Bill Moyers Exposes The System For What It Is

[Political Junky]

Yes all those Cheetahs and Elephants on PBS can be soooo partisan. And when they investigate the pyramids they are trying to influence US elections for the Democrats. The Big Red Dog on PBS though goes against this 'wisdom' though doesn't it? It's obviously a way to indoctrinate toddlers and children to vote Republican.

It isn't that PBS has a 'liberal bias'. Neither do Universities. It's just these entities deal in reality and reality has a liberal bias. Science and knowledge are anathema to conservatives.

You just can't make these things up!

 

[Picaro]

'Bingo' what?

Here's how the Moyers scam works, and it isn't 'objective and neutral journalism'. Moyers has no idea what that means, he hires out to whoever will pay him. there's a reason he never makes his tax returns public, like Ralph Nader or other activists do.

The Moyers Mafia

Bill's faked naïveté: Bill Moyers pays advocates to come up with a politically loaded message that he favors, then invites them to appear on his PBS television shows so he can pretend to be interviewing them, when he not only gave the guest money, but also specified in the grant description what the message would favor.
For example:

Bill's rigged "interview:" In 1994, when campaign finance reform was a hot political topic, Washington activist Ellen Miller appeared on Bill Moyers’ Journal ina segment titled, "Money Talks."
Moyers wanted a government-funded campaign law, but a simple ban on big political donations was winning in Congress. So he invited Miller, a government-funding advocate, to give her viewpoint.

During the show, Moyers fed Miller softball questions that revealed her depth of knowledge of the issue, elicited intelligent answers and displayed her activism favorably, all the while pretending he didn't know what she would say.

He had good reason to know in advance exactly what she would say: he paid her to say it.

Moyers introduced her by saying, "Her Center for Responsive Politics is a nonpartisan group that tracks the money trail through the political jungle of Washington."

He did not say, "I gave her Center $800,000 to favor government-funded election campaigns through my position as president of the Schumann Foundation, and you'll never be able to trace it through the money jungle of Washington."
And this guy wanted money OUT of politics?
Not all money talks.

As an exercise tally up how much he rakes in from 'grants'. What's that again? Moyers won't release his tax returns, you say?

Indeed.

And here is Bill Moyers, the Great Homo Hunter:

The intolerable smugness of Bill Moyers.

Bill loved that job.

 

[Picaro]

More on that 'objective non-commercial reporting' thing that doesn't exist in real life.

FOCUS | Revealing the Secret Corruption Inside PBS's News

'Private' donors are now copying good ole Bill's tactics.

An affront to PBS rules about "pre-ordained conclusions"

As a taxpayer-funded entity, PBS's official rules clearly prohibit the funding of programming by a benefactor who "has asserted, or has the right to assert, editorial control over a program." Those rules also do not allow programming to be funded by a benefactor who is "pre-ordaining the conclusion the viewer should draw from the materials presented."

The Arnold Foundation refused to share with Pando the details of its PBS agreement, but denied that it has editorial control over the "Pension Peril" series. However, as mentioned, the foundation reiterated that it reserves the right to cut off funding under the "extraordinary circumstances." It is possible that loosely defined phrase may allow the foundation to halt funding if it does not like the ideological tenor of the PBS pension coverage it is financing. Such a hovering threat would seem to represent at least de facto editorial influence.

For PBS's part, WNET officials refused to provide any details of the Arnold Foundation-PBS contract with a spokesperson telling Pando that "such agreements are always confidential." This refusal came despite PBS being a public institution that watchdog groups insist is subject to Freedom of Information Act regulations.

When the right wing money gets as lucrative as the faux 'liberal' bucks get, good ole Bill will jump horses, if he lives long enough.

 

[Picaro]

He doesn't work for PBS?

Last time I had a TV he did. And PBS is not the "government". Has nothing to do with "the government".

PBS philosophically differs from mass media in what 3 ways?

I said commercial media, not "mass media", and that's a crucial distinction.

