The American Revolution

[Flopper]

This six-part miniseries, currently airing on PBS, offers a compelling and in-depth look at the American Revolution. Much like other Ken Burns documentaries, it tells the story largely through the writings of those who lived through it. Even if you're already familiar with the history, you’ll likely discover something new. For instance, while I had heard of Thomas Paine and his famous pamphlet Common Sense, I didn’t fully appreciate how pivotal it was in galvanizing the drive for independence.


When the war began, there was no widespread call for independence from England. Colonists simply wanted to return to the status quo, free from the burdens of the Stamp Act, restrictions on trade, and other oppressive measures imposed by Parliament. However, Paine’s Common Sense changed everything. In his bold, accessible writing, he made a clear and simple case for independence. He shocked many by referring to King George III as a "royal brute" and a tyrant, and his pamphlet became an overnight bestseller. Almost every literate person in the colonies read Common Sense, and its widespread influence helped spark the movement for independence. This moment, and many others like it are vividly brought to life in the series.


I highly recommend this miniseries to anyone interested in the founding of our nation. It’s a well-crafted and engaging portrayal of the events that shaped America. With a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s clearly resonating with viewers.

 

[toobfreak]

Ha. I saw The American Revolution on TV last night so decided to give it a look, and when I turned it on, PBS had 25% of the screen blanked out and they were running a banner ad asking for contributions!

No thank you.

 

[Flopper]

Ha. I saw The American Revolution on TV last night so decided to give it a look, and when I turned it on, PBS had 25% of the screen blanked out and they were running a banner ad asking for contributions!

No thank you.

I watched all 6 episodes, I never saw that. That had be the local station. I found it annoying that prior to each episode there was a lot of recognition of major contributors which of course has increased significantly with the big lost of federal funding. However, I found it just a minor annoyance, well worth such a fine presentation.

A few local stations have closed and many have had layouts resulting in reduction in local programming. So I would expect they would be hitting viewers for more contributions.

 

[hjmick]

Nobody tell how it ends, I haven't watched it yet...

 

[Flopper]

Nobody tell how it ends, I haven't watched it yet...

The good guys win. It is a bit long and drawn out because the war was long and draw out, nearly 8 years. In a way it is a bit frustrating to watch. Washington out right won very few battles That was due to his strategy of not taking big chances. He was willing to accept not winning as long as he didn't lose. So when he saw he was losing too many men, he walked off in order to fight another day. And eventually it did work because of two big reasons. First, the British had a 3,000 mile supply line which was difficult to maintain for a long period. Second, the British were at war with both France and Spain which was gradually heating up. Eventually the British would need the resources tied up fighting the colonists. The Americans just needed to keep the war going long enough.

 

[toobfreak]

I watched all 6 episodes, I never saw that. That had be the local station.

Yeah, I've checked it out a couple other times. Always on the local PBS station. Each time they were either running continuous banner ads for money at the bottom of the screen or after a while they would just cut in with one of their famous 10 minute commercial breaks while they try to sell you a DVD collection or something like that in exchange for contributions.

Too bad PBS offends me so much. They do have a few good shows on. But they spend far too much time on programming about other people and times, or globalist and progressive views as fact and zero time of people in this country especially from the conservative POV.

But I'll look in on the show here and there, I like seeing maps and things, I just have no tolerance for advertisements.

 

[Leo123]

Yeah, I've checked it out a couple other times. Always on the local PBS station. Each time they were either running continuous banner ads for money at the bottom of the screen or after a while they would just cut in with one of their famous 10 minute commercial breaks while they try to sell you a DVD collection or something like that in exchange for contributions.

Too bad PBS offends me so much. They do have a few good shows on. But they spend far too much time on programming about other people and times, or globalist and progressive views as fact and zero time of people in this country especially from the conservative POV.

But I'll look in on the show here and there, I like seeing maps and things, I just have no tolerance for advertisements.

