Televison

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 October 2003 - 07:50
Here, we have P.B.S. and N.P.R., which receive a stipend, but are not supported to anywhere near the extent the Beeb is; they are regarded as quite liberal, and, ironically, carry alot of BBC content, however they do not feel at all compelled to attempt the Beeb's "balance".

---

certain religious broadcasters in the u.s. rake in huge amounts of cash from viewer donations and pay taxes on none of it, and they don't feel compelled toward balance either. if the viewer donation levels are high enough, the tax exemption may as well be a stipend. in a way, the gov't is financially supporting a lot of religious shows by allowing them to broadcast social/political opinion without having to pay the taxes that a show like Bill O'Reilly or The Daily Show is subject to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@27 October 2003 - 20:42
Rat Face

:rolleyes:

For my sins I am Branch Treasurer (largely, I suspect, because i) I am relatively apolitical and ii) no one else would do it).

My this debate has taken an odd twist or two since yesterday!

Hmm I see one cannot do a) etc., as the next in line comes out B) oh well i) will do.

---

Biggles,

You sir are a fine poster, one of the finest. However I have now read the above three times, in order to understand it.

Your use of ) as both parenthesis and to differentiate between points (i)) was a tad confusing.

I found the passage (largely, I suspect, because i) particularly confusing. Simply because I had thought you were closing the bracket, as oppose to putting i) (as a Roman Numeral) within your full bracketed statement. It was only when I saw the ii) a short while later that I realise what you were doing.

Could you possible stick to a, or i, or 1, when numbering your points.

Submitted for your consideration and approval.

I remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant

JPaul
27/10/03

Quote:

---

I remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Your showing your age there JPaul :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 October 2003 - 20:10

Quote:

---

I remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Your showing your age there JPaul :P

---

Rat-

JPaul is merely observing an appropriate attitude of faux, unctuous servitude in the presence of his better. :D

3RA1N1AC-

So true-

PBS/NPR receive a stipend which should be sufficient for normal broadcast capability, then they use their tax-exempt status to skim the gravy from their unsuspecting/uncaring listeners.

I have talked to many fans of PBS/NPR who aren't even aware they are federally funded apart from their constant and irritating efforts at guilt-driven fund-raising.

"Dig down deep, good and generous citizens, or we shall perish!"

So goes the lament. :lol:

PBS annoys me.

I don't like my show interrupted to have some middle-aged man beg me for money so that the "quality programming" can continue.

Generally I'm watching it for a lark, so I wonder what kind of "quality" they're aiming for. ;)

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 October 2003 - 01:08
PBS annoys me.

I don't like my show interrupted to have some middle-aged man beg me for money so that the "quality programming" can continue.

Generally I'm watching it for a lark, so I wonder what kind of "quality" they're aiming for. ;)

:ninja:

---

PBS annoys me, too, MN.

It annoys me because I have to wait for reruns of "The Lawrence Welk Show" to be over before "Austin City Limits" comes on.

ACL is literally the only show on PBS that I would contribute (apart from my "tax" share) to see.

Apart from that, PBS is tantamount to a cup o' hemlock, and we all know how bad that is, right? :)

Better than some ways.

At least hemlock numbs.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@27 October 2003 - 21:33
PBS/NPR receive a stipend which should be sufficient for normal broadcast capability, then they use their tax-exempt status to skim the gravy from their unsuspecting/uncaring listeners.

---

of course they do. as do religious broadcasters. the fact remains that they're running scams on both sides of the fence-- pocketing donations, funneling it into "unrelated" for-profit businesses, etc etc. as long as there's television, there's going to be at least one major tv preacher using funds from his tax-exempt ministry to finance his diamond-encrusted lifestyle and shady business ventures.

don't mistake my post as a defense of PBS & NPR-- i'm just saying that tax-exemption is no less of a benefit than outright subsidy, that "non-profit" broadcasting can be quite profitable, and that it happens on both sides.

edit: and i think you might be overestimating the slant of PBS & NPR. those networks are beholden to the national endowment for the arts, which is in turn beholden to congress. if congress decides that NEA-funded projects/networks are crossing the line, there are consequences. that's as good a reason as any to practice self-censorship. and surely the liberal content on PBS is balanced out by such conservative programming as Antiques Roadshow and Wall $treet Week (yes, the dollar sign is actually part of the title).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+28 October 2003 - 03:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 28 October 2003 - 03:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 October 2003 - 21:33
PBS/NPR receive a stipend which should be sufficient for normal broadcast capability, then they use their tax-exempt status to skim the gravy from their unsuspecting/uncaring listeners.

