Pages

77 comments

Jump to bottom
1 Sophia77  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 2:56:53pm

Exactly.

2 diamonda2u  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 3:23:31pm

I'm with you on this one! I remember at least in the 90's when TLC still showed learning. I was in Guam for a three month deployment in 96-97... not much TV as we know it at that time and definitely not on Guam. Me and the Chief spent those three months watching TLC and we joked how we thought we were qualified to now be doctors and do brain surgery or any other surgery because there were a lot of medical shows showing just about any medical topic you could imagine. We really did learn a lot. Honey Boo Boo, don't get me started. So many people in my own family are infatuated with that stupid show. I don't get it.

3 dragonfire1981  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 3:25:12pm

Better or worse are irrelevant. The private sector does it to make money. It's a simple as that.

4 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 3:57:59pm

re: #3 dragonfire1981

Does anyone remember the Mutual Of Omahas "Wild Kingdom"? Privately funded by an insurance company. How about Beakmans world? Commercial TV.
For a far more contemporary example we have Through The Wormhole.
[Link: science.discovery.com...]
Winged Planet?

My point is that good educational programming can and has been done by the private sector. I'm not saying to de fund PBS. I'd like too have both. I am saying that there is to this very day lots of quality science programming on from the private sector.


So given the premise above how do we explain all that good science and education programming since Reagan that did not go all Honey Boo Boo?

5 Skip Intro  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 4:33:43pm

Cable tv is full of channels with names that describe what they once were about, but no more.

How about The History Channel? Seen much history there recently? Or then there's Arts & Entertainment, the home of six hours of Storage Wars programming most days of the week.

Yeah, I know, I'm exaggerating a little about Storage Wars, but not much.

Because it's so cheap to program, "reality tv" has completely taken over tv these days, and were all much poorer for it.

6 wheat-dogg  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 4:41:44pm

re: #4 Daniel Ballard

Those are programs, not entire networks dedicated to educational programming. Not quite the same thing.

7 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 5:11:33pm

The problem is us.

If we didn't watch it, they wouldn't air it.

If documentaries of Civil War hospitals and re-enactments of Roman encampments had viewers, that's what they would air.

Mythbusters is still going strong, though. Dirty Jobs has a market. My boys watch How It's Made. The John Adams miniseries was terrific, and it was done for profit. Ken Burns rocks, and he works for PBS.

I do wish that the History Channel actually had history, like they used to, but in post-literate America, ALIENS will outsell documentaries about the Continental Congresses, because most Americans don't know what a Continental Congress was, who was there, or why they should care that Peyton Randolph died between the first and second.

This is sad, because I would prefer the real shows. When we ask for good, we will get good.

8 Destro  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 5:36:00pm

re: #5 Skip Intro

Nice to see you here, buddy! I will also return to posting on The Peoples Forum soon, just can't do both now.

9 diamonda2u  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 5:48:44pm

re: #4 Daniel Ballard

Does anyone remember the Mutual Of Omahas "Wild Kingdom"? Privately funded by an insurance company. How about Beakmans world? Commercial TV.
For a far more contemporary example we have Through The Wormhole.
[Link: science.discovery.com...]
Winged Planet?

My point is that good educational programming can and has been done by the private sector. I'm not saying to de fund PBS. I'd like too have both. I am saying that there is to this very day lots of quality science programming on from the private sector.

So given the premise above how do we explain all that good science and education programming since Reagan that did not go all Honey Boo Boo?

Umm... to bad the shows you quote are from 4 decades ago... gone are the days of quality private sector education...it's about the dollar baby, not quality... they might stumble on quality bu accident but not by their own doing... reality tv is just to lucritive

10 Destro  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 6:03:00pm

re: #4 Daniel Ballard

Does anyone remember the Mutual Of Omahas "Wild Kingdom"? Privately funded by an insurance company. How about Beakmans world? Commercial TV.
For a far more contemporary example we have Through The Wormhole.
[Link: science.discovery.com...]
Winged Planet?

My point is that good educational programming can and has been done by the private sector. I'm not saying to de fund PBS. I'd like too have both. I am saying that there is to this very day lots of quality science programming on from the private sector.

So given the premise above how do we explain all that good science and education programming since Reagan that did not go all Honey Boo Boo?

re: #9 diamonda2u

The television standards from that era where Mutual Of Omahas "Wild Kingdom" were on were different. Children's programs had to be by law educational. Television had to provide a public service to get to use the people's airwaves (news was a loss leader and was not there to make money but to satisfy that public service aspect).

