Another KPBS (89.5 FM) program on the SD housing market

[Anonymous]

I wish KPBS was funded by listeners: the Feds put $495MM into PBS for '06:  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/08/gop_takes_aim_at_pbs_funding/

PBS is the antithesis of critical, independent thinking.  To my ears, it sure sounds like the Kommie Pinko Broadcasting System.

I look forward to the big recession (probably depression) so that federal and state governments are forced back to focusing on the few important things, and not spending my money on junk like PBS.

[The-Shoveler]

Nor_LA-Temcu-SD-Guy

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/markets/marketfeatures/10305904.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

The street.com got another article about how the housing bubble popping is leading to economic melt-down.

It’s getting very loud this storm is.

[PerryChase]

KPBS, PBS, NPR, CPB are different but related organizations. One can contribute to the national programs without supporting the local programs. If you give to KPBS you’re funding both the local TV and radio channels. They use part of that money to buy national programs.

Public Radio and TV used to be better but since the flap about them being biased on the left, they’ve tried to be more “balanced.” At one point, the Republicans wanted to completely cut funding for public broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts.

I beleive that “a great nation deserves great art.”

[ybc]

I guess that I’m not very knowledgeable about all this — but I still think that NPR, compared to other alternatives availble (we don’t want all news controlled by private entities, do we?), is worthy of support. Even if the local PBS is subpar, distribution is still needed if you think the news world is better off with NPR than without NPR.

Also, just because I believe that the real estate will go down badly, I don’t think that the media has an obligation to report my view (at this point, might be a minority view). In fact, you can view what they report as part of the sentiment — when they finally are fully on top of it, the worst is perhaps over. Occassionally, I read news articles that are truly forward looking, but their authors are taking a risk (reputational risk if their prediction doesn’t come true). So I expect that the media reflects herd mentality. Also, the media has adopted a really bad habit — in their persuit of providing a “balanced picture”, they always try to find a different opinion, and present them all without some indepenent, analytical thinking. What I can’t tolerate is intentional spinning (examples on the war comes to mind). Otherwise, I’d say, give them a break!

Full disclosure — I didn’t listen to the radio segment, so I’m not disputing any of your critiques. Also, when I donated my old car, I didn’t donate it to PBS, I gave it to salvation army. PBS auctioned it off to wholesalers and only 70% of the proceeds went to support its own use.

[Anonymous]

That’s unusual, an NPR listener supporting a Christian cause (Salvation Army). Don’t let your friends hear about that!

[ybc]

But Salvation Army has always been among the most efficient charity organizations (measured by money spent on charity vs total money raised), and they do a lot of good things for the poor and the underprivileged. It just doesn’t matter to me whether they are a religious organization or not. As far as car donation is concerned, Salvation Army is a lot more efficient than PBS.

[Author]

Posts