Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: Defunding PBS, NPR and BBC in favor of Fox News

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    This sounds like a good plan; hopefully Trump and conservatives in the US and UK can have PBS, NPR, and BBC defunded, with the funding being diverted to Fox News instead.

    This will help establish Fox as the new de-facto national/public broadcasting system for the foreseeable future; as opposed to dangerous left-wing views propaganda misinformation spread by other networks.
    The US Government funds the BBC?

    They can't Fox is a for profit private corporation, besides, why do they need to, it is already Trump's State TV

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    The US Government funds the BBC?

    They can't Fox is a for profit private corporation, besides, why do they need to, it is already Trump's State TV
    Fox was opposed to Trump's election, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello and welcome MarcusA,

    I'm glad you found this forum.

    First of all, I'd like to acquaint you with my Personal Ignore Policy 'PIP,' since my rules are more strict than the site rules. I hope this is agreeable to you:

    PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

    If this is acceptable then I hope we have many great discussions. If not, then we won't be talking long.



    This will never happen. First of all, the public news sources in America are supported by LOTS of private donations, so even if the government were to completely pull funding, they would survive. When you tune in to PBS, there are no commercials. Instead, there are short messages from underwriters, and a long list of funds and trusts which have bequeathed donations to PBS.

    Second, Fox is a for-profit entertainment business, not a news reporting agency. The material they present does provide some news, but it is laced with pretty strong right wing slant. Fox is supported by advertising profits, as it should be. Fox should receive nothing from the government. Our taxes are not meant to support narrow views. We operate public information services to inform the public in a balanced way. Fox draws viewers by presenting sensationalist stories, in order to maintain ratings and advertisement revenue. Fox is popular with the less-educated. Fox is only as reliable a news source as people think it is. Reputation is the make or break for Fox. Anyone who chooses to watch Fox is free to do so. That is their choice. The rest of the nation chooses not to watch Fox.

    I'm glad Fox is out there, along with PBS, NPR and BBC, and all the rest. The media is the 4th estate, the way America exercises freedom of speech. We want to hear from all sources, and we want to have a well informed populace. The best case would be to improve education so that everyone can properly understand what they are getting in the way of information and make well educated voting choices.

    It would hurt America to try to censor or defund news sources. China controls what people see. America does not do that, and for good reason. That is the difference between freedom and thought-control.

    We must have freedom. Let freedom ring. Let the different voices be heard.

    Diversity, freedom and unity make America great.

    Polarization, thought-control, and hatred hurt America.

    We don't want a conservative nation any more than we want a liberal nation.

    We want a free nation, able and prepared to constantly choose between the two sides, to weigh out and decide which has the best message at the best time.

    Each side acts as a check on the other so that neither side gets too full of itself and thinks it's way is the only way, and it should be forced upon the other side. Let the side that makes the best argument of the day prevail. That way, if either side gets too full of itself, and does not consider the welfare of the opposite side, then the other side can form a majority and over-rule the full-of-itself side.

    Good policy needs to work for all, not just those of narrow views.

    The best policy considers what is best for all, and weighs it against what is best for the individual.
    Bogus. If you want an "non-partisan/political source", here's one:

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

    It claims ranks CNN and MSNBC as "heavy left bias", and Fox as "heavy right bias". (It claims sources like "Air Force Times" are least biased).

    Pew Research also ranked MSNBC as having heavier bias than Fox.

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Private schmivate. Lots of "private institutions" receive public funding.

    Basically, the right-wing in US and UK should just divert the funding they waste on BBC, PBS, NPR, etc and transfer it to Fox; establishing Fox as the new public broadcasting service and "centrist" source for the foreseeable future.

    (More overtly right-wing sources can co-exist alongside Fox, while anything to the left of Fox is branded "crazy" and no longer allowed to have any viability on the airwaves.
    I'm glad to see you believe so strongly in socialism. There may be hope for you yet.

  5. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    I'm glad to see you believe so strongly in socialism. There may be hope for you yet.
    Socialism? Pffh.

    I'm totally fine with taking money from the Godless, who would otherwise waste it on frivolousness and using it to help establish a Godly state.

    Ultimately any "money" on earth belongs to God, and if it doesn't serve the interests of God, it's the righteous duty of the God-fearing to confiscate it from the heathens, pagan, and degenerates, who lacking any virtue or morality to speak of, could never be trusted with money anymore than a child in a candy store with $100 dollars.

    They wouldn't be worried about their frivolous paper and metal when they're cast into the abyss and immolated in hellfire for all eternity; we may as just deprive it from them a bit sooner.