Children's shows until Reagan de-regulated TV could not be based around a toy line and serve as a commercial for the toys.

I love GI Joe cartoons like any one (see my name) but the show would not have been made if Reagan did not deregulate. In any case the end of the GI Joe cartoon had some sort of life lesson and I think it was there to satisfy some last vestige of the regulations for children's shows.

11 calochortus  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 7:05:23pm

re: #7 Mostly sane, most of the time.

We dropped our cable a few months ago when it dawned on us that we just weren't watching many programs that weren't on PBS and therefore available free. I do miss Mythbusters and a few other things, but if I really cared I could get them on-line (some free, some for a couple bucks a show.)

Reality TV is either boring, cringe-worthy, or both.

12 dragonath  Fri, Oct 5, 2012 7:49:03pm

"A Vast Wasteland" Minow is still around. He wrote an article for the Atlantic a couple of months ago.

We need to give greater support to public radio and public television. Both have been starved for funds for decades, and yet in many communities they are essential sources of local news and information—particularly public radio, which is relatively inexpensive to produce and distribute and is a valuable source of professionally reported news for millions of Americans.

13 iossarian  Sat, Oct 6, 2012 1:15:51am

re: #10 Destro

re: #9 diamonda2u

The television standards from that era where Mutual Of Omahas "Wild Kingdom" were on were different. Children's programs had to be by law educational. Television had to provide a public service to get to use the people's airwaves (news was a loss leader and was not there to make money but to satisfy that public service aspect).

Children's shows until Reagan de-regulated TV could not be based around a toy line and serve as a commercial for the toys.

I love GI Joe cartoons like any one (see my name) but the show would not have been made if Reagan did not deregulate. In any case the end of the GI Joe cartoon had some sort of life lesson and I think it was there to satisfy some last vestige of the regulations for children's shows.

Great comment - pretty much demolishes the original argument that the commercial sector will produce anything of non-commercial value unless they are forced to by the government.

14 wheat-dogg  Sat, Oct 6, 2012 2:16:15am

Cable TV was the game changer. When all we had was broadcast TV, the "airwaves" were considered a public domain subject to regulation by the feds. When it became possible to pay for specific kinds of programming via cable (and later satellite TV), broadcasters lost their corner on the market. So, instead of spending money to improve their programming to compete with cable, they took the easier way and begged a sympathetic Congress and president to remove some of those pesky regulations.

As long as cable and satellite TV subscribers are willing to pay exorbitant fees for dreck, TV providers will continue to offer low cost/low quality dreck. With such a low bar to jump over, broadcasters don't really need to work hard either to produce quality (read, expensive) programming. PBS is about the only provider left that offers decent programming, and it gets a lot of its stuff from the BBC.

So, privatizing PBS -- like privatizing passenger rail service or public education -- is just begging for trouble.

15 Skip Intro  Sat, Oct 6, 2012 10:59:13am

re: #8 Destro

Thanks. I finally found a registration window open so I went for it.

16 serving soldier  Sun, Oct 7, 2012 6:51:10pm

You say, "Then it was privatized in 1980 (Reaganism)" but Reagan wasn't sworn in until Jan. 1981, and the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, so how was it Reaganism? In 1980 Jimmy Carter was still President.

17 Alexzander  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 9:08:11am

Congratulations on being picked up by Reddit!

[Link: www.reddit.com...]

18 Gus  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 10:35:24am

Oddly enough I can easily get into this page.

19 Gus  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 10:39:56am

Destro. What I'm about to link to should not imply and endorsement of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party who are both rather loathsome entities. However, please review the following text showing political contributions as recorded with the FEC by Authentic Entertainment which is the production company for Honey Boo Boo.

Here's the link.

20 dragonath  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:20:27pm

I'm finding it sort of comical that supporters of PBS funding are being framed as Marxists by the Mark Steyns of the world when all people are asking for is a continuation of the status quo.

Look. At. The. Record. TV channels that produce shows with a overbearing motive to squeeze out every last cent of profit more often than not produce garbage.

I don't care who was President, whether or not it was Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush. PBS is our channel and we should do all we can to protect it.

21 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:23:41pm

Gah it keeps eating this post:

Destro, you mostly just cut and paste from Wiki here, without attributing it. That's bad form.

In addition, Wiki seems to have a shaky grasp of this subject.

