News:

03/23/05 10,000th post provided by Cnamon!

Main Menu

PBS goes ideological

Started by Beef, April 27, 2005, 05:36:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


BigDun

16:26:25 [DownSouth] I'm in a monkey rutt

ReBurn

PBS has been ideological for quite some time now.  This move just seems to have taken it from one extreme to the other.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

I was under the impression that PBS was one of the last places people went to get unbiased accounts of what was going on in the world.  Is that not the case?  I mean, I've seen some trolls at Fark call it a liberal blah-blah-blah but I just dismissed it as trolling.  Just because one reports what's going on accurately and it reflects badly on your ideological grouping doesn't inherently mean it is pro the other side.

nallen

PBS was always balanced and unbiased.  There is a reason people from the News Hour are the moderators for Presidential debates.   It is more telling of the political climate of the USA now days.  Liberal doesn't so much exist anymore, the definition of liberal now is "not right wing conservative."  Look at any other country in the industrialized world, and ask your self, are American Democrats liberal?  I think not, they are moderates at the most extreme.  OBB put it best by stating that in Canada he was a right wing nutcase, here he is a moderate to left of center.  PBS is just suffering the effects of this, and it's truly sad.
May the Magic Plastic bless you and keep you.

ReBurn

I think that PBS was traditionally balanced and unbiased, but a few of thier recent projects have sincerely affected that perception, which is why some people are calling it liberal.  I believe that PBS is 99% unbiased.  They typically only report fact, and their news is probably the most spin-free that you can find anywhere.

However, that 1% shift I see is centered around things like allowing their cartoon characters to be used to introduce children to alternative lifestyles in an attempt to promote tolerance and understanding of cultural differences.  The problem that they didn't consider is that, while it is a noble goal, it isn't their place to teach diversity to children.  Common sense tells us that children need to learn about cultural diversity, but many children can't understand such concrete concepts as why Johnny has two mommies, so what is meant to be a good and well-meaning thing turns into an undermining influence in the eyes of some parents.  It is the role of the parent or guardian to teach diversity to their young children.  It is frustrating that many don't, but that doesn't give someone else the right to do it for them.

And I disagree that "liberal" doesn't exist any more.  I think that it does.  It isn't merely the antithesis of right-wing conservatism, because if it were so then "conservative" would be the antithesis of left-wing liberalism.  There are examples of extremes in both liberal and conservative thinking out there, and they equally disaffect and disjoint society when those ideas are placed in the spotlight.  Both extremes, and I think that this is the ironic thing, actually stand for the same kinds of things.  For example, some extreme liberals want to control thinking by removing religious choice from our society in order to allow more "free-thinking" and to protect society from the evils of organized religion while some extreme conservatives want to control thinking by basing our society on strict religious doctrine, essentially forcing their morality on everyone.  They are both extremes, yet they attempt to accomplish the same goal by removing our choice to choose for ourselves.  So liberal versus conservative isn't really the issue.  The issue is extreme, and there are extremes at both ends.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

I love it when ReBurn talks all intelligent.

I'm not sure I agree about not teaching diversity.  I don't know that there is anyone I would consider reliable as a tutor in such matters.  I can see the logic behind saying it is the parent's responsibility, but then I also see through my daily interactions with people that there are some parents out there that shouldn't be teaching their belief systems to children whatsoever, let alone procreating in the first place.

I think Sesame Street should do and say whatever Sesame Street wants to.  If the child has questions, they can go to the parent for clarification.  The parent can then decide whether the child should continue to watch the show.

Parents may not want a program telling their kids that something or other is perfectly okay, but at the same time it does kids no good at all to ignore issues that have become prevalent in society.  I would rather them be informed about the existence of some things rather than stumble across it blindly by accident one day and not be prepared. 

I guess my larger issue is with parenting styles, which is admittedly lame as I have no real life experience on the matter.  Still, I would like to think that with culturally and socially sensitive issues that parents would explain what the situation is to their kids and then let them make up their own minds on the matter.  I don't think that happens too often, though.  I think most folks teach their kids their own moral and social absolutes, and then those beliefs never again get questioned.

Yes, I am the Resident Misanthrope.  Please send all hatemail to gosuckafuck@gmail.com.

ReBurn

You are correct, Beef.  Too many times parents don't allow their children to learn about issues that are prevalent in our society.  And I don't have a problem with someone producing a television show that promotes the virtues of any particular viewpoint.  But I disagree about Sesame Street being used to introduce young children to complex societal issues.  I think that as long as PBS is funded by taxpayer money that they need not take any particular position on polarized topics.  It is fine to tell children about diversity, because they are going to see it every day.  But what isn't fine is taking a position on or promoting specific aspects of it.

Like you, I find it sad that too many parents don't try explain culturally sensitive issues to their children.  They prefer to teach their children only what they believe.  But keep in mind that kids who like Sesame Street often can't make up their own minds about these sensitive issues.  They are impressionable and they rely on their parents to help them understand these things.  So many children are raised with ignorant viewpoints, but what can be done about it?  Should society be able to take parenting out of the parents' hands?  Who has the correct viewpoint?  The simple answer is that every single one of us believes that our way of thinking is the correct way.  But at the same time everyone else would disagree.  Mind boggling.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Jessie

I like it when you boys talk all smart like, too.

I try to teach my child tolerance and try to teach him to be open minded.

I guess I'm teaching him my absolutes, though.  Even if they are things like everyone is equal, love is love and that's all that matters, and things like that, it's still my version of absolutes.

we should have kept the quote pyramid up to rape Jessie in the face.

Bishamonten

This is why the episode of Sesame Street hosted by Hitler never made it to air.

cnamon

Quote from: jessie on April 28, 2005, 10:42:46 AM
I like it when you boys talk all smart like, too.

I try to teach my child tolerance and try to teach him to be open minded.

I guess I'm teaching him my absolutes, though.  Even if they are things like everyone is equal, love is love and that's all that matters, and things like that, it's still my version of absolutes.


So....this means we are going to make out in front of him? :whip:

ReBurn

Quote from: Bishamonten on April 28, 2005, 10:43:29 AM
This is why the episode of Sesame Street hosted by Hitler never made it to air.
+1!
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

Beefy

I would just like to point out that I in no way, shape, or form advocate anyone else sharing my mindset.  We don't need anymore mes running around.

I don't think I have the answers, but I can at least say I am open to learning them.

And I guess it's the liberal in me, but I would prefer my children's programming to teach tolerance over non-tolerance if they're going to touch on these subjects at all.  Or just present them as matter of fact and don't go into the morality of it.  I don't think kids would inherently take issue with something if their parents weren't going apeshit about it.

Dry then Catch

Not to sound like a ranting fundie but I thought it was quite accepted by all that PBS was unabashedly left wing in their beliefs.  I don't think they even tried to feign neutrality.  I mean not in all their programming obviously, but its pretty much like some small eastern liberal arts college type atmosphere. 

Beefy

Quote from: CatchrNdRy on April 28, 2005, 11:53:48 AM
Not to sound like a ranting fundie but I thought it was quite accepted by all that PBS was unabashedly left wing in their beliefs.  I don't think they even tried to feign neutrality.  I mean not in all their programming obviously, but its pretty much like some small eastern liberal arts college type atmosphere. 

You ranting fundie!

I've seen PBS slammed for being liberal many times on Fark but I've never seen any evidence to back it up.  There is a difference between being liberal leaning station and reporting the truth about the crappy things that people in power due.  Just because you do one doesn't make you the other.

/large Eastern liberal arts college grad 

VikingJuice

#15
Quote from: ReBurninator on April 28, 2005, 10:06:29 AM


And I disagree that "liberal" doesn't exist any more.  I think that it does.  It isn't merely the antithesis of right-wing conservatism, because if it were so then "conservative" would be the antithesis of left-wing liberalism.  There are examples of extremes in both liberal and conservative thinking out there, and they equally disaffect and disjoint society when those ideas are placed in the spotlight.  Both extremes, and I think that this is the ironic thing, actually stand for the same kinds of things.  For example, some extreme liberals want to control thinking by removing religious choice from our society in order to allow more "free-thinking" and to protect society from the evils of organized religion while some extreme conservatives want to control thinking by basing our society on strict religious doctrine, essentially forcing their morality on everyone.  They are both extremes, yet they attempt to accomplish the same goal by removing our choice to choose for ourselves.  So liberal versus conservative isn't really the issue.  The issue is extreme, and there are extremes at both ends.

