| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2005 03:39:26 AM |
| Object: |
Jihad against PBS |
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
I was watching the PBS science program "Nova" the other night and
spotted the liberal bias right away. I knew it would be there because
Ken Tomlinson, the Bush-appointed chairman of the board of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), says the network is riddled
with leftist leanings. Sure enough, in a program on tsunamis and what
causes them, the show blamed it on shifting tectonic plates in the
earth's surface. Then the graphic shows these two tectonic plates
grinding against each other -- suddenly, the one on the left sort of
falls down, and the big, aggressive plate on the right jumps on top of
it, causing a killer tsunami. See? Wouldn't have happened on Fox.
I have listened patiently to years of right-wing bull about liberal bias
in the media, but let us be perfectly clear about what is happening at
PBS. Big Bird is not in favor of affirmative action. Bert and Ernie are
not gay. Miss Piggy is not a feminist. "The Three Tenors," "Antiques
Roadshow," "Masterpiece Theater," "Wall Street Week" and nature programs
do not have a political agenda. "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" is biased
in favor of boring, old, white guys who appear on painfully
well-balanced panels. "Washington Week in Review" is a showcase for
"Inside the Beltway," conventional wisdom, power-parroting,
political-geekhead, Establishment journalism -- there is nothing liberal
about it.
But there is a plot to politicize public broadcasting. It is plain as a
pikestaff, and it is coming from the Right. It is obvious, undeniable
and happening right now. The Bush administration is introducing a
political agenda to public broadcasting. They are using the lame pretext
that PBS is somehow liberal to justify it into a propaganda organ for
the government. That is precisely what the board of CPB was set up to
prevent 40 years ago; it is there to be a firewall between public
broadcasting and political pressure. Ken Tomlinson is a disgrace to the
purpose of that board, he has a political agenda and is engaging in a
raw display of ideological bullying. The right-wingers in the House of
Representatives are backing his power play with a threat to cut off
funding for PBS entirely.
Tomlinson's claim of liberal bias at PBS is based on the program "NOW
with Bill Moyers," even though Moyers' program frequently featured
guests on the Right. Moyers is now retired, and the show has been cut to
half an hour. Tomlinson "balanced" it with a weekly program by the
editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal, who don't even bother to
pretend to be objective: They are right-wing beyond argument. Tomlinson
actually spent $10,000 of the taxpayers' money to pay some consultant to
find bias in Moyers' program but has never released the results of that
"study."
Tomlinson, himself a former head of Voice of America in the Reagan
administration and a retired editor Reader's Digest, has been an active
right-winger since I first met him in 1974. He is also the
Bush-appointed chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which
oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other official arms
of the government's propaganda machine. He is a Bush information
apparatchik. It is quite clear he believes PBS and NPR should also
function as cheerleaders for the government.
His choice for president of the CPB is Patricia Harrison, who is such a
Republican activist she was elected co-chair of the Republican National
Committee, where she was particularly noted for attacking Hillary
Clinton. This is beyond open partisanship. Harrison is currently at
State, where she oversees that department's propaganda arm, including
the production "news segments" openly intended to support Bush
administration policy. She has testified before Congress about the value
of such "news segments" in swaying public opinion.
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of
CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably
Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the
malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift
of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as
people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch
even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their
inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how
would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want
her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should
she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of
public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth
or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that
the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to
challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
---
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
27 Jun 2005 11:30:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
[]
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of
CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably
Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the
malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift
of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as
people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch
even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their
inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how
would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want
her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should
she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of
public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth
or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that
the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to
challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
They've destroyed the country and are working on wrecking the planet
as well. What's another arm of the broadcasting arena? There isn't a
news source in the USA that's worth a *****.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
28 Jun 2005 04:12:33 AM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
Years ago I watched a Bill Moyer's documentary tracing the takeover of the
Southern Baptist Convention by Baptist extremists. Moyer's, being a devout
Baptist himself, was clearly sickened by what he was seeing take place
within his beloved denomination. Yet showed remarkable restraint (to my
mind) in reporting on it. That to me typified PBS television. It can't be
touched here in the states. Yet the right-wingers forget about "Firing
Line" with William F. Buckley and all the talk shows that feature prominent
ultra-conservatives sitting toe-to-toe with the Liberals and going at it
with little in the way of censorship. OK savage PBS for being too
one-sided. But how about giving an Atheist well-versed in biblical matters
equal time (like say in a debate) on, say, the Christian Broadcasting
Network? Those people have it waaay too one-sided. (Oh! Guess who would
lose the debate?)
