Didn't the administration try to pull this crap last year?

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060207/en_nm/bush_dc

...and in fact several times now, I believe. Why is this government so scared of Big Bird and Chef Ming? Answer: they're not -- they're scared of shows like Frontline. But you see, I don't know WHY exactly. If PBS really was a "bastion of Liberalism" as the kowtowers amongst us like to say, and if "liberalism" (as many of these people claim) is little more than a ruse that most people see through, then why attack public broadcasting -- how's it hurting anything? Let's face it, for every one show that PBS has in terms of political and social commentary and documentary, there's many more shows that are educational -- both for children AND adults. For every Frontline that one may or may not agree with, there's a NOVA, Globe Trekker, and American Experience. What kind of administration seeks to pull the rug out from under a broadcasting service that offers a show called THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE!? An administration that wants little more than fear, constantly looming terrorist threat, and (ideally) a further reaching government built on Draconian policies, that's who.

Say, while we're at it, why don't we just let this administration re-write our textbooks and reprogram our televisions to reflect what they REALLY want us to buy into -- life was, is, and forever will be an all-encompassing struggle with terrorism, bio-terrorism, chemical-terrorism, nuclear-terrorism, surveillance, the military, oil, and "the liberals."

Hey, if we have to kill off Mr. Rogers, Oscar the Grouch, and commercial-free public television that provides a wealth of educational, thought provoking, and entertaining programming, then so be it -- clearly we all prefer Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Survivor, terrorist cells, and Osama 24 hours-a-day anyways, right?

This just in: the Bush administration's book of the year? 1984.

[directory]

well...where else is he going to get the money to invade other small countries?

[YogsVR4]

Public money should not be used for any media channels - TV, radio or art. Slash slash slash. 2.7 trillion (and watch all the bitching about it not being enough). slash slash slash across the board and eliminate eliminate eliminate.

[tenguzero]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Public money should not be used for any media channels - TV, radio or art. Slash slash slash. 2.7 trillion (and watch all the bitching about it not being enough). slash slash slash across the board and eliminate eliminate eliminate.

Why not? They're providing a public service. Last time I checked, nearly anyone with basic cable or even rabbit ears hooked up to their TV could obtain quality history, news, social, and educational programming commercial free.

If it weren't for PBS and affiliates, I would have to pay considerably more money per month just to obtain channels that would provide me some actual cultural and educational programming. Let's face it, without Public Broadcasting, affordable television would be utter trash. Granted, I advocate reading and actual play (as opposed to sitting in front of the TV) without question. However sometimes TV is just what is needed, and it's nice to know I don't have to pay $50+ per month to get some quality programming, or a parent can trust that channel 2 isn't going to subject their child to consumer commercials, adult themes, or Paula, Randy, and Simon

Some of my earliest television-related memories were Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, Square One, Mr. Rogers, and of course Sesame St. -- not American Idol, Survivor, 24, Desperate Housewives, etc. -- and that's what I'd like for my children as well. Besides, I'd much rather see the funds go to Public Broadcasting than to precision guided bombs, the illegal-immigrant money pit, or politicians pet projects.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Reading Rainbow

Damn good show.

Originally Posted by tenguzero

3-2-1 Contact

I have no idea what this was. I don't think I've ever heard of it until now.

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Square One

Hell yes! I loved that show! Especially when they did the Pac-Man thing called Math-Man.

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Mr. Rogers

It's a shame he's dead. Of course he made of lot of shows and the message is still there.

Originally Posted by tenguzero

and of course Sesame St.

I just hope they keep Sesame St. the same like they have over the past 25 years. I don't want my kids having to sing songs with Kami the HIV kid or Boondo the social security bum. They're still children and children need to have some innocence for a while.

[tenguzero]

I just hope they keep Sesame St. the same like they have over the past 25 years. I don't want my kids having to sing songs with Kami the HIV kid or Boondo the social security bum. They're still children and children need to have some innocence for a while.

That's very true. It's tough to make some people understand that introduction to certain aspects of life HAVE to wait until a child gets older, if for no other reason than that of simply insuring that the key building blocks of the developmental processes (that will actually enable a child to properly handle these issues when they get older) are kept intact, and not disturbed prematurely.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=muppet

-Maddox will help to put this in context


At any rate, 3-2-1 Contact was an awesome show, sort of along the same lines as Square One, only not focused so much on numbers and mathematics, as it was the sciences (3-2-1 Contact had The Bloodhound Gang, which was sort of like Square One's Mathnet.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Contact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_One_TV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Rainbow


Reading Rainbow just kicks all kinds of ass (and still does to this day). Although apparently the last episode was produced last year -- but I don't see how such a show would EVER run out of steam, and chances are good that if you were born anytime in the last 30 or so years, that theme song undoubtedly holds a very nostalgic appeal.

This is what I want proponents of budget slashing in respect to institutions like Public Television to understand. Without these kind of shows (and the ability of a trusted service like Public Broadcasting to get them out, commercial free, to any home with a television) GENERATIONS of people would be recounting the television of their childhood as being nothing but empty, commercial programming littered with marketing and gimmicky, vacant content.

Because of Sesame Street I knew my ABCs/123s and how to count to 10 in Spanish while still a toddler. Because of Square One (and a car ride with my uncle one day) I knew basic multiplication going into first grade. Because of Reading Rainbow I knew there was a massive radio telescope located in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and what it was used for. What would have stuck with me if I hadn't had the programming provided by Public Broadcasting? -- If anything! (Last I checked, beyond PBS there's really very little programming on during the day for kids -- TV stations that are privately held go to where the money is, and the money is in soap operas and game shows.)

