Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

PBS and you

PBS

  • Good Post OMEGA I will bump it

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • Unbiased bump

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No this post sucks

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Total voters
    4

OMEGA

New member
Democracy functions best when the population has as much varied and valuable information as possible

a National Broadcast system help brings to the national stage issues that other wise may not be covered in private media for variuos reasons

and also help keep Diversity in the national spotlight whether that diversity is Politcal opinion, Culture or science

In the UK the BBC is the powerhouse of information provided as a public service and is solely funded by the Tax payer via a TV TaX"

this is roughly $200 a year per person

in Japan its $255

this set up in the UK and Japan creates a "Dependancy free" media outlet not beholden to and Private interest or Leverage from one group or another

This Dependancy Free outlet is also able to Check the Uncheckable Private media that has an ever growing presence in our lives, on Poltics, and in all facets of our lives.

It is cetralizing ever more and is Owned by a few corporations that have undo influence over all.


it is not a conspiracy, But the Probabaility of A private media to have a "Mobilzation of Bias" that reflects a narrow view is highly probable, and has the ability to steer Poltical dbate, values and agenda setting

thus the radi of that bias will make it way into all programming since corpoarte stucture is relatively Un-democratic and leader driven

In the US only 1 dollar per person per year via Tax money is "given" to PBS

the rest they make up by the soliciting of Foundations, by "Viewers like you", and ever increasingly Corporate Money.

why do we not demand the same instution like the BBC that benfits other countries, surely $200-$250 is not too much to ask?

if we really want to make a dent in "democracy" and that lends it self to such unirversal appeal this one issue would be "it"
 
If PBS were to remove NPR from its purview then, yes, I would agree with you, but to have agenda-driven commentary taxpayer-funded galls me. Until PBS and NPR split then PBS should get no more of my money.
 
PBS sux and there like 500channels available now, its obsolete, a remnant of the days when there were only three other channels. Enough with the evil corporation schtick
 
CFZB said:
what other kind is there?

Corporations are simply companies that are owned by shareholders, if you have a 401k invested in stocks then you are part owners of a corporation. They fund people's retirements at a much higher rate than social security. They make decisions to make the shareholders money, hence they earn a profit, why is that evil? Most people that think corporations are evil dont know anything about how the economy and businesses work. They are necessary and they do marketing, they fulfill the needs and wants of the consumer at a profit. Its basic.
 
I actually hear of lots of issues around the world on NPR that I would otherwise not know about. PBS on the other hand I haven't watched in a very long time.
 
Someone let me know when PBS has one show that deals with a Republican issue. To this date there have been none. It is subject of a massive lawsuit!
 
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."


–economist Thomas Sowell
 
you guys throw a fuss over ONE channel as a public servie when we have 500 geared towards whoring us out to consumer forces
 
OMEGA said:
you guys throw a fuss over ONE channel as a public servie when we have 500 geared towards whoring us out to consumer forces
i dont fuss about pbs but im not giving them 250 dollars when 90% of the tv i watch is sports
why do they deserve my money?
 
hamstershaver said:
why do they deserve my money?

its not about "deserving"

its about some medium of information dissemination of Natioanl importance that can OFFSET a striclty market run media business

sometimes what is good for the market is not always good for civil society

as far as giving one bias a favor over another with this institution once you look at the way its structered you will realize that anyone can have a say in its programming if they wish

balming a popular trend of those that may occupy its structure and foisting it on a institiution is a flaw in logic
 
OMEGA said:
its not about "deserving"

its about some medium of information dissemination of Natioanl importance that can OFFSET a striclty market run media business

sometimes what is good for the market is not always good for civil society

as far as giving one bias a favor over another with this institution once you look at the way its structered you will realize that anyone can have a say in its programming if they wish

balming a popular trend of those that may occupy its structure and foisting it on a institiution is a flaw in logic

you have no logic, with 500channels it doesnt offset anything, people have a choice as to what they want to watch, that is the market approach by definition. You just want to limit people's freedom to choose and take their money to boot, I suggest you move to a totalitarian country, you can control people's thoughts and behavior all you want. I can see you goosestepping your way to civility
 
hamstershaver said:
why do they deserve my money?


speaking of deserving

why do we let the popluar media charge our political process for air time?

why did we give aways OUR public airwaves to a private media for nothing?

why do they pay less taxes than any corporation and give little back to the community?

why are they allowed to market to our 15 a younger corwd sexually suggestive material?

why are we powerless against them?

why did we allow the media to get so centralized over the years when 20 years ago it WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL TO DO SO?

why cannot we see that this centralization is a danger to democratic thought?
 
Eringobraugh said:
you have no logic, with 500channels it doesnt offset anything, people have a choice as to what they want to watch, that is the market approach by definition. You just want to limit people's freedom to choose and take their money to boot, I suggest you move to a totalitarian country, you can control people's thoughts and behavior all you want. I can see you goosestepping your way to civility


obviuosly you have no knowledge of corporate stucture and how it has nothing to do with the interest of the many

why would that corporate structure ever share infomation with the greater population of it threatened its bottom line? or its ever gorwing grip in power

take you head out of your ass and fight for democratic thought in your own backyard
 
I always liked electric company
 
OMEGA said:
obviuosly you have no knowledge of corporate stucture and how it has nothing to do with the interest of the many

why would that corporate structure ever share infomation with the greater population of it threatened its bottom line? or its ever gorwing grip in power

take you head out of your ass and fight for democratic thought in your own backyard


Youre a retard, you and your evil corporations and black helicopters, time for your medication Omega
 
hamstershaver said:
and what makes you think if pbs were to recieve all this money they wouldnt be bias in their programming?


