Take Money Out Of Television

[Flanders]

Democrats, never stop railing against Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil, and the big insurance companies they made bigger with the Affordable Care Act, but you will never hear a Democrat, or a media mouth, say a true word about big media’s source of revenue.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission drove Hillary Clinton & Company up the wall. Before Citizens United Democrats never complained about money in politics when the money was coming from teachers’ unions, civil servant unions, private sector unions, and entertainment industry parasites who got rich on TAX DOLLAR subsidies and tax breaks. Before and after Citizens United not one Democrat, or their television mouthpieces, ever said the best way to get the money out of politics is to get TAX DOLLAR money out of television.

No establishment Republican nominee will ever get a fair shake from the media. A conservative will never make it to a nominating convention. Even if Hillary is imprisoned for treason where she belongs, even if she is hanged for treason which she deserves, television will remain her champion until the end of time, or until the end of television, whichever comes first:

There is not a finer example of the media ignoring the facts and shaping a message than what we are witnessing regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server, the classified material on that server, as well as the case of the missing emails. The media have embraced the Clinton campaign’s narrative that there is “nothing to see here,” that there wasn’t some “mishandling email controversy,” at most, or repeat Secretary Clinton’s own bogus statement, “using a personal e-mail was permissible” as “other Secretaries of State did the same thing.” Other excuses have been thrown against the wall to see if something will stick, such as, she was “trying to protect her privacy” or “she was clueless about how regular emails work on a conventional computer.”

XXXXX​

The espionage case against Alger Hiss and the case against Hillary Clinton are eerily similar. Both were long-term Democrats, former lawyers, and senior State Department officials that removed classified information “from its proper place of custody…or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.” It is an undeniable fact that both systematically transferred thousands of pieces of classified information out of the State Department’s offices at Foggy Bottom.

XXXXX​

A recent survey found that not a single member of the White House correspondent pool was a Republican. Journalists and those correspondents take their orders from senior editors and producers. When it’s 44-to-zero Republicans, the numbers are on their side and so is their ability to control and dictate the White House message and Democrat party narrative. Today, no news or story from the mainstream media can ever be trusted or considered, in the immortal words of Sergeant Joe Friday, “Just the truth, ma’am.”

June 21, 2016
The Insidious Power of the Media Disinformation Campaign for Hillary Clinton
By Mark A. Hewitt

Articles: The Insidious Power of the Media Disinformation Campaign for Hillary Clinton​

Treason aside, here are examples of the things the media lets Clinton get away with. Speaking of Donald Trump she said:

"Do We Want His Finger Anywhere Near the button?”​

​

Hillary and Obama gave Muslim psychopaths in Iran a button of their own.

Hillary trying to be funny said:

“Maybe Donald Trump is not as rich as he Claims.”​

​

Nor is Hillary as poor as she claimed. Or maybe that is her way of saying Donald Trump is as poor as she is!

Incidentally, Clinton accused Trump of looking out for Wall Street, but it is Hillary who has always been in bed with Wall Street crooks. The difference between the two is that Trump played Wall Street’s game as a private sector businessman while Hillary’s Wall Street pals enriched her, and themselves, on TAX DOLLARS.

I personally do not care how much Trump is worth, but I would like to know what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS, Bank of America, and Apollo Management. She wants Trump to tell us how much he is worth, but she will not tell us what she said to get the speaking fees Wall Street paid her.

Hillary also questioned Trump’s use of the military. Her campaign rhetoric against Trump is Democrat doublespeak for “The US military should only be used for nation-building under the watchful eye of the United Nations.”

Hillary Clinton also attacked Donald Trump over job creation. Once again, media mouths refuse to point out the obvious. Whenever Hillary talks about creating jobs she means creating more government jobs. Indeed, any job Hillary and her degenerate husband can create can only be a TAX DOLLAR job. Wind and Solar Power industries that drive manmade energy prices ever higher for every American are classic Democrat jobs designed to enrich the parasite class and punish wealth creators. Bottom line: The Clinton Foundation charity hustle is the brightest jewel among the jobs they created.

Finally, there is no better way to lower the cost of healthcare in this country than to deny tax dollars going to every healthcare entity that is traded on Wall Street directly or indirectly. Logically, insurance companies would have to separate their healthcare divisions from the rest of their revenues. So Hillary could easily prove she is not in Wall Street’s pocket with that one promise. Of course, she would have to admit that Hillarycare was the template for Obamacare.

