Trust PBS to be Fair and Unbiased? Honesty in PBS Depends on Who is Paying them, Apparently - Ask Ben Afleck

  • Suetonius

    Posts: 1842

    Apr 19, 2015 5:49 PM GMT
    According to Sony' email leaks, Ben Affleck asked PBS to delete any mention that his ancestors owned slaves, to be revealed on PBS' genealogy show, "Finding Your Roots." Guess what - the program was censored. Who would have cared anyway - what his ancestors did 200 years ago?

    [url]http://www.tvguide.com/news/ben-affleck-slave-owner-ancestry-censored-pbs-finding-your-roots/
    [/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 6:22 PM GMT
    This is primarily an entertainment show, not a news broadcast. So they edited it not to show Afflek's slave-owning ancestors. So what?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 6:23 PM GMT
    The CPB-NPR-PBS Axis has a long history of promoting leftist views and actively suppressing more moderate and conservative ones. Witness the fiasco with the firing of Juan Williams, and its elimination of the WSJ Weekly Report, and listen to "All Things Considered" and "The Nightly News" if you've any doubts. These media outlets should NOT receive tax dollars for their viewpoint discrimination; Mitt Romney got that right in a big way when he called for them to go it alone, on private dollars, as the other networks do. If they want to broadcast their left-wing agit-prop, let them do so on their - and Big Bird's - own dime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    ^
    You should regard these broadcasters as national treasures. Compared to most of the dross that passes for news and entertainment on US TV and radio, they are the pinnacle of quality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 6:45 PM GMT
    MGINSD said...If they want to broadcast their left-wing agit-prop, let them do so on their - and Big Bird's - own dime.


    Do you also favor taxing church properties, at least charging them for police and fire protection services?

    Do you favor religion taking the public's money for their own building renovations...

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p14s01-lire.html
    ...Public funds can go to churches for improvements that serve a civic purpose...

    "You could easily build a megachurch and avoid the religion iconography," Ms. Johnson says. "Then the church could later say, 'Now we'll put in the religious symbols ourselves.' " There's nothing secular about a church, she adds.


    Should states be able to tap public school coffers for private school vouchers?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting#Funding_of_and_by_the_corporation
    For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/
    You give religions more than $82.5 billion a year

    tax_code_religions.png

    subsidies_table.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 7:53 PM GMT
    Every newspaper, radio or tv news station knows what their readers, listeners, or watchers are interested in. The ones in Kansas are going to have more news about farming and such, while the ones in San Francisco are going to have more news about gay stuff. They're a business and "slanting" the news is good for business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 8:25 PM GMT
    Since this was posted right after I made a thread with a link to an Obama PBS documentary AKA a swipe at my thread:

    A TV show and a documentary (with Journalistic Guidelines) are TWO very different things.

    photo image_zpsjbqn3avq.jpg

    With PBS Supporters like "The National Endowment for Humanities" and "Viewers Like You" they offer great documentaries for FREE.

    To watch a fair view about President Obama (the pros and cons) please click on the link below.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/inside-obamas-presidency/

    Let's note The Clinton Administration most likely laid the groundwork for The Affordable Health Act. VOTE HILLARY!

    photo image_zpsdxd13vny.jpg

    PBS Frontline's upholds strict journalistic integrity as does their American Experience Presidents Series. #TrueBlue

    Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/about-us/journalistic-guidelines/



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 8:28 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    You should regard these broadcasters as national treasures. Compared to most of the dross that passes for news and entertainment on US TV and radio, they are the pinnacle of quality.


    Agree w/ you 100% re: dross, which is why I usually no idea whom posters are talking about when they reference some sit-com or "reality show" character or scene; I NEVER watch that dreck. But, there are a lot of good privately produced shows out there, on stations like Animal Planet, NatGeo, Discovery, History, etc. These pay their own way and give PBS good competition, quality and quantity wise. There may have been a reason for publicly supporting "public" broadcasting decades ago, but no longer, and especially in light of its abuse of that privilege - it has no "right" to these funds - to serve its own political purposes.

    Religion has nothing to do w/ it, unless one considers the dogmas of the left as received truths, and public broadcasting regularly airs those much more than they do competing political faiths. As for knowing and catering to one's audience, yes, it IS good for business. But, forcing taxpayers to subsidize businesses like public broadcasting is not so good, for it favors one form of the business of broadcasting over others obliged to make it on their own. And, to equate focusing on local matters with "slanting" - whether of the news, opinion, or the now ubiquitous blending of the two - is as ethically wrong as it's inapposite.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 19, 2015 8:33 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    You should regard these broadcasters as national treasures. Compared to most of the dross that passes for news and entertainment on US TV and radio, they are the pinnacle of quality.