Finally, even the article you're sourcing from says the problems that occurred happened in the 1990s, which appears to be when it changed from non-profit to for-profit. The privatization as a non-profit doesn't appear to have seriously damaged the programming.

22 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:23:42pm

re: #19 Gus

What does that have to do with anything regarding the corrosive nature of for profit TV and why we need taxpayer funded Public Television?

23 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:24:43pm

re: #21 Sheeplord

I linked to Wiki as attribution. Click The Learning Channel.

24 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:27:09pm

re: #23 Destro

I linked to Wiki as attribution. Click The Learning Channel.

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You're quoting, so put it in block quotes, or it seems like you're writing the stuff yourself.

There's quite a few problems with what you wrote/took from Wiki. If it was privatized in 1980, it couldn't have been Reaganomics. Further, it appears to have been 'privatized' by changing it to a non-profit corporation; there is nothing inherently wrong with that sort of privatization. The problem really appears to have been the change from non-profit to profit, not from governmental to non-governmental.

Your basic premise is fine, but it'd be better to get that stuff right.

25 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:30:19pm

re: #24 Sheeplord

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You're quoting, so put it in block quotes, or it seems like you're writing the stuff yourself.

There's quite a few problems with what you wrote/took from Wiki. If it was privatized in 1980, it couldn't have been Reaganomics. Further, it appears to have been 'privatized' by changing it to a non-profit corporation; there is nothing inherently wrong with that sort of privatization. The problem really appears to have been the change from non-profit to profit, not from governmental to non-governmental.

Your basic premise is fine, but it'd be better to get that stuff right.

I linked the idea of Reagonomics to privatization. I did not say Reagan I said Reaganism, the ideology that embraced the privatization of govt assets. And I think my attribution is as much as needed.

26 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 5:36:05pm

re: #25 Destro

I linked the idea of Reagonomics to privatization.

Since this privatization predates Reagan and Reagonomics, that link is pretty weak. In addition, taking governmental entities and making them into non-profits isn't necessarily bad. Again, the problem appears not to be privatization, but transition to for-profit. Do you understand that part of what I'm saying? You seem to be ignoring it.

And I think my attribution is as much as needed.

You're wrong. If you are quoting, you should put what you're quoting in blockquotes. As it is, there is no way to tell what you wrote above and what is from Wiki other than going to Wiki and reading the whole thing and then comparing it.

What is the problem with attributing properly and using blockquotes to show what someone else wrote, not you?

27 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 6:28:50pm

You can probably add about 150,000 to the Views count on this Page, because it wasn't logging those visitors while it was a static page.

29 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:02:10pm

re: #28 Destro

If the wave got sparked in 1980, then something happening in 1979 isn't Reaganomics, right?

And again:

the problem appears not to be privatization, but transition to for-profit. Do you understand that part of what I'm saying? You seem to be ignoring it.

Secondly, I don't feel I need a Chicago style of annotation. A link is good enough if the source is Wiki.

Well, it really doesn't matter what you feel. When you don't quote properly, you confuse what you wrote with what other people wrote. I have no way of telling, in the above post, what is your opinion/reporting and what is someone else's. It's unclear, and confusing, and you could easily prevent that just by properly quoting what is someone else's words.

It's also unethical to present someone else's work as your own.

30 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:37:06pm

re: #29 Sheeplord

If the wave got sparked in 1980, then something happening in 1979 isn't Reaganomics, right? Yea, Thatcherism and the Chicago School which we came to know as Reaganomics.

31 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:45:21pm

re: #30 Destro

If the wave got sparked in 1980, then something happening in 1979 isn't Reaganomics, right? Yea, Thatcherism and the Chicago School which we came to know as Reaganomics.

Again:

the problem appears not to be privatization, but transition to for-profit. Do you understand that part of what I'm saying? You seem to be ignoring it.

32 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:47:48pm

re: #31 Sheeplord

the problem appears not to be privatization, but transition to for-profit.

Privatization is done for profit. What's the point if not for the profit?

33 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:55:13pm

re: #32 Destro

the problem appears not to be privatization, but transition to for-profit.

Privatization is done for profit. What's the point if not for the profit?

Well, it can be for a variety of reasons: to set something up permanently, rather than have it dependent on funding every year, to remove it from direct political control, etc. In this case, it really does appear as though it was privatized as a non-profit corporation. Do you get that bit?