I admit it would be more difficult than Hillary’s first love separating their woman’s healthcare business from their baby parts business. Presumably, Hillary got a lot smarter since she was first lady; nevertheless, getting it done stymies the SCOTUS, but it should be a piece of cake for the smartest woman in the world with all of that governing experience under her belt.

 

[Pogo]

TL;DR

The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage. "Money" is what television is made of and made for. Inasmuch as it's the most powerful propaganda device ever devised, and that the nature of that propaganda is advertising, it's always going to be dedicated to proliferating, prolonging and preserving exactly that status quo. There's nothing in the world "liberal" or "conservative" about it in political terms, because nobody makes money on piecemeal ideology. They make money on persuading viewers to buy stuff they don't need, which is the definition of advertising.

That's it, that's all it ever was and all it ever will be.

And to that end they will perpetuate the system as it is, and oppose any challenge to it, which in the broader picture, means "conservative". That's its nature.

You guys who still waddle around bellowing "liberal media" are living in a tinfoil world of paranoia, endlessly bleating mantras that have no basis in an attempt to find your own echo chamber. Y'all think you see a tree and are completely oblivious to the forest it stands in.

 

[Fenton Lum]

That's funny, money out of television. There were 50 some odd companies in the US media game back in the 1980's. FCC gets deregulated during the Clinton administration, and now 6 major multinational corporations preside over 90% of what americans see, hear, and read.

There's a lesson in that, a couple actually.

All you have to do it turn it off and remove it from your home. You participate in your own demise and whine for someone to come save you otherwise.

 

[Flanders]

The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.

To Pogo: I noticed that you used 192 words to say “I disagree.”

Why do you read my threads when you know that my messages encompass more than bumper sticker slogans?

All you have to do it turn it off and remove it from your home.

To Fenton Lum: For your future edification, I repeatedly said that I would throw every TV in my home out with trash were it not for my wife. She signed up for subscription TV about three years ago because it allows her to record a few entertainment shows that she enjoys. I watch TV news shows for one reason only: Analyze the government’s lies.

See this thread:

Finally, the golden age of television demands special mention:

XXXXX​

I know that the public will always fund their government’s propaganda efforts in one form or another, but does it have be for so much? If Joseph Goebbels would have had the level of funding the FCC enjoys, the Nazis would be running Europe today. (Socialists/Communists hope to eventually control the world by using many of the same techniques that Goebbels pioneered.)

An Imperial Media Mogul​

 

[Pogo]

The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.

To Pogo: I noticed that you used 192 words to say “I disagree.”

Why do you read my threads when you know that my messages encompass more than bumper sticker slogans?

All you have to do it turn it off and remove it from your home.

To Fenton Lum: For your future edification, I repeatedly said that I would throw every TV in my home out with trash were it not for my wife. She signed up for subscription TV about three years ago because it allows her to record a few entertainment shows that she enjoys. I watch TV news shows for one reason only: Analyze the government’s lies.

See this thread:

Finally, the golden age of television demands special mention:

XXXXX​

I know that the public will always fund their government’s propaganda efforts in one form or another, but does it have be for so much? If Joseph Goebbels would have had the level of funding the FCC enjoys, the Nazis would be running Europe today. (Socialists/Communists hope to eventually control the world by using many of the same techniques that Goebbels pioneered.)

An Imperial Media Mogul​

"The level of funding the FCC enjoys"????

Oh this is gonna be GOLDEN.

Do tell us what that means. Wait, lemme get settled....

OK hit it. I got my bib on.

 

[Flanders]

To Pogo: I got e-mail notification. You must have deleted the message after you posted it:

Message Canceled
The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.​

You edited “I disagree.” down to 19 words. Not bad, but not good enough for me to let you write my messages. If I did that my friends would not see the things I want to say about Hillary. Here is a bit more:

She wants Trump to tell us how much he is worth, but she will not tell us what she said to get the speaking fees Wall Street paid her.

Hillary’s surrogates got the talking points from headquarters. Democrat Brad Sherman threw in Ronald Reagan’s 2 million dollar speech in Japan. Naturally, Carol Costello could not point out that Hillary is a lying crook, while RR was not:

​

Democratic Congressman Dodges on Releasing Transcripts of Clintons’ Paid Wall Street Speeches
BY: Jack Heretik
June 22, 2016 10:34 am

Democratic Congressman Dodges on Releasing Transcripts of Clintons’ Paid Wall Street Speeches​

"The level of funding the FCC enjoys"????