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
28 Jun 2005 04:23:13 AM |
|
|
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:11c255r7fad2s4f@corp.supernews.com...
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com...
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
Years ago I watched a Bill Moyer's documentary tracing the takeover of the
Southern Baptist Convention by Baptist extremists. Moyer's, being a devout
Baptist himself, was clearly sickened by what he was seeing take place
within his beloved denomination. Yet showed remarkable restraint (to my
mind) in reporting on it. That to me typified PBS television. It can't be
touched here in the states. Yet the right-wingers forget about "Firing
Line" with William F. Buckley (when it used to be aired every Sunday) and
all the current
talk shows that routinely feature prominent
ultra-conservatives sitting toe-to-toe with the Liberals and going at it
with little in the way of censorship. OK savage PBS for being too
one-sided. But how about giving an Atheist well-versed in biblical matters
equal time (like say in a debate) on, say, the Christian Broadcasting
Network? Those people have it waaay too one-sided. (Oh! Guess who would
lose the debate?)
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
29 Jun 2005 01:30:42 AM |
|
|
In article <0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
[]
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of
CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably
Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the
malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift
of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as
people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch
even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their
inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how
would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want
her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should
she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of
public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth
or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that
the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to
challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
They've destroyed the country and are working on wrecking the planet
as well. What's another arm of the broadcasting arena? There isn't a
news source in the USA that's worth a *****.
Tell me about it. I used to rely on NPR and PBS for news and discussion,
but now even that is going down the tubes. (Not the TV tube either.)
I now rely on the internet, but even there, I'm suspicious.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
01 Jul 2005 10:40:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:30:42 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
[]
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of
CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably
Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the
malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift
of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as
people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch
even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their
inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how
would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want
her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should
she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of
public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth
or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that
the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to
challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
They've destroyed the country and are working on wrecking the planet
as well. What's another arm of the broadcasting arena? There isn't a
news source in the USA that's worth a *****.
Tell me about it. I used to rely on NPR and PBS for news and discussion,
but now even that is going down the tubes. (Not the TV tube either.)
I now rely on the internet, but even there, I'm suspicious.
Of course. GIGO.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
02 Jul 2005 02:43:46 AM |
|
|
In article <iuoac1llte13pab9fsg8t60368qfvlg1v8@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:30:42 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
[]
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican chairman of
CPB resigned in protest over the political interference. The impeccably
Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas led a nationwide effort to stop the
malicious meddling. Where's a decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack the gift
of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time imagining themselves as
people on welfare or as blacks in East Texas -- that's quite a stretch
even for white bleeding hearts like me. What I don't get is their
inability to do the simplest exercise in elementary fairness -- how
would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you want
her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam Chomsky? Or should
she show how much she understands the importance of the independence of
public broadcasting by naming an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth
or Alan Simpson or Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that
the function of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to
challenge them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
They've destroyed the country and are working on wrecking the planet
as well. What's another arm of the broadcasting arena? There isn't a
news source in the USA that's worth a *****.
Tell me about it. I used to rely on NPR and PBS for news and discussion,
but now even that is going down the tubes. (Not the TV tube either.)
I now rely on the internet, but even there, I'm suspicious.
Of course. GIGO.
Like those blog sites. Any idiot who can afford a computer can start his
own blog site.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
02 Jul 2005 08:41:59 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-AE90AC.00434602072005@news.giganews.com:
In article <iuoac1llte13pab9fsg8t60368qfvlg1v8@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:30:42 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>
wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
[]
When Richard Nixon attacked PBS 35 years ago, the Republican
chairman of CPB resigned in protest over the political
interference. The impeccably Republican Ralph Rogers of Dallas
led a nationwide effort to stop the malicious meddling. Where's a
decent Republican when you need one?
I've read all those studies that show people on the Right lack
the gift of empathy. I can see they have a real hard time
imagining themselves as people on welfare or as blacks in East
Texas -- that's quite a stretch even for white bleeding hearts
like me. What I don't get is their inability to do the simplest
exercise in elementary fairness -- how would you feel if the shoe
were on the other foot?
