NPR & IPTV

ISUCyclones

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,598
44
48
Ames
Why do I have to pay for this socialist propaganda? I'm getting tired of people ignoring the obvious bias.

1. CLICHES IN DEPTH. Neither NPR nor PBS use the same new cliches as the mainstream news media. My favorite cliche is the unending battle between the moderates and the hardliners (or extremists) for influence. The U. S. is divided into moderates and hardliners, but so are the Israelis, the Russians, the Iranians, the Palestinians, and every other government. Both PBS and NPR dichotomize the world in these terms just as enthusiastically and just as stupidly as the television networks, but at much greater length. The networks may say little in their 2 minute stories, but the public media says just as little in their 15-20 minute stories.

2. The TALKING HEAD NEWS. Almost any political science text will say that one of the primary functions of the news media is to focus attention on government leaders. This is even more the case with PBS and NPR than it is with the television networks. Some complain about the superficiality of pictures on the networks. But how could anything be more superficial and deceptive than the parade of government, special interest, business, and campaign talking heads who spin their way through a typical Newshour broadcast. The networks have beat reporters and do some investigation, but the Newshour has almost no resources to dig out its own stories, and, as a result, relies almost completely on the talking head.

3. POPULAR CULTURE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO GOOD FOR POPULAR CULTURE. Anybody who knows anybody who follows the public media knows that the public media audience is full of snobs who think they are several steps higher in life than the rest of us poor losers. But the public media operates on the same celebrity principles as the rest of mass culture. The audience for NPR follows their favorite NPR reporters and waits for Ken Burns documentaries with the same pseudo-personal devotion that characterizes fans of sports teams, boy bands, Britney Spears, and Brad Pitt. The only difference is that the NPR audience thinks that it has transcended the cult-like aspects of popular culture. Which makes them the biggest fools of all.

- Riccaric
 
Last edited:

ISUCyclones

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,598
44
48
Ames
No comment on this?!?! You have got to be ****ing with me! I'm done here if things don't change. For at least 10 min!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

C.John

Pondering Phobophobia
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
15,945
1,158
113
No PBS means no Clifford the Big Red Dog.
No Clifford means the communists won.

I refuse to live in a Clifford free world.
 

Kyle

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2006
4,074
119
63
No PBS means no Clifford the Big Red Dog.
No Clifford means the communists won.

I refuse to live in a Clifford free world.
Your logic is impecable and beyond reproach. Argument over.
 

DaddyMac

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
14,070
453
83
This is what happens when people come back from the bars and the pc is still on.....

FWIW - I enjoy This Old House, New Yankee Workshop, and Wait, Wait Don't Tell me on NPR is a scream.
 

cyismydog

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
6,340
213
63
This is what happens when people come back from the bars and the pc is still on.....

FWIW - I enjoy This Old House, New Yankee Workshop, and Wait, Wait Don't Tell me on NPR is a scream.
I enjoy those three shows, Last of the summer wine, and the Ken Burns baseball show. Other than that, it is basically akin to the driveby media.
 

abcguyks

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
2,297
421
83
Olathe
I think everyone is missing the point. I understood the point to be why should the public have to fund networks that thrive on making our government and our country look bad? Sure, they put on some decent kids programs, but they've got to figure out some way to get someone to watch or listen. Once people are tuned in, they can then be fed the propagandist drivel that IPTV and NPR love.

Free speech is fine, but I should not have to subsidize it for them.
 

cyismydog

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
6,340
213
63
I think everyone is missing the point. I understood the point to be why should the public have to fund networks that thrive on making our government and our country look bad? Sure, they put on some decent kids programs, but they've got to figure out some way to get someone to watch or listen. Once people are tuned in, they can then be fed the propagandist drivel that IPTV and NPR love.

Free speech is fine, but I should not have to subsidize it for them.
Exactly. If they wanted to be biased and I didn't pay for them, who cares? I'll just watch fox news. But, since I have to pay for them, they should remain objective.
 

alaskaguy

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
10,203
220
63
Even if they were impartial why do I have to pay some of the bill?

With all the radio and television stations and the government deficit, why should the taxpayers be footing any of the cost?
 

DaddyMac

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
14,070
453
83
I've noticed that for most people, these types of programs are only un-objective when you don't agree with them.

Strange how that works.... :skeptical: