Yeah. I really, really want the answer to this. How is this not front page news in all the major papers. How is it not leading on all major mainstream news outlets. How is PBS -- PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE -- not blasting this over the airwaves.
Yeah. I really, really want the answer to this. How is this not front page news in all the major papers. How is it not leading on all major mainstream news outlets. How is PBS -- PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE -- not blasting this over the airwaves.
Jean-Pierre, can I ask you to tell me specifically what you mean. I believe generally you're saying that PBS must rely on private donors and sponsors more because of less public funding. But is there something more specific you're referring to? Thank you.
Hi Nomi, I was waiting for somebody more knowledgeable to answer your question, but here goes. A number of years back, PBS became a target in the Republican Party culture wars. [Jump in, anyone, and help out.] The GOP accused PBS of having a liberal bias (which of course is true, because liberals don’t tend to be racists and sexists). Way back when, 1925, what became PBS and CPB started out as a consortium of university broadcasting stations. University students probably ran everything, supervised by a faculty member I suppose. So it had an idealistic component of being committed to the truth. Then, during the Bush administration, they started to get watered down and ruined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
Click on the Wiki link, click on Controversies, and scroll down to “Accusations during Tomlinson tenure” to get a flavor.
Over the past couple/few decades, federal funding for public broadcasting has been decreased if not entirely denied - by Republican administrations. Far as I know, there’s always been a need for individual subscribers - like my wife and I - along with large charitable endowments. But over the past years I’ve noticed the increase in corporate sponsor visibility. Where there used to be thanks to corporate sponsors, there’s now advertising. It’s no secret that Koch Industries provides corporate support. I propose this enables them to influence content.
Yes, I've been trying to figure out who Koch industries have given money to, but it's quite tricky, maybe on purpose. So far, looks like they have given to one NPR member station, one PBS member station, and the show NOVA, but not NPR itself, or PBS itself. I don't have the patience to go too deeply into this. It may also be nearly impossible to determine how much this influences content.
Yeah. I really, really want the answer to this. How is this not front page news in all the major papers. How is it not leading on all major mainstream news outlets. How is PBS -- PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE -- not blasting this over the airwaves.
Alas, the Public Broadcasting Service, thanks the Republicans, isn’t so public any longer.
Jean-Pierre, can I ask you to tell me specifically what you mean. I believe generally you're saying that PBS must rely on private donors and sponsors more because of less public funding. But is there something more specific you're referring to? Thank you.
Hi Nomi, I was waiting for somebody more knowledgeable to answer your question, but here goes. A number of years back, PBS became a target in the Republican Party culture wars. [Jump in, anyone, and help out.] The GOP accused PBS of having a liberal bias (which of course is true, because liberals don’t tend to be racists and sexists). Way back when, 1925, what became PBS and CPB started out as a consortium of university broadcasting stations. University students probably ran everything, supervised by a faculty member I suppose. So it had an idealistic component of being committed to the truth. Then, during the Bush administration, they started to get watered down and ruined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
Click on the Wiki link, click on Controversies, and scroll down to “Accusations during Tomlinson tenure” to get a flavor.
Thanks, Roland. I just replied to Jean-Pierre. And right now my eyes are screaming at me to get off the screen.
Gotta listen to the eyes 👍
Hi Nomi -
Over the past couple/few decades, federal funding for public broadcasting has been decreased if not entirely denied - by Republican administrations. Far as I know, there’s always been a need for individual subscribers - like my wife and I - along with large charitable endowments. But over the past years I’ve noticed the increase in corporate sponsor visibility. Where there used to be thanks to corporate sponsors, there’s now advertising. It’s no secret that Koch Industries provides corporate support. I propose this enables them to influence content.
Yes, I've been trying to figure out who Koch industries have given money to, but it's quite tricky, maybe on purpose. So far, looks like they have given to one NPR member station, one PBS member station, and the show NOVA, but not NPR itself, or PBS itself. I don't have the patience to go too deeply into this. It may also be nearly impossible to determine how much this influences content.
I get it. It’s important stuff - but we’ve only so much bandwidth.
Exactly. : )
This reviewer gives your post 5 stars.
The January 6 committee news is more important than everything else put together, imo.
Watch tomorrow, the Sunday morning news shows. They should talk about it.
Ah, yes, they should. Thanks.
PBS used to be Powerhouse Broadcasting Service, now it’s Pathetic Broadcasting Service