Later, the channel became what it is when that non-profit got bought by a for-profit. I'm really not that sure about this, because the sources I can find aren't that clear, but it seems like that was the path. There's a book in the bibliography of Wiki on this subject; if you're genuinely interested, it'd probably be worth reading.

34 Destro  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 9:01:42pm

Well, it can be for a variety of reasons: to set something up permanently, rather than have it dependent on funding every year

Funding? It's called taxes. "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

35 Obdicut  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 9:12:43pm

re: #34 Destro

Well, it can be for a variety of reasons: to set something up permanently, rather than have it dependent on funding every year

Funding? It's called taxes. "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society" - Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

You're trying really hard not to understand me.

Congress can decide to continually fund something, or they can decide to make it an independent non-profit by giving it an endowment. For a relevant example, the 'land-grant' schools (and sometimes sea-grant) are called that because they were given land, in perpetuity, to develop, use, etc. They don't have to have their ownership of the land reauthorized-- or any of the other funds given for their endowment.

While most of this schools are now the public state schools, somewhat intertwined with the state still, some are private, like MIT. MIT was started with government funds, a government land grant, but is a non-profit corporation.

There are other examples, things that have been made self-perpetuating and taken outside of the government. This is, if you think about it, a very smart move in many cases, because if you can make something self-perpetuating and not at the mercy of partisan politics, then rabid GOP jerks can't defund it.

Does this help you understand?

36 InmateTarn  Mon, Oct 8, 2012 10:10:57pm

I don't understand bloggers like these. The content is definitely a subject that needs to be addressed, however it already has been on Wikipedia. At least cite the places you are getting your information if you are just going to copy/paste and claim as your own. If you want to be a legitimate writer/blogger/journalist then use legitimate practices.

37 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:09:01am

re: #36 InmateTarn

I did cite. Click the link.

38 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:12:24am

re: #35 Sheeplord

re: #35 Sheeplord

I understand perfectly. I think the ideology you advocate has shown over 30 plus years to be a failure.

New York to Repeat Chicago’s Parking Meter Catastrophe


Readers of my last book, Griftopia, might recall a chapter about the city of Chicago leasing 75 years of its parking meter revenue to a coterie of private investors, some of them from the Middle East. The end result was and is a political obscenity: Native Chicagoans are now completely at the mercy of private interests when it comes to parking rates, collections, even holidays. When elected officials in Illinois can’t shut off the parking meters on Abe Lincoln’s birthday because a bunch of sheiks in Dubai don’t want the revenue stream turned off even for a day, you know something has gone seriously sideways in the national body politic.

Read more: [Link: www.rollingstone.com...]

39 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:12:51am

re: #37 Destro

I did cite. Click the link.

The issue is far more present what someone else said as your own work. That's the actually unethical part.

40 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:21:27am

re: #39 Sheeplord

You were mistaken in my not having a citation link for the TLC history portion.

Linking the perils of privatization of PBS to the TLC case and Honey Boo Boo was all me.

41 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:22:02am

re: #38 Destro

You think I'm advocating a policy of privatization? What is goddamn wrong with you? Why not just actually listen to what other people are saying?

Forgive me for asking, but how old are you?

I don't think that MIT is a failure, nor the other land-grant colleges. I think that sometimes making a non-governmental non-profit is a good idea. I also think that they should be enjoined from ever being sold to a for-profit, which is what happened in this case.

My point is that changing from a non-profit to a for-profit is what screwed up TLC. This agrees with your broader point. I have no idea why you're so resistant and hostile.

42 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:23:50am

We are back it seems - server is running after this article crashed it. I think we got such a strong reaction to the TLC/Honey Boo Boo post of mine because - based on what I read on Reddit comments, people seem to have forgotten that TLC used to stand for "The Learning Channel" and even less people remembered there was some sort of educational public funding link to TLC.

So the juxtaposition of Honey Boo Boo now being the top rated show on a channel that was once partnered with NASA - and Romney's attack on PBS/Sesame Street/Big Bird helped illustrate the perils of privatizing and the for profit model for some endeavors vs the govt funded alternative.

I hope post helped people see why we need public financed broadcasting and why Republican ideology of free market is the only solution can be folly. I like Big Bird and want to keep funding PBS. If we tax the rich more we won't need to borrow money from China to do it (less Republican started wars would help also).

43 Interesting Times  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:24:49am

re: #37 Destro

I did cite. Click the link.

