Christieends Soviet style broadcasting

Sesame Street is the opiate of the masses, and Mister Rogers is a commie because he teaches kids to share, eh?

Sesame Street is the opiate of the masses, and Mister Rogers is a commie because he teaches kids to share, eh?

It is not the programing, Big Bird and Mister Rogers are fine with me. The problem is the state paying the bill. These programs are popular enough to thrive on a privately owned station. The question is why does the state need to own media outlets when we have hundreds of privately held outlets available? Is it fair for the state to subsidize media outlets with tax dollars taken from their private competitors? How would the local paper feel about the county starting its own newspaper with tax dollars and then competing with them? Same principle.

It is not the programing, Big Bird and Mister Rogers are fine with me. The problem is the state paying the bill. These programs are popular enough to thrive on a privately owned station. The question is why does the state need to own media outlets when we have hundreds of privately held outlets available? Is it fair for the state to subsidize media outlets with tax dollars taken from their private competitors? How would the local paper feel about the county starting its own newspaper with tax dollars and then competing with them? Same principle.

I am a proud liberal & I agree w/ idlewind on this one: I don't like gov't sponsored radio/tv any more than I like gov't-sponsored religion. Just because I might like what the gov't currently sponsors, I have to admit I'd hate it if gov't-sponsored tv looked like Fox News.

The govt does not influence the programming on NPR nor PBS, The govt tries to provide funding for TV and radio stations to get established and maintain the programming, especially in rural areas that don't have cable and/or broadband. This is a service to the citizens of our country to simply help keep them informed and educated. In general, Republicans seem to be against an educated and informed citizenry. How come?

I'm so thankful I grew up with Sesame Street and the Electric Company. Living in a rural area, it was usually the only channel we picked up, besides Dothan. What a shame, what a total shame. The world is upside down.

I'm so thankful I grew up with Sesame Street and the Electric Company. Living in a rural area, it was usually the only channel we picked up, besides Dothan. What a shame, what a total shame. The world is upside down.

That set of circumstances no longer exists though. Satellite service is available everywhere for both TV and radio. So back to my question Alicia, since there is only one local newspaper in Walton County, would you be comfortable with the county commission starting another paper with your tax money and compete with your paper? And set the price at 25 cents a paper because they are subsidized by tax dollars? Would that be a legitimate use of tax dollars? And do you really think that paper would be critical of local government? I bet they could print dozens of feel good articles though.

The govt does not influence the programming on NPR nor PBS, The govt tries to provide funding for TV and radio stations to get established and maintain the programming, especially in rural areas that don't have cable and/or broadband. This is a service to the citizens of our country to simply help keep them informed and educated. In general, Republicans seem to be against an educated and informed citizenry. How come?

True Republicans are all for an educated and informed citizenry. Those kinds of citizens understand that when the government gives money to one group it had to take that money from someone. Educated people understand the meaning of the word robbery. And bias.

It is not the programing, Big Bird and Mister Rogers are fine with me. The problem is the state paying the bill. These programs are popular enough to thrive on a privately owned station. The question is why does the state need to own media outlets when we have hundreds of privately held outlets available? Is it fair for the state to subsidize media outlets with tax dollars taken from their private competitors? How would the local paper feel about the county starting its own newspaper with tax dollars and then competing with them? Same principle.

No tv station has ever been told it cannot carry public interest programming. If they can make a profit doing so, they're free to do so.

As for thriving on a private station, many of them don't, and, believe it or not, there are many valuable things that aren't easily converted into a business plan. And many of those kinds of programs end up having some really interesting long term benefits to them (see the 'public health soap opera') that make them well worth the money spent.

Much more worth it than alleged fiscal conservative Chrstie deciding it was perfectly acceptable to borrow state police helicopters for private use. (Please defend your hero on that one. I wanna hear it.)

True Republicans are all for an educated and informed citizenry. Those kinds of citizens understand that when the government gives money to one group it had to take that money from someone. Educated people understand the meaning of the word robbery. And bias.

:spin:

True Republicans are all for an educated and informed citizenry. Those kinds of citizens understand that when the government gives money to one group it had to take that money from someone. Educated people understand the meaning of the word robbery. And bias.

like rick scott

That set of circumstances no longer exists though. Satellite service is available everywhere for both TV and radio. So back to my question Alicia, since there is only one local newspaper in Walton County, would you be comfortable with the county commission starting another paper with your tax money and compete with your paper? And set the price at 25 cents a paper because they are subsidized by tax dollars? Would that be a legitimate use of tax dollars? And do you really think that paper would be critical of local government? I bet they could print dozens of feel good articles though.

Not everyone can afford that or wants to pay for it. Pulease. PBS is the most intelligent thing on the air. And in no way compares to other stations. If the county wanted to throw their money away, more power to them. They're gonna take my taxes whether I like it or not and spend it on things I don't agree with. Anyone who would start a paper right now, um yeah, LOL. The only ones who will win if PBS is off the air is those who want people to be outraged and ignorant while they laugh at ALL of us all the way to the bank.

