Trump to defund PBS/NPR.

[NYcarbineer]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports™

Rasmussen sold the polling company. What was their accuracy on the presidential race?

And this one is based on 1,000 calls. I think libs would be much more inclined to answer polling about NPR. But the bottom line is you can vote with your dollars. Pony up if you support a media outlet.

Here we go again. Every poll they don't like must be wrong.

Many polls are bullshit and it should obvious to anyone with a half a brain at this point. We voted and elections have consequences. You can snivel all you want but it changes nothing. Use your money to make your stand and leave other people to fund their own preferences. I don't want to fund leftist propaganda, period.

So we voted? So 3 million more Americans voted for the candidate who WOULD continue funding PBS than voted for the candidate who wouldn't.

There's your referendum on public broadcasting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports™

Rasmussen sold the polling company. What was their accuracy on the presidential race?

And this one is based on 1,000 calls. I think libs would be much more inclined to answer polling about NPR. But the bottom line is you can vote with your dollars. Pony up if you support a media outlet.

Here we go again. Every poll they don't like must be wrong.

When you start producing polls that actually describe reality, rather than confirm your twisted perception of reality, some might actually take you seriously.

So the polls were only one point off. That's great polling.

 

[Norman]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports™

Rasmussen sold the polling company. What was their accuracy on the presidential race?

And this one is based on 1,000 calls. I think libs would be much more inclined to answer polling about NPR. But the bottom line is you can vote with your dollars. Pony up if you support a media outlet.

Here we go again. Every poll they don't like must be wrong.

When you start producing polls that actually describe reality, rather than confirm your twisted perception of reality, some might actually take you seriously.

So the polls were only one point off. That's great polling.

No, that's shitty manipulative polling. Especially considering that the final result was really +0.6%. Unbelievably biased...

Then you consider that she was much higher in the polls but just magically lost her lead as the day dawned closer. Yeah, nothing going on here!

Your credibility is shattered. You are fake news.

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports[emoji769]

So....?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports[emoji769]

So....?

So now you know.

 

[Iceweasel]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports™

Rasmussen sold the polling company. What was their accuracy on the presidential race?

And this one is based on 1,000 calls. I think libs would be much more inclined to answer polling about NPR. But the bottom line is you can vote with your dollars. Pony up if you support a media outlet.

Here we go again. Every poll they don't like must be wrong.

Many polls are bullshit and it should obvious to anyone with a half a brain at this point. We voted and elections have consequences. You can snivel all you want but it changes nothing. Use your money to make your stand and leave other people to fund their own preferences. I don't want to fund leftist propaganda, period.

So we voted? So 3 million more Americans voted for the candidate who WOULD continue funding PBS than voted for the candidate who wouldn't.

There's your referendum on public broadcasting.

You are confused as always. We include all 50 states when we pick presidents. Blindly ignoring it doesn't hep your case.

 

[sartre play]

Avoid all education that does not share your view point. have spent many hours watching both republicans and democrats share there view point on PBS. and yes if there defunded will up my donation. Education we need to keep America strong.

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports[emoji769]

So....?

So now you know.

It does t mean anything to me, why does it mean anything to you?

 

[Papageorgio]

Uh oh, The Right's favorite pollster finds that most Americans favor continuing the PBS funding:

Most Want to Continue Subsidies to PBS, NPR - Rasmussen Reports[emoji769]

Rasmussen sold the polling company. What was their accuracy on the presidential race?

And this one is based on 1,000 calls. I think libs would be much more inclined to answer polling about NPR. But the bottom line is you can vote with your dollars. Pony up if you support a media outlet.

Here we go again. Every poll they don't like must be wrong.

Many polls are bullshit and it should obvious to anyone with a half a brain at this point. We voted and elections have consequences. You can snivel all you want but it changes nothing. Use your money to make your stand and leave other people to fund their own preferences. I don't want to fund leftist propaganda, period.

