Public broadcasting outlets: abolish them?
|
|
|||||
|
46 votes
|
|
63% | |||
|
22 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
7% | |||
Arguably, journalism began with a government organ: the Roman Senate Journal (Acta Diurna Senatus Romani).
These “Daily Doings” were the minutes of open sessions of the Senate of
Rome. First to publish these was Julius Caesar, in his first term as
senior consul. Today’s Cable/Satellite Public Affairs Networks descend,
at least in spirit, from the Roman Senate Journal. The reason: they
carry the same kind of content. (Had they existed in ancient Rome, they
would have set up cameras inside the Curia of the Senate, and detailed a
permanent crew to stick as close to Julius Caesar as his lictors and
clients normally did.)
Whenever government (usually royal) presses and independent presses
coexisted, they were at odds. The most tyrannical government either did
not allow private presses, or would tell them what they may or may not
print. That is why James Madison, in framing a Bill of Rights for the
Constitution, wrote in part:
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press.
But Congress has made such laws. It created the Federal Communications Commission, one of several quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
agencies. Under its first Chief Commissioner, Newton N. Minow, it set
up the Fairness Doctrine. Under it, no one could say anything for public
broadcast without giving “equal time” to others to respond. As a
result, no radio or television station would show anything
“controversial.” The “equal time” might be dead time, that no advertiser would sponsor. So for decades, the most common radio broadcast format was popular music.
Then President Ronald W. Reagan named several Commissioners who abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Now a station could offer talk,
however controversial, without worrying about “equal time.” Rush
Limbaugh was the first of many talk-show hosts who built their own
networks to broadcast their voices in hundreds of markets.
But the Corporation for Public Broadcasting still exists. It
funds two national networks: National Public Radio, and the Public
Broadcasting Service (formerly National Educational Television).
Technically, the government does not own the CPB. But it subsidizes it, as much as 450 million dollars a year.
The Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission recommended defunding the CPB in their report. Government critics still remembered this a year later. But in the excitement of the mid-term election campaign, everyone forgot about that recommendation. Part of the reason is that the putative President disregarded the Simpson-Bowles report. Now Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Representative Doug Lamborn
(R-CO) have proposed bills, each in his own chamber of Congress, to
defund the CPB and its subsidiaries. The Media Research Center has taken up their cause.
CPB. Sponsorship and ownership are only two different degrees of
control. And that control pays dividends. The two organs that CPB funds
typically produce programs that give “The Party Line” from the government.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/05/10...
Top Opinion
-
Yes+14By what right does the government own or sponsor media of any kind? And how can the government afford this when it owes $15 trillion?
The CPB is the propaganda arm of the government. A free government does not have a propaganda arm.






















It's not like you can take what they say at face value by any means.
All of the media is run by the same people and designed to keep us distracted and divided.
Do you remember when they were showing all the war clips? I thought it was a joke. . It was like watching the Superbowl, right down to state of the art graphics and color commentary. If they had shown the reality of war we would have been out in a month.
We live in the largest, most prolific propaganda machine on the planet and it's not easy to resist. It's in your face 24-7 from the day you're born.
I know the media is trying to shape opinion to allow continued corporate control. That's why I'm suspect of everything they say and it's the same with govt.
I expect them to be lying and they haven't let me down.
You're just looking for a fight. Are you guys a tag team or what?
Such entities would either support themselves from the fees they could charge the public or they would seek charity but they have no more moral right to tax payer money than a street thug has to an honest man's wallet.
...and You can rest assured that you won't find any of these public minded altruist artists, intellectual types talking and or singing about the real victims of these collectivist crimes.
Check with the founders!
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
- Thomas Jefferson
its more fun that way.
Starting about 150 BC the Senate lost power to military leaders. Marius was basically the first but didn't end Senate power. Pompey was another. He originally took on Caesar as an Allie. Caesar defeated him and took over control of the Senate but did not end by what was by then the fiction of Senate rule. Augustus Caesar succeeded Julius and governed through authoritas. Over the next 100 years Rome became a military dictatorship. The last attempt at a resurgence of Senatorial control was in 64 AD.
If you noticed the big networks always had a time for rebuttal.
There is no doubt about at times it is definitely the Socialist station.
PBS and NPR are probably 85% Valuable public Service and 15% left wing speech.
The dollar value of the 80% is what is hard to gauge , as when it is gone there is nothing to replace it .
Have to lean 80 / 20 in favor of it is a worthwhile investment .
A recent concert in New York's Central Park by Andrea Bocelli is a good example. The program was 2 1/2 hours long and had no commercials, except for occasional appeals for donations. Only those in Central Park that evening and NPR viewers were able partake in this experience.
This is the sort of thing conservatives want to get rid of? I realize it means less money available for more tax cuts for billionaires, but many of us think it is worth it.