[Broke_as_****]

PBS is the best programing on TV. Just the childrens shows with no ads is worth it. Then add programs like Nova, all of the historical specials, American Experience and most importantly, Frontline and PBS beats out any other channel out there.

Plus they got the Red Green Show

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

(Last I checked, beyond PBS there's really very little programming on during the day for kids -- TV stations that are privately held go to where the money is, and the money is in soap operas and game shows.)

I wouldn't say that really. Sadly, PBS is starting to get left behind. I'm not agreeing with the budget cuts but not as many people are watching it.

Back when I was a kid we didn't have satelite or cable. I think a whole lot of people as well didn't have it. For those who did they didn't have a whole lot of channels just for kids. Now, satelite is cheaper and can be reached by a much bigger audience. Also, they have networks just for kids: Nickalodeon, Nickalodeon 2, Cartoon Network, Cartoon Network 2 (Boomerang), Nick Toons, Disney, and Toon Disney.

When I was little I didn't have this. I would watch my morning cartoons on FOX and then switch to PBS to watch my Mr. Rogers, Reading Rainbow, ect.

My little brother didn't even watch FOX or PBS because we had something new, a satelite dish. Instead of educational programs, Nickalodeon and all those other stations were showing Spongebob, Jimmy Newtron, Courage the Dog, Dextar's Lab, and all sorts of cartoons that are nothing but educational.

What am I trying to say is more people are able to get their hands on digital cable, satelite, ect and fewer and fewer have to watch what is now called "the basic stations."

As I said, when I was little that's all we had and all that was on aimed at my age group was educational programs on PBS. As I also said though, when my brother came around, technology had advanced and we had a satelite dish. This allowed him more choices than I could have ever dreamed of. Channels that show nothing but cartoons were a reality to him and he was happy to watch his favorite shows all day. These shows weren't educational at all as I said.

Anyway, sorry for the long post but I thought I'd share that.

[tenguzero]

Sorry, I probably should have elaborated -- I was referring to daytime programming from a basic cable/broadcast TV point of view. When one takes premium cable and digital programming options into consideration, the spectrum naturally broadens considerably (although while there are channels like Discovery Kids and whatnot, there is indeed a majority of kids channels showing cartoons that are often lacking in educational value.)

And the options were definitely fewer when we were younger -- enhanced cable services really didn't start to take off until probably the late 80's, so many of us 20 and 30-somethings grew up along with the proliferation of programming packages and cable-ready TVs. And even then I still remember that "cable" for my family right up until the mid 90's was only about 32 channels, half of which were home-shopping, dead air, or premium (of course, at this time there was only one HBO or Cinemax channel.) I remember watching TV in the early 80's using our converter box that allowed us 13 or so channels -- and it used a WIRED remote control with two LED numbers to indicate which channel you were on.

I'll concede that nostalgia for a past time probably contributes a good deal to my favoritism towards Public Broadcasting for childrens programming, since now (as Homer Simpson once said) "It's nice to be helping out in this day and age, when the rich mosaic of cable TV has made public television so very unnecessary."

And yet the other part of me is a part that has a strong interest in the continuation of Public Broadcasting, since (as I've already said) I only subscribe to basic cable ("basic" being channels 2-20, 3 of which are spanish, and 3 more of which are home-shopping.) The 3 Public Broadcasting channels we get make up a large part of my viewing experience.

More than anything, it's the principle behind the whole thing that really gets to me -- if the time comes when Public Television can no longer continue to be of service to the people, I'd prefer it happen because society has just moved on, and there's (hopefully) new readily available avenues for educational and children's programming accessable to anyone. It's bad enough that it would be lost to the marketing power and influence of network conglomerates, but at least that's due in part to consumer demand -- I DON'T want to see it die at the hands of politicians in the name of "budget cuts".

I find it kind of ironic, actually -- so many of these people in power say they're all for "family values" and higher moral standards, yet how do they reward institutions that actually provide this service? They threaten to cut their funding.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Why not? They're providing a public service. Last time I checked, nearly anyone with basic cable or even rabbit ears hooked up to their TV could obtain quality history, news, social, and educational programming commercial free.

Why not? Because it wasn't the publics money to begin with. I'm a firm believe that the public should keep its money. The government should not provide money for anything that can be obtained commercially. TV, radio and art do not need taxpayer money to be viable.

If it weren't for PBS and affiliates, I would have to pay considerably more money per month just to obtain channels that would provide me some actual cultural and educational programming.

Your choice as to where you live. Taxpayers should not subsadize your choice.

Let's face it, without Public Broadcasting, affordable television would be utter trash.

Buyer beware. Though I submit that PBS is often full of trash. But since those are opinions, we'll leave it at that.

Granted, I advocate reading and actual play (as opposed to sitting in front of the TV) without question. However sometimes TV is just what is needed, and it's nice to know I don't have to pay $50+ per month to get some quality programming, or a parent can trust that channel 2 isn't going to subject their child to consumer commercials, adult themes, or Paula, Randy, and Simon

Again, your choice of where you live and what you are willing to pay for.

Some of my earliest television-related memories were Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, Square One, Mr. Rogers, and of course Sesame St. -- not American Idol, Survivor, 24, Desperate Housewives, etc. -- and that's what I'd like for my children as well.

Mine too, but guess what, all those shows would survive on commercially available channels. Good programs will make the air without the taxpayers footing the bill.

[/quote]Besides, I'd much rather see the funds go to Public Broadcasting than to precision guided bombs, the illegal-immigrant money pit, or politicians pet projects.[/quote]

I'd rather see the funds stay with the person who earned it.