So we voted? So 3 million more Americans voted for the candidate who WOULD continue funding PBS than voted for the candidate who wouldn't.

There's your referendum on public broadcasting.

So people voted specifically for Clinton for specifically because of public broadcasting.

 

[conserveguy877]

PBS should really have it's own money by now.

It does. All of its money comes from the People and their decisions to fund it.

If they got all their money that way, why are we giving ours to them?

You would think after 30+ years they'd need less funding from the government.

 

[FA_Q2]

You see only the negatives of building a wall. I see a cost savings of $160 billion annually taking care of illegals....untold jobs created along with increased revenue.....reduced costs to ICE transporting illegals, court costs, food and temporary housing....so-on.

Uh huh. You got enough for a wall, you got enough for PBS. According to Carbiner, the government funds 15% of its operating costs. It's not going to break Washington to pay for one worthwhile television station.

The question is not if it will break the government. The question is if the government should be in the business of funding television in the first place and particularly if the government should be funding news.

The clear answer here is a resounding no IMHO. There is no reason for the government to be funding news or entertainment.

Or education? Do you believe we are a democratic republic? A nation whose population votes to elect their representatives fits that definition, notwithstanding the myth and meme that the United States is not a democracy.

That said, a democracy needs an informed and educated population to be and remain a nation of The People, by the People and for the people. Both NPR and PBS provide more than news and entertainment - they provide many things and most are informative, educational, substantive and relevant to the lives of voters and soon to be voters (i.e. minors).

That seems to be your perspective. And if you really believe that, they take donations.

None of that means the government itself should be funding these activities.

The POTUS installs the Board of Directors, and is limited to installing more than five (of the nine directors) from his own party. David Koch is a supporter of NOVA for the reasons I spelled out in my post above. Democracy requires a learned/informed population, and the way we are going - all partisan all of the time - is unhealthy and a threat to The Union.

Link to this. I did not find anything that states the president appoints members of the board.

If this is indeed true then PBS really is state run media - that is the very definition of such.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you sure it's "agenda" and not just nostaglia for the good ole days when leftists were liberals and actually stood for stuff and changed the world???

It appeals to people over 50. That's their demographic. And I'd rather be stuck in the 60's on PBS than watch a History Channel where every other show is about Hiltler and WW2.

Fine, the you pay for PBS. No one is forced to pay for the History Channel if they don't want it.

Uh.. Comcast doesn't give me a choice either. I have to pay for women's channels, religious channels, gay channels, hispanic language channels. If youre THAT pro-choice, you should probably go off the grid entirely..

Comcast is a government protected monopoly. One of the conditions the government imposed for granting that monopoly was the requirement to carry a lot of channels that only a small percentage of the population actually watches. Don't blame free enterprise for that.

You're saying that just because some channels are more popular, Comcast shouldn't have to air them?

Your bill is determined by how many channels Comcast offers. Because they PAY for every one of them and pass the cost on to you. Which in some cases is incestuous and self-serving because now most of the cable/streaming providers are OWNERS of some of this media. And they charge you for stuff -- you'd rather NOT pay for. Just like the Govt charges taxpayers for media that often conflicts with their political goals and views.

Comcast controls what Comcast airs. With maybe the exception of "local programming" which MIGHT be required in the license arrangements of their service area regulators.

This is false though.
PBS forces you to pay for their activities through law. That is force - you are not able to choose to not buy PBS.

Comcast is completely different. If I do not want to pay for Comcast I simply do not. I did not have a cable provider for over a decade. There was no one charging me for channels that I did not want. Had I chose to become a Comcast customer, they would still not be charging me for a product I did not want. The channels come in packages, yes, but I as a willing customer make the call as to weather or not the content I do want to watch is worth the price that I must pay to get it.

You may want to pay less for that content (we all want to pay less for everything) but that does not change the fact that the content is delivered and paid for freely.

 

[FA_Q2]

I want to know the name of the idiot who encouraged you to believe that whatever passes through your tiny skull is relevant..

