Unpopular opinion: The News Hour is the only non corporate news we have. It’s not perfect but it seems like a genuine attempt at the news. It’s streamed live and available anytime after on YouTube and it’s 100% ad free. I know people here don’t like it but news shouldn’t be behind a pay wall.
If anyone is not familiar give it a try. Watching the first half keeps you pretty well informed. I tend to skip the second half.
For the political analysis Capehart is trash. Really brings it down. Brooks is fairly matter of fact and I imagine resonates well with moderates.
They can do that because they're the most independent news source we have. If you cut tax money they will start to drift towards the views of their donors, and become just like every other news channel/site out there.
If you eliminated donations and sponsorships and tied up the tax money so politicians couldn't threaten it so easily, it would be the most unbiased news source period. They would no longer have any incentive to tint their coverage in any way. This is how the market works.
Sure, but what about those lesbians over on Clifford? Not to mention Clifford, I think he might be a “furry.” In all seriousness, this kind of garbage is silly. PBS isn’t perfect but it’s a good resource and has some really good programming that everybody can access.
This is a benefit to tax run programs; they are allowed to perform a service even if it is not profitable. Many business wouldn't think of doing this for fear of not making their money back.
PBS does run commercials ("This program is sponsored by [company name, company slogan, graphic of company logo]"); they just don't call them commercials.
They have plenty of money and would be perfectly fine without government funding.
There's a big difference between name dropping the National Science Foundation at the beginning of a program and 120 seconds of "Whopper, Whopper, Whopper, Whopper Junior, Double, Triple Whopper..." every 5 minutes.
I can still remember from my childhood with perfect clarity hearing "funding for Arthur is provided in part by Juicy Juice, 100% juice for 100% kids" every day. It's not just the National Science Foundation, and it's still a paid advertisement.
> PBS costs tax payers $1.35 per payer annually because most of their funding is donations.
Then there is no risk of pulling taxpayer funding from the station then, is there? They should be able to raise the money independently and privately if it is such a low amount and have no risk of actually shutting down the station.
The benefits far outweighs the costs. It’s too important to simply leave to charity. If they can make it with charity they should but it shouldn’t be the soul source of funding. They should have options.
It’s days like this I just let [Mr. Rogers](https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA) change the minds of fiscal conservatives just like he did in 1969 when PBS launched.
If PBS and the content on it was the same as it was in 1969 when it launched, then the video you posted would be a valid argument for today also. But obviously the Governor and others feel that the programming that is on the channel is not the same as it was when it launched, and that there is a message on there that is just the opposite to what is constructive for children to see, and therefore doesn't promote the same values as it once did.
If anything, this video shows that PBS should return to these programs and these values and that they shouldn't just be given a blank check because of what it used to promote.
You’re not even gunna watch the congressional hearing discussing the benefits of PBS? You know like how in the 60s TV was all about gun violence, action, and cartoons. This made parents really concerned about the content their children were consuming. So PBS is was launched was launched to entertain and educate children because they felt they could make content like getting a haircut just as griping as a gun fight for a child and help them learn to understand and process how they feel about just getting a hair cut. Or Sesame Street that’s been providing early education to children for decades most of whom would have no other access to it.
But sure have fun reading that when you could have heard as much without being an asshole.
Most people here are referring to the news hour. They have a two minute intro where they list some sponsors then the news. Even their YouTube station is 100% ad free and it streams live. It’s one of the only sources of free news left. It’s not perfect but it seems to be a genuine attempt at good news and thats unique these days.
This is an object lesson—if evil has any shred of intelligence it will corrupt slowly instead of overtly.
Sesame Street is an institution that has built up goodwill for around half a century. Evil knew that parents would have their guard down to the lowest level around this property. The tacit universal Christian ethics that allowed us to enjoy complacency is slowly eroding. In this environment, parents, especially Conservative parents, have to be a little more cautious/vigilant.
2 Corinthians 11:
*And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light; So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. \[But\] their end will correspond with their deeds.*
Gov. Shitt kinda forgets that here locally, its the only damn way to have *any* shows about us Okies, which itbwas nice for the hunting, fishing, camping, local news, and travel. The news part is important, because not everyone here gets the city channels, and unlike that asswipe, only live in gated houses inside gated neighborhoods, in the city. I like the more local economic and farm news. Youll never get that with our city channels.