Let's pretend Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 election. Who do you
want her to appoint chairman of CPB? James Carville? Noam
Chomsky? Or should she show how much she understands the
importance of the independence of public broadcasting by naming
an esteemed Republican, say John Danforth or Alan Simpson or
Richard Lugar? How about anyone who understands that the function
of journalism is not to toady to those in power but to challenge
them? Is that too much to ask?
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0617-27.htm
They've destroyed the country and are working on wrecking the
planet as well. What's another arm of the broadcasting arena?
There isn't a news source in the USA that's worth a *****.
Tell me about it. I used to rely on NPR and PBS for news and
discussion, but now even that is going down the tubes. (Not the TV
tube either.)
I now rely on the internet, but even there, I'm suspicious.
Of course. GIGO.
Like those blog sites. Any idiot who can afford a computer can start
his own blog site.
Only a bigger idiot would think that *only* idiots have blogs.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevrob" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
02 Jul 2005 03:29:11 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <iuoac1llte13pab9fsg8t60368qfvlg1v8@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:30:42 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <0fk1c11nv842ma3bnsni1olmle05v6srcu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:39:26 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS...
would be a good thing, but not by installing minders to make sure that
every "Washington Week" is balanced by a "Journal Editorial Report",
while lefties and righties scream at each other on The McLoughlin
Group.
If one believes, as I do, that government funded broadcasting outfits
are a violation of the First Amendment, just privatize the stations
and the networks. Viewers, listeners and underwriters, not to mention
the Big Buck$ generated by licensing kiddie show puppets will keep the
reorganized non-profit networks free to be as "biased" as they would
like to be. Pacifica stations stay on the air, and they are nowhere
as close to the center of the political map as PBS and NPR. Some of
the religious broadcasters can be way over in the another corner.
Just as units of government shouldn't run churches or publish
newspapers, they shouldn't run broadcasting outfits, neither ....
(nor schools, nor universities, nor publishing companies, nor
ISPs, nor any other newsgathering or disseminating organizations.)
Kevin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
19 Jun 2005 12:10:48 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for years.
This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC, and it is
happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way as the Dems do,
but you knew that right? This was no surprise and should not have been for
anyone.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
19 Jun 2005 02:38:07 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for years.
This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC, and it is
happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way as the Dems do,
but you knew that right? This was no surprise and should not have been for
anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different this
time is that they are within the gates and are actively trying to
subvert content to the administration agenda.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
19 Jun 2005 02:55:41 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for years.
This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC, and it is
happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way as the Dems
do, but you knew that right? This was no surprise and should not have
been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different this
time is that they are within the gates and are actively trying to
subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
19 Jun 2005 11:42:25 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by inserting
bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for years.
This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC, and it is
happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way as the Dems
do, but you knew that right? This was no surprise and should not have
been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different this
time is that they are within the gates and are actively trying to
subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
20 Jun 2005 12:16:43 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for
years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC,
and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way
as the Dems do, but you knew that right? This was no surprise and
should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different
this time is that they are within the gates and are actively trying
to subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 12:36:02 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns967B2D0AED5Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005
@news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for
years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC,
and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same way
as the Dems do, but you knew that right? This was no surprise and
should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different
this time is that they are within the gates and are actively trying
to subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
Pressure. Subtle and otherwise. Behave or we cut you funding. We can
replace you with Tucker Carlson (although he quit PBS to go to MSNBC
probably for more money). Watch out or you'll end up like Bill Moyers.
rj
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 07:30:47 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-A3E176.22360221062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967B2D0AED5Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005 @news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for
years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era
IIRC, and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money
the same way as the Dems do, but you knew that right? This was
no surprise and should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is
different this time is that they are within the gates and are
actively trying to subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
Pressure. Subtle and otherwise. Behave or we cut you funding. We can
replace you with Tucker Carlson (although he quit PBS to go to MSNBC
probably for more money). Watch out or you'll end up like Bill Moyers.
Bill Moyers had it coming.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 08:23:37 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-A3E176.22360221062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967B2D0AED5Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005 @news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for
years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC,
and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same
way as the Dems do, but you knew that right? This was no
surprise and should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different
this time is that they are within the gates and are actively
trying to subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
Pressure. Subtle and otherwise. Behave or we cut you funding. We can
replace you with Tucker Carlson (although he quit PBS to go to MSNBC
probably for more money). Watch out or you'll end up like Bill Moyers.
rj
In other words you have no evidence that content will be subverted.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 08:43:03 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in
news:Xns967D55635B8C2mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-A3E176.22360221062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967B2D0AED5Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005 @news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on
for years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan
era IIRC, and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend
money the same way as the Dems do, but you knew that right?