No, that's not considered sufficient as per this site's rules for Pages. Charles has made this clear to others in the past. If you're quoting text verbatim from another site - even if said site is Wikipedia - you need to set it off with proper blockquote tags, so that it's visually set off from your own words. You've done this before in your other Pages, so why not do it here as well?

44 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:25:51am

re: #40 Destro

You were mistaken in my not having a citation link for the TLC history portion.

That's not a citation. It's a citation when you properly quote something and then cite it. Simply sticking a link in there so that people can discover on their own that you're passing off someone else's writing as yours-- that's not proper citation.

Again: Why not just do it right? What do you gain by confusing people and making them think that you wrote something that you didn't?

Linking the perils of privatization of PBS to the TLC case and Honey Boo Boo was all me.

Holy shit. Do you really not know that PBS is already private?

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

PBS is a private, nonprofit corporation, founded in 1969, whose members are America’s public TV stations -- noncommercial, educational licensees that operate more than 350 PBS member stations and serve all 50 states, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

45 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:26:29am

re: #41 Sheeplord


I am pretty sure I am slamming the potential corrosive nature of for profit endeavors.

I worte: I am not saying we should not be capitalists and should be against the for profit model - but we should wake up from the delusion that the private sector can do it better. In some cases, the private sector does it worse and is worse.

But you got fixated on the fucking privatization angle with me. Also, Sesame Street can only work as a non profit if it has a showcase on a network like PBS.

Have you seen daytime television? You think Sesame Street could compete with Judge Judy or any of the AM broadcast staples? What deregulated broadcaster is willing to lose money showing Sesame Street when then can make more money doing shows about "Who is the daddy, DNA tests"?

Now move on.

46 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:30:24am

re: #43 Interesting Times

I do these posts on my smart phone. I would have fixed it up if not for the crash. See above. But my linked source was always there.

47 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:36:42am

re: #45 Destro

Yeah, how weird that I was 'fixating' in the privatization part. Not like this was the topic of your thread or something.

48 Interesting Times  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:39:33am

re: #46 Destro

I do these posts on my smart phone. I would have fixed it up if not for the crash.

You might be able to edit it now if the Pencil icon still shows up (I think it should, since the dynamic version of this Page was restored). If not, Charles can fix it for you (he does that with Pages promoted to the front, since Page authors lose editing abilities afterwards).

As to the other arguments, I definitely get the gist of what you're saying, but when others point out imprecision of terms, it's an alert that your words may be open to interpretations you don't intend. So, it doesn't hurt to forestall that by using precise terms in the first place. Do you mean "for-profit privatization" as opposed to just privatization itself? Or maybe this phenomenon calls for a new term - "profitization".

49 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:42:38am

re: #47 Sheeplord

How else can the currently not for profit Sesame Street can compete in a for profit television broadcast environment if PBS public funding was ended? Commercials? If PBS shuts down, what broadcaster is willing to lose money for an hour of non commercial children's TV?

So your premise that somehow Sesame Street could survive intact as a non profit in such an environment is nonsensical to me.

50 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:47:24am

re: #49 Destro

Please acknowledge the following fact:

PBS is a private non-profit corporation.

51 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:47:51am

re: #48 Interesting Times

Generally a govt created entity being privatized in most cases means it is converted to a for profit model. In the case of PBS I don't see how it can survive as defunded from govt not for profit broadcaster for long. Maybe for a few years it would hang on, like TLC did and be true to its mission statement. Maybe.

52 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:50:00am

re: #50 Sheeplord

Please acknowledge the following fact:

PBS is a private non-profit enterprise.

That receives govt funding. And has been forced over time to seek private sponsorship as govt funding is reduced - private sponsorship which is problematic for me and others. For profit corporations are sociopathic by their nature and having a for profit corporation fund broadcasts is problematic in a slipper slope manner. Hence the slippery slope that lead to TLC airing Honey Boo Boo.

53 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:53:12am

re: #52 Destro

That receives govt funding. And has been forced over time to seek private sponsorship - which is problematic.

Yes. It receives government funding, as a private entity. Do you think 'privatization' means 'removal of government funding', rather than 'making into a private entity'? Is that your confusion?

PBS gets a small portion of its budget from the government. I am of the opinion that that budget should be increased, since PBS is incredibly valuable. However, the way to help PBS is not by falsely claiming that it's in danger of being privatized, since it is already private.