Oh this is gonna be GOLDEN.

Do tell us what that means. Wait, lemme get settled....

OK hit it. I got my bib on.

To Pogo: It is self-explanatory to everyone with a brain.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.

To Pogo: I noticed that you used 192 words to say “I disagree.”

Why do you read my threads when you know that my messages encompass more than bumper sticker slogans?

All you have to do it turn it off and remove it from your home.

To Fenton Lum: For your future edification, I repeatedly said that I would throw every TV in my home out with trash were it not for my wife. She signed up for subscription TV about three years ago because it allows her to record a few entertainment shows that she enjoys. I watch TV news shows for one reason only: Analyze the government’s lies.

See this thread:

Finally, the golden age of television demands special mention:

XXXXX​

I know that the public will always fund their government’s propaganda efforts in one form or another, but does it have be for so much? If Joseph Goebbels would have had the level of funding the FCC enjoys, the Nazis would be running Europe today. (Socialists/Communists hope to eventually control the world by using many of the same techniques that Goebbels pioneered.)

An Imperial Media Mogul​

Not my problem you can't stand up to your wife, grow a sack. Or continue not to, your choice.

As I said, Clinton deregulated the FCC and now 6 major multinational corporations control 90% of what americans see, hear, and read - down from 50 some odd companies in the US media market back in the 1980s. The fact that corporate propaganda is so closely aligned with what you call "gubmint" propaganda would cause a thinking person to wonder why that might have come to pass.

Fox News and MSNBC push the same perceptual reality, and you pay attention to the propaganda willingly. You just prefer it with a certain after taste.

 

[Flanders]

you pay attention to the propaganda willingly.

To Fenton Lum: I do not. Were if not for the Internet I would not pay attention at all. Can you grasp this:

Frankly, they will never hand their microphones to serious rebuttals anymore than ‘Letters to the Editor’ published a letter that threatened a newspaper’s first loyalty whatever it happened to be. The United Nations, not this country, is television’s first loyalty.

As for me, I rebut media turd-maggots on the Internet. For many Americans, a message board is the legitimate heir to pamphlets of olde.

Media Turd-Maggots​

 

[Pogo]

To Pogo: I got e-mail notification. You must have deleted the message after you posted it:

Message Canceled
The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.
You edited “I disagree.” down to 19 words. Not bad, but not good enough for me to let you write my messages. If I did that my friends would not see the things I want to say about Hillary.

I "edited down" NOTHING. I posted a single line for the way my eyes glazed over and the endless sea of verbosity, and then decided to come back and riff on the actual TITLE. Just to give it some actual meaning from the real world, as opposed to whatever roll of tinfoil your OP was running. It's still sitting there.

To Pogo: It is self-explanatory to everyone with a brain.

In other words you don't dare take the challenge because you know you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's probably the wisest course too.

 

[Picaro]

The government already theoretically owns the airwaves, and it has publicly funded TV and radio. Either require a certain amount of air time for Federal, state, and local elections as a condition of operating such stations, or require all campaigning to take place on public stations, accessible to all citizens, and already paid for via public funding. there is no reason to allow those who raise the most money some advantage over those who raise less; it's ridiculous on the face of it to allow private media corps to make billions off of what they should be providing as a public service and condition for licensing.

 

[JoeMoma]

I looked and looked and couldn't find any damn money in my television. And I was hoping to at least find enough to buy a taco.

 

[Pogo]

The government already theoretically owns the airwaves, and it has publicly funded TV and radio. Either require a certain amount of air time for Federal, state, and local elections as a condition of operating such stations, or require all campaigning to take place on public stations, accessible to all citizens, and already paid for via public funding. there is no reason to allow those who raise the most money some advantage over those who raise less; it's ridiculous on the face of it to allow private media corps to make billions off of what they should be providing as a public service and condition for licensing.