Seriously? The left "neutralized" the media long ago by buying it and they've been feeding us crap for the last 20 years.

Link?

At one time I would have agreed that the media was center left. about two years ago looked up ownership of all main TV media, you may be surprised to know that major media is right owned& leaning now.

The majority of newscasters and writers lean way left.

Another Article of Faith.....and TRY to pay attention......the comment related to OWNERSHIP

What makes you imagine the owners are right-wing?

DUMBEST MOFO ON THE INNERTUBES!

BRIPAT! PORK ROAST WITH EARS (ok...so they are stapled on....but still)!

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

This has nothing to do with your assertion that the media is controlled by the right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

PBS should really have it's own money by now.

It does. All of its money comes from the People and their decisions to fund it.

If they got all their money that way, why are we giving ours to them?

You would think after 30+ years they'd need less funding from the government.

They don't need any funding at all. But as long as they get it, they will lean and even promote the Democrat message.

I don't mind vote buying, as long as they are not using my money to buy those votes. When my people get into power (as they are today) I expect them to put a halt to using my tax dollars for vote buying.

It's just like what happens with these public unions. The Democrats secure unionization at the taxpayer expense, the unions collect dues, and they forward some of those dues back to the Democrat party come election time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fine, the you pay for PBS. No one is forced to pay for the History Channel if they don't want it.

Uh.. Comcast doesn't give me a choice either. I have to pay for women's channels, religious channels, gay channels, hispanic language channels. If youre THAT pro-choice, you should probably go off the grid entirely..

Comcast is a government protected monopoly. One of the conditions the government imposed for granting that monopoly was the requirement to carry a lot of channels that only a small percentage of the population actually watches. Don't blame free enterprise for that.

You're saying that just because some channels are more popular, Comcast shouldn't have to air them?

Your bill is determined by how many channels Comcast offers. Because they PAY for every one of them and pass the cost on to you. Which in some cases is incestuous and self-serving because now most of the cable/streaming providers are OWNERS of some of this media. And they charge you for stuff -- you'd rather NOT pay for. Just like the Govt charges taxpayers for media that often conflicts with their political goals and views.

Comcast controls what Comcast airs. With maybe the exception of "local programming" which MIGHT be required in the license arrangements of their service area regulators.

This is false though.
PBS forces you to pay for their activities through law. That is force - you are not able to choose to not buy PBS.

Comcast is completely different. If I do not want to pay for Comcast I simply do not. I did not have a cable provider for over a decade. There was no one charging me for channels that I did not want. Had I chose to become a Comcast customer, they would still not be charging me for a product I did not want. The channels come in packages, yes, but I as a willing customer make the call as to weather or not the content I do want to watch is worth the price that I must pay to get it.

You may want to pay less for that content (we all want to pay less for everything) but that does not change the fact that the content is delivered and paid for freely.

Comcast and other systems providers are given monopoly power and a chain of regulation that stretches from DC down to Topeka. And they are all merging/acquiring primary rights to material streams from the entertainment/news side. So --- there IS force when govt sanctions service areas and rules.

HOWEVER -- the advent of streamers on the Web, and other services move FASTER than the bureaucracy ever could -- and we DEPEND on that freedom now to actually have choices. It was never a choice for me to go "off grid" and lose complete touch with pop culture, college football, or what the media was up to. It's part of understanding the socio-political environment. And it makes me a better "negotiator" between the warring sides to sample ALL of that.

 

[Don Foreskeen]

Every wanna-be despot MUST have an enemy....For Mussolini it was the communists and socialists; for Hitler it was those Jewish bankers....and for Trump it will be that evil media (except for FOX, Breibart and Daily Caller, of course.)

Yep, for Trump it's the master propagandists and criminals, in short people like Mussolini, Hitler and so on. An enemy we should all unite to fight against.

That sounds like anarquist talk comrade.

