JustanObserver wrote:Farmerman pretty much hit the nail on the head.
It's been demonstrated that people who rely on PBS and NPR as their primary news source have been the
least likely to hold misperceptions about the Iraq war.
There is absolutely no excuse for the repeated attempts to cut funding for such important programming.
Link 1
Link 2
Haven't you heard? PBS appears to be the most wrong, considering the information coming out of Iraq these days on both WMD and Al Qaeda relationship with Hussein. Looks like proof that PBS is not providing balanced information.
What color is the sky in the dimension you're posting from? Do the flowers sing and the trees play musical instruments as you walk past them?
I listen to NPR during my hour long drive to work and during my hour long drive home from work (except during the increasingly frequent Pledge Weeks).
I certainly don't do so because NPR is unbiased for it most certainly is.
I do so because NPR covers a wide and varied degree of stories, many of which do not suffer from their bias.
I do so because (except during the increasingly ubiquitous Pledge Week) there are no commercials.
I do so because no matter how biased the commentators on NPR may be, they are calm and rational and not given to histrionics.
I do so because I want to hear upon what the other side is basing its opinions.
NPR had a fairly unbiased morning personality in Bob Edwards, but it unceremoniously booted his ass off the airwaves to make way for the clearly Liberal Steve Innskeep and the almost so Renee Montagne
Except for Meeeeechelle Norris, All Things Considered has a more balanced approach.
Interestingly enough, if one's sole exposure to Juan Williams is Fox New Sunday, one would be convinced Juan is a a paid operative of the Democratic Party and a sworn enemy of Britt Humes. Ironically (or perhaps not) Juan is far more rational and unbiased on NPR than he is on FOX. Either FOX has instructed him to be more of a flaming liberal, or he got so much grief from his Liberal friends that he felt compelled to carry the standard higher on FOX (Sort of like Alan Combs post 9/11).
There is one consistently unbiased and, to my way of thinking, highly respected journalist on NPA - Mara Liasson. First class.
Some of the more amusing indications that NPR has a liberal bias:
1) They hire radio commentators with speech impediments
2) They bend over backwards to pronounce each and every foreign word as if they were a native speaker.
3) David Brookes is the only conservative who gets any regular air time (Now I like Brookes, but I can't help but think that because he has a column in the NY Times, NPR has accepted him as a somewhat OK conservative - afterall, Jim Lehrer allowed him to spot up against Mark Shields)
4) A day doesn't go by that there are not one or more features on Katrina impacted New Orleans
I enjoy NPR; I contribute money to NPR and that is how it should be - the Public, not the Government.
There are far more people in America who don't watch public television or listen to public radio than those who do. Why should their tax dollars go towards subsidizing a service which is meaningless to them?
The simple fact of the matter is that the demographics of public media consumers are, on the average, more affluent than those who imbibe commercial media. If we can't support an elitist public media with our elitist wealth, why should we expect the Great Unwashed to do so?
I've been torn on this issue.
On the one hand I think it is in the overall interest of the Nation for the Government to finance culture.
However, when it comes to Art, I tend to be very Liberal and I don't have a personal problem with tax dollars supporting controversial projects. However, I am entirely sympathetic with those who do have a problem with tax dollars supporting the homo-erotic photographs of Maplethorpe, or the Piss Christ.
In the final analysis, it seems to me that since the government cannot be truly reflective of its citizens in supporting the Arts, it should not support the Arts.
After all, if there was a national referendum on the Arts, Thomas Kincaid would be our National Artist, a Hallmark Greeting Card writer would our Poet Laureate, Dan Brown would be the American Author, and Clay Aiken would be the Voice of America.
This is not to denigrate any of these individuals as they are clearly massively popular and how many of us can say the same for ourselves or deny that being so is nothing at which to sneeze?
Why should we expect the Heartland to subsidize the avant garde when they, generally, do not understand it, and, often, are offended by it?
Of course public media rarely plays in the realm of the avant garde, because even they know they cannot survive in that realm.
Fine.
Those of us who want to explore the outer edges, don't need the government to subsidize our search.
Would The Irish Tenors not sing Danny Boy if Public TV didn't pay for their Pledge Week spectaculars?
There was a time when Public Media broadcast some freaky stuff. No more. You can sit around and blame conservatives, but the trend arose long before the Republicans took full control of the government.
Now, I watch Nova and Frontline with regularity, but little else. To tell the truth, I don't even know if Masterpiece Theater is still on the air. I do know that it waned when it was.
The bottom line is that the Government has no place is subsidizing the Arts, because it cannot reasonably be expected to be impartial in its subsidization, nor should it. In the end it is a representative government that we seek, and if the majority of people find the Piss Christ offensive, tax dollars should not fund such "Art."
For the record, "Piss Christ" was no more art than if I smeared elephant dung over an image of the Virgin Mary.
I enjoy public media and will continue to support it. If my fellow elitists and I cannot sustain it then it will and should fall by the wayside and we will be left to digging in obscure sources for our art.
If art is any good, people will buy it. No need for the government to support worthless art that nobody wants.
Same with NPR. They sound soooo.....h sophisticated, intellectual, and profound, it sometimes becomes humorous. They take themselves way too seriously. Some of the information is interesting, but in the final analysis, we have a free society and if they go away, there is still plenty of news. If enough people care, they can support them with their dollars.
okie wrote:If art is any good, people will buy it. No need for the government to support worthless art that nobody wants.
Same with NPR. They sound soooo.....h sophisticated, intellectual, and profound, it sometimes becomes humorous. They take themselves way too seriously. Some of the information is interesting, but in the final analysis, we have a free society and if they go away, there is still plenty of news. If enough people care, they can support them with their dollars.
If art is any good, people will buy it.
Amen brother. Did Picasso ore Jackson rely on Public Media? Did Joyce or Meilville (Not Moby Dicker)? Did Barber or Glass? (As for poetry, I'm not sure there has been a poet of any value who has lived contemporaneously with electronic media. Maybe Elliot, Pound , Cummings or Yeats (et al) have a few secretive recording in the vaults of NPR or BBC, but they were hardly regula stuff on the liberal airwaves.)
NPR commentators are sophisticated and they are intellectual. No reason to criticize them from an anti-intellectual basis.
Are they profound? Well that doesn't depend on sophistication or intellectualism.