  6. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Socialism? Pffh.

    I'm totally fine with taking money from the Godless, who would otherwise waste it on frivolousness and using it to help establish a Godly state.

    Ultimately any "money" on earth belongs to God, and if it doesn't serve the interests of God, it's the righteous duty of the God-fearing to confiscate it from the heathens, pagan, and degenerates, who lacking any virtue or morality to speak of, could never be trusted with money anymore than a child in a candy store with $100 dollars.

    They wouldn't be worried about their frivolous paper and metal when they're cast into the abyss and immolated in hellfire for all eternity; we may as just deprive it from them a bit sooner.
    So you hate the first amendment. Any others you have problems with? I think your argument is exactly the same as Hitler's. Well done, you are in good company.

  7. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Fox was opposed to Trump's election, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
    Right, they supported Hillary, all those nightly demogogues didn't campaign for Trump, didn't appear on the podium with Trump, didn't offer him all kinds of free time on their shows, and I don't know what I am talking about?

  8. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 32 Times in 26 Posts
    Groans
    66
    Groaned 22 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    So you hate the first amendment. Any others you have problems with? I think your argument is exactly the same as Hitler's. Well done, you are in good company.
    Plus that's just ignorance, every government (by the very definition of "government" to begin with, including the US government) has always allocated public spending on various causes, this includes public donations to "private donors".

    For example, I'm a MENSA-level intellect who is also probably in the top percentiles in terms of linguistic ability. Since people of my intellect and values naturally contribute more than individuals of lesser intelligence, ambitions, and virtues; those whom by the virtue of their own debasedness would voluntarily live as slaves and slavish even if they were granted some mythical, childish, or nonsensical "freedom" which they are too inept and virtue-less to properly apprecite.

    So it would be in the natural right and interest of a virtuous state to subsidize the interests of men and women like me, at the expense of the lesser individuals - such as those with lower intelligence, reasoning abilities, and first and foremost, virtues, He he he

    Don't be jealous that you and others lost the genetic lottery. lol

  9. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,961
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Bogus. If you want an "non-partisan/political source", here's one:

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

    It claims ranks CNN and MSNBC as "heavy left bias", and Fox as "heavy right bias". (It claims sources like "Air Force Times" are least biased).

    Pew Research also ranked MSNBC as having heavier bias than Fox.
    Of course both Fox and MSNBC are heavy bias, that is why they were created, they are the same thing, vehicles designed to appeal to a targeted audience

  10. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Plus that's just ignorance, every government (by the very definition of "government" to begin with, including the US government) has always allocated public spending on various causes, this includes public donations to "private donors".

    For example, I'm a MENSA-level intellect who is also probably in the top percentiles in terms of linguistic ability. Since people of my intellect and values naturally contribute more than individuals of lesser intelligence, ambitions, and virtues; those whom by the virtue of their own debasedness would voluntarily live as slaves and slavish even if they were granted some mythical, childish, or nonsensical "freedom" which they are too inept and virtue-less to properly apprecite.

    So it would be in the natural right and interest of a virtuous state to subsidize the interests of men and women like me, at the expense of the lesser individuals - such as those with lower intelligence, reasoning abilities, and first and foremost, virtues, He he he

    Don't be jealous that you and others lost the genetic lottery. lol




    Did you decide to hide this massive intellect when you came here to post. Our system of law and our Constitution have thoroughly rejected your 'Aryan race' bullshit. You belong in Nazi Germany, circa 1936, hunting Jews. In my experience, guys who need to brag about their IQ are hiding feelings of inadequacy. One thing that's certain is that you failed sixth grade Constitutional Law.

    Yawn.

  11. The Following User Groans At Concart For This Awful Post:

    MarcusA (07-11-2020)

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello MarcusA,

    Before I respond to your post I am compelled to comment about what was missing from it. Most friendly posters that I end up respecting have the courtesy to acknowledge my PIP. Since you have not even commented on it, that leaves me wondering. Perhaps you are a bot. I don't know. Your response totally blows off my entire previous post with one word, and zero explanation. That's not overly respectful, nor friendly. We shall see how things work out. I am not one to engage in one-sided conversations. Especially ones where there is little to no recognition of anything I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Bogus. If you want an "non-partisan/political source", here's one:

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

    It claims ranks CNN and MSNBC as "heavy left bias", and Fox as "heavy right bias". (It claims sources like "Air Force Times" are least biased).

    Pew Research also ranked MSNBC as having heavier bias than Fox.
    That site is ranked by industry professionals at the Columbia Journalism Review as 'armchair amateur,' and 'unscientific' by the Poynter Institute.

