@sonhouse saidNo.... my issue is not about liberal media per se. It is not about Trump. My issue, which none of you are man enough to answer, is that all but one organization operate (financially) independent of the government. They support themselves.
So you figure it is just FINE if we eliminate ALL liberal media so the only thing you hear is what Trump WANTS you to hear, like the economy is doing GREAT, inflation is down, wages are up, jobs markets are through the roof, hundreds of thousands new jobs every month.
THAT is Republican reporting.
My issue is why single out one organization (PBS) to give money to, when they serve no other purpose than the majority of all other organizations...for free.
Why not give money to all of them?
And Trump is not firing people or shutting it down. He is stopping giving them money. That is it. Just get a sign and go on down there.
@AverageJoe1 saidOf FKING COURSE you hate, LITERALLY STEAMY HATE giving money to ANYONE, It matters little to you if people, children are literally starving, let the bastards die, who the hell cares if children from other countries die from starvation don't count on MY support you would tell them.
No.... my issue is not about liberal media per se. It is not about Trump. My issue, which none of you are man enough to answer, is that all but one organization operate (financially) independent of the government. They support themselves.
My issue is why single out one organization (PBS) to give money to, when they serve no other purpose than the majority of all ...[text shortened]... ing it down. He is stopping giving them money. That is it. Just get a sign and go on down there.
@sonhouse saidI have often said that we need support the 50M citizens (citizens( who are in despair, many times. It is OK if you dont rememver me saying that,,,,really, Just as long as I know I said it is all that mattters.
Of FKING COURSE you hate, LITERALLY STEAMY HATE giving money to ANYONE, It matters little to you if people, children are literally starving, let the bastards die, who the hell cares if children from other countries die from starvation don't count on MY support you would tell them.
But dont give(our) money to anyone who could earn it for themselves. I really do not get your thinking.
Hey, Sonhouse . The WSJ has a piece today about birthday cards (risque'😉 supposedly written to Epstein by Trump. The reason you are not boring us aboutt it????? Because, it is all legal.
Sincerely AvJoe
@AverageJoe1 saidInstead of manipulating news for entertainment and profit, the corporation for public broadcasting is supposed to serve in the interests of the public.
No.... my issue is not about liberal media per se. It is not about Trump. My issue, which none of you are man enough to answer, is that all but one organization operate (financially) independent of the government. They support themselves.
My issue is why single out one organization (PBS) to give money to, when they serve no other purpose than the majority of all ...[text shortened]... ing it down. He is stopping giving them money. That is it. Just get a sign and go on down there.
Or as Congress wrote, " the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, is to ensure universal, free access to high-quality, non-commercial public media"
@AverageJoe1 saidI never expected a dirty birthday card to get the dude arrested. YOU are the one needing to grow up.
I have often said that we need support the 50M citizens (citizens( who are in despair, many times. It is OK if you dont rememver me saying that,,,,really, Just as long as I know I said it is all that mattters.
But dont give(our) money to anyone who could earn it for themselves. I really do not get your thinking.
Hey, Sonhouse . The WSJ has a piece today abou ...[text shortened]... Trump. The reason you are not boring us aboutt it????? Because, it is all legal.
Sincerely AvJoe
@wildgrass saidWhat does serve the interest of the public mean? People like to dine out, how about the government pay for stations that show the best restaurants to go to. It would of course be ' in the interest of the public'. Geezo Geez
Instead of manipulating news for entertainment and profit, the corporation for public broadcasting is supposed to serve in the interests of the public.
Or as Congress wrote, " the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, is to ensure universal, free access to high-quality, non-commercial public media"
And your cited Act of 1967. could have just as meant ABC or CBS. They too are universal, free access, and high quality. They have commercials, though. What a downer, sonhouse. Let us fund the brodcasters that do Not have commercials....give them milliions of dollars for not having commercials. 🤔
That would be so smart, so Sonhouse.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe commercials drive the content on the other networks. Heard the expression "if it bleeds, it leads"???
What does serve the interest of the public mean? People like to dine out, how about the government pay for stations that show the best restaurants to go to. It would of course be ' in the interest of the public'. Geezo Geez
And your cited Act of 1967. could have just as meant ABC or CBS. They too are universal, free access, and high quality. They have commerc ...[text shortened]... give them milliions of dollars for not having commercials. 🤔
That would be so smart, so Sonhouse.
But the PBS shows never had to grovel for eyeballs. They were supposed to provide high quality news coverage and that was it. Maybe that's why modern Republicans don't like it.
@Indonesia-Phil saidIt is easier to control people who lack critical thinking capacities. It’s also easier to control people who are not well informed. It’s no mystery why the Trump administration is targeting both news media and universities.
Well, you have made your own view clear enough, and if you think that it's 'stupid' for the government to assist in a network providing quality programming in the areas you mention then nobody will change your mind, will they? Certainly it's absolutely in line with Mister Trumps ideology to discourage education, to which his current encounters with the finest education ...[text shortened]... so sure, cut the funding, build some more missiles instead, and we'll see how it goes from there....
