NPR, PBS Put Millions Into Investigative Reporting

[Bozita]

Source: HuffPo

NPR, PBS Put Millions Into Investigative Reporting
BRETT ZONGKER 03/ 5/11 12:59 PM

WASHINGTON — NPR, PBS and local public broadcast stations around the country are hiring more journalists and pumping millions of dollars into investigative news to make up for what they see as a lack of deep-digging coverage by their for-profit counterparts.

Public radio and TV stations have seen the need for reporting that holds government and business accountable increase as newspapers and TV networks cut their staffs and cable television stations have filled their schedules with more opinion journalism.

"Where the marketplace is unable to serve, that's the role of public media," PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said last year at a summit on the future of media at the Federal Communications Commission. "PBS exists to serve the people, not to sell them."

In the past three years, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has invested more than $90 million in federal funds on new journalism initiatives. That includes a $10 million local journalism initiative that is paying for the creation of five regional centers that will help local PBS and NPR stations cover news that affects wider geographic areas. Also, a $6 million grant from the group expanded the PBS investigative series "Frontline" from a seasonal series with a summer break to a year-round program.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/05/npr-pbs-put-millions-into_n_831837.html

---

Anybody still wondering about the GOPers' burning desire to rid the airwaves of NPR and PBS?

[Trajan]

1. When I hear PBS stations complaining about the imminent loss of support ...

I think of how they FAILED to perform any 'deep-digging' during the run up to WAR IN IRAQ ....

The failed to ask the questions ...

They bent like prairie grass in a tornado to the GOP line of bullshit ...

They let promoters of the war lie, lie and lie more, and did nearly nothing to counter those lies ....

Yes ... I support PBS and always have .... But isn't it a tad late now ?

[catzies]

5. Well, we did learn recently that the Koch brothers fund PBS programs, esp. Frontline

so I guess we need more progressive/liberal billionaires to out-contribute them to PBS/NPR.

[stlsaxman]

19. David H. Koch pays for NOVA...

[classof56]

37. Yes, I have noticed that in recent NOVA productions.

Found myself wondering what kind of string-pulling was going on as to program content. Just curious...

[glinda]

41. Lots more conservatives funding them so in the end just another takeover eventually.

Then they will want funding to pay their own warped reporters and non-fact-finders.

[alfredo]

69. It's called Greenwashing.

[stlsaxman]

26. Sponsor list for Frontline- no Kochs

"Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and by Reva and David Logan. Additional funding is provided by the Park Foundation and by the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund."

[Ilsa]

21. Actually, I thought Frontline's coverage, calledf The War Behind Closed Doors

was pretty good. They started with Clinton's presidency and how Wolfowiicz and others were starting the drum beat for "democratizing the Middle East". They sent a letter that Clinton probably tossed in the round file.

Frontline ran several 90 minute programs on the run-up to the war in Iraq, covering the UN weapons inspectors operating in Iraq, how Bush* pulled them out, the aluminum cylinders that Powell presented to the UN, etc. I thought they made it objectively clear that the was no reason for war.

I don't know about the rest of the news programs. They may have supported the plutocrats and warmongerers.

[defendandprotect]

53. That was the PNAC letter where they tried to get Clinton to bomb Iraq ... !!

That was some time after the first attack on the WTC -- '93?

Did they tell you anything else about the PNAC agenda -- the need for another

"Pearl Harbor" type of attack before the public would agree to a war on Iraq?

Did they refer you to the PNAC website which had a full range of similar agenda?


Did they tell you about Brzezinski bragging that the US/CIA created Taliban/

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and that we financed them up to the very day of 9/11?

US troops went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians went in.

And, that was done to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan ...

in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience" -- !!


Did Moyers tell you that US created those outrageously VIOLENT Islamic text books

that you heard so much about on TV? They were created -- written and printed --

by the US and shipped into Middle East in an effort to try to create a more VIOLENT

Islam.

If you want more info on either of those two issues, I'll be happy to give you links

to more info!