What you actually mean is that it's important to keep funding PBS. I absolutely agree. However, you've put it in false terms about privatization which ignores that PBS is already private. You are shooting yourself in the foot, and you are resistant to all attempts to help you make your argument better. I just don't fucking get it.

54 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 7:54:15am

re: #53 Sheeplord

Yes. It receives government funding, as a private entity. Do you think 'privatization' means 'removal of government funding', rather than 'making into a private entity'? Is that your confusion?

Slippery slope.

55 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:00:36am

re: #54 Destro

Yes. It receives government funding, as a private entity. Do you think 'privatization' means 'removal of government funding', rather than 'making into a private entity'? Is that your confusion?

Slippery slope.

So you think that PBS, which has been, to my knowledge, a private non-profit entity for its entire life, is on the slippery slope why?

Try an actual answer. PBS is a private non-profit corporation, that receives a minority funding from the government. I advocate higher government funding of PBS. However, there is no slippery slope between being a non-profit and being a for-profit.

I do not know the circumstances of the sale of the non-profit learning channel to the for-profit Discovery. There is very little good info out there that I can find, but it is really clear that it is the transition to for-profit that corrupted the network. If PBS similarly was sold to a for-profit network, well, it'd be like Medicare going to a voucher system; it wouldn't be PBS anymore. I would fight against that tooth and nail. But PBS existing as an independent non-profit has obviously not put it on a slippery slope to for-profit status.

You have a perfectly decent overall point-- for-profit corrupts educational programming. Why you fanatically need to refuse to admit that your argument has any error or, god forbid, actually acknowledge and correct those errors, I have no fucking clue.

56 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:46:34am

re: #55 Sheeplord

If PBS gets totally defunded by the govt it is on a slipper slope. For a non profit that small govt portion is the difference between survival and not surviving. It then has to embrace the market. The market turns TLC's former educational programing into Honey Boo Boo in time. It is corrosive.

57 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:49:07am

re: #56 Destro

If PBS gets totally defunded by the govt it is on a slipper slope. For a non profit that small govt portion is the difference between survival and not surviving. It then has to embrace the market. The market turns TLC's former educational programing into Honey Boo Boo in time. It is corrosive.

Yes, I agree. So let's fight against any defunding of PBS, and let's not confuse the issue by talking about privatization when it's already a private entity.

What is hard to grasp about this?

58 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:53:46am

re: #12 dragonath

"A Vast Wasteland" Minow is still around. He wrote an article for the Atlantic a couple of months ago.

It's worth noting that Barack Obama and future first lady Michelle Robinson first met while both were working at Minow's law firm in 1988.

59 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:55:04am

re: #57 Sheeplord

Privatization for a broadcast channel in this deregulated enviornment will lead to profitization. Profitization eventually leads to lowering the bar to the common denominator = Honey Boo Boo slipper slope thesis. What is so hard to grasp about that?

60 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 9:09:06am

re: #59 Destro

Privatization for a broadcast channel in this deregulated enviornment will lead to profitization. Profitization eventually leads to lowering the bar to the common denominator = Honey Boo Boo slipper slope thesis. What is so hard to grasp about that?

What's so hard to grasp about that is that PBS IS ALREADY FUCKING PRIVATE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

61 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 9:23:17am

re: #60 Sheeplord

What's so hard to grasp about that is that PBS IS ALREADY FUCKING PRIVATE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

PBS is only private non for profit because it receives govt funding. If it did not it could not, in all likely hood survive and would have to start selling commercial ad space to survive.

In fact, it is already starting.

[Link: www.hollywoodreporter.com...]

PBS to Add Commercials During Shows

10:17 AM PDT 5/31/2011 by THR Staff

Public broadcast execs explain the decision by pointing to the steep drop-off in ratings when traditional messages were aired between shows

Instead of airing breaks every 50 minutes, as the public broadcaster does now, it will air them every 15 minutes beginning this fall, according to the New York Times. Nature and Nova are two of the shows that will contain corporate and foundation sponsor ads, promotional messages and branding every 15 minutes.

Feelings about the move are mixed.

That's called a slipper slope.

62 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 9:42:04am

re: #61 Destro

PBS is only private non for profit because it receives govt funding.

Great! So fight against defunding it, and not against privatizing it, since it's already goddamn private.

64 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 10:08:24am

re: #63 Destro

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a non-profit corporation created by an act of the United States Congress and funded by the United States federal government to promote public broadcasting. The CPB is governed by a board of directors consisting of six members. They are selected by the President of the United States, confirmed by the Senate, and serve six-year terms.