Well your initial premise is incorrect although I like where it's going. Actually the government, right at the outset of broadcasting, declared specifically that the public owns the airwaves, in this country anyway. Not that it works like that in practice but that IS the theory. The FCC acts as a public proxy to regulate the use of these public airwaves, since they're finite. Theoretically every broadcast station has to provide a community service in, in the FCC's wording, "the public interest, convenience and necessity", and theoretically has to show both for its initial license and every periodic renewal that it's doing so. For a TV station this would entail the arcane list of the times it broadcast the farm market report or the city council meeting at 4am on a Thursday when there was the smallest chance of making money for itself on something, but also of course the smallest audience.

In practice of course, the system caved in long ago to the influence of Corporatia to the point where it feels as if commercial broadcasters, who are the absolute bottom of life's barrel of scavengers, own the airwaves, since in effect they do. The TelComm 96 act that Fenton Lum mentioned above took this festering wound and ripped the scab off in a massive corporate welfare giveaway that led to a single entity (ClearChannel) owning twelve hundred radio stations. This goes on right under the Echo-Drones' noses --- while they're busy wailing about da power of gummint, they completely turn a blind eye to the entity that runs gummint and everything else, Corporatia -- thourgh its network of Congressional bought-and-paid-for whores. IMO Bill Clinton should have been impeached for signing this disaster of a bill, along with every corporate whore in Congress who shilled for it.

A few years later the same forces tried to open the floodgates even more and the public outcry (FCC always opens a comment period before it acts) was so lopsided, something like 98% against, including unlikely allies like the Sierra Club, ACLU and the NRA all against it--- that they had to back down.

It's not the FCC doing this -- it's unbridled Corporatia, buying influence, using the FCC. That's why I called out the OP to explain what he thinks the FCC is, and why he ran away. This would be the same period by the way when FCC Commissioner Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell and living proof that talent skips a generation) uttered his infamous but candid "Mercedes divide" remark -- asked about what should happen with the "digital divide", Powell said there was a "Mercedes divide", that he doesn't have one and would like one. Well, the corporate pimps that worked to set all this up were there to make sure that happened. At the public's expense of course.

Anyway back to the post --- agreed, political debates and political discourse in general should be either readily available on public broadcasting or, this would accomplish the same thing ---- simply prohibit commercial broadcasters from running commercials during them..... as they always used to do. The idea of running advertising during something this vital to the public is not only absurd but insulting. It's also brand new. In the same way, the debates themselves ought to return to the structure it had before the 1990s when the impartial League of Women Voters ran it. That was before the Demoplican and Republicrat parties muscled in and took over the debates with the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD, also known as the Collusion of Party Duopoly) which ensures that neither party will get a question it can't handle and that any alternative third party will be shut out and shut up. Same thing --- collusion.

Advertsing mixed with politics is a direct conflict of interest. When Donald Rump speaks --- with a straight face --- about "let's see what the ratings are" in a debate he sits out, he's alluding to, in sublime ignorance, everything that is wrong with political discourse in the media. That mentality thinks that politics is nothing more than selling a fucking product. And in this it's useful to remember the definition and express purpose of advertising --- to persuade members of the public to buy something they don't need. It's a cynical worldview in which the public is reduced to "customers", rubes with some amount of money from which they can be parted with the right massaged message. Pawns and nothing more.

Which is a hell of a way to treat your own landlord.

 

[Flanders]

The title says enough. You could have stopped there instead of burying the point under three tons of verbage.

To Pogo: My, my aren’t you long-winded —— and all under my title!

That's why I called out the OP to explain what he thinks the FCC is, and why he ran away. This would be the same period by the way when FCC Commissioner Michael Powell

To Pogo: Do more research:

The only plan hatched by the FCC was the one to shore up the public’s sagging belief in the myth that says the media and the government are mortal enemies. Mortal enemies has not been true through most of the last century when print was the only press. Mortal enemies was never true for one second throughout the decades of television’s reign over government propaganda. In fact, wags rightly call the FCC the Ministry of Propaganda.

Let’s go back to 2002 for a second. That’s when the Federal Communications Commission first announced that all TV sets must include digital tuners by the year 2007. Since then broadcasters returned their analog spectrum to the government. They now transmit digitally. Then-FCC chairman Michael Powell said:

This is not market-oriented, this is industrial policy, voted on by the consumers' representatives in Congress.

Oh yeah, members of Congress representing consumers. If they did it was the first and last time in history.

