PBS lurching ever more to the left

Alan Hobden, Florissant

Published January 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

January 19, 2008

1:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

I'd stick to Antiques Roadshow and block the channel for the kids if it is upsetting. I never contributed to them so I really don't want to take advantage. Most of the cooking shows are bland and greedy asking a premium for second rate food and recipes in a cheap book. Quality shows (like both Antiques Roadshow) could make it commercially. The cooking from cable TV is much better and most is available on the web so leave PBS to those with more good feelings than sense and skip the channels and the unending pledge breaks.

Oh yeah, also cut off the government money so they are totally free to do as they like and produce anything they think necessary. That is, IF they can afford it. Whenever someone suggests cutting the funds they always whine that government funding is only a timy part, so make up the tiny part and save that pittance for the budget.
January 19, 2008

6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

PBS has long been left wing and could be put in the categorey of ,Moveon.org,the dailykos,MSNBC,NBc, The New York Times,and other left wing media outlets and there are alot more left wing than right wing.
However PBS is different it sucks millions of dollars from viewers and is funded mostly by tax payers. That is why funding shoud be cut off. It has become a left wing Democratic political outlet. That is in conflict with public tax payer money.
So I would like to see one of the candidates " CHANGE " this since they like to use that word so much,let's start with cutting off funding for PBS.They would also be cutting spending at the same time . Gotta start somewhere,start with PBS and anything publically funded on the airwaves.
January 19, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

KW writes:

I'd say if you follow the donation dollars you'd find either Soros or one of his many organizations he funds has donated large sums to PBS for many years.

PBS doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
January 19, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

singer writes:

Get your facts straight. Less than 5% of PBS funding comes from the Federal Government (as opposed to 95% for the BBC). Just because they present different views (the only place left that does) doesn't make them left or right. PBS is a national treasure. How many kids have learned to read and spell and know numbers because of Sesame Street. Their children's programming is second to none. Take their programming as a whole. Don't pick one single program to grind your axe .
January 19, 2008

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles-

If PBS was truly competing in the market place and not relying on taxpayer money and donations, but rather ratings and advertisers, they would have gone belly up years ago.

And the only way anyone could think the MSM isn't left leaning, is that the observer is situated so far in the Moonbat realm of the "progressive left", that anything short of reporting the liberal take on issues is mistakenly considered conservatively slanted.

Sound familiar?
January 19, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

vudumom writes:

My children have never seen Sesame Street.They learned to read,write,math science,art and music from their parents.They are also at the top of their classes,while the majority of their peers are behind.
January 19, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

The airwaves belong to the Public.
Let's bring back the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine, and let both sides of an issue be expressed.
But, as you know, the "Conservative commentators" like Rush O'Reilly begin sweating bullets at the mere mention that a disembodied voice may be heard saying " Now, for a different point of view" ( If you're old enough, you'll know what I'm saying).
The many right-wing bigmouths don't hesitate to cry "censorship" (when the FBD is suggested) but practice excactly that by their own screening proceedures to perpetuate their own twisted notion that THEY are "fair and balanced" when in fact they are neither.

Most are pitiful propagandists toeing the (Republican, thus Corporate) Party line.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"....Sinclair Lewis

I'm writing another check to PBS, God bless 'em.
January 19, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"Let's bring back the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine, and let both sides of an issue be expressed." - popo

As both Air America and PBS/NPR cannot stand on their own in the marketplace that is broadcasting without their respective "sugar-daddies" providing cash (Soros for AA and the US taxpayer for PBS/NPR), the only way the left can be heard on radio is for them to cry for the return of the Fairness in Broadcasting Doctrine. As we have also seen from subscribers fleeing from the LATimes, NYTimes, WashPost, St. Petersburg Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Denver Post, and plunging viewer ratings at NBC, MSNBC, and CNN, it appears that most of America wants nothing to do with the hateful and misleading left-wing dogma spewed by these "news" outlets. Viewer donations are fine, as they are voluntary - if you can stomach those constant "begathons" for $$$ that you have to endure on PBS and NPR - but cut out ALL tax dollars and let them truly compete in the arena that is the marketplace.
January 19, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Michael,
What do you think advertising is? " Propaganda begathons" seducing us to spend our $$$ buying their products.