This was no surprise and should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is
different this time is that they are within the gates and are
actively trying to subvert content to the administration
agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
Pressure. Subtle and otherwise. Behave or we cut you funding. We can
replace you with Tucker Carlson (although he quit PBS to go to MSNBC
probably for more money). Watch out or you'll end up like Bill
Moyers.
rj
In other words you have no evidence that content will be subverted.
Merely allowing an honest conservative viewpoint to be expressed without
being denigrated would be subverting the content of a show like NOW or
Frontline.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 12:00:58 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Merely allowing an honest conservative viewpoint to be expressed without
being denigrated would be subverting the content of a show like NOW or
Frontline.
Do you have any examples of disagreement with or criticism of honest
conservative viewpoints that you do not consider to be denigration?
What do you call disagreement with or criticism of dishonest
conservative viewpoints?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 02:39:47 PM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:k7CdncMTbrRwCCTfRVn-hQ@adelphia.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Merely allowing an honest conservative viewpoint to be expressed
without being denigrated would be subverting the content of a show
like NOW or Frontline.
Do you have any examples of disagreement with or criticism of honest
conservative viewpoints that you do not consider to be denigration?
On PBS in particular, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS and the
Friday roundtable shows, Washington Week (mostly liberals) and Eye on
Washington (more balanced panel).
What do you call disagreement with or criticism of dishonest
conservative viewpoints?
As long as it's a fair representation of that viewpoint, I call it
disagreement or criticism.
When a conservative viewpoint is presented in loaded terms or
oversimplified to the point of becoming a strawman, that is denigration.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 08:45:51 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Merely allowing an honest conservative viewpoint to be expressed
without being denigrated would be subverting the content of a show
like NOW or Frontline.
Do you have any examples of disagreement with or criticism of honest
conservative viewpoints that you do not consider to be denigration?
On PBS in particular, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS and the
Friday roundtable shows, Washington Week (mostly liberals) and Eye on
Washington (more balanced panel).
Well, those are forums, not examples of any actual disagreements or
criticisms, but perhaps I wasn't clear.
What do you call disagreement with or criticism of dishonest
conservative viewpoints?
As long as it's a fair representation of that viewpoint, I call it
disagreement or criticism.
When a conservative viewpoint is presented in loaded terms or
oversimplified to the point of becoming a strawman, that is denigration.
Fair enough. Just as a good faith (if that word isn't taboo on an
atheist forum) gesture, please give an example or three of a specific
criticisms of the present administration that you see as fair. This
will give me a much better feel of what you mean by the word, "fair".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 08:46:28 PM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:loudnZ1bKaBvjSffRVn-rw@adelphia.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Merely allowing an honest conservative viewpoint to be expressed
without being denigrated would be subverting the content of a show
like NOW or Frontline.
Do you have any examples of disagreement with or criticism of honest
conservative viewpoints that you do not consider to be denigration?
On PBS in particular, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS and the
Friday roundtable shows, Washington Week (mostly liberals) and Eye on
Washington (more balanced panel).
Well, those are forums, not examples of any actual disagreements or
criticisms, but perhaps I wasn't clear.
The disagreements and/or criticisms take place within those forums,
always respectful of both sides of the argument. Eye on Washington gets
some pretty good arguments going, though they cover a lot of ground and
don't give any one of them much screen time.
What do you call disagreement with or criticism of dishonest
conservative viewpoints?
As long as it's a fair representation of that viewpoint, I call it
disagreement or criticism.
When a conservative viewpoint is presented in loaded terms or
oversimplified to the point of becoming a strawman, that is
denigration.
Fair enough. Just as a good faith (if that word isn't taboo on an
atheist forum) gesture, please give an example or three of a specific
criticisms of the present administration that you see as fair. This
will give me a much better feel of what you mean by the word, "fair".
I tell you what. I don't feel like doing all the work here. Why don't
you give an example of a media critique of the present administration
that you consider to be *unfair*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 09:47:16 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:loudnZ1bKaBvjSffRVn-rw@adelphia.com:
(snip)
Fair enough. Just as a good faith (if that word isn't taboo on an
atheist forum) gesture, please give an example or three of a specific
criticisms of the present administration that you see as fair. This
will give me a much better feel of what you mean by the word, "fair".