 

[FA_Q2]

Uh.. Comcast doesn't give me a choice either. I have to pay for women's channels, religious channels, gay channels, hispanic language channels. If youre THAT pro-choice, you should probably go off the grid entirely..

Comcast is a government protected monopoly. One of the conditions the government imposed for granting that monopoly was the requirement to carry a lot of channels that only a small percentage of the population actually watches. Don't blame free enterprise for that.

You're saying that just because some channels are more popular, Comcast shouldn't have to air them?

Your bill is determined by how many channels Comcast offers. Because they PAY for every one of them and pass the cost on to you. Which in some cases is incestuous and self-serving because now most of the cable/streaming providers are OWNERS of some of this media. And they charge you for stuff -- you'd rather NOT pay for. Just like the Govt charges taxpayers for media that often conflicts with their political goals and views.

Comcast controls what Comcast airs. With maybe the exception of "local programming" which MIGHT be required in the license arrangements of their service area regulators.

This is false though.
PBS forces you to pay for their activities through law. That is force - you are not able to choose to not buy PBS.

Comcast is completely different. If I do not want to pay for Comcast I simply do not. I did not have a cable provider for over a decade. There was no one charging me for channels that I did not want. Had I chose to become a Comcast customer, they would still not be charging me for a product I did not want. The channels come in packages, yes, but I as a willing customer make the call as to weather or not the content I do want to watch is worth the price that I must pay to get it.

You may want to pay less for that content (we all want to pay less for everything) but that does not change the fact that the content is delivered and paid for freely.

Comcast and other systems providers are given monopoly power and a chain of regulation that stretches from DC down to Topeka. And they are all merging/acquiring primary rights to material streams from the entertainment/news side. So --- there IS force when govt sanctions service areas and rules.

HOWEVER -- the advent of streamers on the Web, and other services move FASTER than the bureaucracy ever could -- and we DEPEND on that freedom now to actually have choices. It was never a choice for me to go "off grid" and lose complete touch with pop culture, college football, or what the media was up to. It's part of understanding the socio-political environment. And it makes me a better "negotiator" between the warring sides to sample ALL of that.

Well, sure to an extent. There is, of course, an issue with monopolization of services that involves some level of forcing you into an all or nothing agreement. That, however, is no longer the case. Comcast does not have a real monopoly anywhere. Here they have the government monopoly over the cable lines to my house so that I must use Comcast if I want to use those cable lines. That does not force me to use them though considering I can buy my internet from a myriad of different companies, my TV service though Direct TV, Netflix, Hulu and many others. Before those other sources became widespread you might have a point. The content that you just pointed out is available all online without ever having to come close to Comcast as a customer. Ergo, the 'force' simply does not exist. All that you are forced to do is accept what Comcast is willing to provide at the price point they have determined is best for their company IF you are willing to pay it freely.

Of course, the issue is more complex than that as well because the governmental monopoly that Comcast has over many areas is not cut and dry. The government has determined, in order to actually allow competition, that land lines, like the physical cable that goes to my home, be open to multiple competitors - not just a single company. Of course that allows the market to readily compete. Unfortunately, it also makes installing that line pointless and unprofitable for any company to do. That is where Comcast gets it's monopoly - they lay the line for exclusive rights to it for a period of time. Without the government the picture would honestly be very similar except whoever laid the line to your property would have exclusive rights to it forever.

 

[flacaltenn]

Comcast is a government protected monopoly. One of the conditions the government imposed for granting that monopoly was the requirement to carry a lot of channels that only a small percentage of the population actually watches. Don't blame free enterprise for that.

You're saying that just because some channels are more popular, Comcast shouldn't have to air them?

Your bill is determined by how many channels Comcast offers. Because they PAY for every one of them and pass the cost on to you. Which in some cases is incestuous and self-serving because now most of the cable/streaming providers are OWNERS of some of this media. And they charge you for stuff -- you'd rather NOT pay for. Just like the Govt charges taxpayers for media that often conflicts with their political goals and views.