Corporate propagandists have done a fine job of washing Conservatives brains, as they know that their followers sit and watch Corporate "begathons" to the tune of 40% of every hour , then instruct Rush O'Reilly to bitch about 3% of fundraising time that PBS does to bring us quality programming WITHOUT the propaganda, most of whom will watch American Idol/Gladiators over Profiles in Courage anyway, but have been told over and over and over (by Rush O'Reilly) that PBS is evil because it's non-profit.

I'm writing another check to PBS.
January 19, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

titancain said: "I'll take back the money used to educate conservatives children in public schools. That comes out of my pocket. I can then send PBS tons of money and they won't need the federal governments money.
Oh. I know you can't afford to pay for your own childsrens school. You need handouts ffrom the government."

I agree, let's also take away the money that comes out of my pocket to support public universities such as CU. BTW, you need to calm down a bit and check your typing, or is it the spelling you learned in a public school?
January 19, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Castle writes:

PBS with it's gov't funding and donation whines is the only way left wing socialists can get on TV or radio. Except for our drive by media every other left wing show has gone down in flames.
January 19, 2008

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

eagleye writes:

The fairness doctrine was a crock. Anyone has the right to put forth any viewpoint they like over the airwaves--right, left, middle, or kooky. If there's an audience for it, the funding will be there. And with public access cable channels, you don't even really need funding.

The problem with PBS is that our tax money is partially subsidizing it (even though at a far less percentage than it used to be). Even if someone doesn't feel that PBS leans to the left (and I really do find it hard to believe that anyone would), the real, non-partisan, undeniable truth is that it really doesn't offer anything that can't be found on commercial TV.

I like Ken Burns' documentaries, Antiques Roadshow, etc. But let's face it: If PBS weren't around, those shows would be aired on a commercial network like Discovery or The History Channel.

I believe it's time to cut the remaining 5% (or whatever federal subsidy comes to) from PBS's budget, and let them either go completely commercial (they're almost there already, with their corporate sponsors giving short plugs for their products), or let them beg for more pledges. But I really have a hard time as a taxpayer justifying any of our tax dollars going toward PBS.
January 19, 2008

5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

I'm beginning to doubt that some of you even watch PBS. If you have watched the News Hour or Washington Week or, especially, the Mc Laughlin group, you would know that these programs present strong opinions on both sides of controversial issues. PBS also presents Nova, History detectives, mysteries, Masterpiece Theatre, British comedies, World War 2 documentaries and programs related to sports, jazz, classical and even rock music. They offer these quality programs at a price anyone can afford ( you don't have to contribute!)! So, try watching a few programs before your minds shut with a rusty gate sound. Our world is the better for having PBS!
January 19, 2008

6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"12 billion in taxpayer giveaways to big oil who'd just enjoyed their largest earnings ever and all you vacuous fools are whining over a minuscule little subsidy for public broadcasting." - Charles_B

This statement shows the idiocy of those that have no economic grasp of reality. Oil industry "tax breaks" allowed the oil industy companies to keep what they earned by selling a legal product that we all need and want - oil and energy. This was NOT money taken from you or I and given to them. It was theirs to begin with. But people like Charles think the govt owns our resources and money and does us a favor by allowing us to keep some of it. PBS and NPR on the other hand actually do have their hands in our collective pockets as they are GIVEN our tax dollars to keep them in business. These are not tax breaks on $$$ they have earned because they do not bring in enough $$$ to pay their bills.
As for greenleaf, those are all great shows and I watch many of them from time to time, but as eagleye correctly pointed out, all of these shows would easily be picked up by many of the existing cable channels that serve the niche markets. So again, the question is WHY is there a need for PBS when other outlets that do not take tax dolars are available for the shows they air?
January 19, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sean writes:

Maybe, just maybe, PBS is catering to its viewers' preferences like any good business should, even though this one is non-profit. The station caters to its donors. Boy, for all the pro business talk of Republicans, they sure do not have a clue about catering to one's target market; in this case college-educated liberals.
And besides, the right is so morally bankrupt, what ethical person would want to propagate such drivel? If PBS is to complicated and liberal for you, go watch Fox News. They are very good at dumbing down their material for their viewers.
January 19, 2008

7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Sean

***If PBS is to complicated and liberal for you, go watch Fox News. They are very good at dumbing down their material for their viewers.***

Which would be fine, but the difference is and what we have been talking about is the tax money going to pay for the PBS. When that has been stopped your point is valid, until then the tax payers can object to tax money going to a bias liberal station.
January 19, 2008

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Michael-

As I'm sure you know,

Moonbats like Charles often display zero credibility and are rarely able to grasp the truth, and if they can, and it doesn't fit their template, they switch gears.