And that only requires one way -- that being that it's not driven by ratings, therefore the incentive of presenting the lowest common denominator/least thoughtful/least controversial pap is not present. Nor is it part of the media lobby already feeding the very system he's calling out here.

Had enough?

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

My good friend Pogo states that government does NOT support PBS or NPR. I'm curious if Pogo would please share with us what private group or foundation provides MORE than 20%? Sound good?

More broadly, it makes sense to look at federal funding as a percentage of total US public television spending, which is much larger because the bulk of spending and production occurs at the local level. According to the Association of Public Television Stations (http://www.apts.org/legislative/...), total US public television revenues were $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2008, 19.2% of which came from federal sources (both CPB and non-CPB).
Written Feb 13, 2011

Read more:
What portion of PBS funding comes from the federal government? - Quora

Thanks for your objective and rational approach here -- it's refreshing in this dump.

I have to go out and do some stuff, will check back later. But just a note, I can't read Quora. They pop up a barrage of crap that is just way too much trouble to buy a subscription or whatever it is they want. So if you want to substitute another source while I'm out....

And btw while I'm out I'll be listening to CBC on the car radio...

Hopefully nobody 'taunts' you by playing the National Anthem or something. Carry some ear plugs!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes all those Cheetahs and Elephants on PBS can be soooo partisan. And when they investigate the pyramids they are trying to influence US elections for the Democrats. The Big Red Dog on PBS though goes against this 'wisdom' though doesn't it? It's obviously a way to indoctrinate toddlers and children to vote Republican.

It isn't that PBS has a 'liberal bias'. Neither do Universities. It's just these entities deal in reality and reality has a liberal bias. Science and knowledge are anathema to conservatives.

You just can't make these things up!

So 'other' accounts for more funding than Federal, State, and Local Government. But cons see any money spent on 'the arts' as wasted. Better it was spent on welfare for corporations no doubt.

 

[Pogo]

In the above post, I proved your allegation that neither NPR or PBS have anything to do with government.

OK but --- that was already my point.

As my good friend saw, taxpayers provide 20% of their total funding. How is that any different from your erroneous "Sugar Daddy" example?

Not only is that twenty percent just twenty percent --- more to the point it is in no way tied to what you put on the air. If you were to put on a program called "General Electric is Great", you still get 20%, and if you put on a program called "General Electric Sucks", you still get that 20%. Now try that if your sponsor is General Electric.

Were you to buy or start from scratch a radio or TV station, would YOU have to pay for those airwaves that belong to all of us? If not, then it is nothing at all like your mistaken comparison with my town providing a storefront to me for free. First only in a Socialist country, would the town own the store front.

No you would not. Because Congress declared when broadcasting began that the airwaves belong to We The People, and the FCC allots licenses to use them "in the public interest, convenience and necessity". With all the abuse of that privilege we allow them at our pleasure (not theirs), it may seem as if "they" own the airwaves, but they don't. WE do.

Does that sound like a Socialist system? Sure, why not. And that's how it's always been. My point there really is that countless commercial broadcasters get these licenses, and hardly ever give them up or lose them, and proceed to make in some cases YUUGE profits, while returning to us absolutely nothing for that privilege.

I have no clue what you do for a living. Unless you work for the taxpayer, doesn't your business have to provide a profit? How is that bad?

Broadcasting actually --- and technical stuff related to sound.

A profit-making business, or a service for hire like me, is supposed to be making profit, yes. But that's a different thing from what the airwaves are there for.

Allow me to offer this illustration of what I'm getting at here --- this is the mentality of the commercial broadcaster -- the parasite:

I picked up this book once about how to start up a radio station. Don't remember the title, but it was a guy who had done the whole process, and it was very informative, going over all the stuff you'd need to get a license--- the lawyers, the structure, the frequency search, the equipment, etc etc. He takes the reader through the process one step at a time, from the beginning to the end. It all seemed to make sense. I might add, this is about a five-year, million dollar process. Finally late in the book his hypothetical example has got its construction permit, its studios, its transmitter, its tower --- it's all but ready to fire up on its maiden voyage.