Yes! I listen to 1 program on public radio 1 time a week called 'American Rhythm' whose host plays what he calls 'American Vernacular' music from the as far back as the late 1800s all the way up to the early 70s. He gives history connections between genres with an emphasis on Rock and Roll. Anyway, if they had more programming like that, instead of the incessant anti-Trump far left woke shit I would start contributing again.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes! I listen to 1 program on public radio 1 time a week called 'American Rhythm' whose host plays what he calls 'American Vernacular' music from the as far back as the late 1800s all the way up to the early 70s. He gives history connections between genres with an emphasis on Rock and Roll. Anyway, if they had more programming like that, instead of the incessant anti-Trump far left woke shit I would start contributing again.

Maybe it is just my timing, but in checking our news on PBS and late night TV, they all seem to have backed off a little bit on trashing Trump 24/7.

Maybe they found it really wasn't getting them anywhere.

 

[Leo123]

Maybe it is just my timing, but in checking our news on PBS and late night TV, they all seem to have backed off a little bit on trashing Trump 24/7.

Maybe they found it really wasn't getting them anywhere.

Probably they are losing millions in contributions as people wake up to their liberal bias. I saw it decades ago and stopped sending in a contribution for only 1 show. The current news is, in reality, on podcasts. I like the debate ones where both points of view are presented. You always see the loony leftist over-talking, talking fast, pivoting, etc. The 'Crucible' with Andrew Wilson is entertaining and informative.

 

[Flopper]

Yeah, I've checked it out a couple other times. Always on the local PBS station. Each time they were either running continuous banner ads for money at the bottom of the screen or after a while they would just cut in with one of their famous 10 minute commercial breaks while they try to sell you a DVD collection or something like that in exchange for contributions.

Too bad PBS offends me so much. They do have a few good shows on. But they spend far too much time on programming about other people and times, or globalist and progressive views as fact and zero time of people in this country especially from the conservative POV.

But I'll look in on the show here and there, I like seeing maps and things, I just have no tolerance for advertisements.

PBS news is generally regarded as one the least biased national new programs. They also devote far less time to news commentary. They don't have late night comedians bashing Trump nor reruns of their news cometary the way other major networks do. And on weekend they have very little news and commentary. Compared to CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they are straight as an arrow.

It doesn't appear Trump's attempt to silence the PBS network is working. Contribution by major foundations have increased substantially. Rural areas, where viewership is the lowest and less funds are available for contributions will be hit the hardest.

 

[toobfreak]

PBS news is generally regarded as one the least biased national new programs.

Only by other leftwingers. The news and even their science programming (like Nova) is often replete with bias and inaccuracies. 80% of the time, everyone on PBS hosting a program will be female. On that rare occasion when a guy is actually on one of their shows (other than some cooking show testing spatulas), he is some skinny little non-threatening wimp. Let me know if they EVER have a real man on there giving a masculine view, say, from the country/western/southern/deplorable perspective who does not live in Boston.

It doesn't appear Trump's attempt to silence the PBS network is working. Contribution by major foundations have increased substantially.

I would have said the exact opposite. It has been a dearth of new programming with nothing but reruns since Trump kicked these bums to the curb. Yesterday (Thanksgiving) when they'd usually have some sort of Holiday special on, I checked them out and on their main digital channel during prime time, they were running contiguous advertisements for contributions begging for money. So OF COURSE contributions are up from their major contributors--- even with that, PBS is barely staying afloat.

And to think, they could have avoided all of this and kept billions in federal funding by simply being fair and balanced keeping to their original agreement to present all sides of the issues as a public funded TV source,

AND THEY REFUSED. So **** PBS.

 

[odanny]

Thanks for your review Flopper, this one was off my radar and I just noticed PBS is running episodes 1 and 2 today, I am recording it and look forward to watching it sometime this weekend. With all the snow predicted today and 35 mph winds this is the perfect weekend to watch this.

I'm so glad that Burns has done the American Revolution, I was never more impressed by a documentary than his look at the Civil War, however, I was very much underwhelmed by his look at WWII, but that was largely a result of his focus and not his filmmaking and production.