---

of course they do. as do religious broadcasters. the fact remains that they&#39;re running scams on both sides of the fence-- pocketing donations, funneling it into "unrelated" for-profit businesses, etc etc. as long as there&#39;s television, there&#39;s going to be at least one major tv preacher using funds from his tax-exempt ministry to finance his diamond-encrusted lifestyle and shady business ventures.

don&#39;t mistake my post as a defense of PBS & NPR-- i&#39;m just saying that tax-exemption is no less of a benefit than outright subsidy, that "non-profit" broadcasting can be quite profitable, and that it happens on both sides.

edit: and i think you might be overestimating the slant of PBS & NPR. those networks are beholden to the national endowment for the arts, which is in turn beholden to congress. if congress decides that NEA-funded projects/networks are crossing the line, there are consequences. that&#39;s as good a reason as any to practice self-censorship. and surely the liberal content on PBS is balanced out by such conservative programming as Antiques Roadshow and Wall &#036;treet Week (yes, the dollar sign is actually part of the title).[/b][/quote]

You are, of course, correct about "Tax-Exempt" status-whether it is applied to religion OR PBS/NPR.

I found this on "consortiumnews.com":


Liberal Media?
Still, the prevailing view of PBS remains one fostered by the conservative complaint about a "liberal media." There is also a complementary conservative position that the "free market," particularly as represented by cable, should be allowed to fill the niche that PBS does. In effect, these two arguments have acted as a rhetorical pincer movement against PBS.

On one front, there is Laurence Jarvik of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He argues that PBS has outlived its usefulness and should be sold to the private sector. "Privatization provides the means to clean up the public television mess by creating incentives for excellence, efficiency and accountability," Jarvik declares.

On the second front is David Horowitz of the Committee for Media Integrity. He claims that there is a systematic left-wing bias in public television and wants Congress to enforce greater balance. Over the past two years, these two anti-PBS arguments have emboldened the Republican-controlled Congress to slash deeply into the PBS budget.

Though bashing PBS has been traditionally a conservative pastime, left-wingers now are getting into the game, too. Many of these liberal critics contend that PBS is not diverse enough, not controversial enough. But increasingly, liberal critics have come to argue that PBS programming is slanted -- to the right.

"PBS stations on a weekly basis tilt heavily toward conservative and corporate views," maintains Jeff Cohen, co-author of a new book, The Wizards of Media Oz. "Three regular programs cover the business agenda: Nightly Business Report, Adam Smith&#39;s Money World and Wall &#036;treet Week. None covers the agendas of groups that often conflict with big business, whether labor, consumer or environmental."

Once in a while, PBS still manages to produce interesting shows dealing with touchy topics -- and its overall quality remains a cut above most commercial television. "Africans in America," a documentary on American slavery, is currently being produced after raising sufficient outside funds. But the deep cuts in federal funding have made every project a challenge. "Raising money for public television programs is difficult, period," former deputy project director Karen Watson told us.

By and large, American public television appears to have lost sight of any clear goal. "If diversity was what was being sought, PBS is no longer and hasn&#39;t been, for a number of years, providing much," comments Kwitny. "I guess they did a few more nature documentaries and some opera and ballet that was not on commercial television."

Hoynes predicts that if public television maintains its present course, it will sail into oblivion. "The bottom line is that our public television system is only nominally public in the sense that it is fulfilling a kind of public service role," he asserts. "It&#39;s probably providing less and less, in part in response to the tight financial restraints, and part in response to political pressure from the right. ...

"If they continue on the route they&#39;re on now, little by little their support, both among the public and among policy-makers and in Congress will evaporate. It may not go away overnight. ... But I think it will evaporate and they will ultimately die a slow and maybe painless death. Maybe no one will notice five years down the line that they&#39;re not around anymore." ~


PBS/NPR are fighting for their lives right now-

Who was it that said, "Nothing quite like the threat of death to focus the senses...", or some such-

MN-perhaps you could refresh my memory-I&#39;m a bit fuzzy just now. :huh: :)

JPaul

Observation noted - you are quite right.

I should have taken a seperate line thus

i)

ii)

and avoided all confusion. :rolleyes:

J2K4

I have never seen PSB although it sounds a bit like the Beeb. We don&#39;t have fund raisers on the Beeb, but they do run quite funny little notices about the dark endings of those who try to avoid paying their licence.

I loved the bit about the free market bringing excellence. Over here the BBC produce David Attenborough&#39;s Blue Planet and Sky gives us a guy suspended in a box for 44 days. I guess I just don&#39;t appreciate excellence. :blink:

Actually, I know that is a bit harsh, there are a number of commercial US shows I have enjoyed a lot. I particularly liked Taken which the Beeb showed "sans adverts" and was all the more involving and atmospheric for it imho.

Biggles

That you sir, your class shines thro&#39;.

I can express our relative merits no better than j2 has already done, so I will embarrass neither of us by even trying.

Whilst on, the Beeb does have the advantage of funding via the television licence. So it does not have a problem with cash flow. No tawdry advertising or sponsorship for our beloved Aunt.

I personally think that the US makes some great television, particularly in the comedic field.

Seinfeld, Frasier, Mash, The Simpsons all spring easily to mind amongst a great many others.

However I would appreciate it if you (as a nation) would try to avoid re-makes of British institutions. I remember having the mis-fortune of watching an Americanised version of what purported to be based on Fawlty Towers. I apologise to the sensitive of nature for this, it was fucking dreadful. Sorry but it has to be said.

I am told The Office is currently being converted for US consumption, I fear the worst.

Please stick to doing original comedy programmes, you can be quite good at it and sometimes, just sometimes, amongst the best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@29 October 2003 - 00:01
However I would appreciate it if you (as a nation) would try to avoid re-makes of British institutions. I remember having the mis-fortune of watching an Americanised version of what purported to be based on Fawlty Towers. I apologise to the sensitive of nature for this, it was fucking dreadful. Sorry but it has to be said.

---

What about Red Dwarf? It was so bad, it made me physically cringe&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey+29 October 2003 - 00:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 29 October 2003 - 00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@29 October 2003 - 00:01
However I would appreciate it if you (as a nation) would try to avoid re-makes of British institutions. I remember having the mis-fortune of watching an Americanised version of what purported to be based on Fawlty Towers. I apologise to the sensitive of nature for this, it was fucking dreadful. Sorry but it has to be said.

---

What about Red Dwarf? It was so bad, it made me physically cringe&#33; [/b][/quote]
I agree totally..

Take one of the funniest programs there is and re-make it as one of the worst...

:blink: :blink:

They did the same with Dear John (made worse by the fact that we stopped making it and started importing the American version, which was crap...), Fawlty Towers and one or two others..

On the other hand, some of the American "Home Grown" stuff has been classic, as JPaul has pointed out. (Add Friends, MASH, Carloyn in the City etc to his list ;) )


I think the moral is..."If it aint broke, dont fix it"




Erm........ I split this out of Media&#39;s original thread:

i) As it deserves a thread of its own, possibly...........but mainly

ii) Medias thread was being hijacked

Sorry, I haven&#39;t heard of that one j2.

I can&#39;t really say I&#39;ve noticed any bias, be it "liberal" or "conservative" with PBS. All that I ever see on the listings are things like Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Antiques Roadshow, that Wall&#036;treet thing, whatever the Adult Learning Service is, Frontier House (which was really quite amusing), Joy of Painting, a man who teaches fractions, and a cartoon about a Siamese cat. I think Reading Rainbow was on it too, but I don&#39;t know if that program still runs.

I&#39;ve not seen any political programs. Or any "controversial" programs. Maybe they&#39;re there. But every time I flip past it&#39;s either one of the ones in the style above, or some middle-aged woman asking for my pledge.