His next chapter in the process posed a question that made me just fall down in disbelief. He said, and I quote:

"What should you put on the air?" --- a chapter on picking a programming format. As in, Country, sports, talk, etc.

uhhhh...... what??

You mean to tell me we just went through all this time, trouble and expense -- five years and a million bucks --- without the driving force that we had something important to present??? What the hell was the point?

See what I mean?

 

[Pogo]

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

I don't believe Republicans want PBS and NPR shut down, they simply do not want their tax dollars going to support a point of view they vehemently oppose. If it is so little as Pogo alleges, then obviously it will not be missed.

Again, ZERO tax dollars go to support a "point of view". The majority of such dollars go to ensure a radio station like KILI in Porcupine South Dakota (that's a real station in a real place) can exist as a service to the Lakota community. Transmitters and audio chains are not cheap. What they choose to put on the air is completely up to them and is entirely untied to funding dollars. Again, that's the whole idea --- when you do that commercially, you ARE tied to your funding dollars. It's a codependency.

That's why, for instance William F. Buckley's talk program had to broadcast on PBS -- it was far too cerebral to sell hemorrhoid cream. You don't draw audience by inviting people to actually think -- you draw it by appealing to base emotions. Paternity tests for the baby daddy; a fire in some neighborhood you never heard of; grotesque goons pretending to wrestle; naked strangers dropped on an island; who some celebrity is dating; how the oncoming storm or ethnic group or political party is out to kill you; murder, scandal, conflict and of curse an endless diarrhea of insipid sitcoms. That's what sells.

Public-funded broadcasting exists (everywhere) to make that codependency unnecessary. And most places in the world do it far better than we do. It's a popular theory in public radio that the reason so much good programming comes from places like Minnesota and Wisconsin and New York is that they're close enough to the Canadian border to hear what real radio can sound like. CBC puts NPR to shame. And a large part of the reason is that Canadians allot it proportionally more funding, and as a population they're not afraid of challenging ideas. Nor do they have much of a right-wing wacko fringe to suppress them. The proportion of support we give to public broadcasting in this country is abysmal.

You are amusing.

In one breath you state that ZERO tax dollars go to support a "point of view", which I proved is clearly false. But if a business provides even a tiny fraction of that percentage, then THEY ARE supporting a "point of view".

Your support of Canadian broadcasting is interesting insofar as censorship is alive and well in Canada.

"Mr. Von Finkenstein went on to describe the formation of CBSC and how it was approved by CRTC. He said “The CBSC is an independent organization established by the CAB (Canadian Association of Broadcasters), with the approval of the CRTC.”

In 1986 the CRTC released a notification stating “The Commission notifies all its radio and television broadcasting licensees, both CAB and non-CAB members, that it intends to impose a condition of licence when their applications for licence renewal are considered, requiring their adherence to the CAB self-regulatory guidelines, as amended from time to time and accepted by the Commission.”

The CAB responded and submitted a proposal for a National Broadcast Standards Council entitled “Guidelines for Developing Industry Standards” (April l987). This became the basis to establish the CBSC that has now levied hundreds of judgements against broadcasters due to politically incorrect speech.

Many people have tried to deny the direct relationship between the CRTC and the censor board including Canada’s Heritage Minister James Moore who recently stated in a letter that “The government is not involved with the CBSC”. This is simply untrue.

The CRTC Chairman explains the relationship as complaints made are made to the CRTC, heard by CBSC which then reports back to CRTC for enforcement. He stated how complaints are sent to the CBSC and then “The Commission will also hear any complaint in cases where the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution provided by the CBSC.
Enforced by Government."

Read more:
History of Censorship in Canada

I'm not at all sure where you're trying to go with this religious site page with no source links, but a simple Google right to the source tells us this:

>> The CBSC administers codes of standards for television and radio broadcasting. The codes were drafted voluntarily by industry groups to serve as guidelines for their industry. They are revised from time to time.

The CBSC has no involvement in the day-to-day operations of stations; broadcasters maintain complete creative, managerial and journalistic independence. The CBSC recognizes that freedom of expression is a fundamental principle in a democratic society. The codes are not inconsistent with that social value; the private broadcasters voluntarily created standards for themselves in order to demonstrate their commitment to responsible broadcasting and their sensitivity to the communities they serve.