becuase if you read the bylaws of theri charter and if you read on how they vote and approve things
and give LOCAL prgrammers the final say in what goes on the air

you will relaize that there is alot of choice, and alot of freedom to chosse what you want

what i am saying is there are simply TOPICS and lines of thought , and creativity that you and I grew up with that we take for granted

that WILL not be covered cimply becasue it does not enhance the bottom line


News for example is being weeded out becasue it more pofitable to cver Brittany Speras or soem other type of attention getting medium
 
Eringobraugh said:
Youre a retard, you and your evil corporations and black helicopters, time for your medication Omega


boy if you always jump the gun on chastising others as flaming liberals or somehow menatlly ill

your not doing your self or anybody else a service
 
Eringobraugh said:
Youre a retard, you and your evil corporations and black helicopters, time for your medication Omega


can you imagine when the founding fathers rebelled?

can you imagine if the British had the tools of taodays media?


what would there "news" say to the people?

don't forget we have only had peace for a short time and must always keep an eye to preserve it
 
OMEGA said:
becuase if you read the bylaws of theri charter and if you read on how they vote and approve things
and give LOCAL prgrammers the final say in what goes on the air

you will relaize that there is alot of choice, and alot of freedom to chosse what you want

what i am saying is there are simply TOPICS and lines of thought , and creativity that you and I grew up with that we take for granted

that WILL not be covered cimply becasue it does not enhance the bottom line


News for example is being weeded out becasue it more pofitable to cver Brittany Speras or soem other type of attention getting medium

like you said, people vote, people are biased, what guarantee do you give me that what these people vote to air isnt biased?
And your coment on news being weeded out -- news isnt biased???
 
You obviously havent done your homework on this. Government funding doesnt support PBS, they dont need it, they only get 10% of their funding from the Govt, the rest is supported, by guess what, the market that likes PBS and its left wing agenda who contribute, which is undeniable.
 
OMEGA said:
can you imagine when the founding fathers rebelled?

can you imagine if the British had the tools of taodays media?


what would there "news" say to the people?

don't forget we have only had peace for a short time and must always keep an eye to preserve it


you have no obvious point it seems, you ever heard of the internet by chance, people dont rely on the media or even trust it
Your paranoia seems to know no bounds
 
Eringobraugh said:
You obviously havent done your homework on this. Government funding doesnt support PBS, they dont need it, they only get 10% of their funding from the Govt, the rest is supported, by guess what, the market that likes PBS and its left wing agenda who contribute, which is undeniable.


if you looked at my post I already said that

in the past they relied on GOV money much more

but the Media lobby has steadily chipped away at it

why?

because PBS is a threat to its interest


wake up before its too late
 
OMEGA said:
if you looked at my post I already said that

in the past they relied on GOV money much more

but the Media lobby has steadily chipped away at it

why?

because PBS is a threat to its interest


wake up before its too late


LOL, PBS isnt a threat in the least to anything, man, you are oblivious to reality, do you read or pay attention to current events or watch debates on this at all. You seem not the first clue about this subject. Ive seen several debates with people on all sides of this, this big media conspiracy that you argue was not brought at all, you must sit in your room and dream these things up b/c there is no credibility to what you are saying. The very very last thing I want to do is wake up to your paranoid schizophrenic reality.
 
OMEGA said:
cost of War per household : $ 1,938

How did I figure by your previous posts that you were against the war? To me, $2K a family is a small price to pay to prevent a couple of suicide bombers in a shopping mall.
 
redguru said:
How did I figure by your previous posts that you were against the war? .


not against the war at all these are my thoughts on it in honest form think before you assume:

et me give a DARK side perpective in the war and why part of me is for it

We are at a cross roads in the world an inevitable culture and economic COLLIDE is coming wheather we like it or not

3 systems with dynamic differences in opinion, though processes and pratices WILL clash

we might as well win and DOMINATE AT THAT with no regard for the enemy

1) China : a communist government in full controll of its people and resources. Media censor ship, school censorship, and not more than one party. It seeks to grow and spread its influence and its growth will inevitable collide and seek to dominate the world and foist its UN demorcatic strcuture on all

2) the MUSLIM World : unfortunatley they favor a religiuos state or at least a heavy hand in the affars of the state, and have little regard for the beliefs of others, be in gender, religion, or ways of thinking. They practice rituals that are from the old age and have a tough time integrating in a world or with many other cultures

3) then you have US, Europe, England etc.
we are nto perfect by any means, but we do pratice a form of of DEMOCRACY. we have church and state seperation, we have minority rights, and we a system that gives all an EQUALITY of OPPORTUNITY institutionalized within the system that does not prejudice anyone. We have the right to protest, and to change things gradually of we want it enough.

We must PROACTIVELY spread through out the world, and oppose systems that are counter to our own, sytems that are more active at destroying ours due to their tight controlls, many methods can be used to our disposal and we must use all of them


I will elaborate and give you notice as to one of the motivations for going there , which I am all for. ( this is is just one facet there are many others)

CHINA is Very dependant on Oil to fuel its ever growing populace and industry
it is most wise for the US to take charge of the Middle East for this will be CHINAS main source of OIL in the near future

we controll it, we have advantage and postiion which will allow us to levrage the CHINESE to change gradually, the US currently only gets 30% of it oil from the middle east for we have other resources.....

also there is a power vacume in the Middle east it is better for us to be there then say a unstable Russia which is literall a hop away

something both the US and China would not like I am sure
 
CFZB said:


I understand

but as I reviewed Gov literature form over there

its sad to say that things must be this way

we must dominate or else they will

so in a way the US may not be perfect but its the best we got

I am seriuos
 
Top Bottom