How is that "private" in your world?

Do you understand that the CPB is not PBS?

Again:

PBS is a private, nonprofit corporation, founded in 1969, whose members are America’s public TV stations -- noncommercial, educational licensees that operate more than 350 PBS member stations and serve all 50 states, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

That is what PBS says about itself. Can you explain why you're unwilling to accept that?

65 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 11:49:16am

re: #64 Sheeplord

Do you understand that the CPB is not PBS?

Again:

That is what PBS says about itself. Can you explain why you're unwilling to accept that?

And PBS can exist without CPC how?

[Link: www.cpb.org...]

PBS Funded by CPB and member stations.

66 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 11:54:08am

re: #65 Destro

And PBS can exist without CPC how?

It'd be very hard for it to exist without CPB.

Again: PBS is private. Repeatedly denying this fact is not helping to make your argument. Please deal with the fact that PBS is private. your main argument, that for-profit enteprises corrupt educational aims, is perfectly fucking good. Why you need to cling to the completely wrong idea that PBS is in danger of being privatized-- rather than already being private-- I have no fucking clue. It's goddamn mindboggling.

Why not just say "Sorry, didn't know that PBS was a private non-profit, thank you." and reform your argument with the actual facts, instead of desperately trying anything you can to argue that PBS is not really private, when they really, really, really are? Then you can point out that the reason that PBS has remained awesome is that it's a well-run non-profit, and that any attempts to make it a for-profit, like TLC was made, would be fucking terrible. You can even point to the increase in sponsorship branding as a sign that we need to fund PBS more.

What is stupid is continuing to insist we need to protect the already-private PBS from privatization.

67 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 12:28:24pm

re: #66 Sheeplord

Let me see what did I write:

Romney in the first debate with Obama and the GOP for years have called for PBS to be defunded for many reasons but they hate it's left wing educational content and the fact its financed by the tax payer (so they claim, I think they hate it because it tilts leftwards).

68 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 12:49:07pm

Thanks for editing the post to make it clear which sections were from Wikipedia. It really is important to make sure to properly credit sources.

69 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 1:15:48pm

re: #68 Charles Johnson

Thanks for editing the post to make it clear which sections were from Wikipedia. It really is important to make sure to properly credit sources.

I would have done it if the system did not crash after I posted this. I need to post and read it to edit it. But then reddit armageddon happened.

70 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 1:25:53pm

re: #67 Destro

Let me see what did I write:

Let me see what else you did write:

But a public funded example of PBS like station being defunded and privatized existed before. What can we learn from that?

So when Mitt Romney and the Republicans talk about how much better off PBS would be de-funded, remember what privatization did to TLC

Again: PBS is a private entity. Warning against the privatization of PBS is ludicrous. Warn against the defunding. I'll be right there with you. Call for more funding. I'll support the fuck out of that. But you just make yourself look like you've got no fucking clue what you're talking when you don't even know that PBS is already private.

71 Destro  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 1:58:55pm

re: #70 Sheeplord

You are pettifogging the issue because I mention privatized and defunded leading to the for profit model to survive which leads eventually to teh slipper slope of Honey Boo Boo.

72 Obdicut  Tue, Oct 9, 2012 2:05:39pm

re: #71 Destro

Destro, I am on your 'side' on this issue. I'm not pettifogging. It's a nice word: completely inappropriate. What I'm doing is pointing out a flaw in your argument: privatization usually means turning over government services to a for-profit firm, but it can also mean to turn a government agency into a standalong non-profit-- like PBS.

Furthermore, you're really shooting yourself in the foot with the 'slippery slope' argument, because i'm fairly sure PBS has been an independent non-profit basically since it's inception. Non-profits do not tend to become for-profits; what happened with TLC is unusual and totally worth actually looking at if you're actually interested in the issue.

I really don't get whey someone who's clearly bright and motivated is as stupidly stubborn as you. It's fucking ridiculous and you're damaging your arguments horrendously by acting like such an idiot. All you had to do was acknowledge that PBS was private, and that the real problem was the for-profit/non-profit distinction. Instead, you've dug your heels in, refused to acknowledge your mistake, kept trying to fight me on whether PBS is private, and accused me of having some sort of privatization agenda.

When you wind up attacking people on your side to defend a bad argument, you've seriously fucked up. Not quite as much as defending the coverup of war crimes, but still a pretty big fuckup.

