Media Thread (non Faux)

[Supsalemgr]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

[neoplacebo]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

[Supsalemgr]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

[O Really]

There really is no significant independent media anymore. When WaPo is forced to be a Trumpet and 60 Minutes' almost 60 year voice is gagged, and even Faux is subject to censorship, the concept of "freedom of the press" is seriously eroded. At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat-wearing loon, almost all media now is controlled by a smallish group of gazillionaires who just use the media for their own purposes - whatever that may be and however often it may change. It used to be that a single owner was limited in how many TV/radio stations it could have and limited in the same market. Buy enough congresscritters to get some regulations dropped and you get Sinclair, owner of about 200 stations whose programming is occasionally ummm "edited" by the corporation and who are required to play their politically-oriented "info-torial" several times a day and including along with what is presented as "news" programming. And it's not just them. Pretty much all news outlets carry the same stories, with maybe a slight change in tone, but recognizable through common content and often specific language. And I'm not even talking about those that have and promote a given point of view. If you want to publish "the voice of American Nazism" go ahead - we'll know what to expect in the unlikely even we read it. But if you claim to be "fair and balanced" or "Democracy Dies in Darkness", then it seems we should be able to expect some degree of independence.

It's especially distressing when a supposed attempt at "objectivity" spreads highly inaccurate information, which brings me to today's topic of NPR. If the headline says "Trump orders funding cut for NPR/PBS", that is a true and accurate statement, but is not the true and accurate story. There are many significant obstacles between a random order and actually happening, the first of which is whether the order is even legally doable on its face. And this happens all the time. Just because Trump thinks there is no difference in his saying "I'm gonna..." and a done deed doesn't mean everybody else has to think that. Life's miserable for everybody right now - trumpers and non-trumpers alike, but when all the lawsuits shake out, a lot of things Trump claims "I did" will be in the courtroom shredder. But a large number of people will still be saying "B-b-but Trump said..."

[O Really]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Part of the point is to have non-advertising based programming. Picture an art gallery subject to whims of advertisers. You'd have Michelangelo's "David" with a chest looking like a Nascar driver. Anyway,

Overall, PBS reaches a wide audience, with 58% of U.S. television households tuning in over the course of a year, according to a PBS fact sheet. This includes 60% of the audience living in rural communities, and a diverse range of demographics, with nearly two-thirds identifying as Republican or Independent. Additionally, PBS KIDS has a strong digital presence, with an average of 15.5 million monthly users and 345 million streams across its digital platforms.

Go watch a program like "Nature" and then come back and tell us why it doesn't deserve some funding.

[Supsalemgr]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Part of the point is to have non-advertising based programming. Picture an art gallery subject to whims of advertisers. You'd have Michelangelo's "David" with a chest looking like a Nascar driver. Anyway,

Overall, PBS reaches a wide audience, with 58% of U.S. television households tuning in over the course of a year, according to a PBS fact sheet. This includes 60% of the audience living in rural communities, and a diverse range of demographics, with nearly two-thirds identifying as Republican or Independent. Additionally, PBS KIDS has a strong digital presence, with an average of 15.5 million monthly users and 345 million streams across its digital platforms.

Go watch a program like "Nature" and then come back and tell us why it doesn't deserve some funding.

I have no problem with funding for "Nature" - as long as it is private.

[1 CAT FAN]

There really is no significant independent media anymore. When WaPo is forced to be a Trumpet and 60 Minutes' almost 60 year voice is gagged, and even Faux is subject to censorship, the concept of "freedom of the press" is seriously eroded. At the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat-wearing loon, almost all media now is controlled by a smallish group of gazillionaires who just use the media for their own purposes - whatever that may be and however often it may change. It used to be that a single owner was limited in how many TV/radio stations it could have and limited in the same market. Buy enough congresscritters to get some regulations dropped and you get Sinclair, owner of about 200 stations whose programming is occasionally ummm "edited" by the corporation and who are required to play their politically-oriented "info-torial" several times a day and including along with what is presented as "news" programming. And it's not just them. Pretty much all news outlets carry the same stories, with maybe a slight change in tone, but recognizable through common content and often specific language. And I'm not even talking about those that have and promote a given point of view. If you want to publish "the voice of American Nazism" go ahead - we'll know what to expect in the unlikely even we read it. But if you claim to be "fair and balanced" or "Democracy Dies in Darkness", then it seems we should be able to expect some degree of independence.

It's especially distressing when a supposed attempt at "objectivity" spreads highly inaccurate information, which brings me to today's topic of NPR. If the headline says "Trump orders funding cut for NPR/PBS", that is a true and accurate statement, but is not the true and accurate story. There are many significant obstacles between a random order and actually happening, the first of which is whether the order is even legally doable on its face. And this happens all the time. Just because Trump thinks there is no difference in his saying "I'm gonna..." and a done deed doesn't mean everybody else has to think that. Life's miserable for everybody right now - trumpers and non-trumpers alike, but when all the lawsuits shake out, a lot of things Trump claims "I did" will be in the courtroom shredder. But a large number of people will still be saying "B-b-but Trump said..."

All that babbling from inside a hypocritical gated community.

[O Really]

I have no problem with funding for "Nature" - as long as it is private.

Dang, I guess you can learn something new everyday. They've used just the letters "PBS" and "NPR" for so long, I really didn't know it stood for "Private Broadcasting Service"

[Supsalemgr]

I have no problem with funding for "Nature" - as long as it is private.

Dang, I guess you can learn something new everyday. They've used just the letters "PBS" and "NPR" for so long, I really didn't know it stood for "Private Broadcasting Service"

They would be free to change their brand name.

[1 CAT FAN]

I have no problem with funding for "Nature" - as long as it is private.