Ever notice when they are called on their B.S. they change the subject hoping no one will notice?

Somehow the subject now is about big oil profits, when in all actuality the Gov't taxes gas at an average of 40 cents/gal, and big oil, after all their expenses, profit between 8-12 cents/gallon.

Instead of admitting the obvious, which is the Gov't being guilty of driving up prices due to over taxation, they conveniently blame the "evil" corporate world for excessive profits.

It's almost comical how they will go from one failed argument to another, thinking the distraction is a clever counter argument, when it is nothing but an embarrassment to their own failed thinking, that coincidentally, match talking points straight from the DNC, Media Matters and The Daily Kos.

What a bunch of intellectually lazy, unoriginal, progressive parroting pretenders.
January 19, 2008

7:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sean writes:

Too bad you are in that small minority of viewers who does not want any tax money to go to the Public Broadcast Station. Maybe, if there were more voters who thought the way you did, the Public Broadcasting Station would not get a portion of their operating budget from the government. But seeing as how the rabid right has been calling for the end of PBS since its inception, and it is still a Public Broadcasting Station, it is safe to say that PBS will continue indefinitely. Besides, this country has tried the Republican version of conservatism and it turned out to be a disaster. It would truly be a misuse of tax payer money to promote this ideological nightmare. It would be like if PBS promoted fascism or communism.
January 19, 2008

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Michael, The mission for PBS is to make quality educational programming available to all. Not everybody can afford cable and when they can afford it they opt for sports, wrestling and other channels which don't serve a greater public service for education, especially for their kids. Schools make use of many PBS programs. Sesame street has made learning fun for generations of kids( some of whose parents are - gasp! conservatives. ). I can understand conservatives complaining about biased political commentaries or news coverage if it exists on a partially tax funded network such as PBS. Unfortunately, I don't see it! Try watching the Mc Laughlin group on Friday nights and you will see spirited debates between liberals and conservatives, EVERY TIME! The other news and political programs, including locally produced forums, always stock the panels with both sides of the issues being discussed. I think all of you need to "get with the program" to see what I mean. I think that many of you have a preconceived notion that you have never tested. Test it before you sling mud at such a worthwhile institution as PBS.
January 20, 2008

6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

BO writes:

I really enjoy the bickering done by those that complain about their tax money going towards something they don't like.

Here's a news flash-- Although I am not one of them, many people hate the fact that their tax money goes towards a war that they think is wrong, that has seen the deaths of 3000+ Americans, and has produced no WMDs. Some even continue to financially support a war that they not only disagree with, but also a war in which their son was killed. But, they still pay anyway.

So a dime of your money goes towards a "liberal" network (its not, but I'll pretend so I can play along). Big deal. It could be worse.
January 20, 2008

8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

I guess the question is, should our government be in the business of broadcasting at all? I think it has been well established that if PBS/NPR did not exist, that most - if not all - of the programming would find other networks to get their shows on. From Sesame Street to Nova to Bill Moyers (who would undoubtedly show up on MSNBC). When there is no other option available, I have no problem with our govt and our tax dollars being diverted to fill a genuine need: Amtrak, air traffic control, roads, bridges and all manner of public infrastructure, oversight agencies, etc. The argument about cable not being available to poor people is lame. Who cannot aford basic cable for local programming at $15 - $20 a month? Who actually uses a TV antenna anymore? Less than 1% of the population? The arguments about there being other uses for tax dollars that not everyone agrees with is also lame. You may not agree with the Iraq War, but the defense of the USA and use of the military are specifically laid out in the US Constitution and the POTUS has those powers granted to him. The fact that you may not like the current POTUS is irrelevent to their use. PBS and NPR have no such constitutional mandate to support their existence. So please try and stay focused on the argument at hand.
January 20, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Michael,