73 Destro  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 6:34:11am

re: #72 Obdicut

PBS cannot exist as a non-profit without the govt CPB.

I will give you this analogy.

News used to be nonprofit for the broadcasters. It was a loss leader. News was provided as the public service cost for allowing broadcasters the use of the people's airways.

Then the for profit model entered the picture and news had to make money and justify its existence on the budget.

That is what would happen to PBS if it lost govt funding and had to seek an avenue of distribution on the for profit privatized airwaves.

So privatization in this case very clearly means the for for profit model.

74 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 6:56:15am

re: #73 Destro

PBS cannot exist as a non-profit without the govt CPB.

Obviously it could. It could be directly get grants from the government, rather than through the CPB. The government could give a large endowment and it could draw interest on.

That is what would happen to PBS if it lost govt funding and had to seek an avenue of distribution on the for profit privatized airwaves.

An avenue of distribution? So what you're actually talking about is the privatization of member stations? Goddamn, you change arguments like shoes.

So privatization in this case very clearly means the for for profit model.

PBS is already private. Fighting against the privatization of PBS is moronic. Always will be, no matter how much you argue. It is already private. Deal with it.

75 Destro  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 12:39:37pm

re: #74 Obdicut

I see what you are getting at.

I changed privatized to de-funds.

What's in store for Big Bird if Romney de-funds PBS


If PBS is defunded the sllippery slope leads to Honey Boo Boo Holler for the dollar.

76 Obdicut  Wed, Oct 10, 2012 2:00:56pm

re: #75 Destro

Holy shit, why did that take like thirty fucking posts.

77 Destro  Thu, Oct 11, 2012 10:04:55am

re: #76 Obdicut

Holy shit, why did that take like thirty fucking posts.

Because there is not much difference between PBS being private and depending on Public grant assistance because once that goes it can't be private any longer. It's a technical fiction.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day (per month) or 22 cents a day (per year), our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-03-07 2:19 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Randall Gross
Cliven Bundy Grandchildren Boycott School When Told They Can’t Bring Knives
The son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy pulled his five children out of Clark County, Nev. schools on Thursday after getting into a disagreement with administrators over the ability to carry pocketknives at school. The five students are the ...

10 hours, 30 minutes ago
Views: 206 • Comments: 3
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 2
FemNaziBitch
NYT: In Plastics and Cans, a Threat to Women —BPA’s
A few years ago, Jodi Flaws, a bioscientist at the University of Illinois, began testing a theory about the risks to women posed by the widely used industrial compound bisphenol A, or BPA. A series of studies had suggested ...

15 hours, 55 minutes ago
Views: 158 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
sagehen
Doctor Who Spoiler Thread
For those who want to post immediately... live... without having to hide spoilers behind the button.

5 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 584 • Comments: 99
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
EiMitch
Escapist: Maniac Cop
escapistmagazine.com Link broken? The gist is that this is an impressively sarcastic review of an old slasher flick based on the "unrealistic" premise of a cop abusing his power to murder people.

6 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 408 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Hyped Up On Ganja
Hunt for German neo-Nazis was ‘complete disaster’
BERLIN (AP) -- Police and security services in Germany's eastern state of Thuringia bungled the hunt for three neo-Nazis, who years later turned out to be the main suspects in a far-right murder spree. Story

1 week ago
Views: 591 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
Rightwingconspirator
A Lizard’s Regenerating Tail
Don't ya hate it when that happens? You feel so short for a month. Anoles are curious little lizards capable of ditching their tails when they feel threatened. This self-amputation, called autotomy, takes about 25 days for the tail to ...

1 week ago
Views: 442 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5
CriticalDragon1177
Io9 - Everything You Need To Know About Lemuria, The Lost Continent Of Lemurs
Esther Inglis-Arkell talks about the weirdest lost continent myth, I've ever heard. Its the only one I know of that ever included giant telepathic lemurs. No seriously! In 1858 a young zoologist, playing around with an idea, came up with ...

1 week ago
Views: 593 • Comments: 4
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
Laughing Gas
Scumbag “HBD believer” claims Michael Brown charged officer
WARNING: LINK TO HATE SITE He links to some ijreview, a right wing site: This guy makes me sick.

1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 1,409 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 1
 Frank says:

All right, Zubin, hit it! -- Frank's onstage cue to conductor Zubin Mehta during their collaborative effort with the L.A. Philharmonic orchestra in 1970