 

[Flopper]

Only by other leftwingers. The news and even their science programming (like Nova) is often replete with bias and inaccuracies. 80% of the time, everyone on PBS hosting a program will be female. On that rare occasion when a guy is actually on one of their shows (other than some cooking show testing spatulas), he is some skinny little non-threatening wimp. Let me know if they EVER have a real man on there giving a masculine view, say, from the country/western/southern/deplorable perspective who does not live in Boston.


I would have said the exact opposite. It has been a dearth of new programming with nothing but reruns since Trump kicked these bums to the curb. Yesterday (Thanksgiving) when they'd usually have some sort of Holiday special on, I checked them out and on their main digital channel during prime time, they were running contiguous advertisements for contributions begging for money. So OF COURSE contributions are up from their major contributors--- even with that, PBS is barely staying afloat.

And to think, they could have avoided all of this and kept billions in federal funding by simply being fair and balanced keeping to their original agreement to present all sides of the issues as a public funded TV source,

AND THEY REFUSED. So **** PBS.

What i watch will continue in 2026, Masterpiece, Mystery, PBS Newshour, and documentaries like like The American Revolution. PBS will continue to present high quality programming long after Trump is gone.

 

[Flopper]

Thanks for your review Flopper, this one was off my radar and I just noticed PBS is running episodes 1 and 2 today, I am recording it and look forward to watching it sometime this weekend. With all the snow predicted today and 35 mph winds this is the perfect weekend to watch this.

I'm so glad that Burns has done the American Revolution, I was never more impressed by a documentary than his look at the Civil War, however, I was very much underwhelmed by his look at WWII, but that was largely a result of his focus and not his filmmaking and production.

I love the way in which Burns brings his presentations to life by presenting minor events that have major impact on history. In his documentary, The Civil War, he used letter from home, national leader, military officers, and buck privates to tell the story of the war.

 

[Flopper]

What i watch will continue in 2026, Masterpiece, Mystery, PBS Newshour, and documentaries like like The American Revolution. PBS will continue to present high quality programming long after Trump is gone.

What i watch will continue in 2026, Masterpiece, Mystery, PBS Newshour, and documentaries like like The American Revolution. PBS will continue to present high quality programming long after Trump is gone.

People in rural, remote, and low-income areas will be hurt most by a loss of federal funding for PBS because these are the area in which PBS outlets are most likely to close. These are also the communities that often lack alternative media sources and are hurt most by other Trump administration cutbacks, SNAP, free early childhood education, Medicaid, programs for expectant mothers, programs that bring the internet to rural areas, etc.

 

[toobfreak]

PBS will continue to present high quality programming long after Trump is gone.

Why shouldn't they? Trump has nothing to do with it, all Trump pointed out is that like any other government program, no one is entitled to anything, they are in these programs if they /QUALIFY/ for them.

And PBS doesn't. They think it more valuable to them to continue representing the Left's POV on everything while utterly suppressing and ignoring the Right's POV, and if you are not at least fair, giving all sides available to any issue, then you don't qualify for federal funding.

But sure, the thing is that PBS isn't going away and their programming in all likelihood will remain high, they are simply proving that they really didn't NEED the federal funds nor do they qualify nor really WANT them.

 

[Flopper]

Why shouldn't they? Trump has nothing to do with it, all Trump pointed out is that like any other government program, no one is entitled to anything, they are in these programs if they /QUALIFY/ for them.

And PBS doesn't. They think it more valuable to them to continue representing the Left's POV on everything while utterly suppressing and ignoring the Right's POV, and if you are not at least fair, giving all sides available to any issue, then you don't qualify for federal funding.

But sure, the thing is that PBS isn't going away and their programming in all likelihood will remain high, they are simply proving that they really didn't NEED the federal funds nor do they qualify nor really WANT them.

