The future of NPR

StevieJ · Post by **StevieJ** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:14 am

jGilder wrote:I wonder how many of us outside of Ireland would have ever heard traditional music had it not been for NPR.

So "outside of Ireland" means the USA? But I am encouraged, Jack: unlike some your compatriots, you are aware that there is at least one other country in the world...

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:52 am

StevieJ wrote:
jGilder wrote:I wonder how many of us outside of Ireland would have ever heard traditional music had it not been for NPR.
So "outside of Ireland" means the USA? But I am encouraged, Jack: unlike some your compatriots, you are aware that there is at least one other country in the world...

Yea, you're right, I was obviously referring to the US since we're talking about NPR wasn’t I... sorry. I really don't know how the media in other countries balances popular and obscure art forms and culture. It would be interesting to get some feedback on that. How did you folks outside of Ireland (in areas other than the US) find out about things like ITM? What is your mainstream media like? Is it balanced politically as well, or is there an independent media that takes up the slack?

anniemcu · Post by **anniemcu** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:57 pm

Jeff Stallard wrote:
Feadan wrote:Yeah...I think I would rather bask in the bliss of ignorance as well :roll:
Too much thinking makes my brain hurt.

Cheers,
Duh-avid

So you're saying intellectuals are smarter than others? They're obviously not above insults, as you've just demonstrated (assuming you consider yourself an intellectual). Take away the trivial accesorries of the class (in this case, wine tastings, black turtlenecks, vernacular, PBS, European preferences, etc.) and you think and act the same as everyone else.

But I'm getting off topic...sorry about that. Back to PBS...

LOL! You *are* yanking our chains, right? BTW, it's "accessories", and your definition of 'intellectual' sure doesn't match mine... (though I *am* partial to black turtlenecks, in cold weather, the wine tastings usually involve money I don't have, and "European preferences" is something I don't think we'd agree on the definition of either).

For me, PBS *is* definitely a refuge... it helps offset the extremes of anti-intellectualism, and a definite lack of interest in things other than getting drunk and cheating on the spouse while demonizing those who chose to live differently. I find it a very refreshing source of info and thought provoking ideas... But then... I *like* to think... and try to practice often. Have fun though!

Edited to correct obviously less than intellectual spelling and typing mistakes.

Jeff Stallard · Post by **Jeff Stallard** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:38 pm

Unfortunately, no, I'm not yanking your chain. In my experience, "intellectual" defines not THAT one thinks, but WHAT one thinks. If PBS creates intellect, then the death of PBS will really be a shame. However, if intellect creates PBS, then you have nothing to worry about, as the thinkers of this country will find something to fill the void. People won't stop thinking just because PBS is no longer around. Now, that's important *IF* it's the intellect you're concered about. If, however, you're concerned about listening to things you are interested in, that other stations don't care about, that's something completely different, and any intellectual qualities are purely coincidental.

Hmm...what's my point?

Jeff Stallard · Post by **Jeff Stallard** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:47 pm

anniemcu wrote:For me, PBS *is* definitely a refuge... it helps offset the extremes of anti-intellectualism, and a definite lack of interest in things other than getting drunk and cheating on the spouse

Please refer to the thread about classical musicians (how much more intellectual can you be, right?) sleeping their way into jobs. Intellect itself does not prevent poor behavior, which is evident both in the above example and the fact that there are plenty of good, yet unintelligent, people in this world.

...while demonizing those who chose to live differently.

Does that mean that intellectuals do not demonize?

Blackwood · Post by **Blackwood** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:03 pm

PBS is now run by Republican Party operative:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_ ... resident_3

I bet this is their way of trying to survive......looks like a hostile take-over...

Jeff Stallard · Post by **Jeff Stallard** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:17 pm

Blackwood wrote:PBS is now run by Republican Party operative:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_ ... resident_3

I bet this is their way of trying to survive......looks like a hostile take-over...

When you say stuff like that, how can someone NOT think PBS has a left-wing agenda? That's like Limbaugh saying, "Oh great, a liberal is now running Fox News. Looks like a hostile takeover!" We'd all be up in arms saying, "SEE?! It really *IS* a right-wing moutpiece!! Or was anyway..."

thurlowe · Post by **thurlowe** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:31 pm

We just got the news here at WMUK (public radio in Kalamazoo)-- funding has been restored.

Let me rephrase that: YYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:50 pm

Jeff Stallard wrote:
Blackwood wrote:PBS is now run by Republican Party operative:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_ ... resident_3

I bet this is their way of trying to survive......looks like a hostile take-over...
When you say stuff like that, how can someone NOT think PBS has a left-wing agenda? That's like Limbaugh saying, "Oh great, a liberal is now running Fox News. Looks like a hostile takeover!" We'd all be up in arms saying, "SEE?! It really *IS* a right-wing moutpiece!! Or was anyway..."

Actually, no. The MO of the neocons in power is to appoint people to be in charge of agencies they are out to destroy. This is the case with the appointment to head CPB as well as the nomination of John Bolton to the UN. Both have made statements in the public record that they would like to see the demise of the very agencies they've been appointed to, or nominated for. It's a classic case of appointing the fox to be in charge of guarding the henhouse. And these are just two examples -- there are many more. It's not about partisan politics unless you take into account that the Republicans seek to destroy anything that resembles socialism as a matter of course.

Chuck_Clark · Post by **Chuck_Clark** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:21 pm

thurlowe wrote:We just got the news here at WMUK (public radio in Kalamazoo)-- funding has been restored.

Let me rephrase that: YYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!

Six pages of anger and angst right down the drain. Drat!

jbarter · Post by **jbarter** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:08 am

Jeff Stallard wrote:wine tastings, black turtlenecks, vernacular, PBS, European preferences..

wine tastings - more like wine quaffing in my case

black turtlenecks - I think I still have one about the place somewhere

vernacular - I speak broad yellowbelly on occasion and you can't get more vernacular than that

PBS - I see a lot of the progs mentioned over here on other channels

European preferences - er, I'm European. I quite like it.

Do I qualify as a clever clogs?

Jeff Stallard · Post by **Jeff Stallard** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:19 am

jGilder wrote:[It's not about partisan politics unless you take into account that the Republicans seek to destroy anything that resembles socialism as a matter of course.

PBS resembles socialism?! Please explain.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:30 am

Jeff Stallard wrote: PBS resembles socialism?! Please explain.

It's a government-run and collectively-owned organization competing in a milieu which the US sees as belonging to private enterprise. What's difficult to understand about that?

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:00 am

I find the leadership of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to now be a little odd (to say the least) myself:

Quote from CNN yesterday:

"The corporation was set up by Congress in 1967 to shield public broadcasting from political influence. It distributes federal subsidies to PBS, National Public Radio and hundreds of public radio and television stations.

The corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, a GOP appointee, has made news recently with his contention that public broadcasting is too liberal.

Also Thursday, the corporation's board selected Patricia S. Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chairman, as president and chief executive."
(my italics)

I have no idea what political affiliations past CPB leaders have had, but this particular line-up certainly doesn't appear to be shielding us from political influence.

Susan

jGilder · Post by **jGilder** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:27 am

susnfx wrote:The corporation's chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, a GOP appointee, has made news recently with his contention that public broadcasting is too liberal.

To understand you only need to have an acurate translation of terms. When these guys say, "too liberal" it actually means "not right-wing." When they say, "National Public Radio," what they mean is, "National State Radio."

See? Much more clear... right?