@AverageJoe1 saidOh since it is 'legal', the moral issues can just be shoved aside, right? Since Trump HAS no morals, we just move on to the next Trumpian crisis.
I have often said that we need support the 50M citizens (citizens( who are in despair, many times. It is OK if you dont rememver me saying that,,,,really, Just as long as I know I said it is all that mattters.
But dont give(our) money to anyone who could earn it for themselves. I really do not get your thinking.
Hey, Sonhouse . The WSJ has a piece today abou ...[text shortened]... Trump. The reason you are not boring us aboutt it????? Because, it is all legal.
Sincerely AvJoe
@wildgrass saidwhat does that mean, the commercials drive content. Jeep gives money to a news organization to advertise their cars. Org takes the money, and sends reporters out to report the news.
The commercials drive the content on the other networks. Heard the expression "if it bleeds, it leads"???
But the PBS shows never had to grovel for eyeballs. They were supposed to provide high quality news coverage and that was it. Maybe that's why modern Republicans don't like it.
?
@sonhouse saidYou suggest criminal activity of Trump in the Epstein matter. Thought I would highlight the latest effort to keep the fires going against Trump... Birthday cards. No illegality, so you lose again. You know, little feller, after all these years, they would have nefarious activity by Trump. They don't, or they would not have embarked on the years of treachery with the fake dossier and the weaponization, all leading to naught, as he became President.
Oh since it is 'legal', the moral issues can just be shoved aside, right? Since Trump HAS no morals, we just move on to the next Trumpian crisis.
Give it up. And, hey, an ism if I may....no one is as immoral as Bill Clinton.
@AverageJoe1 saidAdvertisers pay for eyeballs. So a news organization that is governed by the cost of their advertisements are not concerned about whether their "news" is accurate or not. If a news executive comes up with a plan to increase viewership by fear-mongering, hate and extreme viewpoints that get more social media and facebook posts, they will do that. Jeep will pay more money for those ads, even though the news provided by the networks is not reliable. There is no incentive for these media giants to produce accurate content.
what does that mean, the commercials drive content. Jeep gives money to a news organization to advertise their cars. Org takes the money, and sends reporters out to report the news.
?
The PBS NewsHour has a different mandate. The reporting is evidence-based and accurate. Experts are actual experts, not provocatuers and propagandists. The news exec does not have to raise substantial advertising dollars, because direct listener donations and sponsorships are what pay the salaries. This alternative model provides more accurate content and benefits the public overall. Its a good use of tax dollars.
2 edits
@wildgrass said'' news exec does not have to raise substantial advertising dollars, because direct listener donations and sponsorships are what pay the salaries"
Advertisers pay for eyeballs. So a news organization that is governed by the cost of their advertisements are not concerned about whether their "news" is accurate or not. If a news executive comes up with a plan to increase viewership by fear-mongering, hate and extreme viewpoints that get more social media and facebook posts, they will do that. Jeep will pay more money for ...[text shortened]... model provides more accurate content and benefits the public overall. Its a good use of tax dollars.
ooohhhhh,,,,,,, donations by any and everybody would of course include such donators as Soros. He backs all socialist communistic and liberal movements. Therefore, his iinfluence (and any donator of liberal bent) will control the programming. How about a 10 minute segment on Mamdani?
Tell everyone this, please, you conveniently left out that it is NOT ONLY government funding that PBS receives big bucks from.
I hereby submit that PBS programming is tainted. You cannot deny. Your argument fails.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou write that I conveniently left it out but you quoted me including the phrase?
'' news exec does not have to raise substantial advertising dollars, because direct listener donations and sponsorships are what pay the salaries"
ooohhhhh,,,,,,, donations by any and everybody would of course include such donators as Soros. He backs all socialist communistic and liberal movements. Therefore, his iinfluence (and any donator of liberal bent) will ...[text shortened]... s from.
I hereby submit that PBS programming is tainted. You cannot deny. Your argument fails.
PBS is independently rated by multiple ratings agencies as left-leaning but extremely reliable. Just because it receives donor support from rich people does not make it tainted. That's your argument to defend. Do you hate philanthropy?
@wildgrass saidI hate Soros is what I hate. Your ilk love Soros, you love Hamas, all of it. He is a communist socialist. You do Not hate someone like that, because you are all into getting other peoples’ stuff. Do you realize that you cannot honestly say on this thread that you do not want other peoples’ stuff. ?? You cannot honestly say that. You want other people’s stuff. That is what socialists are all about. That is what Soros is all about. I thought this post needed to be stated.
You write that I conveniently left it out but you quoted me including the phrase?
PBS is independently rated by multiple ratings agencies as left-leaning but extremely reliable. Just because it receives donor support from rich people does not make it tainted. That's your argument to defend. Do you hate philanthropy?
That out of the way, private donors by osmosis alone, influence programming. While I have you, can you explain why Viking cruise hets to advertise all of their cruises on PBS.?