[Ilsa]

67. The first 2 questions, I remember as a Yes.

The rest, I am not sure of, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Sometimes we learn things, but we don't remember where we learned them from. And a lot of time has passed since those shows aired.

You are welcome to send me links.

[defendandprotect]

89. That's true .... here are links for both Brzezinski and the TEXTBOOKS ....

Zbigniew Brzezinski on CIA baiting Russians into Afghanistan

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...


As I recall this info, it's in Brzezinski's book "The Chess Game" and he did an interview

with O'Reilly where he broke the news about it, probably more than 6 years ago.



AND -- here's the story on the TEXTBOOKS --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.



Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm


Would just add these thoughts --

There are at least two terrific books on our press and what it should be and why it's not --

One is "Unreliable Sources" by Martin Lee --

The other is actually written by David Brock -- a former right winger --

"The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy - "

My library had both of these books

also helpful is

Wm. Greider "Who Will Tell the People?"

Possibly some new ones now on this subject which I've missed, but for anyone who wants to

review what we're not getting from our corporate-press and why, these would be helpful.

:)

[Ilsa]

101. Thanks for your reply. I'm familiar with the Brock book and

Remember when he figured out wat the GOP was up to. I'll have to check out Unreliable Sources by Lee.

[defendandprotect]

102. You're welcome --

and, I from time to time take out Brock's book again --

[nolabear]

23. Nope. The world goes on and if they're changing their ways I support them.

[tomp]

63. naivete will be the death of us. nt

[defendandprotect]

90. There's a big "IF" in there --

Given the corruption and deception played out by our US/CIA government over

the past centuries, I'd say we all need our BS meters turned up waaay higher --

Was just recommending two books to another poster --

If you're interested --

"Unreliable Sources" by Martin Lee -- my library had it and stores like Barnes & Noble

still have it where you can browse it.

Same with "The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy - "

by David Brock, a former right winger who now heads Media Matters --

and the always reliable Wm. Greider with his book "Who Will Tell The People?"

the last two I've also noted at Barnes & Noble --

which I guess is now about the only book store left beyond Amazon.com!


:)

[CLANG]

24. It's never too late, is it? Otherwise we might as well dig a deep whole and take a dirt nap.

I want to verify this story, and if this is really what they want to do, I will donate as much as I can. We need to support the few inroads we have in this battle. PBS and NPR have the infrastructure and licensing to be really big players in the information dissemination business. This story gives me some hope. I hope it's true!

[Trajan]

32. I should clarify .... I was mostly referring to NPR .... I should have made that more clear

Frontline and other such programs have been excellent and were so during the run up ....

I was (like many other DUers) pretty pissed at NPR for their cheerleading of the neocons ....

I really have little beef with PBS, and so I need to perhaps retract my earlier ASS-holiness .... or at least limit it to NPR ....

[senseandsensibility]

80. Yes their coverage was similar to FAUX

It was so bad that I stopped listening to NPR. I literally could not believe how they spewed the propaganda during the runup to Iraq. I haven't listened since, so I wonder if they are doing the same with the situation in WI.

[CBHagman]

2. "Where the marketplace is unable to serve, that's the role of public media."

Hillary Clinton said something very similar the other day when talking about the U.S. media's need to keep the connection to the rest of the world.

[No Elephants]

71. She was defending her dept's budget. Public broadcasting can be good. Govt broadcasting is

propaganda.

And I'd like to know when Govt is going to remove Limbaugh from its Armed Forces program line up. Or add a liberal.

[Frustratedlady]

3. I was thinking the other day...how would the MSM change if al Jazeera was allowed in?

I'm sure they would slur them beyond belief until they managed to have them banned from our country. I think that once people listened to them and compared them to the mess of misinformation we have today, people might wake up.

It's worth a try.

[tsuki]

6. I have been comparing. ALJ reports the story, Cable Views

reports how the story relates to them. ALJ has reporters, Cable Views has celebrities.