Comcast controls what Comcast airs. With maybe the exception of "local programming" which MIGHT be required in the license arrangements of their service area regulators.

This is false though.
PBS forces you to pay for their activities through law. That is force - you are not able to choose to not buy PBS.

Comcast is completely different. If I do not want to pay for Comcast I simply do not. I did not have a cable provider for over a decade. There was no one charging me for channels that I did not want. Had I chose to become a Comcast customer, they would still not be charging me for a product I did not want. The channels come in packages, yes, but I as a willing customer make the call as to weather or not the content I do want to watch is worth the price that I must pay to get it.

You may want to pay less for that content (we all want to pay less for everything) but that does not change the fact that the content is delivered and paid for freely.

Comcast and other systems providers are given monopoly power and a chain of regulation that stretches from DC down to Topeka. And they are all merging/acquiring primary rights to material streams from the entertainment/news side. So --- there IS force when govt sanctions service areas and rules.

HOWEVER -- the advent of streamers on the Web, and other services move FASTER than the bureaucracy ever could -- and we DEPEND on that freedom now to actually have choices. It was never a choice for me to go "off grid" and lose complete touch with pop culture, college football, or what the media was up to. It's part of understanding the socio-political environment. And it makes me a better "negotiator" between the warring sides to sample ALL of that.

Well, sure to an extent. There is, of course, an issue with monopolization of services that involves some level of forcing you into an all or nothing agreement. That, however, is no longer the case. Comcast does not have a real monopoly anywhere. Here they have the government monopoly over the cable lines to my house so that I must use Comcast if I want to use those cable lines. That does not force me to use them though considering I can buy my internet from a myriad of different companies, my TV service though Direct TV, Netflix, Hulu and many others. Before those other sources became widespread you might have a point. The content that you just pointed out is available all online without ever having to come close to Comcast as a customer. Ergo, the 'force' simply does not exist. All that you are forced to do is accept what Comcast is willing to provide at the price point they have determined is best for their company IF you are willing to pay it freely.

Of course, the issue is more complex than that as well because the governmental monopoly that Comcast has over many areas is not cut and dry. The government has determined, in order to actually allow competition, that land lines, like the physical cable that goes to my home, be open to multiple competitors - not just a single company. Of course that allows the market to readily compete. Unfortunately, it also makes installing that line pointless and unprofitable for any company to do. That is where Comcast gets it's monopoly - they lay the line for exclusive rights to it for a period of time. Without the government the picture would honestly be very similar except whoever laid the line to your property would have exclusive rights to it forever.

The only sources that have BROAD coverage of unique material are the Big cable/Sat guys. Without them, you can be a "resistance fighter" on the Web -- but you're gonna be dealing with 3 or 5 providers instead of one to get what you want. I already will not allow ANYTHING from ATT in my home or life. And I have a hill in back of tthe house with a high wood line that blocks satellite. So I'm stranded.

Point is in regard to NPR/PBS --- we're being forced to pay for stuff that largely ALREADY on the market. Govt funds COMPETING with existing players. If they were truly unique -- or innovative --- I'd soften up a bit. And the "market" has it's own "coercion" problems. LARGELY exacerbated by govt.

Would you support using the PBS/NPT funding to distribute more broadly to new INNOVATIVE web based sources of information and entertainment in the form of temporary grants??? That's the real test of what role (if any) the govt should play in supporting "new" markets...

 

[FA_Q2]

You're saying that just because some channels are more popular, Comcast shouldn't have to air them?

Your bill is determined by how many channels Comcast offers. Because they PAY for every one of them and pass the cost on to you. Which in some cases is incestuous and self-serving because now most of the cable/streaming providers are OWNERS of some of this media. And they charge you for stuff -- you'd rather NOT pay for. Just like the Govt charges taxpayers for media that often conflicts with their political goals and views.

Comcast controls what Comcast airs. With maybe the exception of "local programming" which MIGHT be required in the license arrangements of their service area regulators.