Con Job Gone Sour​

 

[Pogo]

The only plan hatched by the FCC was the one to shore up the public’s sagging belief in the myth that says the media and the government are mortal enemies. Mortal enemies has not been true through most of the last century when print was the only press. Mortal enemies was never true for one second throughout the decades of television’s reign over government propaganda. In fact, wags rightly call the FCC the Ministry of Propaganda.

The FCC does not take any stance, policy or action on "enemies" or "perceptions" or any such value judgments at all.
It never has trafficked in such, nor would it be possible or have a point.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.

et’s go back to 2002 for a second. That’s when the Federal Communications Commission first announced that all TV sets must include digital tuners by the year 2007. Since then broadcasters returned their analog spectrum to the government. They now transmit digitally. Then-FCC chairman Michael Powell said:

This is not market-oriented, this is industrial policy, voted on by the consumers' representatives in Congress.

Oh yeah, members of Congress representing consumers. If they did it was the first and last time in history.

Con Job Gone Sour

So you're just affirming what I laid out in post 12 --- which in turn directly and decisively addresses the topic title.
All righty then. My work is done. Another thread resuscitated into the world of legitimacy.

I should just wear an EMT uniform for what I do around here.

 

[Flanders]

The FCC does not take any stance, policy or action on "enemies" or "perceptions" or any such value judgments at all.
It never has trafficked in such, nor would it be possible or have a point.

Go ahead --- try to prove me wrong.

To Pogo: You are always either wrong, or half-ass as you are now:

FACT: The airwaves belong to the advertising industry. The cat was out of the bag when the government did away with analog television transmissions. Americans who supposedly “owned” the airwaves did not get a vote when hundreds of new advertising platforms were created by digital transmissions. The switch going from analog to digital was akin to a one-page newspaper increasing its size to ten pages for the sole purpose of creating more advertising space.

The only way to rein in offensive words and pictures on television is to eliminate the tax deduction for advertising. That is not going to happen because product and service advertising pays for every minute of political propaganda filth.

I doubt if there is a way to eliminate tax dollar political propaganda without triggering the anger of product and service advertisers. As far as I am concerned to hell with them. They always knew that their tax deductions paid for every bit of the garbage television spewed on this country from the beginning. So I repeat: To hell with them.

No one (except me) is calling for the elimination of political propaganda. Indeed, television news is out-and-out political propaganda, while the content in entertainment shows contain a liberal dose of liberalism.

Finally, advertising on the Internet is also a tax deduction. On the plus side, the government and TV propagandists have been burning the midnight oil for at least two decades trying to come up with a way to censor free speech on the Internet without damaging television’s income. Basically, if tax deductible advertising is eliminated to get at the Internet television will die the death of a thousand cuts while freedom of speech on the Internet grows stronger.

Reining In Political Filth​

 

[Pogo]

FACT: The airwaves belong to the advertising industry. The cat was out of the bag when the government did away with analog television transmissions. Americans who supposedly “owned” the airwaves did not get a vote when hundreds of new advertising platforms were created by digital transmissions. The switch going from analog to digital was akin to a one-page newspaper increasing its size to ten pages for the sole purpose of creating more advertising space.

Wrong.

Number one, again as I said in post 12 officially the airwaves belong to the public. In practice yes I'd agree they belong to advertising, but officially that's our land. Land which I might add we lease to advertisers for free. How'd ya like to have your town just give you a storefront for free, for a simple application?

Number two, advertising is advertising is advertising --- THAT DOESN'T CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT FREQUENCY IT APPEARS ON. Your argument here is absurd. Advertising isn't mandated by the FCC. It's mined by opportunists in the private sector.

And number three, yes we actually do get a vote. Everything FCC does is subject to a considerable public comment period.

The only way to rein in offensive words and pictures on television is to eliminate the tax deduction for advertising. That is not going to happen because product and service advertising pays for every minute of political propaganda filth.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Aside from the offensiveness of advertising itself, it has nothing to do with standards of what constitutes "offensive words and pictures".

No one (except me) is calling for the elimination of political propaganda. Indeed, television news is out-and-out political propaganda, while the content in entertainment shows contain a liberal dose of liberalism.