[arthritisR_US]

9. great distinction! n/t

[Duval]

14. Yes! n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Just as the barn door begins to close.

[kestrel91316]

7. They are only now noticing the need for such??

Oh, that's right. There's a BLACK MAN in the White House.

I no longer trust NPR to be the least bit objective. I expect them to attack the Obama administration like they haven't since Bush I.

[sam sarrha]

11. they are pretty good, your brush is way too wide..

[defendandprotect]

15. Seriously -- PBS has been gone for decades -- so has NPR ....

You've since then been getting a very watered down version of public broadcasting.

How long has PBS been supported by ExxonMobil?

How much of the reality of Global Warming do you see reported on PBS?

Bill Moyers -- ? Nice, but he'll never get anyone up off the couch -- and that's

what has to happen. And Frontline funded by Koch!

:rofl:

[dreamnightwind]

38. Moyers is awesome!

An American treasure, unfortunately near the end of an amazing journey.

I haven't seen Frontline much lately, I stopped watching it after it seemed to move to the right.

[defendandprotect]

42. Moyers was picked because he is ineffective ....

Moyers is also a Texan who came to DC with LBJ --

Pierre Salingers tells us that he and Bill Moyers understood and agreed that

LBJ was "clinically psychotic" --

You're also talking about a PBS who featured the notoriously ridiculous Wm. Buckley!

The CIA on PBS!

Didn't they also feature the finanical guy -- Milton Friedman who so polluted the

economic scene?

When PBS stations are showing reruns of "Bonanza" and "Lawrence Welk Show" in 2011

you must occasionally get some idea that something is wrong?

[sam sarrha]

44. so..they cover both sides, you sound a little hysterical over them not being extremist, the times

do have Reich wing guests they ask serious questions except when Bu$h43 appointed his own flying monkeys..

it is NOT all about politics, it has a a lot of informative, fun and intellectual programs all things the corporate media lacks..

[defendandprotect]

50. More than "two sides" to every story -- they've been under right wing influence for decades ...

Where were you when we were calling it "Petroleum Broadcasting System"?

How long has the "Corportion for Public Broadcasting" been in charge of them?

That's a PRIVATE corporation put in place by the GOP! Plus all the defunding

which forced them to beg-a-thons. If you want a free press you have to go to

financing it with licenses.

Saying that PBS is better than the junk on CBS, CNN, Faux News etal isn't saying

much!!

Maybe if you take a serious look at what they've done to children's programming

you'll get a better idea of what you're missing in actual news reporting!!

"you sound a little hysterical over them not being extremist" --

If you think liberal are extremists, then I can see where you don't have a problem

with PBS!

:eyes:

[sam sarrha]

55. ok... so dont watch it, but you obviously don't anyway. find something better let us know

[defendandprotect]

58. The reason I don't watch it, is because of the problems I'm citing ....

We all PAY for PBS one way or another -- if not with our tax dollars then in the

absense of clear news reports and in the absense as well of reasoned visions for change

to be presented to the public.

"Don't watch it" is as inane as Nancy Reagan's, "Just say NO!" --

:rofl:

[No Elephants]

73. Covering both sides is very different from how a story is slanted.

[dreamnightwind]

49. Sure, there's some crap on PBS

and more now than there used to be. Moyers, however, is one of the very best of his time. He had an amazing ability to get to the bottom of things, and to do so in a way that the average Joe and Jane (who would never listen to people like Chomsky or Parenti) could relate to.

[defendandprotect]

51. Bill Moyers hasn't reported anything that most liberal commentators or

liberal authors, or liberal organizations hadn't already been advising the public about!

Additionally, I can't see anyone with access to the internet today bothering with PBS or

Moyers. But, good luck with it if that's what you want!!


:)

[dreamnightwind]

52. Quite valuable IMO

He reaches (or reached, isn't he retiring?) many people that otherwise would not hear anything more than the usual MSM drivel about many of the issues he covers, exactly what I would hope PBS would do.