My point re: The poor spending money on cable vs. having access to free educational programming shouldn't be so casually dismissed. To access everything PBS offers: Nature and history + children's programming, concerts, art, etc., etc.... Would cost FAR more than the "basic cable" for $15-$20/ month you mentioned. Also, as I stated previously, not all poor adults would select cable with their children in mind. Having educational programming available FOR FREE means that it would be continuously available for families with kids from 3-18. It potentially enriches the adults in the family as well.You have indicated that you think many of the programs I listed are: "great shows" and: "I watch many of them from time to time". Apparently, You like and take advantage of this free programming. Based upon many of your comments, I doubt that you support PBS and NPR financially as I have for over 20 years! I suggest you need to reconsider your position Michael, you seem to be walking a very fine line here.
January 20, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

"...not all poor adults would select cable with their children in mind." - greenleaf
This is a perfect example of the "nanny-state" that so many on the left subscribe to and want for all of us. Your intentions may be honorable but it is not now nor has it ever been the job, duty, responsibility, or role of the federal government to raise our kids. How did we ever get so far off track in this area? When the responsibility of raising our kids is taken away from the parents and assumed by any government, we are in big trouble - regardless of the good intent of it all. As they say about the road to hell, it is paved with good intentions.
January 20, 2008

12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

So Michael, are you being part of the "nanny state" when you allow your child (assuming you have children?) to watch some of the "great shows" that you watch?

I'm not trying to beat up on you or anyone else, but I think that we need to examine our priorities. I contend that any society that is not in decline, will, in it's enlightened self-interest, maximise educational opportunities for all of its citizens. We DON'T know when the next Einstein or Edison will appear. In a perfect world, everybody would have access to educational opportunities that would permit them to contribute at the highest possible level to our country and our world for the good of us all!

Education is essential, whether one is rich, poor, liberal or conservative! Is it the nanny state that provides state funded colleges and universities Michael? Is it the nanny state that puts libraries in neighborhoods across the country? Is it the nanny state that gives us "no child left behind" programs? What about citizenship education for legal resident aliens? What of special education programs for handicapped children?

You speak glowingly of a free market business model. I don't believe for a moment that an all business all the time approach to education would EVER consider all citizens equally. There would always be a slave class, gun-fodder group lorded over by the better connected.

We need more free educational opportunities Michael, not fewer! PBS serves us all (by your own words, that includes YOU!) and should have MORE public and private funding - not less.
January 20, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

***Education is essential, whether one is rich, poor, liberal or conservative! Is it the nanny state that provides state funded colleges and universities Michael? Is it the nanny state that puts libraries in neighborhoods across the country? Is it the nanny state that gives us "no child left behind" programs? What about citizenship education for legal resident aliens? What of special education programs for handicapped children?***

It is the nanny state that would spare no tax money from the "rich" to indoctrinate further socialist voters. Any government funded entity should be required to present both sides of the story or neither side. Our tax money being used to push political talking points on government funded media should never be allowed. Period!! Campaigning would fall under a different category as each side is given tax payers money to present their points.
January 20, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Michael,
The constitution clearly states "To Provide for the common defense"...But wait! It also says "To promote the general welfare" (Oooo...Theres a word you Cons hate.)
The Constitution doesn't mention that the private sector should profit from wars, either. And until recently, the term "War-Profiteer" was a pejorative, and even described as treason during WWII.

And in my opinion, war profiteers should be executed......
with their own products.

I'm writing another check to PBS. And boycotting G.E's advertisers.
January 20, 2008

1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Popo,

Would you make that check large enough so my tax money won't have to be spend on your far left radio station? Thank you! I am trying to get my tax money send to the Rush Limbaugh show.
January 20, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jgd.

