"Separation" dilemma

[DamnYankee]

Upon review of its bylaws, PBS is now reviewing its programming and, apparently, considering the separation of state and its affiliate content.

washingtonpost.com

[excerpt]
Under bylaws enacted in 1985, PBS stations are required to present programs that are noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian. The rules were put in place to ensure balance and fairness among PBS-affiliated stations, which rely on government funding, private-sector grants and sponsorships, and contributions from viewers.

The irony is that the government, upon whom PBS relies, in large part, for its funding, is complicit in the blurring of the "separation" lines by way of ignoring the tax code law -- specifically the 501(c)3 designation, which exempts religious organizations from taxation. How is the line blurred by this oversight?

Religious Tax Exemptions vs. Government Policies
Most people are aware that a church or religious organization can lose their tax exempt status for engaging in partisan political activity, like endorsing a political candidate. What many aren't aware of, though, is that the same can happen for promoting or engaging in things contrary to government policy. Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.
Tax Exempt Churches: Religious Freedom vs Tax Exemptions & Tax Deductions

Now, how many of those "promoting of engaging in things contrary go government policy" can you think of?

 

[William Joyce]

PBS is about as non-partisan as three Kennedys on a stick.

 

[KittenKoder]

PBS is about as non-partisan as three Kennedys on a stick.

Meh, PBS will air anything that makes money. But they use to have Red Dwarf on ... I lost interest in them when they stopped showing that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Just seems to me that there should be no government funding if they (PBS) are going to be in strict compliance with the tax code. They do, after all, air political programming. Some of this programming was quite damning of Bush "government" policy. Not to mention, if religious programming has been permitted, and religious figures use the pulpit for political grandstanding, that is a violation. Are they selectively reviewing their policy?

 

[editec]

How can any organiation which comments on the goings on in society be politically neutral?

The whole idea that one can present programming with any POV that is entirely unbiased is preposterous.

At best, one can ATTEMPT to report facts without comment, but the very selection of the facts to be reported is based on one's biases about what is important to begin with.

 

[del]

PBS made sense precable. it showed good stuff that was for the most part commercially nonviable in a 3 channel world. today, with hundreds of channels that have to be fed 24/7, i don't see the need for it. that's not to say that i vehemently or even mildly oppose its existence; i just question the need.

 

[dilloduck]

PBS made sense precable. it showed good stuff that was for the most part commercially nonviable in a 3 channel world. today, with hundreds of channels that have to be fed 24/7, i don't see the need for it. that's not to say that i vehemently or even mildly oppose its existence; i just question the need.

Claiming you saw something on PBS confirms to others that you are a true blue liberal.

 

[DamnYankee]

PBS made sense precable. it showed good stuff that was for the most part commercially nonviable in a 3 channel world. today, with hundreds of channels that have to be fed 24/7, i don't see the need for it. that's not to say that i vehemently or even mildly oppose its existence; i just question the need.

Claiming you saw something on PBS confirms to others that you are a true blue liberal.

Not necessarily. I see value in the arts, and even educational programming, and would be quite happy to see much more focus on the arts -- especially theater and music. The private and public donors, obviously don't make enough contributions to keep them going though. So, do I have a problem with the government supporting this? No.... But then, they, somehow, seem to get a say in what else is broadcast, 'cause there's a good deal of "political" programming which would be best left to the 24/7 cable outlets.

 

[JBeukema]

But they use to have Red Dwarf on ... I lost interest in them when they stopped showing that.

Red Dwarf was the shit!

 

[editec]

PBS made sense precable. it showed good stuff that was for the most part commercially nonviable in a 3 channel world. today, with hundreds of channels that have to be fed 24/7, i don't see the need for it. that's not to say that i vehemently or even mildly oppose its existence; i just question the need.

Claiming you saw something on PBS confirms to others that you are a true blue liberal.

Not necessarily. I see value in the arts, and even educational programming, and would be quite happy to see much more focus on the arts -- especially theater and music.

Me too

The private and public donors, obviously don't make enough contributions to keep them going though.

True

So, do I have a problem with the government supporting this?

I do.

Why have we given the government the right to decide what is good etnertainment or bad entertainment?

Suppose, for example that PBS deided that its role was to put on NASCAR 24/7 and the government helped support that.

Would you STILL support the existence and government's role in PBS?

Forget the whole political angle and just ask yourself if you think it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is good art? v what is bad art?

 

[WillowTree]

PBS another example of a government sponsered supporter of the left wing as is ACORN!

 

[garyd]

Excellent call edit. I object to the national endowment for the arts for precisely the same reason.

 

[WiseOldMan]

The NEWS HOUR with Jim Leher is the ONLY non-biased news program.


Anyone who says otherwise is uneducated and ignorant.


This is beyond disagreement.

 

[KittenKoder]

The NEWS HOUR with Jim Leher is the ONLY non-biased news program.


Anyone who says otherwise is uneducated and ignorant.


This is beyond disagreement.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

I watch during their pledge drives, but not too much otherwise. After Justin Hayward, it's all down hill from there.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

C-SPAN is unbiased news, because any time there is middle man or presenter or anchor, bias is inevitable.

 

[KittenKoder]

C-SPAN is unbiased news, because any time there is middle man or presenter or anchor, bias is inevitable.

*eye roll*

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Yes, an anchor rolling his or her eyes would be bias, too.

 

[DamnYankee]

Claiming you saw something on PBS confirms to others that you are a true blue liberal.

Not necessarily. I see value in the arts, and even educational programming, and would be quite happy to see much more focus on the arts -- especially theater and music.

Me too

The private and public donors, obviously don't make enough contributions to keep them going though.

True

So, do I have a problem with the government supporting this?

I do.

Why have we given the government the right to decide what is good etnertainment or bad entertainment?

Suppose, for example that PBS deided that its role was to put on NASCAR 24/7 and the government helped support that.

Would you STILL support the existence and government's role in PBS?

Forget the whole political angle and just ask yourself if you think it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to decide what is good art? v what is bad art?

That's an awful lot of supposing, even for me. While I see your point, it's inconceivable that there is a marketable audience. Hell, I can't even get 24/7 baseball without paying for it myself. Without that audience, there would be no broadcasting system to support.

 

[JBeukema]

C-SPAN is unbiased news, because any time there is middle man or presenter or anchor, bias is inevitable.

And whoever writes down the events isn't biased? someone chooses where to send the cameras, and the cameraman chooses what to film.