A Moyers hater on here? I'm stunned. Some people are never happy with anything I suppose.

We probably agree on the underlying direction we'd like to see things go, just differing on how to go about it, but I gotta stick up for Moyers, can't let that one slide. Peace and a good day to you.

[defendandprotect]

54. Excuse me, but why does criticism always have to be received as "hatred" here ???

What is it with that?

Is that what happens in your mind when you are critical of someone -- you feel it as hatred?

I couldn't be bothered hating anyone -- leave alone Moyers!

But I do get that you and at least one other are saying that for those who aren't getting

anything better elsewhere, he's a benefit.

But, is that what PBS is supposed to be doing? Appealing to the least likely to "get it"?

Or to search out information on issues on their own on the internet?

Moyers was intended to be comforting, imo -- and that's really the problem with him and

his presentations.

Can only say again that if you're happy with it -- swell, for you!

[sam sarrha]

56. ahhh... maybe it is your attitude that is getting in the way

[defendandprotect]

57. YOU said: "you sound a little hysterical over them not being extremist" --

and now you're suggesting that my attitude is the problem?

:eyes:

Again -- and over again -- when you run out of debate, you attack the messenger!!

[tomp]

65. it is naive to think that just because they're putting $ into...

..."investigative journalism" that news content will improve. they can come up with anything with such reports, doesn't mean it will be correct, timely, or complete.

pbs and npr suck, and have for a long time. nice little artsy fartsy stuff to cover up defense of status quo in politics.

naivete will be the death of us.

[defendandprotect]

81. Completely agree ....

and I think we all need our BS meters turned up waaaay higher!



:)

[tomp]

64. i like his/hers, i don't like yours. nt

[bananas]

68. FAIR has done many reports on NPR and PBS over the years

here's one on npr from last year:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4176

Extra! November 2010

Public TV? It Would Be a Good Idea
But the system is stacked against fulfilling PBS’s mandate

By Jim Naureckas

When asked by a reporter what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi is said to have replied, “I think it would be a good idea.” The same could be said about U.S. public television.

Public TV was born 40 years ago of an understanding of the limitations that advertiser funding and the profit motive put on commercial broadcasting. Only a system freed from these strictures, the pioneers of public broadcasting understood, would be able to air corporate-unfriendly viewpoints and include the full spectrum of society, not just advertisers’ preferred targets, in its audience—and in so doing, radically transform the entire structure of U.S. media.

Unfortunately, the transformative potential of an independent public broadcasting system was neutralized early on. The funding structure was arranged so that most shows needed to rely on corporate underwriting, allowing big business to play much the same gatekeeping role that they do in for-profit media (Extra!, 9–10/93). Rules against funders having a direct interest in the shows they bankrolled have not been enforced when the donors are powerful members of the establishment (FAIR Press Release, 4/3/02; Activism Update, 7/20/10). Conservative threats to choke off public funding left PBS management leery of any sign of progressive content (Extra!, 3–4/95). The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was supposed to be a “heat shield” protecting public broadcasting from political influence, instead became a tool to police programming for signs of ideological unorthodoxy (Extra!, 9–10/05).

<snip>

[defendandprotect]

82. Thank you -- I think it's been so long since the American public has had even a hint

of a free press, that it's become impossible for them to even envision what it

might be like!

In the worst cases, I think there are still people sitting in front of their TVs

quite certain that if there was anything really wrong in America, the news reader

would let them know!



"The myth of a free press died with the assassination of Pres. John F. Kennedy"

[Joe Bacon]

84. Thank you for posting that!

I still remember how KCET in Los Angeles buckled under to Cardinal Phoney Mahoney and refused to air a documentary about the sex scandals in the Catholic church. I stopped watching the News hours years ago because of Jim Liar's hard right wing bias. PBS's right wing slant, well, it's like Fox News wrapped in velvet gloves...