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@28 October 2003 - 20:16
Sorry, I haven&#39;t heard of that one j2.

I can&#39;t really say I&#39;ve noticed any bias, be it "liberal" or "conservative" with PBS. All that I ever see on the listings are things like Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Antiques Roadshow, that Wall&#036;treet thing, whatever the Adult Learning Service is, Frontier House (which was really quite amusing), Joy of Painting, a man who teaches fractions, and a cartoon about a Siamese cat. I think Reading Rainbow was on it too, but I don&#39;t know if that program still runs.

I&#39;ve not seen any political programs. Or any "controversial" programs. Maybe they&#39;re there. But every time I flip past it&#39;s either one of the ones in the style above, or some middle-aged woman asking for my pledge.

:ninja:

---

I would be loathe to expect you to drop your ongoing studies just to fine-tune your "grip" on PBS, MN. ;)

You keep doing what you do (your activities, and their import on this board, are essential), and I&#39;ll keep you apprised as to PBS. :)

QUOTE: JPaul-


I personally think that the US makes some great television, particularly in the comedic field.


I would like to return the compliment, and go you one better:

The biggest laughs I have ever had were prompted by your humor-BlackAdder, Monte Python, Fawlty Towers, Keeping Up Appearances, Are You Being Served?...

The list is never-ending.

And, the funniest guy alive-EDDIE IZZARD&#33;

Eddie Izzard? Isn&#39;t that the guy with lipstick?
Man you need to check out some Richard Pryor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@29 October 2003 - 02:36
Eddie Izzard? Isn&#39;t that the guy with lipstick?
Man you need to check out some Richard Pryor.

---

I got R.P. covered, too. ;)

I go back to Lenny Bruce. :)

Are you European? I guess it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@29 October 2003 - 02:43
Are you European? I guess it makes sense.

---

No sir-

Just a 45-yr-old statesider. ;)

I&#39;ve done a lot of laughing in my time, and I&#39;m very good at it. :lol:

J2k4

I was surprised to hear Eddie has made it over in the States. His humour is surreal to say the least, but truly funny and original. I don&#39;t know much about US stand up although I have seen Richard Pryor - I struggled a bit with the accent and references so I didn&#39;t get as much out of it as the audience in the States clearly did.

I do like the Simpsons and I thought South Park had some good moments too. My kids really like Malcolm in the Middle which has grown on me a lot and I like the new thing (which is probably old news in the States) Dead Like Me.

Has Harry Hill crossed the Atlantic yet? - he is another quite unusual stand up artist.

As for comedies well, Monty Python, Blackadder, Father Ted and that newish one Black Books all work for me. :D

What sort of comedies appear on TV in say France or Germany? I know Holywood has remade successfully many French cinema comedies and Monty Python actually recorded a German version of their show (I&#39;m a Lumberjack in German looked just as funny) - are there any good European TV sit-coms?

Eddie is, I would say, doing very well here.

My sister saw him in "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" in NYC (out of curiousity after I played "Dress to Kill" for her) and reported him excellent.

I&#39;d love to have seen him playing Lenny Bruce.

I find his historic and religious references hilarious, but also indicative of his very obvious intelligence-that, and his non-stop energy make me a huge fan.

I agree as to your point about Richard Pryor-I feel a bit the same about Billy Connelly; while he is funny, there is the parochial aspect that compromises one&#39;s enjoyment.

Haven&#39;t seen Harry Hill-I shall, however, be on the lookout.

As for the French/German thing, Eddie has performed (in French) in Paris, I believe?

As for French humor, I have seen "The Birdcage" (Robin Williams, Nathan Lane), which is the American "La Cage Aux Folles"-it was nuts&#33;

Being of mainly German extraction, I suppose it odd I know nothing about German humor.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@29 October 2003 - 17:19
German humor.

---

Oxymoron ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul+29 October 2003 - 14:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 29 October 2003 - 14:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 October 2003 - 17:19
German humor.

---

Oxymoron ? [/b][/quote]
Good spot, J&#39;Pol. ;)