Bill Moyers Exposes The System For What It Is

[Markle]

right on que the right wing subhuman goyah come out in force

 

[dblack]

Bill Moyers is just another two-faced, self-aggrandizing media hack, so why would anybody care about his dishonest spin on anything?

??? Why do you say that?

 

[whitehall]

The emergence of fair and balanced networks and talk radio and the internet pushed the former left wing star news analyst Moyers into a 2nd rate network and the angry pompous ass can't seem to bow out gracefully in his old age.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Bill Moyers is just another two-faced, self-aggrandizing media hack, so why would anybody care about his dishonest spin on anything?

Dishonest huh... so you like entrenched big gummint and mass apologist media, which is what he's railing against? Interesting. A fan of the Same Old Thing. How quaint.

Here it is embedded ---

​

It may very well come to mobs descending on Washington and tearing it apart with their bare hands. A said before if Trump were an adult and not a bloviating self-server I would be supporting him with great fervor. We do need to destroy the political class as it is and start from scratch again. We need people like Perot, Sanders, and Trump (without the bluster and with a little dignity) to be voted into power and actually change the culture in DC and all the state houses around the country, an even harder job.

 

[Markle]

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?

 

[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".

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.

 

[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

 

[Markle]

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

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.

 

[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".

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.

 

[Markle]

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

 

[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".

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

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.

 

[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".

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...

 

[Markle]

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.

In the above post, I proved your allegation that neither NPR or PBS have anything to do with government. As my good friend saw, taxpayers provide 20% of their total funding. How is that any different from your erroneous "Sugar Daddy" example?

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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[Markle]

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

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

 

[Markle]

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!

 

[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!

You sound like you consulted with your flying magical grandpa.

 

[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".




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

 

[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.

And that's why no one takes that post seriously. It's fallacious.

 

[Political Junky]

Bill Moyers is just another two-faced, self-aggrandizing media hack, so why would anybody care about his dishonest spin on anything?

Dishonest huh... so you like entrenched big gummint and mass apologist media, which is what he's railing against? Interesting. A fan of the Same Old Thing. How quaint.

Here it is embedded ---

​

Bingo