Federal funding goes primarily to local stations with the lion share going to stations in small rural low income areas where there simple is not enough money to support public TV. Almost all remaining federal dollars go to finance educational programs. No federal dollars go news and political commentary.

The bottom line is cuts in federal funding will have a major impact on stations in rural areas. Like commercial broadcasting, the programs with smallest viewer support will be cut. Popular programs like Antique Roadshow,
Masterpiece, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Sesame Street, PBS Newshour, Frontline, and the most popular documentaries such The Revolutionary War and NOVA will not be affected because they are well funded by both corporate sponsors and local stations, and viewers.

 

[Flopper]

Why shouldn't they? Trump has nothing to do with it, all Trump pointed out is that like any other government program, no one is entitled to anything, they are in these programs if they /QUALIFY/ for them.

And PBS doesn't. They think it more valuable to them to continue representing the Left's POV on everything while utterly suppressing and ignoring the Right's POV, and if you are not at least fair, giving all sides available to any issue, then you don't qualify for federal funding.

But sure, the thing is that PBS isn't going away and their programming in all likelihood will remain high, they are simply proving that they really didn't NEED the federal funds nor do they qualify nor really WANT them.

Federal funds are need to support PBS stations in very poor rural areas of the country which is where most of the federal PBS funds go.

However, an administration that denies food and healthcare to the poor should certainly deny them free quality TV programming.

 

[Flopper]

Only by other leftwingers. The news and even their science programming (like Nova) is often replete with bias and inaccuracies. 80% of the time, everyone on PBS hosting a program will be female. On that rare occasion when a guy is actually on one of their shows (other than some cooking show testing spatulas), he is some skinny little non-threatening wimp. Let me know if they EVER have a real man on there giving a masculine view, say, from the country/western/southern/deplorable perspective who does not live in Boston.


I would have said the exact opposite. It has been a dearth of new programming with nothing but reruns since Trump kicked these bums to the curb. Yesterday (Thanksgiving) when they'd usually have some sort of Holiday special on, I checked them out and on their main digital channel during prime time, they were running contiguous advertisements for contributions begging for money. So OF COURSE contributions are up from their major contributors--- even with that, PBS is barely staying afloat.

And to think, they could have avoided all of this and kept billions in federal funding by simply being fair and balanced keeping to their original agreement to present all sides of the issues as a public funded TV source,

AND THEY REFUSED. So **** PBS.

So you think they should be fair and balanced like Fox News.

I watch the news on all major networks and PBS Newshour is by far the leased biased of the bunch MSMBC is the worst follow by the big 3, Fox News, CNN, and then PBS.

The reason PBS News is the least biased is because:

• The program focuses on presenting facts and in-depth analysis rather than sensationalism or punditry. Stories are often longer and more nuanced than those found on commercial news networks. In other words the program is the most boring of the bunch. As a friend who was a reporter for 30 years said, "You know it's real news when it puts you to sleep. Real news, that is facts are just not very exciting. News programs make them exciting because it improves their ratings.
• As a public media entity, PBS relies on a combination of community donations, foundation support, and modest federal grants, rather than being driven solely by advertising revenue or partisan ownership.
• PBS NewsHour aims to present a range of viewpoints in a balanced and civil atmosphere, frequently interviewing politicians and experts from across the political spectrum.
• Lastly, Independent media watchdog groups consistently rate PBS NewsHour favorably regarding its reliability and bias.

 

[toobfreak]

Federal funding goes primarily to local stations with the lion share going to stations in small rural low income areas where there simple is not enough money to support public TV. Almost all remaining federal dollars go to finance educational programs. The bottom line is cuts in federal funding will have a major impact on stations in rural areas.

I hear ya, Flop. Like I said, all PBS needs do then is meet the fair-coverage requirement for federal funding. Remember, if all this hurts rural stations the most, it is PBS not Trump who does not care, Trump did not make the rules, he is merely following the law. Apparently PBS is willing to cut their losses and sacrifice the non-big city viewer rather than simply meet the requirements of fair coverage that they originally agreed to.