PBS is television NPR is radio. Your point about politicized tv or radio funded by taxpayer dollers would resonate with me as well - if it were true! Please read my earlier postings. IF you were to watch the Friday night channel 6 programming ( The News Hour, Washington Week and, especially, The Mc Laughlin Group, you would know PBS well represents both sides of controversial issues. I HAVE listened to Rush Limbaugh - he doesn't have the **** to debate anyone who disagrees with him! He rants and raves and doesn't listen to anyone else. True, he doesn't get any tax money, but wouldn't you at least tune in a few PBS forums before you make judgements? You would actually get BOTH sides of the story for a change.
January 20, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

Sometimes it gets a little confusing with all of the far left media out there. A far left fanatic debating or discussing something with a left leaning commentator hardly constitute getting both sides of a story. I very seldom listen to Rush Limbaugh, because I know he is far right, just like I very seldom watch PBS for the same reason, they are far left. Again, the difference is my tax money only goes to one of them (PBS).
January 20, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jgd,

Thanks for responding to my comment. I agree that there is plenty of polarized media out there and that I ,definitely, lean to the left on many issues. However, I am politically independent, a fiscal conservative and a moderate on many social issues. As such, I would still encourage you to watch Friday night PBS. I think you would enjoy The Mc Laughlin Group at the very least ( a bunch of very liberal and very conservative writers who on a weekly basis yell at each other, roll their eyes, agree to disagree and, on occasion, even reach a consensus. I think it's fun to see how the otherside thinks and how silly those on my side ----and your side can look sometimes.

We need to reach across the divide, as you and I are doing in this blog, so that we can grow as citizens of this country and make the hard decisions. PBS helps me to do this and so do your comments and those of others who disagree with me. Thanks again.
January 20, 2008

4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

I have to admit the times I watched PBS, their left leaning positions turned me off. The Friday night program (The Mc Laughlin Group) sounds like it might be interesting, I have always believed in knowing my enemy.

And yes I do consider the far left as my enemy, because I believe they are an enemy to this country. It is my belief that government controlled social programs are destructive too the average citizen.

There are many compromises that can be made on the issues facing this country, however the extremes on both sides of the aisle refuse to compromise. This current smoking ban is a classic example, taking away a private businessman's right to choose,in order to satisfy a group of radicals. This kind of garbage only divides this country on yet another issue.

As I have stated before, as soon as we can get politicians out of the government and start electing statesmen/women we can then put this country back together.
January 20, 2008

5:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Well jgd,

I agree with much of what you said, especially your last line about statesmen/women. They are unfortunately in short supply! The one thing I can guarantee is that the far left and far right elements will always be a part of the equation. Most of us are in the middle, a little to the left and right of center. Being a little to the left, myself, I feel about the extreme right the same way you do about the extreme left. Because of that, I understand your frustration a little better with this issue.

With many things, I think market forces can solve our problems. I think the smoking issue is a good example. If a joint is too smokey then tell the owner you can't enjoy your meal and you won't be back! If enough people say that, he or she would have to make a choice!

I don't think that would work with education and I DO think that PBS provides the best that television offers in that regard. As for the political slant, I will promise this: I will watch with a more critical eye . You never know, I might come more to your side if I think it is unfair. But, my friend. consider watching some of the Friday programming with a fresh eye yourself. You never know, you might come a little ways my direction. I've enjoyed this - take care jgd!
January 20, 2008

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

Since the PBS budget is 95% private it is reasonable to think that they can survive without the government money or the governmental oversight. With this in mind, cut off the governmental funding and watch. I believe there will be enough money to sponsor all the current shows. It might even end up creating more money.

I like some of their shows. I get a rebate every year so none of my money goes there. Perhaps we should stop talking in percentages and look up the actual dollar amount they receive.

There might even be a few commercial shows that would pay PBS to re-broadcast their shows. It is means to increase viewers for the shows with commercials.

I also remember that the fairness doctrine was ordered because there were few broadcast stations and many newspapers. To really adhere to the intent of the original fairness doctrine, we need to impose the fairness doctrine on newspapers. There are limited numbers of newspapers and it is possible for a paper to take any stance without rebuttal.

There are thousands of broadcast stations. The market will support them. The DNA here controls all the big papers in the metro area. I find that very unfair. (As do many of the big advertisers.)
Fairness in print. What do you think about that?
January 20, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

No one has a right to contribute unless they remember JOE PYNE!!!
January 21, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Faux_Noise writes:

Posted by Castle on January 19, 2008 at 4:53 p.m.