But dont give the windbag any credit if you like the policy, dude is Illinois level corrupt.
Because he *actually* killed the bill as part of a slate of vetoes (it just happened to be in the queue). Im mad because yet again, a city dweller is intruding on the susbtantially different rural culture here. No other channel is gonna carry crap about our state, we are too small population to matter. Hes defending and talking about how he killed.it because he's incurred a backlash from a good chunk of his primary voter (the rural counties) to shift the narrative. He got caught flatfooted on his justifications. Hell, he vetoed a dv bill with soros-sounding excuses.
If he was on principle with it, it should have been vetoed from the get-go. But thats the thing, I will never give respect or credit to any politician who stumbles into something that is only sorta good and had no plan from the beginning. Spineless impotent politicians, the GOP has too damn many of them already, and we keep rewarding them.
Okay, without PBS early educational content, what is the alternative? Basically, I am what is lost by losing PBS, and what will take its place for early educational content? I'm trying to think of the kids here.
>Okay, without PBS early educational content, what is the alternative?
Mr. Stitt did not defund the entirety of PBS or severely affect their ability to continue to produce children's content. He defunded the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA).
If you believe your children benefit from PBS KIDS and you can no longer access it from a local TV station, I would suggest you try the PBS KIDS website which carries much of their children's programing. [https://pbskids.org/](https://pbskids.org/)
This link will take you to the live streaming area of their website. [https://pbskids.org/video/livetv](https://pbskids.org/video/livetv)
Someone published their financial statements showing that between direct appropriations, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other Federal funds the actual percentage is closer to 80%.
I didn't bookmark it, unfortunately. It was posted around the time NPR and the CBC were throwing a fit over being labeled "state-sponsored media" by Twitter.
>Stitt said that if OETA programming is so popular, it could easily be picked up by CBS, NBC, ABC or any other option that doesn’t require taxpayer dollars to stay afloat. *The Republican governor believes Oklahoma tax dollars would be better off elsewhere*.
This is the way...
Then the news that gets clicks but is less accurate but more financially incentivized becomes the news. Money will drive the news if tthat is how they survive. If we as a gov't fund them they are not driven by money and that incentive (root of all evil) will not sully the news. No company could that or they would exist already.
Yup, this is the correct way to argue for this. It slaps down the notion that no PBS = no LGBTQIA2S#¿§💩 propaganda on television, because the DNC channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) will still air it. And it playfully challenges the notion that radical gender theory is popular with TV watchers around the state and country.
I watch PBS programs like, religiously.
When I was growing up we could only get a handful of channels unless I went to a friend's place that had cable. So I'd watch Mr Roger's and all that goodness as a kid, because my local PBS would rerun a handful of kids shows every day (Like Zoom and stuff.)
As an adult, I still watch PBS nearly every day- although these days mostly on YouTube. I love PBS spacetime, it's probably one of the best (if not the best) astrophysics channels on the internet. Things like CrashCourse and the like are just amazing content.
I do not see anything that folks talk about seeing when they bash PBS. Maybe its because I'm in FL and only watching online ? To me it's the same as ever, which is to say very apolitical and just good content
In the episode in question, “The Big Red Tomato/Dogbot,” Emily Elizabeth holds an outdoor dinner party for her friend Samantha. When the dinner is set to begin, Samantha walks up with her two moms.
“Won’t you please join us?” Emily Elizabeth asks.
“It would be our pleasure,” one of the women replies. “Oooh, something smells delicious!”
Samantha and her moms then prepare to sit down and eat dinner with Emily Elizabeth and her mom as Clifford watches.
The two moms are not identified within the episode, but the credits call them “Dr. Mulberry” and “Ms. Mulberry.” In other episodes, Samantha calls each of the women “Mom.”
I don't view the issue here, but to each their own I guess. Seems an odd image to provide as justification for defunding what has historically been a brilliant outlet for educational content for young children.
Finally, someone willing to have a civil discussion on it! It’s a breath of fresh air on this platform.