I don't give a nickel to PBS or NPR because of their biased programming. I don't like having my tax dollars go to promote Republican propaganda.

[No Elephants]

72. +1 (Is Moyers still on PBS?)

[kestrel91316]

97. Their RW slant and hostility to liberal ideas has become quite noticeable in

the past 10 years, IMHO. They are not centrist and unbiased. They pay lip service to liberalism with trite little news pieces about liberals, but the serious reporting always seems to have a rightward lean anymore, and sometimes I pick up on outright derision toward liberalism and liberals.

For a long time I thought I must be imagining it, and then people here on Du started talking about it and I realized it was for real.

[fascisthunter]

8. the truth hurts the GOP's agenda.... telling

their whole agenda is a pile of shit, that's why they are dishonest, it's the only way they can win anything... dishonesty.

[defendandprotect]

17. Well, dishonesty and rw political violence, stolen elections -- and WEALTH to pull it all off!!

[Taverner]

10. DONATE TO PBS/NPR!!!

I am seeing it too - they have definitely changed from a corporate-friendly style to a much more critical/skeptical style.

Public Channels have to survive!

And yeah, that even includes Pacifica...as goofy as they can be!

[bertman]

40. Taverner, I'd like to know when this change took place. I sure haven't noticed it.

My hopes that the Obama era might usher in a new attitude toward aggressive reporting have been dashed at every turn. NPR was my source of choice for over 20 years but since 9-11 they have become so pro-corporate that I can hardly stand to listen to them.

[No Elephants]

74. I began noticing during Dummya's reign. And I stopped donating when Bill Moyer's Journal ended.

[Taverner]

85. Lately it has been changing back, however

Take a listen to All Things Considered, news, etc...its not so Conservafriendly anymore

[No Elephants]

93. I do watch--and listen. And I disagree. We've had enough stories about NPR in LBN alone in

the past year to be aware there's still a problem.

However, let's assume everyone on this thread who is blaming Bush and saying it's all good now is correct. How is altering your editorial policies and news based on who happens to be in the WH not a problem?

[Joe Bacon]

86. If it sounds like GOP talking points, it IS GOP Talking points

No thanks. Not one penny to these propagandists.

[No Elephants]

95. To clarify, I began noticing catering to the right during Dubya's reign .

And I have not seen it end, be it right or center right. (Distinguishing whether something is being slanted right or slanted center right is not always easy for me.)

[No Elephants]

88. No thanks. My $$ will never be a threat to Exxon's, Koch's or any of the foundations. Or

to the $$ of ours Congress sends them. I stopped donating when they took off Bill Moyers' Journal.

[Duval]

12. IMHO they leaned too far right

a few years ago to be taken seriously. I stopped donating and listening. Why hear "repeats" of Lame Stream Media when we can choose Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, etc., on AM and hear the truth?:hi: :kick: :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

13. We should have moved 40 years ago to a license funded system....

our real problems with corporate news and rw pressure on news is that it makes

it impossible for them to even report the OBVIOUS stuff, leave alone anything that

needs investigation -- like let's say 9/11. I'm sure PBS is going to take a real

look at that!! Or, how about election 2000? Or Anthrax scam on Congress?

We may find out that this money is going to right wing interests one way or the other --

who knows? More Rush Limbaugh type stuff?

[bulloney]

16. ABC, CBS and NBC meanwhile, pour millions into telling us stupid acts of Hollywood celebrities.

They think we live to know what Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan are doing today. And they update us ad nauseum on those royal weddings that I don't give a flying fig leaf about.

Faux Snooze, meanwhile, spends millions on lying and distorting everything Democratic officeholders say or do.

Yeah, I can see why the Republicans want to defund PBS and NPR.

[defendandprotect]

18. That happens because they have to stay far away from ANY news -- most of it, if properly understood

by the public, would get them up off their couches!!

[No Elephants]

75. Media tells me more about Sheen than about what's happening with our troops.

I know how much coke Sheen allegedly bought last week but not how many of our troops died or were injured.

