Turning PBS into another propaganda tool

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Have you ever considered the number of US holidays that are based on religion? I guess if you are not an atheist or a member of a non-Christain faith, you might not notice government tax income that supports such holidays.

Christmas
Easter
Thanksgiving

Is Martin Luther King, Jr. a holiday for a national leader or a minister? I choose to honor him as a national leader.

Then there are other national religion-based traditions that are not holidays. A few are:

Saint Patrick's Day
Halloween
Good Friday

BBB

Thanksgiving is hardly a religious holiday - many quite properly modern liberal countries have analogs to it. Halloween has both Christian and pagan origins and it is not a holiday. Easter is not a holiday and even referencves to it are being suppressed: ever heard of Spring Break? Christmans is indeed an exception, however that too is being secularized with "happy hiolidays". I'll grant you that one thouigh and will be interested to watch your campaign to suppress it.

So back to your statement of the proposition - the number of national holidays, based on religion. Answer ONE.

I will take a stab at A truth, as surely there is more than one.

Just read your initial post here, Blatam.

Bill Moyers I trust with my heart, head, and soul.

There are very few things in the US at the moment that we can rightly be proud of, that have no political or philosophical, or religious spin to them. Damn if the Bushites aren't trying to drag PBS and NPR into the muck.

They have a liberal slant? Ever consider that they have an intelligent, questioning slant?

I'm afraid this topic is somewhat depressing. How familiar are you with the situation in Italy and the media ownership/control which the leader there now maintains?

It is now five or six corporations which own/control almost all media to which people have regular access.

blatham wrote:

As for PBS, I always look forward to watching it when I visit, and I think it's a treasure. But to the extent that the government pays the piper, it will also call the tune -- every other situation is inherently unstable. Like yourself, I hate the idea that the US government calls the tune at PBS. So the remedy I suggest is that PBS get the government out of its financing, and increase the share of private donations in its income from the current 75% to 100%. Expecting the government to pay the piper and not call the tune is as naive as giving a dog a pile of sausages to guard, and expecting it not to eat any.
.

Thomas

Since Blatham may still be "Zipping" and not available to respond, I hope you don't mind if I inject myself into the conversation. With the exception of your avatar (Krugman.....YUK) your post is interesting but I am intriqued why you would accept Blatham's allegation that the US gov't is now controlling PBS. Why would you not at least consider the possiblitly that putting Tomlinson in charge and giving him a mandate to bring about more political balance to a news organization that has morphed out of control by supporting and giving a voice to a rabid conservative hater such as Moyers, is not controlling but merely forcing it to live up to it's responsiblity to inform the public with facts and not to attempt to influence them politically right or left with poltical commentary.

I ask you also to explain the difference in the responsibility of PBS and that of the BBC which was forced to adjust it's very political stance from that of judge, jury and executioner , back to one of informing and educating the public who finance it. I'm sure you are aware of that scandal and resignation of the two top BBC officials because of their obvious zeal to destroy Blair because they disagreed with the Iraq war.
The BBC is completely financed with public money.

I feel very strongly that any publicly financed news organization must scrupulously adher to only their journalistic responsibility of informing the public with facts as they know them and to let the public make the final decision. Anything short of that is elitist and condescending and must not be tolerated by any oversight agency.

just what PBS/government funding are we talking about specifically? Sesame Street?

and your facts are(non-existent)?

there's a damn good reason for that.

just what PBS/government funding are we talking about specifically? Sesame Street?

Since Blatham may still be "Zipping" and not available to respond, I hope you don't mind if I inject myself into the conversation. With the exception of your avatar (Krugman.....YUK) your post is interesting but ....