Again again again, for you tinfoilers ---- nobody in the world of broadcasting makes money on pushing a political ideology. There's no ROI on that, anywhere. If you push political position X, and 42% of people buy in, and 58% of people reject it, ZERO percent of those people return any kind of profit. And commercial enterprise is entirely about profit. This paranoia fantasy of "boo hoo, the mean ol' media is against us" is just that, a fantasy that completely ignores how it all works. Commercial media, by definition, makes its money from advertising, which it develops by maximizing attention, which in the industry is called "ratings". Attention has nothing to do with political ideologies. You can grab that with controversy, outrage, scandal, fires, disasters, naked people on an island, fake wrestling, paternity tests on stage, voyeur cams attached to police, any number of ways that have ZZZZZZERO to do with any political ideology. That's not the point, at all. And as long as you think that IS the point you play right into their hands.

 

[Flanders]

we lease to advertisers for free.

To Pogo: Since I am not one of your we who do you mean by “we”?

How'd ya like to have your town just give you a storefront for free, for a simple application?

To Pogo: Property taxes are paid by the individuals who own the land. Tax deductible advertising dollars is a tax that everybody is forced to pay. Try to understand the difference.

Advertising isn't mandated by the FCC.

To Pogo: Tax deductible advertising dollars are regulated by the FCC —— and protected by the IRS —— not to mention protected by Congress and the federal courts.

It's mined by opportunists in the private sector.

To Pogo: Socialists are the only opportunists using advertising dollars to pay for promoting their ideology. There would still be product advertising without the advertising tax deduction paying for their propaganda.

And number three, yes we actually do get a vote. Everything FCC does is subject to a considerable public comment period.

To Pogo: You really are a government suck-ass! Government parasites get a vote —— the rest of us only comment. Prove your horseshit by naming one other federal bureaucracy where the public votes on anything bureaucrats do.

nobody in the world of broadcasting makes money on pushing a political ideology.

To Pogo: If you do not work for the government, you are certainly a professional government ass-kisser. Apparently you never heard about media’s liberal bias, or the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) that is still implemented by FOX network’s version.

And exactly what do you think the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does with all of those tax deductible dollars the CPB gets from charitable trusts, etc., in addition to tax dollars that everybody pays whether or not they agree with the garbage that is sent out over the airwaves?

NOTE: Here is the CPB in action:

Years ago I read that merchandising Big Bird of Sesame Street fame earns more money than all of the teams in the National Hockey League combined. The Bird’s franchise owners keep that money, but use the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (tax dollars) to advertise their product.

Federal Marble Orchard

If you insist on cluttering up my threads with your government plugs, make an effort to say something that passes for an understanding of the topics you comment on.

 

[Pogo]

we lease to advertisers for free.

To Pogo: Since I am not one of your we who do you mean by “we”?

"We" = We the People. The citizenry.

How'd ya like to have your town just give you a storefront for free, for a simple application?

To Pogo: Property taxes are paid by the individuals who own the land. Tax deductible advertising dollars is a tax that everybody is forced to pay. Try to understand the difference.

​

Forget it. The analogy sailed over your head.

Advertising isn't mandated by the FCC.

To Pogo: Tax deductible advertising dollars are regulated by the FCC —— and protected by the IRS —— not to mention protected by Congress and the federal courts.

Bullshit. The FCC has nothing to do with "advertising dollars" or regulation thereof. That is entirely the business of the broadcaster.

The only relationship FCC has with ad revenue is that a noncommercial licensee may not engage in it.

You don't have the slightest first clue what you're babbling about here. I just knew this was gonna be fun.

It's mined by opportunists in the private sector.

To Pogo: Socialists are the only opportunists using advertising dollars to pay for promoting their ideology. There would still be product advertising without the advertising tax deduction paying for their propaganda.

Bullshit. Adertising has nothing to do with "socialism", which is a governmental structure. It does however have to do with capitalism. Clearly this one's sailing over your head as well.

And number three, yes we actually do get a vote. Everything FCC does is subject to a considerable public comment period.

To Pogo: You really are a government suck-ass! Government parasites get a vote —— the rest of us only comment. Prove your horseshit by naming one other federal bureaucracy where the public votes on anything bureaucrats do.

Actually I'm a broadcaster who's dealt with the FCC directly and indirectly on many levels. So throw your petulant little child-fits all you like, doesn't change the fact that I know this topic and you don't.

And quit with the constant redundant salutations. Anyone who can read can also see what you're quoting. DUH.

nobody in the world of broadcasting makes money on pushing a political ideology.

To Pogo: If you do not work for the government, you are certainly a professional government ass-kisser. Apparently you never heard about media’s liberal bias, or the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987) that is still implemented by FOX network’s version.