"PBS with it's gov't funding and donation whines is the only way left wing socialists can get on TV or radio. Except for our drive by media every other left wing show has gone down in flames."

So the hype about the media being biased to the left is a bunch of bull after all. Thanks for admitting it.
January 21, 2008

10:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

CB,

***jgd argues for the return of the fairness doctrine:

"Any government funded entity should be required to present both sides of the story or neither side."***

You must have missed the "government funded" part of that statement and no I do not argue for the return of the fairness doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine, is being pushed my the Democrats in hopes of silencing the other side of the story.

Just because you state the vast majority of the people think like you doesn't make it true either. Why do the far-left fanatics fear Rush Limbaugh if they believe he is just a crackpot, or Bill Oreily when they are constantly saying he is just blowhard? Could it be that they are actually getting the message out that they and mainstream media are not telling the whole truth in matters that concern everyone in the US. If I am not mistaken the vast majority of the people want secure borders and no amnesty for the illegals, a position being constantly pushed by the far left down everyones throat by the mainstream media.

The far-left are not just my enemy, but an enemy to every freedom loving American, and I believe that is the majority. I will continue to do my best to show to freedom loving Americans what you and your far-left fanatics have in store for this country.
January 21, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Jgd
I thought that I had left this forum, until I read your recent posting. I think it is unfortunate that you brand ANYONE as being anti- American. That is the jingoistic catch phrase I dislike the most. There are patriots on both ends of the political divide. You use the word liberal almost as a cuss word( in fairness, many liberals do the same with the word "conservative"). Throwing slurs cheapens the argument every time. As an independent, I have had allies on both sides, depending on the controversy being discussed. We need compromise and consensus to keep this country going and I believe that a "true" patriot will reach across the divide for the common good. Compromise is often messy and no one gets EVERYTHING they may want. To me, being Anti-American means wanting it all for oneself, at the expense of America. The liberals that you paint as evil incarnate want what they think is best for the country. You have the country's best interests at heart as well. By participating in forums such as this you have an opportunity to influence the debate. You lose that opportunity when you insult the other guy or cheapen the argument by confusing insult with debating points. I am disappointed jgd, you showed earlier that you could communicate effectively. You actually influenced me - at least a little bit. I am still in favor of INCREASED public and private funding for PBS but I respect your point of view anyway jgd et al.
January 21, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Greenleaf,

If you noticed in the post to CB, I use far left fanatics and not liberals. I have no doubt there are many patriotic liberals unfortunately CB has long past that position. Dealing with liberals may be uncomfortable for me, as is dealing with conservatives sometimes. However when I run into someone like CB I have little or no patience for his socialist positions. He has mastered the art of twisting peoples words and then accusing them with those distortions.

I have never walked away from a honest debate with an intelligent person, such as yourself based on our previous discussions. I have no respect or tolerance for anyone who has no respect for my positions, you may not agree with them but do not question my patriotism either. That is exactly what CB did with his statement
***So who hates America?***
January 21, 2008

4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jgd,

Thanks for responding. I fear, though, that I might on occasion be "a far left fanatic" in your eyes. In these forums I believe in the debate and not a war of words. Looking back, I think CB probably did intend to offend you. My point is that the words we choose mark us. I would rather take the high ground after an insult and let the other guy look like an inconsiderate boor than look the part myself! If your argument is worth presenting, and I think yours is, the message comes across far better when you don't insult the audience you are trying to reach. I have to constantly remind myself of that! When people such as us have passion for a subject, it's hard to rein in our emotions - but we should, for the sake of the discussion.

I apologize to everyone for preaching. I just believe the fact that this PBS discussion has generated such passion from so many is indicative of how polarized we are in this country. We have huge problems such as immigration, environment, health care, national security and, well, fill in the blanks! Americans were once masters of compromise but we seem to be losing the will to come together on anything. That saddens me but makes me that much more determined to make a difference somewhere. Maybe I can make a difference with you in this blog jdb, and maybe you can with me or with CB. At any rate, don't stop trying and I won't either! Good luck to you!
January 21, 2008

5:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Charles B,

GEEZ - Lighten up buddy! This is a discussion, not a sand lot where we take turns abusing each other. You and I are mostly in agreement on this and probably some other issues, but, to say the least, our approach is very different!