The codes and the activities of the CBSC are intended to balance broadcasters’ right to freedom of expression with their desire to best serve the public. The CBSC does not monitor programming, nor does it pre-clear or pre-censor programming. In order for the CBSC to initiate its complaints process and examine a program, it must receive a complaint from a listener or viewer who has heard or seen something that concerns him/her, that was broadcast by a participating broadcaster. << (CBSC Page)
​

My experience with broadcast regulations is in the US, not Canada, but this closely parallels the attitude of both our FCC and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) which administers that public funding we were talking about, in that neither the funding, nor the ability to acquire and maintain a license, is conditional on what POV is broadcast, save for the obvious examples of "public indecency", libel, or fraud.

 

[Pogo]

In one breath you state that ZERO tax dollars go to support a "point of view", which I proved is clearly false.

I completely missed that. Could you point it out?

 

[Pogo]

He doesn't work for PBS?

Last time I had a TV he did. And PBS is not the "government". Has nothing to do with "the government".




I said commercial media, not "mass media", and that's a crucial distinction.

And that only requires one way -- that being that it's not driven by ratings, therefore the incentive of presenting the lowest common denominator/least thoughtful/least controversial pap is not present. Nor is it part of the media lobby already feeding the very system he's calling out here.

Had enough?

More BS. It's nothing but a subsidized propaganda outlet, and has never been anything else.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is an American non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote and help support public broadcasting.[1]

CPB’s mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services. It does so by distributing more than 70% of its funding to more than 1,400 locally owned public radio and television stations.[2]

These stations then turn around and use the money to buy 'packages' from the likes of Bill Moyer's and his 'private' production ventures, at a profit to himself, of course. More later, when I get time. PBS World is a fine 'example' of a 'non-commercial' channel that runs propaganda garbage like 'Frontline' and many hours per day provideing us with many 'Teachable Moments' about how grand life is under terrorist governments and how evul da Israelis and Xians are compared to your average Palestinian psycho bigot and other stuff. They loves them some criminal illegal aliens as well, who according to PBS World are 'just simple hard working folk just like us'. Just never mind that other stuff, like facts.

2017/2019 budgets for CPB:

http://www.cpb.org/funding

$298
Million
Public Television Station and Programming Grants
$99.1
Million
Public Radio Station and Programming Grant

More ipse dixit whining without a point.
I know all about the CPB Junior. You wanna rumble --- bring it.

 

[initforme]

If he is saying our political system is controlled by SLEAZY corporate money he is spot on. If you are middle class and disagree you are so dumb....so so dumb

 

[Pogo]

If he is saying our political system is controlled by SLEAZY corporate money he is spot on. If you are middle class and disagree you are so dumb....so so dumb

That is what he's saying, and thanks for bringing the actual topic back.

I get the impression a few wags didn't bother to watch the commentary before ass-uming what it was about. That's always fatal.

 

[initforme]

Some dumb folk fall in line for the patriotic mumbo jumbo so their ability to see or think is not up to par.

 

[80zephyr]

He doesn't work for PBS?

Last time I had a TV he did. And PBS is not the "government". Has nothing to do with "the government".

PBS philosophically differs from mass media in what 3 ways?

I said commercial media, not "mass media", and that's a crucial distinction.

And that only requires one way -- that being that it's not driven by ratings, therefore the incentive of presenting the lowest common denominator/least thoughtful/least controversial pap is not present. Nor is it part of the media lobby already feeding the very system he's calling out here.

Had enough?

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

Ummmm.... you didn't make a point there. You made an assertion and propped it up with nothing more than ipse dixit using blanket Argumentum ad Populum. Three fallacies in one sentence.

I follow reality. And the reality is, is that the left loves PBS while the right does not. If the programming on PBS was conservative, the left would be complaining and the right would be happy.

Logically speaking, I am 100% correct.