I not only "heard of" the Fairness Doctrine, I worked under it HAD TO understand what it meant in order to do my job, directed workplace policies regarding it, and continued working after it went away. Apparently you missed the first five thousand times I posted on this but suffice to say if you try to challenge me on this I won't hesitate to embarrass you for your ignorance.

Try me.

There is no "Fairness Doctrine implemented by the Fox network's version" ---- whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

And exactly what do you think the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does with all of those tax deductible dollars the CPB gets from charitable trusts, etc., in addition to tax dollars that everybody pays whether or not they agree with the garbage that is sent out over the airwaves?

Actually I know exactly what that funding goes to, as I've been through the entire application process. And I mean every line, every entry. See, I'm not pulling this either out of my ass or out of the ass of some blog I found that looks like it says what I'd like it to say --- I come from the real world.

The CPB membership app I worked on provided infrastructure for a station to improve its coverage -- no small expense since a simple broadcast antenna alone --- apart from everything else involved --- is a five-figure investment. That's just for starters. They gave us that status because we had a track record of providing a community service that did not exist outside what we were doing, but had limitations on our own stagnating facilities.

CPB facilitates a station like KILI in Porcupine South Dakota to exist as a voice for the Lakota community there, for another example. Facilities that specifically are *NOT* dependent on commercial advertising ---- WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL POINT HERE.

What CPB does *not* do is influence, litmus-test, or regulate in any fashion whatsoever, what the content of any broadcast outlet will be. Does not exist. As I said --- I've been through the entire process. Every line.

NOTE: Here is the CPB in action:

Years ago I read that merchandising Big Bird of Sesame Street fame earns more money than all of the teams in the National Hockey League combined. The Bird’s franchise owners keep that money, but use the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (tax dollars) to advertise their product.

Federal Marble Orchard

If you insist on cluttering up my threads with your government plugs, make an effort to say something that passes for an understanding of the topics you comment on.

No, that's a link to your own thread, one which apparently doesn't even know the difference between CPB (which is related to government) and NPR (which is not). I'm sure that's gonna be fun to deconstruct for its ignorance too. If I'm bored I'll go git it.

And no Sparky, "years ago I read..." does not count as making a valid point.

Look, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about this field, Goober.
You don't want the facts? Don't start the topic.

 

[Flanders]

Non-profit my ass. They are money-makers for the parasites who work there:

The Herald claimed that the "executives were raking in upwards of $200,000 a year while toiling in the lap of a luxurious $85 million multimedia palace dubbed the 'Taj Mahal.'" Their headquarters contained a 200-seat amphitheater, a state-of-the-art recording studio, a Hamburg-Steinway grand piano, environmentally friendly dual-flush toilets, and waterless urinals. The Herald reported that WGBH's CEO, Jonathan Abbott, received $425,000 a year.​

XXXXX​

National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are not-for-profit organizations.​

And exactly what do you think the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does with all of those tax deductible dollars the CPB gets from charitable trusts, etc., in addition to tax dollars that everybody pays whether or not they agree with the garbage that is sent out over the airwaves?

Eliminate the tax deduction if you want to hear screaming:

This was also the view of NPR's former senior vice president for fundraising, Ron Schiller. He told a couple of undercover journalists that "NPR would be better off in the long run without federal funding."

XXXXX​

NPR reportedly gets only about 10% of its budget from the federal government. However, if the network's people are informed that the government is going to defund them, you will hear a sound similar to what you will hear if you throw a box of day-old donuts into a pen of piglets.​

November 29, 2016
Guess how much a CEO at PBS makes
By John Dietrich

Blog: Guess how much a CEO at PBS makes​

 

[Flanders]

National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are not-for-profit organizations.

Non-profit my ass. They are money-makers for the parasites who work there:

I consider myself well-informed about the NPR and CPB. In all the years I posted info about two major parasite institutions, I do not know how I missed hearing about this terrible women and her track record:

http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/vadum122516.jpg

The fossilized crypt-keeper of taxpayer-funded NPR, a pillar of the left-wing media establishment, is beloved by wrong-thinking people across the fruited plain.​

NPR artifact Diane Rehm starved husband to death, bored millions into comas, mercifully retires
By Matthew Vadum
December 25, 2016

NPR artifact Diane Rehm starved husband to death, bored millions into comas, mercifully retires​