I agree with almost your entire post except that when it was said that Liberal and Conservative still have the same meaning.  I think Youph was exagerrating to prove the point that in today's political climate, by and large, the Conservative Opinion is the Official Opinion of America as perceived by much of the world.  And if you don't fit the mold of a conservative pro-war Republican, you are tagged (right or not) as a liberal.  So the definition is less accurate today than even four years ago because the scale has so recently been skewed.  And being labeled liberal, today, is tantamount to being a 'communist hater of democracy', according to"fair and balanced" media types like Coulter and O'Reilly.

Being a liberal makes you a badguy in today's political area.  There's no room for middle ground allowed at the moment.'

Dry then Catch

its more or less by association: most would point to the big man BIll Moyers

Jessie

Shut up you neocon pinko liberal commie bastards!
we should have kept the quote pyramid up to rape Jessie in the face.

ReBurn

I don't think that conservative and liberal mean the same thing, because they don't.  My point was about the extreme of either slant being about control.  The ideologies are different, but the goal is the same.  That goal is to control and affect how people think.  And unfortunately that goal is usually more about the party than the people they represent.  

What do you mean by no room for middle ground?  It takes two sides to meet in the middle, and I don't think that it is fair to imply that people considered liberal are standing in the middle and everyone else is standing off to the right.  There are plenty of moderates on both sides, but they are boring and don't make for good sound bites and headlines.  The good work that those people do is usually overshadowed by blathering extremists like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who use their positions as a bully pulpit and the media as a posturing tool to spout their partisan ideologues.
11:42:24 [Gamplayerx] I keep getting knocked up.
11:42:28 [Gamplayerx] Er. OUT!

VikingJuice

#19
Quote from: ReBurninator on April 28, 2005, 01:28:13 PM
I don't think that conservative and liberal mean the same thing, because they don't.  My point was about the extreme of either slant being about control.  The ideologies are different, but the goal is the same.  That goal is to control and affect how people think.  And unfortunately that goal is usually more about the party than the people they represent. 

What do you mean by no room for middle ground?  It takes two sides to meet in the middle, and I don't think that it is fair to imply that people considered liberal are standing in the middle and everyone else is standing off to the right.  There are plenty of moderates on both sides, but they are boring and don't make for good sound bites and headlines.  The good work that those people do is usually overshadowed by blathering extremists like Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who use their positions as a bully pulpit and the media as a posturing tool to spout their partisan ideologues.

I worded my first statement poorly, I meant to say that it seemed you were saying they meant the same old definitions of left and right and such and my argument was that those definitions, because of the people making them, is now different.  My apologies for the confusion.

I do still maintain that the middle, that being the actual bisection point of the spectrum, has been shifted er skewed recently in the world's eye and even in the eyes of most Neo-cons.  Because both sides have become so polarized, and because one side wields enormous power controlling two of three branches and quickly threatening to control the other one, the majority power defines the paremeters because they're the ones that receive the most coverage at this point.  And when they say you're either for us or against us, they in fact are defining every non-conservative/christian/republican as "liberal" or the scourge of the democratic process- as one nutjob called it.

How did we get here from PBS?  This has been an accidental threadjacking and I apologize to all.

VJ

Beefy

I need to incorporate more blathering into my life.

VikingJuice

Quote from: Beef on April 28, 2005, 03:47:53 PM
I need to incorporate more blathering into my life.

What ever happened to the whole blathering:
Coke vs Pepsi
or
Taste Great vs Less Filling discussions of the past. 

I long for those simpler days.

mike


Youphoric

Quote from: mike on April 28, 2005, 04:00:03 PM
THOU SHALT BE REPUBLICAN
I thinketht thouetht hatht beeneth smotedeth.

Jessie

we should have kept the quote pyramid up to rape Jessie in the face.