And let me add this: When I say intelligent, I mean that their programming does not make me feel emotionally manipulated by a host to feel a certain way about a subject they are covering. Much of PBS is low-key, their host and reporters ask questions they way they should. They keep themselves out of the subject. I can't find that anywhere else. There's a lot more wrong with the system than Big Bird or Mr. Snuffleupagus. I respect your ideas and opinions, IW. But, I honestly feel that PBS is one thing we all got right for once.

Not everyone can afford that or wants to pay for it. Pulease. PBS is the most intelligent thing on the air. And in no way compares to other stations. If the county wanted to throw their money away, more power to them. They're gonna take my taxes whether I like it or not and spend it on things I don't agree with. Anyone who would start a paper right now, um yeah, LOL. The only ones who will win if PBS is off the air is those who want people to be outraged and ignorant while they laugh at ALL of us all the way to the bank.

And let me add this: When I say intelligent, I mean that their programming does not make me feel emotionally manipulated by a host to feel a certain way about a subject they are covering. Much of PBS is low-key, their host and reporters ask questions they way they should. They keep themselves out of the subject. I can't find that anywhere else. There's a lot more wrong with the system than Big Bird or Mr. Snuffleupagus. I respect your ideas and opinions, IW. But, I honestly feel that PBS is one thing we all got right for once.

I have no problem with PBS. They can operate as a not for profit and I have zero problem with that. What i do have a problem with is spending one cent of tax money to fund an enterprise that is competing with private enterprises.

I have no problem with PBS. They can operate as a not for profit and I have zero problem with that. What i do have a problem with is spending one cent of tax money to fund an enterprise that is competing with private enterprises.

So, the govt should step out of the arena of educating it's citizens with quality news media and allow all news and educational programming to be left in the hands of profit-driven corporations... are you nuts?

So, the govt should step out of the arena of educating it's citizens with quality news media and allow all news and educational programming to be left in the hands of profit-driven corporations... are you nuts?

No, but apparently you should expand your educational horizons. Try reading 1984 for a start. Then take a pass at Mein Kampf. Then come back and tell me you want the government "educating" its citizens. Because government "education" and "news reporting" has another name for it: propaganda. Both political sides will do it if they are given the opportunity.

:shock:

No, but apparently you should expand your educational horizons. Try reading 1984 for a start. Then take a pass at Mein Kampf. Then come back and tell me you want the government "educating" its citizens. Because government "education" and "news reporting" has another name for it: propaganda. Both political sides will do it if they are given the opportunity.

Re-read my post from above. Let me emphasize this clearly. The govt does not influence nor spend money on the programming of NPR and PBS. They help to establish and maintain the radio and television stations that carry the programs. People are quite free to change the channel and watch the propaganda that is spewed on Fox and MSNBC, but they also need to be aware that these, and all other news organizations on the face of the earth, are interested only in ratings, and advertising revenue. Don't you think it would be wise to have at least one channel that was not controlled by profit-motivated corporations? I listen to NPR on a daily basis. Do you? I find it to be the most straight-forward, fair, and un-biased source of news and education in the entire media. I dare you to listen to it consistently, and tell me what you think is propaganda. You are searching for the wrong bogieman.

No, but apparently you should expand your educational horizons. Try reading 1984 for a start. Then take a pass at Mein Kampf. Then come back and tell me you want the government "educating" its citizens. Because government "education" and "news reporting" has another name for it: propaganda. Both political sides will do it if they are given the opportunity.

And yet when you look at the track record of public boradcasting, it's generally been decidedly more neutral in content than the private programmers have been. Mc Neill-Leher, anyone?

Re-read my post from above. Let me emphasize this clearly. The govt does not influence nor spend money on the programming of NPR and PBS. They help to establish and maintain the radio and television stations that carry the programs. People are quite free to change the channel and watch the propaganda that is spewed on Fox and MSNBC, but they also need to be aware that these, and all other news organizations on the face of the earth, are interested only in ratings, and advertising revenue. Don't you think it would be wise to have at least one channel that was not controlled by profit-motivated corporations? I listen to NPR on a daily basis. Do you? I find it to be the most straight-forward, fair, and un-biased source of news and education in the entire media. I dare you to listen to it consistently, and tell me what you think is propaganda. You are searching for the wrong bogieman.

If you think these outlets are not influenced by the people giving them millions of dollars you are naive or deluded. What the government funds it eventually controls. But if you are correct in your belief then you have made my point. These outlets can operate and prosper as not for profits and do not need to receive government funds. But regardless of how well they perform or the quality of their programing, it is unfair to provide them tax dollars to compete with private concerns that are paying taxes. Government funds should be spent only on a limited number of activities and funding Big Bird is not one of those activities.
Bottom line, I am not opposed to the activities, I am opposed to the government funding them. I would be equally opposed to the government funding Eddie Eagle shows on TV or the Glen Beck program on radio.

No, but apparently you should expand your educational horizons. Try reading 1984 for a start. Then take a pass at Mein Kampf. Then come back and tell me you want the government "educating" its citizens. Because government "education" and "news reporting" has another name for it: propaganda. Both political sides will do it if they are given the opportunity.

Since you brought up the spector of "1984", I thought you might be concerned that a bald-headed, beady-eyed, multi-millionaire, who calls himself "Governor Rick Scott" has left several messages on my private telephone message machine about what a wonderful job he is doing. Isn't this government propaganda at the taxpayers expense? Just wondering...