[Jkid]

20. At least we found the real reason why the GOP wants to defund public broadcasting

They prefer "free market" to do the work, if it's profitable (read: driveby consumer investigations). But this proves that they don't want PBS/NPR to do the job they're supposed to do because it would force the private broadcasters to actually spend money to compete with PBS. They don't want the situation in the UK where BBC is an active leader of quality of television, while private broadcasters actually have to spend money on quality programing to compete with it. As a matter of fact, they're preventing the chance of situation from happening.

It's all profit protection folks.

[defendandprotect]

59. No -- this isn't about PROFIT from networks -- it's about blocking truth ....

and, btw, BBC has also been under attack re funding and closing down of their

network of stations over the last decades.

When you compare any programming, such as PBS, to what we have here in America, then you're

comparing nonsense to nonsense!!

[No Elephants]

76. It's about blocking truth--to protect ALL corporate profits.

[defendandprotect]

78. In the end, absolutely true ...

but as in the case of Phil Donahue, they took their #1 show in order to suppress

liberal discussion. And, Phil Donahue was quote open about revealing all the hoops

they were making him jump through to combat any liberal comments on his show.

If he had one liberal he had to have two or three conservatives -- and then the

numbers kept increasing. It really shows the weakness of the right wing and what

a house of cards it is.

[KG]

22. in 2002 i was living for in Orl, FL. PBS only non-commercial radio. it was just another bush admin

propaganda outlet in the run-up to iraq invasion.

it remains to be seen if this new initiative will be any more objective.

[firehorse]

25. I thought I was on the Freeper site when I saw the responses here

Are you nuts?

I get amazing coverage of the news from my local NY NPR station. Brian Leher in the morning is the only one in the news that covers REAL local and political news. It was the only station I hear discuss the Kochs Bros. for example. Anything relevant in the news, things that we care about here, I hear on his show.

There is also Science Friday, and Radio Lab. Who doesn't like Radio Lab? It's 1000 times better than any station on my dial.

Last thing I want is for NPR or PBS to go. It's all I got. I know the republicans want to end NPR and PBS so that that the conservatives have total control of their agenda on all the airwaves, why support the freeper agenda here? NPR and PBS are fighting for their funding right now as the republicans are threatening to take it away. Do DU'ers really want them to go and instead only have Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and commercial radio. C'mon.

I'm so depressed to read this freeper crap here on the DU. I don't post much but I've been lurking for years.

[1gobluedem]

27. +1

If federal funding goes about half of the local stations will go with it. The others will have trouble paying for network programming and the networks will scale back. Then public media will dry up completely and we'll be left with all broadcast media being owned by corporations or religious organizations.

Most of the federal funding goes directly to local stations, not NPR or PBS. I know, because I'm the GM of one of them. NPR has more foreign bureaus than any other broadcasting network thanks to a gift from Joan Krock. Does public broadcasting have its flaws? Sure. But we'd all be a lot worse off without it.

My city has no local newspaper anymore, just an online version. And we have no local TV because of spill from Detroit. So my station is the best source of local news and information for this area. If we lose federal funding, our coverage won't be nearly as strong. It's important.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. My NPR stations, WSHU and WNPR, get about 7% Federal financing, with 65% or so...

coming from subscribers. The rest comes from commercial sponsors-who-are-not-to-be-called-sponsors. Connecticut's WNPR also gets some support from the state, although I don't remember how much. So they say, anyway, and I have no reason not to believe them.

I consider NPR a national treasure, warts and all. I don't know whether to despise or pity those who slam it because it doesn't follow their agenda.

[CatholicEdHead]

39. I also get outstanding NPR/PBS

TPT 2 in the Twin Cities but also Minnesota Public Radio (KNOW 91.1) is one of the best out there. Granted MPR is part of American Public Media (Prairie Home, Marketplace, etc...) and they are on par with NPR for content creation, but they put out outstanding deep content that rivals the BBC and ABC Radio National (Australia).

[xmas74]

30. I have decent coverage in my area too.

I enjoy some of the NPR and the PBS programming. Take away the news and the rest of the programming is still more enjoyable than most on the radio/television right now. Without NPR/PBS I'm stuck with reruns of Jersey Shore and songs by Justin Bieber.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Agreed-- amazing how alleged lefties shoot their feet...

I gave to WNYC for years, but I don't get it out here. I have Connecticut's WSHU and WNPR and give to them.

Brian Lehrer is great, but so is Diane Rehm, Terri Gross, Robin Young, Neil Conan, and Science Friday.

Then, of course, there's On the Media, This American Life, and Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me.

I give them every penny I can, and I can't listen enough.

[No Elephants]

83. Freepers are claiming PBS has been leaning right? Please link me to one of those posts.

[sam sarrha]

45. bush planted his people there for sure, but i dont see that now..

[No Elephants]

87. Did the Bush plants all die off or get fired? Besides, everything is not about Bush v. Obama or

Repub v. Dem. More and more it's about the top 1%.

[sam sarrha]

103. true, but it is about Dominionism, and their taking over the government..>link>

Dominionism is about the God's Great Plan for his blessed Rich taking over the world and enslaving the poor that they create.

see... for more links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=574428&mesg_id=581986

[KoKo]

28. Dunno about this. Here in North Carolina many might find their coverage has

has been cut to re-runs and old stuff hardly worth the watch. Mostly we get "Fundraisers" with the "Three Tenors" and "Hip Hop" or old Rock Groups who are re-runs from 20 or 30 years ago.

If this funding has been increased it isn't throughout the PBS System Nationwide. It only goes to areas of the country who have given lots of BIG BUCKS like NYC and BOSTON and some places in CA.

When I lived in New York and New Jersey years ago I had INCREDIBLE PBS programming...very liberal slant, investigative and challenging series that made me think.

I moved to NC over a decade ago...and the stuff we get down here is like something from the 1950's. They had Lawrence Welk ReRuns on up until a year ago...and we never got any good BBC Mini-Series or Frontline on a consistent basis. The programming is mostly local (and that part has been very GOOD ...but also narrow) is one scratches beneath the surface.

In no way does my PBS here in NC reflect the QUALITY Programming I used to get when I lived in the North East of the US!

I think this report is CRAP!

[firehorse]

29. You need to stream WNYC, ... there's none of the crap you have down there

here's a link to Brian Leher's show. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/

click there and I think you'll be much happier.

[KoKo]

31. Thanks...I will check this out...

:hug:

[sam sarrha]

46. their funding is down.. all funding for EVERYTHING is down.. blame Bu$h43 for this crash and the

downslide of everything. the Dominionists have taken over..

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

at least read the first part about Strauss

and keep this in mind

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10016 at least read down to the inset box that starts with Strauss

read this guys books

jeff sharlet

and the Shock doctrine you can see the documentary on youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGQN2-oS3Q

[RufusTFirefly]

33. Investigative reporting is all part of a liberal plot.

Ferreting out actual facts and connecting the dots is highly subversive and threatens our American Way of Life.
All I need is the unsubstantiated opinions of an Oxycontin-addled blowhard and I'm set.

:sarcasm:

[sam sarrha]

47. yea especially this crap.... the shock doctrine documentory >link>>

:sarcasm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGQN2-oS3Q

[MasonJar]

34. I am sorry, but the public channels do much better work than any other

entity out there. We are lucky they are still out there. The GOPers want them to go away. That's evidence enough for me.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

77. Public channels do do better than MSM (not all media), but PBS has been shifting right.

Both those things are true.

[snot]

43. Woo-hoo for public NPR & PBS!!!

[Judi Lynn]

60. CNN Sunday Poll:Should federal funding be stripped from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to s

Quick vote
Should federal funding be stripped from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to save more than $400 million a year?