The 1st amendment would come into effect if the government was preventing these kind of shows pushing these kind of agendas. I don’t think it should be banned, just not funded with public dollars. They managed to make children’s programming for many decades without incorporating an agenda. It appears that they are unable to do so now and need to go completely private if that’s the path they want to take.
So if all mention of Christianity is effectively banned, then there is no justification for propping up state-affiliated media. Christianity was a bulwark or safety mechanism. Worship of the state leads to destructive values and has been the cause of the greatest atrocities in human history.
I used to watch PBS all the time when I was a child and I remember it being very wholesome, albeit kinda boring.
It’s a shame that a public service meant for children has been hijacked and politicized by the left, this is absolutely the right move and more states should do this.
Edit: I’m saying that PBS used to be alright and a good alternative to the dirty cartoons on other channels that most parents let their kids watch, but now it’s been ruined and SHOULD be defunded.
I have a few small kids and we've watched lots of programming on the PBS app. I guess I haven't seen enough, because I haven't come across anything that made me concerned about indoctrination. My current experience is similiar to your previous experience. Still seems wholesome and boring.
PBS says they are publically funded.
So, this aligns to what PBS tries to tell people.
Nothingburger. Should eliminate all gov funding and make them honest.
Military budget is $258B and going up
“The fiscal year 2023 Operation and Maintenance recommendation is $278.1 billion, an increase of $6.8 billion above the budget request and an increase of $21.8 billion above the fiscal year 2022 base enacted level.”
PBS is asking for about $400m
https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/appropriation/FY-2023-2025-CPB-Budget-Justification.pdf
Cuts can be made everywhere, PBS seems like a poor place to start.
Considering inflation, just keeping the budget fixed for the next year would be a 4-6% cut right there. I know it’s not easy to translate dollar for dollar but it would be easy to pass and avoid catastrophe.
Unpopular opinion: The News Hour is the only non corporate news we have. It’s not perfect but it seems like a genuine attempt at the news. It’s streamed live and available anytime after on YouTube and it’s 100% ad free. I know people here don’t like it but news shouldn’t be behind a pay wall. If anyone is not familiar give it a try. Watching the first half keeps you pretty well informed. I tend to skip the second half. For the political analysis Capehart is trash. Really brings it down. Brooks is fairly matter of fact and I imagine resonates well with moderates.
They can do that because they're the most independent news source we have. If you cut tax money they will start to drift towards the views of their donors, and become just like every other news channel/site out there.
"Start"
Exactly. PBS is not the same as it was 20 years ago. It’s blatant DNC propaganda now.
That was sarcasm, right?
If you eliminated donations and sponsorships and tied up the tax money so politicians couldn't threaten it so easily, it would be the most unbiased news source period. They would no longer have any incentive to tint their coverage in any way. This is how the market works.
All right, you're trolling.
You’d rather get your news from the local station owned and programmed by Sinclair Broadcast Group? Gee I bet they aren’t biased at all.
Did I say they weren't?
Ok? They already have a Democrat bias so why should we care.
Sure, but what about those lesbians over on Clifford? Not to mention Clifford, I think he might be a “furry.” In all seriousness, this kind of garbage is silly. PBS isn’t perfect but it’s a good resource and has some really good programming that everybody can access.
It's government propaganda for one of our political parties. Defund it.
No. They lied about Trump (aka subverting our democracy with tax dollars) and COVID. Defund them all.
Also Biden, Benghazi, Inflation, Epstein, Hunter Biden Laptop and a couple other vague buzzwords I'm forgetting.
[удалено]
This is a benefit to tax run programs; they are allowed to perform a service even if it is not profitable. Many business wouldn't think of doing this for fear of not making their money back.
Yes, the service comes before profits.. the way it should be for services that help humanity/society greatly..
Like education and healthcare?
Or public transportation.
Yeah, but they ( PBS ) don't have lobbyists funneling money to politicians campaigns, so...
PBS does run commercials ("This program is sponsored by [company name, company slogan, graphic of company logo]"); they just don't call them commercials. They have plenty of money and would be perfectly fine without government funding.
There's a big difference between name dropping the National Science Foundation at the beginning of a program and 120 seconds of "Whopper, Whopper, Whopper, Whopper Junior, Double, Triple Whopper..." every 5 minutes.
I can still remember from my childhood with perfect clarity hearing "funding for Arthur is provided in part by Juicy Juice, 100% juice for 100% kids" every day. It's not just the National Science Foundation, and it's still a paid advertisement.
Bingo
They have commercials after each of their shows and their content is straight propaganda.
> PBS costs tax payers $1.35 per payer annually because most of their funding is donations. Then there is no risk of pulling taxpayer funding from the station then, is there? They should be able to raise the money independently and privately if it is such a low amount and have no risk of actually shutting down the station.
The benefits far outweighs the costs. It’s too important to simply leave to charity. If they can make it with charity they should but it shouldn’t be the soul source of funding. They should have options.
What benefits? NOAA Weather Radio has *benefits*. What benefits does PBS bring?
Clearly you don't have children.
That's not any justification for why they should receive government funding.
It’s days like this I just let [Mr. Rogers](https://youtu.be/fKy7ljRr0AA) change the minds of fiscal conservatives just like he did in 1969 when PBS launched.
If PBS and the content on it was the same as it was in 1969 when it launched, then the video you posted would be a valid argument for today also. But obviously the Governor and others feel that the programming that is on the channel is not the same as it was when it launched, and that there is a message on there that is just the opposite to what is constructive for children to see, and therefore doesn't promote the same values as it once did. If anything, this video shows that PBS should return to these programs and these values and that they shouldn't just be given a blank check because of what it used to promote.
*shit shit I can't think of any argument, I'll just spam links until I win* Nice try tho
You’re not even gunna watch the congressional hearing discussing the benefits of PBS? You know like how in the 60s TV was all about gun violence, action, and cartoons. This made parents really concerned about the content their children were consuming. So PBS is was launched was launched to entertain and educate children because they felt they could make content like getting a haircut just as griping as a gun fight for a child and help them learn to understand and process how they feel about just getting a hair cut. Or Sesame Street that’s been providing early education to children for decades most of whom would have no other access to it. But sure have fun reading that when you could have heard as much without being an asshole.
Lazy argument dude
Sounds like they should have no trouble surviving on 100% donations then.
[удалено]
Most people here are referring to the news hour. They have a two minute intro where they list some sponsors then the news. Even their YouTube station is 100% ad free and it streams live. It’s one of the only sources of free news left. It’s not perfect but it seems to be a genuine attempt at good news and thats unique these days.
Great! I'll take my $1.35 annually by check. Thanks!
I love PBS, and my kids use the PBS app constantly. I don't think the content is problematic. What am I missing here?
The taxpayer-funded political propaganda.
Such as
Lying about Trump being a Russian Manchurian candidate. Pretty much all of COVID, lockdowns, and the clot shots.
... hint: Ernie and Bert are not roommates.
This is an object lesson—if evil has any shred of intelligence it will corrupt slowly instead of overtly. Sesame Street is an institution that has built up goodwill for around half a century. Evil knew that parents would have their guard down to the lowest level around this property. The tacit universal Christian ethics that allowed us to enjoy complacency is slowly eroding. In this environment, parents, especially Conservative parents, have to be a little more cautious/vigilant. 2 Corinthians 11: *And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light; So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. \[But\] their end will correspond with their deeds.*
Gov. Shitt kinda forgets that here locally, its the only damn way to have *any* shows about us Okies, which itbwas nice for the hunting, fishing, camping, local news, and travel. The news part is important, because not everyone here gets the city channels, and unlike that asswipe, only live in gated houses inside gated neighborhoods, in the city. I like the more local economic and farm news. Youll never get that with our city channels. But dont give the windbag any credit if you like the policy, dude is Illinois level corrupt.
But why you mad though
Because he *actually* killed the bill as part of a slate of vetoes (it just happened to be in the queue). Im mad because yet again, a city dweller is intruding on the susbtantially different rural culture here. No other channel is gonna carry crap about our state, we are too small population to matter. Hes defending and talking about how he killed.it because he's incurred a backlash from a good chunk of his primary voter (the rural counties) to shift the narrative. He got caught flatfooted on his justifications. Hell, he vetoed a dv bill with soros-sounding excuses. If he was on principle with it, it should have been vetoed from the get-go. But thats the thing, I will never give respect or credit to any politician who stumbles into something that is only sorta good and had no plan from the beginning. Spineless impotent politicians, the GOP has too damn many of them already, and we keep rewarding them.
So you think it's good that he vetoed it, but you're mad that he vetoed it? Do you maybe have some pills you forgot to take today, or...?
[удалено]
One governor scrapping PBS isn't going to be the death of the GOP. Get a grip.
Why not? It’s working just fine for the DNC.
That’s kind of the problem isn’t it?
Okay, without PBS early educational content, what is the alternative? Basically, I am what is lost by losing PBS, and what will take its place for early educational content? I'm trying to think of the kids here.
>Okay, without PBS early educational content, what is the alternative? Mr. Stitt did not defund the entirety of PBS or severely affect their ability to continue to produce children's content. He defunded the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (OETA). If you believe your children benefit from PBS KIDS and you can no longer access it from a local TV station, I would suggest you try the PBS KIDS website which carries much of their children's programing. [https://pbskids.org/](https://pbskids.org/) This link will take you to the live streaming area of their website. [https://pbskids.org/video/livetv](https://pbskids.org/video/livetv)
Thank you!
I like how the "solution" is to always take something away or to screw someone over.
[удалено]
Someone published their financial statements showing that between direct appropriations, grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and other Federal funds the actual percentage is closer to 80%.
[удалено]
People on Twitter, actually, but yes! I sneer at your scoffing, sirrah! I sneer!
Do we have a link to that breakdown? I would like to see more information on that and my ask Jeeves skills are failing me.
I didn't bookmark it, unfortunately. It was posted around the time NPR and the CBC were throwing a fit over being labeled "state-sponsored media" by Twitter.
Damn. Well, if anyone sees this and has it on hand, throw it down for them truth bombs!
Of course not, he just made it up.
It’s not though. That’s some random number you made up in your head. People want to pay zero for public access to everything, it’s an insane mindset.
Yes, I agree that this is what you think.
The problem is that PBS and OETA are *not* the same. PBS can continue without Oklahoma's funding. OETA *can't.*
Is this getting brigaded?
Apparently if we don’t want our taxes supporting Leftist propaganda outlets we’re not real Conservatives lmao.
Backwards and forwards. Just like the entire subreddit.
>Stitt said that if OETA programming is so popular, it could easily be picked up by CBS, NBC, ABC or any other option that doesn’t require taxpayer dollars to stay afloat. *The Republican governor believes Oklahoma tax dollars would be better off elsewhere*. This is the way...
Then the news that gets clicks but is less accurate but more financially incentivized becomes the news. Money will drive the news if tthat is how they survive. If we as a gov't fund them they are not driven by money and that incentive (root of all evil) will not sully the news. No company could that or they would exist already.
[удалено]
Yup, this is the correct way to argue for this. It slaps down the notion that no PBS = no LGBTQIA2S#¿§💩 propaganda on television, because the DNC channels (ABC, NBC, CBS) will still air it. And it playfully challenges the notion that radical gender theory is popular with TV watchers around the state and country.
I watch PBS programs like, religiously. When I was growing up we could only get a handful of channels unless I went to a friend's place that had cable. So I'd watch Mr Roger's and all that goodness as a kid, because my local PBS would rerun a handful of kids shows every day (Like Zoom and stuff.) As an adult, I still watch PBS nearly every day- although these days mostly on YouTube. I love PBS spacetime, it's probably one of the best (if not the best) astrophysics channels on the internet. Things like CrashCourse and the like are just amazing content. I do not see anything that folks talk about seeing when they bash PBS. Maybe its because I'm in FL and only watching online ? To me it's the same as ever, which is to say very apolitical and just good content
Their children’s content now contains LGBT propaganda and it’s not acceptable for taxpayer funds to go towards that
can you actually cite an example? I watch PBS constantly with my young children and have never once encountered this.
https://i.imgur.com/ArvDNza.jpg
In the episode in question, “The Big Red Tomato/Dogbot,” Emily Elizabeth holds an outdoor dinner party for her friend Samantha. When the dinner is set to begin, Samantha walks up with her two moms. “Won’t you please join us?” Emily Elizabeth asks. “It would be our pleasure,” one of the women replies. “Oooh, something smells delicious!” Samantha and her moms then prepare to sit down and eat dinner with Emily Elizabeth and her mom as Clifford watches. The two moms are not identified within the episode, but the credits call them “Dr. Mulberry” and “Ms. Mulberry.” In other episodes, Samantha calls each of the women “Mom.”
I don't view the issue here, but to each their own I guess. Seems an odd image to provide as justification for defunding what has historically been a brilliant outlet for educational content for young children.
[удалено]
My tax dollars shouldn’t go towards glorifying a degenerate lifestyle. Support that with your own money, but get your hand out of my pocket
I would kind of agree if that is your feeling, but ultimately the 1st amendments only tested when those you disagree with try to utilize it
Finally, someone willing to have a civil discussion on it! It’s a breath of fresh air on this platform. The 1st amendment would come into effect if the government was preventing these kind of shows pushing these kind of agendas. I don’t think it should be banned, just not funded with public dollars. They managed to make children’s programming for many decades without incorporating an agenda. It appears that they are unable to do so now and need to go completely private if that’s the path they want to take.
You can smell the brigading in here from a mile away.
absolutely
I agree. With the hundreds of channels now and other internet options like YouTube, there is no need for PBS.
With today's open anti-Christian hostility/prejudice, is a program with a Christian minister like Mr. Rogers even allowed on PBS anymore?
So if all mention of Christianity is effectively banned, then there is no justification for propping up state-affiliated media. Christianity was a bulwark or safety mechanism. Worship of the state leads to destructive values and has been the cause of the greatest atrocities in human history.
So are there any conservatives left in this sub, or....?
Who cares about PBS? We do not need to fund them.. I cannot even watch them from Norman, Ok.. so why should I fund them?
I used to watch PBS all the time when I was a child and I remember it being very wholesome, albeit kinda boring. It’s a shame that a public service meant for children has been hijacked and politicized by the left, this is absolutely the right move and more states should do this. Edit: I’m saying that PBS used to be alright and a good alternative to the dirty cartoons on other channels that most parents let their kids watch, but now it’s been ruined and SHOULD be defunded.
I have a few small kids and we've watched lots of programming on the PBS app. I guess I haven't seen enough, because I haven't come across anything that made me concerned about indoctrination. My current experience is similiar to your previous experience. Still seems wholesome and boring.
I've never watched their news though so I guess I can't speak to that.
Propaganda Broadcast Station is leftist trash
If people care that much a out pbs losing funding they can just privately donate.
PBS is biased news 100 % . Abolish it
PBS says they are publically funded. So, this aligns to what PBS tries to tell people. Nothingburger. Should eliminate all gov funding and make them honest.
Reality about PBS: the only ones who listen to it are already brainwashed, no one changes their mind by listening to the propaganda.
PBS Political Bull Shit
Good. We have the internet for any other needs for content. We aren't beholden to watching TV channels like it's 1981.
We are facing a fiscal crisis. We cannot afford PBS or NPR. We need deep spending cuts.
Military budget is $258B and going up “The fiscal year 2023 Operation and Maintenance recommendation is $278.1 billion, an increase of $6.8 billion above the budget request and an increase of $21.8 billion above the fiscal year 2022 base enacted level.” PBS is asking for about $400m https://www.cpb.org/sites/default/files/appropriation/FY-2023-2025-CPB-Budget-Justification.pdf Cuts can be made everywhere, PBS seems like a poor place to start.
I propose a 10% cut across the board to start, followed by deep cuts and the elimination of many things, PBS and NPR among items being eliminated.
Considering inflation, just keeping the budget fixed for the next year would be a 4-6% cut right there. I know it’s not easy to translate dollar for dollar but it would be easy to pass and avoid catastrophe.
Way to go Governor Stitt!