PBS undergoing hostile makeover
The Republican chairman running PBS is tired of his channel airing comments that criticize anything to do with Republicans or conservative agendas. So he's putting an end to it.
Last November, Mr. Tomlinson told members of PBS and other public TV stations "they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." He claims the comment was in jest. Uh-huh. Much truth is told in jest.
Tomlinson was public about his vehemence for the PBS show "Now with Bill Moyers," essentially saying Moyers wasn't fair and balanced. (Which as we know, to Republicans means "all-GOP all the time.") And we saw what happened to Moyers: he's gone.
Tomlinson's GOP buddies are still sore over a PBS show where a bunny rabbit visited some gay people. If, as Tomlinson claims, the programming is to be "objective" shouldn't this be exactly what he wants? These people are real, they exist in society. It would be the reverse of objectivity to pretend they don't exist.
Ah, we all know what's going on. More right-wing control of the media. Squelch anything but the GOP agenda. All is well here in Orwell's Oceana.
posted by Daniel Preece @ 7:16 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
If PBS doesn't like government control they should get off the public dole and compete like the other networks do with the advertising model. Why should my tax dollars be spent to prop up and promote the Republicans agenda? PBS should be independent.
At one time there was a need for PBS to present an opposing view to conteract the networks, but with the zillion sources of news and information available today, PBS's current model is in need of retirement
While there is definitely a "zillion sources" out there today, they're not video in nature. And Americans still rely way too much on television.
Right now, all those channels are still owned by a handful of megacorporations--each of which are now very active in the political arena. And they are fairly openly one-sided (being corporations, they want more laws in their favor, so they're eager to favor the GOP).
What's more, just about anything passes for "news" these days. PBS, for what it's worth, still has some idea of what real news and real journalism is supposed to look like.
The solution isn't abandoning PBS. It's demanding the people who run PBS to neither push nor reveal any personal political agendas.
I see two issues here. One is whether PBS should exist regardless of its source of funding, and the other is what its funding source should be.
Speaking as one taxpayer, I can think of worse things for my tax dollars to go to than PBS. In principle, I can respect the argument that perhaps PBS should be off the public dole. But I would urge Anonymous to consider how little money it actually is. I don’t have a figure handy, but I think the entire annual budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting might come to a few dollars per taxpayer.
However, regardless of the source of funding, I disagree that PBS is unnecessary as a news source because of the “zillions of channels”. Those zillions of channels are owned by fewer and fewer corporations. In an age where news organizations have become more bottom-line than in the past, it’s even more important now to have a source of news funded independently of corporate advertising.
Location of the hostage. End of Part 2 32001 Copyright, Don Winslow asstr.
stories about spanking
spanking fetish stories
young boys boner sex stories
animal sex stories uk
adult interacial rape stories
Location of the hostage. End of Part 2 32001 Copyright, Don Winslow asstr.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home