    Agree w/ you 100% re: dross, which is why I usually no idea whom posters are talking about when they reference some sit-com or "reality show" character or scene; I NEVER watch that dreck. But, there are a lot of good privately produced shows out there, on stations like Animal Planet, NatGeo, Discovery, History, etc. These pay their own way and give PBS good competition, quality and quantity wise. There may have been a reason for publicly supporting "public" broadcasting decades ago, but no longer, and especially in light of its abuse of that privilege - it has no "right" to these funds - to serve its own political purposes.

    Religion has nothing to do w/ it, unless one considers the dogmas of the left as received truths, and public broadcasting regularly airs those much more than they do competing political faiths. As for knowing and catering to one's audience, yes, it IS good for business. But, forcing taxpayers to subsidize businesses like public broadcasting is not so good, for it favors one form of the business of broadcasting over others obliged to make it on their own. And, to equate focusing on local matters with "slanting" - whether of the news, opinion, or the now ubiquitous blending of the two - is as ethically wrong as it's inapposite.


    Okay Oprah has some junk on her channel, but the OWN Networks Super Soul Sunday is AWESOME.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 20, 2015 12:33 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidReligion has nothing to do w/ it, unless one considers the dogmas of the left as received truths, and public broadcasting regularly airs those much more than they do competing political faiths.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting#Funding_of_and_by_the_corporation
    For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million
    VS
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/
    You give religions more than $82.5 billion a year

    tax_code_religions.png

    GOP= Gobs Of Poop
    poop-snathin-elephant-o.gif
    Typical Republican behavior
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 20, 2015 1:59 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    You should regard these broadcasters as national treasures. Compared to most of the dross that passes for news and entertainment on US TV and radio, they are the pinnacle of quality.


    That's why we need public broadcasting. The business model of commercial broadcasting, which is to develop programs which draw as large an audience as possible that they can then sell to advertisers, results in programming that caters to the lowest common denominator and is beholden to those advertisers. Ever notice who sponsors the Sunday morning talk shows? The biggest sponsors are defense contractors and agri-business. Do you think they get a lot of their customers or potential customers watching these shows? I don't. I think it's because they can control the content and ensure that it doesn't contain anything negative that can hurt their business.

    Much of the programming on public broadcasting would never generate enough of an audience to justify the airtime on commercial networks, but deserves that airtime nonetheless.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 20, 2015 2:27 PM GMT
    Suetonius saidAccording to Sony' email leaks, Ben Affleck asked PBS to delete any mention that his ancestors owned slaves, to be revealed on PBS' genealogy show, "Finding Your Roots." Guess what - the program was censored. Who would have cared anyway - what his ancestors did 200 years ago?

    [url]http://www.tvguide.com/news/ben-affleck-slave-owner-ancestry-censored-pbs-finding-your-roots/
    [/url]


    It's just another form of revising one's own biographical information for public consumption. ... He's just deleting things he doesn't want told instead of adding them...

    Hillary added the bullshit about landing in Kosovo while being fired upon.

    Hillary reached up her ass and came out with shit about her grandparents being immigrants to the US.

    Brian Williams added his bullshit about being fired upon in Iraq.

    Rep Elijah Cummings was caught in a lie he made up about being spit on and called a N****r by Teap Party people when he was walking with Pelozi past their protest in 2010.

    Ben Affleck doesn't want people knowing he has ancestors who were slave owners.

    Some silly cunt makes up bullshit about dating a USAF pilot 2 inches too tall to sit in the cockpit....

    So What else is new?

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 20, 2015 3:11 PM GMT
    It was edited, I really don't care. And the fraction of spending that goes towards 'public' broadcasting is money well spent. The BBC seems to be an example of what well-funded 'public' television can do.

    @Bob3, your pathology is hilarious. You can click on my profile and see me kissing him, on my tip toes. And I've never measured him, I merely recited the height he had on his Grindr profile when we met more than 2 years ago. And no, I won't be measuring him anytime soon. I also love on the other thread the TRANSPHOBIA you wrote.