Mark

 

[Pogo]

Last time I had a TV he did. And PBS is not the "government". Has nothing to do with "the government".


I said commercial media, not "mass media", and that's a crucial distinction.

And that only requires one way -- that being that it's not driven by ratings, therefore the incentive of presenting the lowest common denominator/least thoughtful/least controversial pap is not present. Nor is it part of the media lobby already feeding the very system he's calling out here.

Had enough?

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

Ummmm.... you didn't make a point there. You made an assertion and propped it up with nothing more than ipse dixit using blanket Argumentum ad Populum. Three fallacies in one sentence.

I follow reality. And the reality is, is that the left loves PBS while the right does not. If the programming on PBS was conservative, the left would be complaining and the right would be happy.

Logically speaking, I am 100% correct.

Mark

Whelp -- you just committed the same blanket/Argumentum ad Populum fallacy again and you still don't see it. That is, unless you went out last night and took a survey of everybody on "the left" and everybody on "the right". Perhaps what you mean is the more intelligent value PBS more and the less appreciate it less. Which I'll agree with.

Personally I fired my TV years ago and threw it out the door once it was clear I could get almost anything I wanted off the internet anyway except live sports, which I'd still have to pay for either way (not counting the ESPN crap). But out of all those 50 or 100 or whatever it was channels available any time, the only one I've ever missed as a source where something good might actually be on, is PBS.

Sometimes in hotels working on the road they would have the NHK channel, which was always interesting, but my cable company didn't provide it. Of course, that's another case of a government actually taking its public discourse seriously. If I were to ever see enough value in it to subscribe to a TV service again it would have to include services like NHK and Deutsche Welle and others from all over the world. But as it stands now it would be waaaaay too expensive.

 

[hadit]

Yes all those Cheetahs and Elephants on PBS can be soooo partisan. And when they investigate the pyramids they are trying to influence US elections for the Democrats. The Big Red Dog on PBS though goes against this 'wisdom' though doesn't it? It's obviously a way to indoctrinate toddlers and children to vote Republican.

It isn't that PBS has a 'liberal bias'. Neither do Universities. It's just these entities deal in reality and reality has a liberal bias. Science and knowledge are anathema to conservatives.

You just can't make these things up!

So 'other' accounts for more funding than Federal, State, and Local Government. But cons see any money spent on 'the arts' as wasted. Better it was spent on welfare for corporations no doubt.

That's stupid.

 

[hadit]

Last time I had a TV he did. And PBS is not the "government". Has nothing to do with "the government".


I said commercial media, not "mass media", and that's a crucial distinction.

And that only requires one way -- that being that it's not driven by ratings, therefore the incentive of presenting the lowest common denominator/least thoughtful/least controversial pap is not present. Nor is it part of the media lobby already feeding the very system he's calling out here.

Had enough?

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

Ummmm.... you didn't make a point there. You made an assertion and propped it up with nothing more than ipse dixit using blanket Argumentum ad Populum. Three fallacies in one sentence.

I follow reality. And the reality is, is that the left loves PBS while the right does not. If the programming on PBS was conservative, the left would be complaining and the right would be happy.

Logically speaking, I am 100% correct.

Mark

That assumes that the "right" supports government spending taxpayer money to broadcast a viewpoint, something that is not in evidence.

 

[80zephyr]

PBS and NPR are supported by the government. They know where their bread is buttered. Their position is always to defend making government bigger and bigger and spending more and more.

What is your "crucial distinction" between commercial media and mass media?

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

Ummmm.... you didn't make a point there. You made an assertion and propped it up with nothing more than ipse dixit using blanket Argumentum ad Populum. Three fallacies in one sentence.

I follow reality. And the reality is, is that the left loves PBS while the right does not. If the programming on PBS was conservative, the left would be complaining and the right would be happy.

Logically speaking, I am 100% correct.

Mark

Whelp -- you just committed the same blanket/Argumentum ad Populum fallacy again and you still don't see it. That is, unless you went out last night and took a survey of everybody on "the left" and everybody on "the right". Perhaps what you mean is the more intelligent value PBS more and the less appreciate it less. Which I'll agree with.