    It ranks Fox as heavily right biased, as you noted:

    "RIGHT BIAS

    These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

    Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared. Further, Fox News would be rated a Questionable source based on numerous failed fact checks by hosts and pundits, however, straight news reporting is generally reliable, therefore we rate them Mixed for factual reporting."

    The armchair amateur site you linked rates PBS Newshour as only slightly center-left biased:

    "LEFT-CENTER BIAS

    These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

    Overall, we rate PBS NewsHour slightly Left-Center Biased based on story selection that slightly favors the left and Very High for factual reporting due to in-depth, well sourced information and a clean fact check record."

    With that in mind (if it means anything, coming from an amateur with zero credentials,) the OP makes zero sense.

    Again, it would be absurd to remove public funding from a source that does not have to engage in sensationalism to earn advertising dollars for funding and to steer it towards a source that does, and it heavily biased. That would only be done if there is an agenda to try to control the thinking of the public.

    As noted above, I am looking for a mutually respectful two-way conversation here. I have commented on your thoughts. If your way is to blow off my considered comments in one word and then blast me with stuff you simply want to throw out there with zero intent of having an actual two-way conversation, then I am going to consider that to be disrespectful; and cut it off with you. Are you a real person who can engage in a two-way conversation?
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    3,641
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked 1,132 Times in 908 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    This sounds like a good plan; hopefully Trump and conservatives in the US and UK can have PBS, NPR, and BBC defunded, with the funding being diverted to Fox News instead.

    This will help establish Fox as the new de-facto national/public broadcasting system for the foreseeable future; as opposed to dangerous left-wing views propaganda misinformation spread by other networks.
    I'll meet you halfway. Defund public media, and let the market decide things.

  14. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello MarcusA,

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    Plus that's just ignorance, every government (by the very definition of "government" to begin with, including the US government) has always allocated public spending on various causes, this includes public donations to "private donors".

    For example, I'm a MENSA-level intellect who is also probably in the top percentiles in terms of linguistic ability. Since people of my intellect and values naturally contribute more than individuals of lesser intelligence, ambitions, and virtues; those whom by the virtue of their own debasedness would voluntarily live as slaves and slavish even if they were granted some mythical, childish, or nonsensical "freedom" which they are too inept and virtue-less to properly apprecite.

    So it would be in the natural right and interest of a virtuous state to subsidize the interests of men and women like me, at the expense of the lesser individuals - such as those with lower intelligence, reasoning abilities, and first and foremost, virtues, He he he

    Don't be jealous that you and others lost the genetic lottery. lol
    OK, anybody who goes on the internet and tries to make their own intelligence a matter of discussion - is asking for it!

    The 'it' being criticism of their own intelligence.

    Naturally, to do this thing, and to do it with less than impeccable grammar, is like bending over and asking for it.

    Additionally, an individual of supposed exceptional intelligence should be able to argue a position based on the merits of the concept, rather than personally attacking others.

    FYI: You're about that close (holding thumb and forefinger less than 1 mm apart) to being placed on Permanent Ignore unless you can quickly redeem yourself and suddenly turn into a respectful poster. Life is too short to waste time talking to people who cannot engage in basic civil discourse...
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  15. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,527
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,570 Times in 17,095 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    NPR receives no Federal Funding. PBS is funded by member stations and pledge drives. the BBC is funded by British peoples licensing fees.

  16. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    86,920
    Thanks
    35,051
    Thanked 21,762 Times in 17,092 Posts
    Groans
    985
    Groaned 2,343 Times in 2,262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusA View Post
    This sounds like a good plan; hopefully Trump and conservatives in the US and UK can have PBS, NPR, and BBC defunded, with the funding being diverted to Fox News instead.

    This will help establish Fox as the new de-facto national/public broadcasting system for the foreseeable future; as opposed to dangerous left-wing views propaganda misinformation spread by other networks.
    Okay Goebbels.

  17. The Following User Groans At AProudLefty For This Awful Post:

    MarcusA (07-11-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Biden says he's for defunding police
    By Irish in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: 07-10-2020, 04:24 PM
  2. Trump says no defunding, dismantling or disbanding of police
    By Grokmaster in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-11-2020, 12:16 PM
  3. Bill de Blasio announces that he is defunding the NYPD
    By ziggy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-08-2020, 03:19 PM
  4. 54% favor dems - 46% favor reps in new sp poll - more at link
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 04:36 AM
  5. Defunding Obamacare!
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 05:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •