good is a world where everyone agrees on everything? Sounds boring.

Did you notice that although we disagreed, nobody had to denegrate the discussion to yelling, insults or namecalling? The reason is simple: Although you disagreed with my opinion, you probably did not see it as a completely unfair representation, nor do I see your opinion as completely unfair. Elements of truth, but I imagine we were both wrong somewhere in our points and counterpoints. And although I regret the heated response I originally gave Avengador (Sorry John) that does not change the fact that I believe the article he posted was completely wrong, and an intentional lie. Not on his part,of course, but Bozzells. It is true that I have strong opinions about PBS, but it seems that when faced with those kinds of attack dogs ,sometimes you gotta be tough - Or get steamrolled by those who think its okay due to no audible protestation.

A big difference to me is that PBS is not a 24 "news" channel so to say that they are totally biased either way seems false. Fox news and MSNBC have 24 hour programming that seems (to some) to have a consistant underlying political slant or theme while PBS has only a few news programs plus a lot of other quality programming so accusing all the shows as being biased is wrong IMO.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Do a search under my name on the forum and see how many posts I have in other sections. I guarantee most of my posts on this forum are not political, and I have over 28,000 you can go through.

While not addressed to me, I'll accept the challenge anyway. Of 4,387 threads in all currently "Active Forums" in which you have posted, 4,166 of them (95%) appear in TO/T. Of the 1,047 threads in all "Active Forums" that you have started, 1,040 of them (99%) are in TO/T.

A simple examination will confirm that virtually all of the threads you start involve pieces cut-and-pasted from the conservative political blogosphere; there is seldom an original thought expressed, just an implicit or occasionally explicit "Me too!" It would be much more interesting and informative to hear what you yourself think ... your own original ideas, expressed in your own words.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: A simple examination will confirm that virtually all of the threads you start involve pieces cut-and-pasted from the conservative political blogosphere; there is seldom an original thought expressed, just an implicit or occasionally explicit "Me too!" It would be much more interesting and informative to hear what you yourself think ... your own original ideas, expressed in your own words.

And if avengador (or anyone else you disagree with) *did* post "original ideas, expressed in their own words", you'd dismiss it as "opinion". Nice little trap you've set.

quote While not addressed to me, I'll accept the challenge anyway. Of 4,387 threads in all currently "Active Forums" in which you have posted, 4,166 of them (95%) appear in TO/T. Of the 1,047 threads in all "Active Forums" that you have started, 1,040 of them (99%) are in TO/T.

Give me more credit than that. I have been on this forum for ten years. Most of my posts were made in my earlier days and I don't post as much now. Check the archives to account for my 28,000 + posts. You are only accounting for 15% of my total post count.