Personally I fired my TV years ago and threw it out the door once it was clear I could get almost anything I wanted off the internet anyway except live sports, which I'd still have to pay for either way (not counting the ESPN crap). But out of all those 50 or 100 or whatever it was channels available any time, the only one I've ever missed as a source where something good might actually be on, is PBS.

Sometimes in hotels working on the road they would have the NHK channel, which was always interesting, but my cable company didn't provide it. Of course, that's another case of a government actually taking its public discourse seriously. If I were to ever see enough value in it to subscribe to a TV service again it would have to include services like NHK and Deutsche Welle and others from all over the world. But as it stands now it would be waaaaay too expensive.

So, when a majority of people on either side of an issue have a viewpoint, it is now a fallacy?

Lol.

Tell me, how did they decide what they believe?

Mark

 

[Pogo]

No actually it isn't. They have nothing to do with government, neither one.
They get some amount of grant money but it's a small portion of their budget, it's completely untied to programming, and it's a fraction of the proportion real countries support their public broadcasting with, such as Germany, or Canada, or Japan.

Commercial media exists to sell commercials -- and that's it. What the programming is that does that is irrelevant to them. They don't care as long as it brings in eyeballs to exploit. As one ClearChannel TV executive defined it, "programming is the shit we run between commercials". In other words they're parasites, their sole purpose being to milk the people's airwaves for their own gain. (And I might add, they get the use of those airwaves, which we own, rent free. Some deal, innit? How'd you like your town to offer you a storefront on Main Street --- literally for free?)

If you're an advertiser, you have by definition set yourself up as Sugar Daddy. It means you're associated with the program, and if said program does or says something that might not support the world or the illusion that sells your stuff, well you just demand changes or deletions, and you get 'em. That's happened over and over and over, and that's why all that's left standing is safe, sanitized, insignificant, meaningless freaking pap. Then we could go into the conflicts of interests involving cross promotions between common-owned businesses but that's a whole 'nother rant.

Noncommercial media OTOH, not having that impetus, puts a program on because it's worthy in its own right, and not because it will sell Viagra. Hence the difference in content. You don't have the vulnerability of a Sugar Daddy whining that some part of your program will be bad for their business. The funding is too decentralized to allow that. That's the whole idea -- to have the freedom from that bias.

That may have been the idea, but it hasn't worked out that way. PBS has a liberal bias. As proof, all you need to know is that the right wants to shut it down and the left likes it just the way it is.

Mark

Ummmm.... you didn't make a point there. You made an assertion and propped it up with nothing more than ipse dixit using blanket Argumentum ad Populum. Three fallacies in one sentence.

I follow reality. And the reality is, is that the left loves PBS while the right does not. If the programming on PBS was conservative, the left would be complaining and the right would be happy.

Logically speaking, I am 100% correct.

Mark

Whelp -- you just committed the same blanket/Argumentum ad Populum fallacy again and you still don't see it. That is, unless you went out last night and took a survey of everybody on "the left" and everybody on "the right". Perhaps what you mean is the more intelligent value PBS more and the less appreciate it less. Which I'll agree with.

Personally I fired my TV years ago and threw it out the door once it was clear I could get almost anything I wanted off the internet anyway except live sports, which I'd still have to pay for either way (not counting the ESPN crap). But out of all those 50 or 100 or whatever it was channels available any time, the only one I've ever missed as a source where something good might actually be on, is PBS.

Sometimes in hotels working on the road they would have the NHK channel, which was always interesting, but my cable company didn't provide it. Of course, that's another case of a government actually taking its public discourse seriously. If I were to ever see enough value in it to subscribe to a TV service again it would have to include services like NHK and Deutsche Welle and others from all over the world. But as it stands now it would be waaaaay too expensive.

So, when a majority of people on either side of an issue have a viewpoint, it is now a fallacy?

Lol.

Tell me, how did they decide what they believe?

Mark

Nope. But when you simply come all over a message board and purport to speak for them, carrying in hand no evidence whatsoever.... that's a YUUUGE loser.