Topic: Would You? (Read 108 times)

celinedrules · « **on:** February 11, 2005, 12:27:00 AM »

Hell no cause you definately know they won't tell you the truth about anything.

My_Brain_is_on_Fire · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2005, 12:30:00 AM »

BBC or CBC?

Colonel32 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2005, 12:33:00 AM »

QUOTE(My_Brain_is_on_Fire @ Feb 11 2005, 07:36 AM)

BBC or CBC?

pepsik · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2005, 10:08:00 AM »

There already is a pentagon run news service for the military. I catch it at 6pm on public access. The first hour is Army/Air Force News, and the second hour is Marine Corp/Navy News. It's not groundbreaking and all the news they report is usually some cook off or air show, they really don't report the news

The military channel has been some good tv lately, covering the latest iraqi operation with precision bombs and war strategy.

damam · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:02:00 AM »

Propaganda has a role in any organization whether it be business or govt. Also propaganda does not always mean lies and distortions as so many think it does. It usually means pointing out the good stuff, and ignoring the bad stuff. We already get all the bad stuff shoved down our throats by the current news outlets. It might be nice to hear some good stuff every once in a while.

For me, (no suprise here) it would depend on the costs involved. Its not something I would be interested in a lot of money being spent on. I also see this as an expansion of govt. And that is inherently bad in almost every situtation (in my oppinion).

I know that PBS and NPR are technically not govt run news station. They do get a lot of funding from the Govt, and I have not always thought that was money well spent. Especially when they kinda endorsed Kerry via some real under handed advertising. Ex. of one thing they did was they advertised via google search terms. PBS and NPR do not have a good reputation for representing both sides of the story in an equael manner in their politically driven television shows that they air frequently.

So that is a no.

pepsik · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:35:00 AM »

I disagree about NPR, it is biased but it depends on the hour of programming. They allow enough time for a left point of view and then follow it up with a program about the right point of view. NPR world news, is just news without any political affiliation. They do good reporting that has nothing to do with politics, atleast at rush hour, sometimes it gets a little crazy when they have guests on. But they allow right wing nutballs as much time as they do left wing nutballs.

I only listen to it for the news, which IMO is usually better than network news. It does get biased, but again it all depends on what time your listening. It is public access, so everybody has an oppurtuinty to voice an opinion.

damam · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:52:00 AM »

The news portions of PBS and NPR are as good as any other news outlet when it comes to bias.

What I am talking about is the represenation. And total time given.
Heres an example:
On PBS a couple months ago they aired for two hours an anti-gun show that costed several 100,000's of dollars to produce and represented the views of the majority of the anti-gun cause. In my state before 2002 thats where it would have ended, they would only have shown the video and then moved to another politically driven video for the left. The public got fed up with that and, by law as of 2002, they are required to show both sides of the issue. A tit for tat. But, instead of showing a 2hr pro-gun rights show that costs a couple 100,000 to produce by a respected group like the NRA - they instead had a 30 min panel with far right wing kooks who do not represent the ideals of the pro-gun movement. They are now revising the law again. This is a systematic approach by PBS and NPR. I would not be mad at all about it if it were not for the fact that my TAX dollars fund them.
I will grant that NPR is better, but it does do the same thing.

My_Brain_is_on_Fire · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2005, 12:35:00 PM »

NPR and PBS ojbective? Surely you jest.

damam · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2005, 12:40:00 PM »

QUOTE(My_Brain_is_on_Fire @ Feb 11 2005, 07:41 AM)

NPR and PBS ojbective? Surely you jest.

Good gried no

I said "as good as any other news outlet when it comes to bias."

bluedeath · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2005, 05:23:00 PM »

I have watched my share of AFN. There is quite a lot of positive propaganda, historical trivia etc. to supplement the lack of commercials. I could see a 24-hour news network being somewhat beneficial but not really necessary. I believe it would end up being filled with deployment schedules, MAC flight schedules, etc. The down side is obviously a complete lack of even quasi-objective political commentary. You can only tell the enlisted personnel how wonderful their leaders are for so long. Ok I have talked myself out of it. It's a bad idea reminiscent of MAO. Perhaps we will start calling him Chairman Bush.

damam · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2005, 05:40:00 PM »

QUOTE(Colonel32)

Daman. PBS and NPR have proven to provide more accurate news than any of the outlets. I have posted research on this before. PBS/NPR viewers knew the facts more than CNN/FOX/CBS/ABC viewers, who got 1/3 facts wrong consistently over a very large sample size.
PBS may have a liberal programming and commentators, but their news is accurate. Stations like CNN and FOX let people fill in the blanks themselves whichc often lead them to false conclusions. Look at the amount of people who though Saddam was behind 9/11, that didn't come from PBS and NPR

Tax dollars are also funding pentagon TV

Well . . . OK
but that really is not my major issue PBS or NPR.
Im also aware the PBS veries from state to state.
How would you guys on the left feel if PBS employed Rush limbaugh, Oreilly, Glenn Beck, and other charismatic figures from the right - played tons of NRA, Pro-life videos, etc that cost 100,000's of dollars to produce - and then had one or two 30 min. slots a day of stoned hippies that cant articulate a single thought to come on and offer rebuttels? And then on top of it, asked you to shell out money to fund it?
Thats an equivalent to what is happening with PBS in my state/city right now. Its just not right. (Unlike the left who want to censor FOX) I would have no problem with it at all if it were privately funded. But its not. And the couple hours they spend broadcasting their less biased news, is not worth the amount I give them in tax dollars to spread their leftist message.

pepsik · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2005, 05:59:00 PM »

Be lucky PBS in your state isn't longstop infomertials. I think they lost public funding in my state so I get to see about 4 hours worth of telethons selling crappy glass ashtrays for $300. Then it's an hour block of teletubbies or something. Nova is the only reason I watch that channel, but it keeps getting moved around so much that I say Fuck PBS.

Shoue · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2005, 07:55:00 PM »

QUOTE

I get to see about 4 hours worth of telethons selling crappy glass ashtrays for $300

yea same here, along with like 5 hours of fucking antique roadshow

rms2001 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2005, 02:33:00 AM »

QUOTE(damam @ Feb 11 2005, 11:58 AM)

I would not be mad at all about it if it were not for the fact that my TAX dollars fund them.

xboxbox451 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2005, 09:32:00 PM »

QUOTE

Hell no cause you definately know they won't tell you the truth about anything.

Author Topic: Would You? (Read 108 times)