This is not a scientific poll

No 57% 78748
Yes 43% 58480

Total votes: 137228

Right column, middle of the page.

http://www.cnn.com/

[JonLP24]

61. PBS is great

Love the show "Need to Know" and "Frontline". Frontline had great documentaries on that unit from Ft Carson and the one about New Orleans police department, post-Katrina.

[No Elephants]

96. Bill Moyers Journal was far superior to need to know.

[sendero]

62. I'm sure not hearing it.

.... on NPR. They still, about half the time, tell the story leaving out key facets that would change the entire tenor of the story.

NPR can dig as deep as they want, they still don't seem to report the obvious facts. I still believe they have right-leaning tendencies.

CATO, Heritage, Enterprise - you'll hear spokesmen from those organizations almost every day, but you won't hear much in the way of left-equivalency.

Fooey on them.

[BlueIris]

66. I listen to/watch NPR and OPB daily. Public broadcasters are feeling the strain

of their corporate underwriters, but they are also the only entities doing anything that comes even remotely close to real news.

[No Elephants]

79. True only if you're comparing PBS with mainstream media.

[randr]

70. If anyone thinks PBS/NPR/CPB are not important they are not paying attention

There is reason the Republicans have targeted these organizations over the years. Public/Community media outlets represent a treat to their model of collective mind control, with faux being the most blatant example.
Knowledge of the history of Public Broadcasting is required before entering a debate on the merits of whether we need these institutions or not. It is an important link of our American journey and probably the only example of people vs. corporations where the people have won in the last century. I suggest that all DUers take a look at how the Public Broadcasting System came to be.
The content of their reporting is subject to public input at a far greater level that there is no comparison. Many of these stations would not be operating without volunteers and their local communities support.
Your local PBS/NPR/Community stations exist due to overwhelming public support and are one of the last real example of grassroots communication left in the country.
Tune in to your local PBS or NPR outlet for a week and then tell me their is no comparison to the corporate minded mass media.
And when you find fault show up and volunteer to see if you can make a difference.

[defendandprotect]

92. The reason they continue after PBS and NPR is because their very existence ...

continues as a threat to the right wing --

No telling what could pop up --

Just before the '92 election, when MEDICARE FOR ALL was the major discussion --

PBS quite AMAZINGLY came up with putting Phil Donahue on to explain single payer/

government run health care to the public!! That was just out of the blue.

So -- as long as it exists -- no telling what they might do -- but they rarely do it.

IMO, we need to move to buying licenses for news -- think that's how they do it in

most other countries.

[No Elephants]

94. Volunteering does not change policy and I saw no one on this thread say {other} mass media is

bettor or that PBS is unimportant.

As for Republicons please see my reply to the OP (Reply # 91).

eta: For the record, pre-Dummya, I used to volunteer at WGBH, the Boston "branch" of PBS. And I donated annually until Bill Moyers Journal diappeared.

[randr]

100. Out here in Western Colorado

we have small market community stations every 60 miles or so. The towns of Aspen, Carbondale, Paonia, Crested Butte, Telluride, Silverton, Durango, Cortez, Ignazio, and Grand Junction all have their own very individualistic community stations. You can tune into NPR, Democracy Now, and Pacifica in any of these towns on any day. Not to mention the outstanding volunteer DJ musical formates unique to each town.
Volunteers run the show from the Board of Directors to the DJ,s with paid staff on the day to day. It works and is an incredible example of Democracy in action.
Tune In if you have a moment:
www.kvnf.org
www.kdnk.org
www.kbut.org
www.aspenpublicradio.org/
www.kafmradio.org
www.koto.org
www.ksut.org
www.kdur.org/

[No Elephants]

91. Republicans claim anything to the right of Limbaugh is left wing. And they are deceptive.

Measuring anything by their public reactions is not very discerning or wise, IMO.

[Uncle Joe]

98. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bozita.

[BrklynLiberal]

99. At least SOMEONE is doing it. I hope NPR, PBS etal stay strong and funded.....