Dang, I guess you can learn something new everyday. They've used just the letters "PBS" and "NPR" for so long, I really didn't know it stood for "Private Broadcasting Service"

They would be free to change their brand name.

O Really chose freely to live in a private gated community.

[Vrede too]

Dang, I guess you can learn something new everyday. They've used just the letters "PBS" and "NPR" for so long, I really didn't know it stood for "Private Broadcasting Service"

"Nature" will probably get funded by high population and/or high income markets. The real losers will be the low income and rural listeners who are unable to privately fund the quality of programming that NPR and PBS provide. SoupySales hates farmers, ranchers, loggers, oilfield workers, outfitters and other "country" folks. Guys in gated communities are snooty that way.

[Supsalemgr]

I must admit Vrede gets an "A+" for projection. However, he does get a lot of practice.

[1 CAT FAN]

I must admit Vrede gets an "A+" for projection. However, he does get a lot of practice.

[1 CAT FAN]

Dang, I guess you can learn something new everyday. They've used just the letters "PBS" and "NPR" for so long, I really didn't know it stood for "Private Broadcasting Service"

"Nature" will probably get funded by high population and/or high income markets. The real losers will be the low income and rural listeners who are unable to privately fund the quality of programming that NPR and PBS provide. SoupySales hates farmers, ranchers, loggers, oilfield workers, outfitters and other "country" folks. Guys in gated communities are snooty that way.

Why did you have to bring up your hypocritical hominy for?

[neoplacebo]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Yeah, that's what I said...none of them "stand on their own" and are dependent on ratings and advertising, which are in a symbiotic relationshp. But nevfer mind that.Who told you it is "unsuccessfull?" Is that just something you heard and just automatically believe? That kind of logic is the same bullshit that says if you don't have kids you should not have to contribute to public education. I get two PBS channels and like to watch Antiques Roadshow, where regular folks bring stuff in to see what it might be worth. I also like the history and nature stuff I see there. Why do you hate this so much? Just because you've been instructed to hate it? The government subsidy is minimal.....less than trump's yearly golf expense. Are you just an anticipatory whiner, waiting for the next thing to whine about comes along or is announced? I don't understand you.

[Supsalemgr]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Yeah, that's what I said...none of them "stand on their own" and are dependent on ratings and advertising, which are in a symbiotic relationshp. But nevfer mind that.Who told you it is "unsuccessfull?" Is that just something you heard and just automatically believe? That kind of logic is the same bullshit that says if you don't have kids you should not have to contribute to public education. I get two PBS channels and like to watch Antiques Roadshow, where regular folks bring stuff in to see what it might be worth. I also like the history and nature stuff I see there. Why do you hate this so much? Just because you've been instructed to hate it? The government subsidy is minimal.....less than trump's yearly golf expense. Are you just an anticipatory whiner, waiting for the next thing to whine about comes along or is announced? I don't understand you.

Simple. Why should these networks receive federal funding and others do not?

[neoplacebo]

Way overdue. They should stand on their own.

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Yeah, that's what I said...none of them "stand on their own" and are dependent on ratings and advertising, which are in a symbiotic relationshp. But nevfer mind that.Who told you it is "unsuccessfull?" Is that just something you heard and just automatically believe? That kind of logic is the same bullshit that says if you don't have kids you should not have to contribute to public education. I get two PBS channels and like to watch Antiques Roadshow, where regular folks bring stuff in to see what it might be worth. I also like the history and nature stuff I see there. Why do you hate this so much? Just because you've been instructed to hate it? The government subsidy is minimal.....less than trump's yearly golf expense. Are you just an anticipatory whiner, waiting for the next thing to whine about comes along or is announced? I don't understand you.

Simple. Why should these networks receive federal funding and others do not?

Simple. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service exist to serve the American public. The other networks exist to make money primarily. Some exist solely to stoke hate, fear, and division (Newsmax, OAN, RSBN, Fox).

[GoCubsGo]

Whether you agree or not.

Public funding comes from laws passed by CONGRESS.


DonOld is not empowered to end public funding by executive fiat.

MAGAts are far too up DonOld's ass to understand that simple concept.

[Supsalemgr]

No media "stands on their own." ALL of them exist on ratings and advertising money. Well, all of them except PBS and NPR, who do not run ads. They only mention the names of the individuals and foundations that give them financial support. And that always includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

If their ratings are good the advertising money will come. If their ratings are not good enough to be able sell advertising why should the American taxpayer fund an unsuccessful endeavor?

Yeah, that's what I said...none of them "stand on their own" and are dependent on ratings and advertising, which are in a symbiotic relationshp. But nevfer mind that.Who told you it is "unsuccessfull?" Is that just something you heard and just automatically believe? That kind of logic is the same bullshit that says if you don't have kids you should not have to contribute to public education. I get two PBS channels and like to watch Antiques Roadshow, where regular folks bring stuff in to see what it might be worth. I also like the history and nature stuff I see there. Why do you hate this so much? Just because you've been instructed to hate it? The government subsidy is minimal.....less than trump's yearly golf expense. Are you just an anticipatory whiner, waiting for the next thing to whine about comes along or is announced? I don't understand you.

Simple. Why should these networks receive federal funding and others do not?

Simple. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public Broadcasting Service exist to serve the American public. The other networks exist to make money primarily. Some exist solely to stoke hate, fear, and division (Newsmax, OAN, RSBN, Fox).

They do not serve ALL of the American people. It is a personal preference as to whether one chooses their programming.

[1 CAT FAN]

PBS has become biased, pushing leftist ideology.
They've probably already notified the Superstar Cultmaster to parade his gay goat avatar for the children's book reading.