Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Televison

  1. #1
    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.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,946
    Originally posted by Biggles@27 October 2003 - 20:42
    Rat Face



    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

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    I remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant


    Your showing your age there JPaul

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 October 2003 - 20:10
    I remain, as ever, your humble and obedient servant


    Your showing your age there JPaul

    Rat-

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

    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.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    MagicNakor's Avatar On the Peripheral
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,401
    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.

    things are quiet until hitler decides he'd like to invade russia
    so, he does
    the russians are like "OMG WTF D00DZ, STOP TKING"
    and the germans are still like "omg ph34r n00bz"
    the russians fall back, all the way to moscow
    and then they all begin h4xing, which brings on the russian winter
    the germans are like "wtf, h4x"
    -- WW2 for the l33t

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    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.

    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?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    MagicNakor's Avatar On the Peripheral
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,401
    Better than some ways.

    At least hemlock numbs.

    things are quiet until hitler decides he'd like to invade russia
    so, he does
    the russians are like "OMG WTF D00DZ, STOP TKING"
    and the germans are still like "omg ph34r n00bz"
    the russians fall back, all the way to moscow
    and then they all begin h4xing, which brings on the russian winter
    the germans are like "wtf, h4x"
    -- WW2 for the l33t

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    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).

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    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.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    JPaul

    Observation noted - you are quite right.

    I should have taken a seperate line thus

    i)

    ii)

    and avoided all confusion.

    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.

    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.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •