quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 21 July 2025 04:49

quote:

You reply with attitude. I can only then rely on my conclusion that your post exhibits a nasty streak.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You reply with attitude. I can only then rely on my conclusion that your post exhibits a nasty streak.

I'm just getting fed up with your BS and deflections.

If you have a belief to defend, then answer my questions in the above post.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 21 July 2025 04:49

You do realise that this kind of post provides amusement and works against you dont you?

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 21 July 2025 05:09

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I really enjoy PBS and watch quite a bit of their Youtube productions.
From the start lets just say Their content is factual.

But I have thought for quite some time that they would be better if they left out unnecessary political side comment.

on one I watched about dinosaurs, they interrupted their own dialogue to get in a hit on climate change. It just was not needed, and even though I believe in climate change, I could see it was incorrect to be there.

This argument all started with the above post.

I just unpacked it.

No need to repeat myself.

One thing I didn't unpack enough is: "even though I believe in climate change".

Are you referring to personal observations or science? When did you start believing? Was it like most Rightists and after denying climate change or global warming for years, when it got hot and too obvious, did you adopt the fact climate changes?

I didn't get your opinion on anthropogenic climate change. What is it?

Also, what is your opinion regarding Trump(ism)'s and admin's anti science policies?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 21 July 2025 04:49

You do realise that this kind of post provides amusement and works against you dont you?

No, I don't realize that. First, it's the only rational way to deal with jeffee. Staying silent isn't enough. I want him to know that I'm dismissing him.

Not only that, it's denying him the attention and convoluted nonsense arguments he wants to troll me into.

He's like a leg humping Mississippi Leg Hound barking into the wind.

I'm dismissing him with prejudice, to use a legal term.

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 21 July 2025 05:09

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay, lets exchange questions and answers, Fair enough?

What's your question other than the one to which I already said no?

Meanwhile my relevant questions are still pending answers from you.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Ann, you asked one good and relevant question and made claim that is not true.

"They are as biased and opinionated as all the rest!"

Anyway, here's an answer:

What was the original premise of providing taxpayer money to PBS and NPR?

Answer:

AI Overview
The original premise for providing taxpayer money to PBS and NPR, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), is rooted in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

Specifically, the Act declared it was in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes.

This included a focus on:
Content not typically provided by commercial broadcasters: To offer programming that prioritized educational and cultural value over commercial interests.

Serving underserved audiences: Ensuring programming for audiences not reached or adequately served by commercial broadcasters, particularly children and minorities.

Promoting localism and diversity: Encouraging the development of programming at both local and national levels, fostering diverse and excellent content.

Enriching the human spirit:
President Lyndon B. Johnson, upon signing the Act, emphasized the purpose of enriching the human spirit through these mediums.

The Act was based on recommendations from the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, which proposed a federally-funded system for public television that would prioritize programs of human interest and importance, free from the pressures of ratings or advertising revenue, according to The New York Times.

~Ann

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay, lets exchange questions and answers, Fair enough?

What's your question other than the one to which I already said no?

Meanwhile my relevant questions are still pending answers from you.

So you don't have to look it up, here's a reminder:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I really enjoy PBS and watch quite a bit of their Youtube productions.
From the start lets just say Their content is factual.

But I have thought for quite some time that they would be better if they left out unnecessary political side comment.

on one I watched about dinosaurs, they interrupted their own dialogue to get in a hit on climate change. It just was not needed, and even though I believe in climate change, I could see it was incorrect to be there.

This argument all started with the above post.

I just unpacked it.

No need to repeat myself.

One thing I didn't unpack enough is: "even though I believe in climate change".

Are you referring to personal observations or science? When did you start believing? Was it like most Rightists and after denying climate change or global warming for years, when it got hot and too obvious, did you adopt the fact climate changes?

I didn't get your opinion on anthropogenic climate change. What is it?

Also, what is your opinion regarding Trump(ism)'s and admin's anti science policies?

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Except they've gone on to be opinionated broadcasting just like the rest thus they should receive zero dollars period. That means people like you, who want to support them, can send them money. They will take it. Go for it!

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Okay Shanks, thanks for the adequate answers.

Much appreciated. Considering all that you said in the above post, I can see why you would be offended.

And, I can take your scolding after all.

quote:

No, it's just really that simple. That a single word can explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Apparently I read too much in your original comments. Thus, it looks like I'm the one who got triggered.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Except they've gone on to be opinionated broadcasting just like the rest thus they should receive zero dollars period. That means people like you, who want to support them, can send them money. They will take it. Go for it!

My opinion differs from yours.

IMO, the big change since the inception of PBS/NPR is in the Right's beliefs. I can understand why Rightists don't want their TP money given in support of a media that disagrees with them and deemed to be opposition. That's why I look past that and ponder the basis for the disagreement.

And, BTW, I contribute money to PBS/NPR monthly.

After all, the difference in PBS/NPR compared to Murdoch or Sinclair is profit motive. Lies are valuable, proven by Fox. PBS/NPR is not about enrichment in dollars. It's about audience enrichment in information, entertainment and truth.

~Ann

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
When do I run away?

I think that's where the problem lies. I wasn't looking for a duel.

The better outcome would have been a recognition that politics does not belong in science. but that science is needed in politics.

And the media, even science based ones need not alienate the public.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
You would not hold your opinion if the opposite were true and they were right slanted and you know it. You are happy they are leftist.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
We do not give taxpayer's money for 'news' agencies like FOX, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc, etc, etc.

Why should NPR/PBS expect taxpayer's money? They are as biased and opinionated as all the rest! They can fund themselves by other means.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
We do not give taxpayer's money for 'news' agencies like FOX, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc, etc, etc.

Why should NPR/PBS expect taxpayer's money? They are as biased and opinionated as all the rest! They can fund themselves by other means.

1. Educational Value:
PBS is a vital resource for educational content, especially for children, with shows like "Sesame Street" and "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood".
It helps prepare children for school and exposes them to a wide range of subjects and cultural experiences.
PBS provides educational resources for teachers and parents, supporting learning both in and out of the classroom.

2. Informational Role:
PBS and NPR (National Public Radio) provide in-depth news coverage and investigative journalism, including programs like "Frontline" and "PBS NewsHour,".
Public media serves as a crucial source of local news, particularly in underserved communities where commercial media outlets may be limited.
It plays a vital role in providing access to information for all Americans, regardless of location or income.

3. Cultural Enrichment:
PBS brings arts and cultural programming to a wide audience, including performances of opera, dance, visual art, and music.
It offers access to these experiences for individuals who might not otherwise have the opportunity to engage with them.

4. Independence and Stability:
Federal funding helps ensure that PBS can operate independently of commercial or political influence, allowing it to focus on its mission of providing high-quality programming.
This funding provides a stable base for programming and operations, especially important for smaller stations in rural areas.

5. Reaching Underserved Communities:
PBS stations often serve as the only source of local news and information in rural and remote areas, where commercial media may not find it profitable to operate.
Public media also plays a crucial role in serving Native American communities, providing access to news, emergency alerts, and information in their own languages.

6. Cost-Effectiveness:
Public broadcasting is a relatively inexpensive way to reach a large number of people with valuable content.
For every dollar of public funding, PBS stations are often able to raise several more dollars from other sources like donations and grants.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
When do I run away?

I think that's where the problem lies. I wasn't looking for a duel.

The better outcome would have been a recognition that politics does not belong in science. but that science is needed in politics.

And the media, even science based ones need not alienate the public.

I don't want to quote you, but it looked to me like you wanted to escape with short-cuts, from some of your posts.

I still don't understand why you think it's appropriate to expect a media source like PBS/NPR to self-censor science to avoid alienating the public?

Why would you make something like that their problem --- to pacify Rightist ideology and their alt-reality. There is no way PBS/NPR could ever satisfy Rightists and remain anywhere close to integrity, ethical, truthful journalism and reporting.

You're dreaming to state: "The better outcome would have been a recognition that politics does not belong in science. but that science is needed in politics." Rightists aren't going to abide that at all. Ever.

And again, I ask you why do you think PBS inserted politics by mentioning climate change in a documentary about dinosaurs?

I thought this was resolved? But there you go again.

quote:

You had no ground because your presumption of intent was wrong and you had to back down.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You had no ground because your presumption of intent was wrong and you had to back down.

I didn't have to "back down".

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 22 July 2025 04:55

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Ignored post by jeffeosso posted 22 July 2025 04:55

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You had no ground because your presumption of intent was wrong and you had to back down.

I didn't have to "back down". I conceded a point because you respectfully answered my questions and I could see from your answers that you have plenty of redeeming qualities and deeds. But I already knew that to some degree.

My presumption of your intent is one thing, but it's more about the way you presented. I have to infer intent from that. But it's just like sincere, it could be skewed, perhaps good but misguided.

It's clear that you think PBS should have censored anything relating to climate change - for the sake of what?

Claiming, "I dont think science should self censor science" isn't the point. You think PBS should censor science.

I watched your video link and his first claim, well so what? Lots of people don't understand shit. Lack of understanding moves science to non-scientists into some realm other than science, unless it's psychology.

Science is what it is. Ignorant people of all sorts make it political. It's not inherently political.

His second premise is correct, and that's what Rightists do. They brand science as leftist, and dismiss it, or much worse they lie and parrot lies. So, why should PBS kowtow?

And scientists aren't oblivious, they know they are being thwarted by rightist's ideology butting in and twisting, and making it political insofar as thwarting consideration of and respect for science in political policy and decisions.

I think it's a correct diagnosis that Rightists in general are anti-science. There is no way I can be complicit with that and condone censorship, as you have done.

quote:

Im not saying PBS should censor science.

quote:

That's exactly what you meant, although you didn't use the word censor. You used the word inappropriate, or not appropriate - same - same.

That's a judgment call, your judgment - based on what? Could it be bias? Roll Eyes

You didn't answer the question of why, in your opinion, PBS should have censored out reference to climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I can easily imagine your opinion re this documentary by PBS.

How inappropriate of them to include science!!!

How leftist and politically offensive to Rightists can they get?

https://www.pbs.org/show/human...Zy95AIIaApsgEALw_wcB

https://www.pbs.org/show/human...Zy95AIIaApsgEALw_wcB