This message was originally addressed to ALL
and a carbon copy was sent to you.
                    ----------------------------------------
PBS, Freedom of Speech, and government funding
     The problem with PBS is that it's a propaganda
machine. If PBS allowed access to its forum to *everybody*,
you wouldn't have people trying to get rid of it. Look at who
sponsors the programming there and then ask yourself the
question "When was the last time PBS ran a story on the evils
of multinational corporations?" Whether you think there is
anything inherently "evil" about multinational corporations or 
not is irrelevant. The point is that when you have multinational
corporations sponsoring them, they aren't going run any
programming that is going to offend them (first rule of
commercial broadcasting - don't piss off the sponsor.) When
was the last time you saw PBS do a story critical of the banks?
I don't mean BCCI (which was like a rogue Mafia underling
getting out of control), I mean a history of what the banks in
this country have done to America. I don't know about your
neighborhood, but you can forget about WGBH even thinking
about it when their money comes from the likes of Shawmut
Bank, N.A., Fidelity Investments, etc. Can you say "bullshit?" 
I thought you could... 
     The reason you never see anything incisive on PBS is
that the people who provide the bulk of the money for their
operation are doing so to deliberately displace anything critical
of their point of view. An analogy would be the cereal
manufacturer that comes up with 32 different brand names for
the same sugar coated corn flakes - the more crap you can put
on the shelf under your label, the less likely your competition 
is to get his stuff next to yours on limited shelf space. The fact
that PBS occasionally comes up with something worth watching
is purely coincidental. I like watching This Old House as much
as anybody but who are you going to piss off there? You'll
notice that what programming does approach being political, it
almost ALWAYS has a left-wing/liberal bent that carefully steps
around and between the sponsors toes rather than on them - and that only
happens when the political content isn't being paid for by some mega
corporation. If a mega corporation is paying, you either get obfuscatory
babyfood or a recitation of the corporate view. Ever see PBS afford
anyone the the opportunity to provide an evenhanded look at gun
ownership in this country? No? What you do see on PBS is a lot of
artsy-fartsy cultural pablum, and, as long as it doesn't offend the
sponsors, some left-wing/big-government/socialist, politically correct, 
least common denominator, swill. 
     Want a perfect example of the displacement theory?
Look at that caricature of itself, The McLaughable Group. It's
un....ing believable! Who sponsors them? GENERAL ELECTRIC,
that's who. Can you imagine those clowns ever getting down to
brass tacks about anything when GE has their fingers in just
about every pie there is? WRONG!!! This is supposed to be a
realistic discussion of politics in America? Of course, N-O-T! 
It's there to *displace* a realistic discussion of politics in
America and to supplement and confirm GE's political agenda
(as if NBC wasn't enough for them.) Don't bother looking at the
"News Hour" for anything controversial. Look at who sponsors
them. Their idea of "news" analysis is to interview a bunch of
people who think *just like they do*. What am I talking about?
Ever see them conduct one of those "press interviewing the
press" sessions where they babble incoherently about nothing
substantial and call it an "in depth discussion of the issues?"
And who are those "press" people they're interviewing anyway?
They're paid spokespeople for the owners and advertisers of
the newspapers and television stations they work for.
Remember that the goal of "news" production, in whatever
form, is to first, make MONEY, and second, promote your
agenda - presenting fact or truth has nothing to do with it. 
You don't make money by pissing off the sponsors or the
owners. PBS is no different. Who are those owners? Banks,
primarily - look at who owns the New York Times/Boston Globe
- the list of banks who own stock in those operations is
endless. And what about the tv stations? Ever hear of a tv
station without a mortgage, or one that doesn't need their
connections at the bank, or one owned by poor people?
Studies have shown that it only takes a 5% interest in a media
operation to affect its content. What do you figure the
percentage of interest in PBS that major corporations and
liberal organizations have? The likelihood of seeing "pull no
punches/let the chips fall where they may" truth on PBS is none
to nada.
     If PBS wants to air "Mr. Rogers" and "This Old House,"
fine. I have no qualms with educational or cultural programming
so long as it's *apolitical*. The dilemma is that PBS wants to
provide an 18 hour a day schedule and that takes money. The
people who put up that money want a return on their investment. 
Wall Street Week and Nightly Business Report are probably the 
least offensive manifestation of that return. The minute PBS 
gets into "news" or "political analysis" or "documentary" 
production, the people with an axe to grind start foaming at 
the mouth. Don't forget that the only people grinding those 
(Continued to next message)
---
 þ QMPro 1.0 12-3456 þ Be politically incorrect. Smoke a fine cigar.
---------------