    Care to make a retraction SouthBeach, I mean Bob3? Never thought you of all "moral" people would stoop so low. Looks like Bob3s true colors are showing.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 20, 2015 3:54 PM GMT
    It's not like everyone can't go read and see how many lies you told trying to cover up for the first one you were caught telling.

    calling me names and trying to make me out to be a nut isn't doing one fukkin thing towards making anyone think you are honest, princess.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2571326?forumpage=12

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 20, 2015 3:57 PM GMT
    @Bob3

    Care to retract your TRANSPHOBIA?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 20, 2015 4:20 PM GMT
    nah.. because it's one more of your lame ass attempts at taking something out of context to distract from that glaring facts that let everyone see you are one tacky ass skinny ballerina princess who will tell any sort of lie you can.

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Apr 20, 2015 4:25 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidnah.. because it's one more of your lame ass attempts at taking something out of context to distract from that glaring facts that let everyone see you are one tacky ass skinny ballerina princess who will tell any sort of lie you can.



    Nice change of "sissy" to "skinny," but everyone saw your transphobia when you attempted to make fun of a male who took ballet. Your sex stereotyping is transphobia and sex stereotyping.

    You've proven your worth, which wasn't much to begin with. How is your dead friend, who--at the time--had died only yesterday, without an obituary, and conveniently proved your point? Still grieving? You're a pathological liar, transphobic, and just an all-around bitter, vile man. There's no deflection or misdirection, we can ALL see my kissing my inordinately tall USAF boyfriend in my profile pic. Thanks for playing liar.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 20, 2015 5:46 PM GMT
    Calling you a ballerina was something you said you were proud to be called last week, skinny little lying boy.

    If you're a transsexual or transvestite or a fucking transistor or a transformer doesn't mean a damned thing to me. You're still a lying little skinny ballerina boy and there's no phobia in that.

    Like I predicted one comment above -- all this had to do with your sorry lying skinny ballerina butt taking something I said out of context, didn't it?

    I'll add it to the list of lies you've told.

    Girlie boy, you really do need some professional help.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Apr 21, 2015 7:10 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    Ex_Mil8 said^
    You should regard these broadcasters as national treasures. Compared to most of the dross that passes for news and entertainment on US TV and radio, they are the pinnacle of quality.


    That's why we need public broadcasting. The business model of commercial broadcasting, which is to develop programs which draw as large an audience as possible that they can then sell to advertisers, results in programming that caters to the lowest common denominator and is beholden to those advertisers. Ever notice who sponsors the Sunday morning talk shows? The biggest sponsors are defense contractors and agri-business. Do you think they get a lot of their customers or potential customers watching these shows? I don't. I think it's because they can control the content and ensure that it doesn't contain anything negative that can hurt their business.

    Much of the programming on public broadcasting would never generate enough of an audience to justify the airtime on commercial networks, but deserves that airtime nonetheless.


    What evidence is there that public broadcasting would be less corrupt or more accurate?
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Apr 21, 2015 1:27 PM GMT
    "What evidence is there that public broadcasting would be less corrupt or more accurate?"

    What evidence is there to the contrary?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 21, 2015 3:36 PM GMT
    This morning my son was telling about seeing the Ben Affleck's slave owner ancestor story on TV news last night. Then it occurred to me that the leaked story almost certainly had to originate from Professor Gates, the host of the show.

    I say hurray to Professor Gates. Affleck has fallen into the trap of many who've become famous because of Hollywood. He has confused the image he presents for publicity with himself. Had made not made an issue of trying to redacting his ancestry for public consumption none of this would have ever become an issue.
  • bishop65

    Posts: 226

    Apr 21, 2015 4:57 PM GMT
    I don't see why he would want to do something like that? I mean they were his ancestors... So what? Stupid move on his part.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 8:40 PM GMT
    I have always prefer to watch PBS news over any other broadcast news. I like to watch the news, not sensationalism or any other trick to get ratings. PBS has always maintained integrity and a no nonsense reporting of events around the Globe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 21, 2015 9:33 PM GMT
    I highly regard the News Hours on PBS. Incomparable journalistic standards.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Apr 21, 2015 9:59 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidI highly regard the News Hours on PBS. Incomparable journalistic standards.


    I watch PBS news more than any of the others, however I don't rely on them as my sole source of information for anything. It's not that I don't trust them. Even they are not always above infusing their broadcasts with partisanship. Still they are usually the most reliable considering other television news sources.