Maybe your goal is to score points with those who believe as you do?
Your previous postings DON'T support that concept. I liked your links to sites that defended PBS and some of your other arguments. You are too smart a guy to resort to cheap shots. It turns everybody off, especially ME, and I'm on YOUR side of this debate!

How are we going to solve ANY of the very major problems this country faces if we continue to allow the debate to degrade into personal insult?

This debate SHOULD be about whether PBS is or isn't biased in favor of the left as opposed to the right.

I believe PBS examines both sides in depth and provides an ESSENTIAL educational purpose. Because of that, I also believe it deserves MORE of our support: public, private, liberal, conservative and maybe even from Martians, What do you think?
January 21, 2008

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Charles B

I get it! I do that too! We get one vote, one chance every now and then to, maybe, influence a politician ( I mostly talk to one of their staff members and hope that they hit the right keys!!!!). Money talks, but on our level, not as much as we would like to think.

Charles, what if you could change somebody's opinion enough to influence their vote; or what they would or wouldn't say to several of their friends. There's power in that!
I'm also not arrogant enough to think that somebody like jgd doesn't have a point worth listening to. I want to influence the debate. I don't hang out with conservatives, My friends and wife are mostly very liberal. The current occupant of the White House has surrounded himself with people who agree with him and parrot back what he wants to hear. Why would an obviously intelligent guy such as yourself not want to influence jdb, and the scores of people reading this blog who do or don't contribute to it??

I look at forums such as this as an opportunity: first to influence and also to be influenced. To be closed minded is, in my opinion, to be deficient as a citizen and voter.

I Have had people tell me that I have changed their opinion and even their vote on certain issues.; but Charles, I haven't done it by insulting or belittling them. Just think about it. Otherwise, I agree with you on this issue.
January 22, 2008

1:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Oh_Wise_One writes:

greenleaf, I can answer this question to charles_B for you-"Why would an obviously intelligent guy such as yourself not want to influence jdb, and the scores of people reading this blog who do or don't contribute to it??"
Because he is what is known as a Troll. Somebody that goes around the internet changing subjects, setting up strawmen, arguing circular crapola. He doesn't want to influence people, he justs wants to irritate.
January 22, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Oh_wise_one,

I read blogs for a long time before I considered contributing. I was frustrated by the way communication between several individuals could so easily fall apart when the insults began to fly! Good arguments would so easily lose credibility when , otherwise, intelligent people would lose it.

I am aware of trolls, although I prefer to call them "contrarians" for want of a better term. You are right, some people just want to stir the pot! I read jdb a little differently. I think he might have a message worth hearing. He has obviously been insulted a few times by what he calls "far left wing nuts", and he wants/needs to vent! I don't think he has watched much PBS, but he certainly has heard jingoistic sound-bites from conservative media. He has been reasonable in his response to me and I think/hope that he might watch the PBS programming that I suggested to him.

I am also aware that there are probably as many non-participating observers reading these blogs as there are active participants. I like to think we're having our little debates for them. I consider my time and my opinions too valuable to play "bait a troll" or to insult an opponent. This is what I mean by cheapening the message. We should be extolling the virtues of PBS as we defend it against others who disagree but are, in turn, giving it their best shot.

I don't have time to continue much further, but please consider this Oh_Wise_One: There IS a place for the contrarians of the world _ at the best, they sharpen our debating skills. At the worst, they have a way of shooting themselves in the foot and crippling their argument. I say: engage them but keep your argument on the highest, most professional plane so that your position is better served. When that doesn't seem worth it, I prefer to ignore them and present my points as though the "trolls" aren't there. Let the audience sort it out! I think that you and your arguments will come out smelling like a rose, while theirs will smell like...well,you know!
January 22, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Now I feel NOT so wise! I thought that you were referring to jdb, not Charles B! I'll have to think about that!

That aside Charles B, Can you see any sense in what I'm saying?

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

PBS lurching ever more to the left

Alan Hobden, Florissant

Published January 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Post your comment

Featured

Columns & Blogs

News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Calendar

Upcoming events

Sponsored links