This is false though.
PBS forces you to pay for their activities through law. That is force - you are not able to choose to not buy PBS.

Comcast is completely different. If I do not want to pay for Comcast I simply do not. I did not have a cable provider for over a decade. There was no one charging me for channels that I did not want. Had I chose to become a Comcast customer, they would still not be charging me for a product I did not want. The channels come in packages, yes, but I as a willing customer make the call as to weather or not the content I do want to watch is worth the price that I must pay to get it.

You may want to pay less for that content (we all want to pay less for everything) but that does not change the fact that the content is delivered and paid for freely.

Comcast and other systems providers are given monopoly power and a chain of regulation that stretches from DC down to Topeka. And they are all merging/acquiring primary rights to material streams from the entertainment/news side. So --- there IS force when govt sanctions service areas and rules.

HOWEVER -- the advent of streamers on the Web, and other services move FASTER than the bureaucracy ever could -- and we DEPEND on that freedom now to actually have choices. It was never a choice for me to go "off grid" and lose complete touch with pop culture, college football, or what the media was up to. It's part of understanding the socio-political environment. And it makes me a better "negotiator" between the warring sides to sample ALL of that.

Well, sure to an extent. There is, of course, an issue with monopolization of services that involves some level of forcing you into an all or nothing agreement. That, however, is no longer the case. Comcast does not have a real monopoly anywhere. Here they have the government monopoly over the cable lines to my house so that I must use Comcast if I want to use those cable lines. That does not force me to use them though considering I can buy my internet from a myriad of different companies, my TV service though Direct TV, Netflix, Hulu and many others. Before those other sources became widespread you might have a point. The content that you just pointed out is available all online without ever having to come close to Comcast as a customer. Ergo, the 'force' simply does not exist. All that you are forced to do is accept what Comcast is willing to provide at the price point they have determined is best for their company IF you are willing to pay it freely.

Of course, the issue is more complex than that as well because the governmental monopoly that Comcast has over many areas is not cut and dry. The government has determined, in order to actually allow competition, that land lines, like the physical cable that goes to my home, be open to multiple competitors - not just a single company. Of course that allows the market to readily compete. Unfortunately, it also makes installing that line pointless and unprofitable for any company to do. That is where Comcast gets it's monopoly - they lay the line for exclusive rights to it for a period of time. Without the government the picture would honestly be very similar except whoever laid the line to your property would have exclusive rights to it forever.

The only sources that have BROAD coverage of unique material are the Big cable/Sat guys. Without them, you can be a "resistance fighter" on the Web -- but you're gonna be dealing with 3 or 5 providers instead of one to get what you want. I already will not allow ANYTHING from ATT in my home or life. And I have a hill in back of tthe house with a high wood line that blocks satellite. So I'm stranded.

Point is in regard to NPR/PBS --- we're being forced to pay for stuff that largely ALREADY on the market. Govt funds COMPETING with existing players. If they were truly unique -- or innovative --- I'd soften up a bit. And the "market" has it's own "coercion" problems. LARGELY exacerbated by govt.

Would you support using the PBS/NPT funding to distribute more broadly to new INNOVATIVE web based sources of information and entertainment in the form of temporary grants??? That's the real test of what role (if any) the govt should play in supporting "new" markets...

Not really. In general, I do not want government funds supporting any commercial activity and the net is not in need of funding at all. The innovations and product are being brought to market without almost not government involvement and that is a good thing. One of the more interesting results of the internet is the wealth of products/services that are made available without funding at all. It is amazing what a teenager with a camera and a computer can accomplish these days.

I support, as I have said in other threads, government advancing actual research.

 

[NCC1701]

Avoid all education that does not share your view point. have spent many hours watching both republicans and democrats share there view point on PBS. and yes if there defunded will up my donation. Education we need to keep America strong.

you mean indoctrination, you want me to fund your propaganda ministry, **** off liberal