I tell you what. I don't feel like doing all the work here. Why don't
you give an example of a media critique of the present administration
that you consider to be *unfair*.
I see. You remind me of GWB when he was asked what his biggest
mistake has been so far. It just hurts his head to think in those terms.
I am not as much concerned with unfair criticism as you seem to be.
As far as I am concerned, criticism in general is good for the
democratic process, most of the time. If the elected leaders can't
take criticism with humor or good self defense, I am suspicious of
them, regardless of party. No political leader deserves trust till
they show they deserve it by their actions. They all need watching.
Blow jobs in the oval office... fair game for criticism.
Wars started for secret reasons and sold with lies... also fair game.
But making cracks about how stupid GWB borders on unfair. If it is
meant only as an insult, it isn't really criticism and if it is meant
as honest observation, it isn't very gentlemanly. One does not chose
one's intellectual ability.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
22 Jun 2005 10:54:59 PM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:GvadnVQiNbLKgiffRVn-gg@adelphia.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in
news:loudnZ1bKaBvjSffRVn-rw@adelphia.com:
(snip)
Fair enough. Just as a good faith (if that word isn't taboo on an
atheist forum) gesture, please give an example or three of a specific
criticisms of the present administration that you see as fair. This
will give me a much better feel of what you mean by the word,
"fair".
I tell you what. I don't feel like doing all the work here. Why don't
you give an example of a media critique of the present administration
that you consider to be *unfair*.
I see. You remind me of GWB when he was asked what his biggest
mistake has been so far. It just hurts his head to think in those
terms.
Oh, I can think of a few, but I can't think of how to document them
adequately for this discussion.
I am not as much concerned with unfair criticism as you seem to be.
As far as I am concerned, criticism in general is good for the
democratic process, most of the time. If the elected leaders can't
take criticism with humor or good self defense, I am suspicious of
them, regardless of party. No political leader deserves trust till
they show they deserve it by their actions. They all need watching.
Blow jobs in the oval office... fair game for criticism.
Wars started for secret reasons and sold with lies... also fair game.
But now you touch upon unfair or dishonest criticism yourself when you
call it lies instead of erroneous information.
It has already been established by investigating committees that Bush
believed what he was telling people before the war. He wasn't alone in
that belief, the whole intelligence community backed it up, albeit with
questionable sources and egregiously bad assumptions. They were wrong,
and in hindsight, stupidly so, but they weren't lying. THAT is what I
would call an honest criticism.
Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" memos would be the most egregious
example of dishonest and unfair criticism of the President. And some of
the Swift Boat Vets charges against John Kerry were unfair, such as the
questioning of his medals, but others were eminently fair and well
deserved, particularly about his activities after he left the service.
But making cracks about how stupid GWB borders on unfair. If it is
meant only as an insult, it isn't really criticism and if it is meant
as honest observation, it isn't very gentlemanly. One does not chose
one's intellectual ability.
That *is* an interesting viewpoint, especially in the light of John
Kerry's mediocre Yale grades that came out with his military records.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Jihad against PBS |
23 Jun 2005 12:12:56 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns967D55635B8C2mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-A3E176.22360221062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967B2D0AED5Bmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-85831D.21422519062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1DC45AD73mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-B06DAE.00380719062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <Xns967A1D05B202mc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1>,
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-01A033.01392618062005 @news.giganews.com:
Death to the infidel, Big Bird!
---
Destroying PBS
Bush political operative says he'll erase bias at PBS... by
inserting bias
by Molly Ivins
The ideological Republicans are destroying a fine public
institution.
Where the hell have you been Molly? This has been going on for
years. This is not news. It happened during the Reagan era IIRC,
and it is happeneing again. Yes Reps don't spend money the same
way as the Dems do, but you knew that right? This was no
surprise and should not have been for anyone.
rj
They've been chipping away at it for years, but what is different
this time is that they are within the gates and are actively
trying to subvert content to the administration agenda.
cites please.
rj
Have a whole page or two:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=PBS&btnG=Search+News
I can find nothing that states they are subvert content.
Pressure. Subtle and otherwise. Behave or we cut you funding. We can
replace you with Tucker Carlson (although he quit PBS to go to MSNBC
probably for more money). Watch out or you'll end up like Bill Moyers.
rj
In other words you have no evidence that content will be subverted.
rj
Did you read the articles?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
