View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
fighterholic
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 9193
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:29 am
|
|
|
On the original premise, before reading the article I thought that they would be criticizing the series, but not so much. I tend to disagree with Light being compared to Harry Putter or Neo. Light is more of an antihero who is most definetly misguided.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Goodpenguin
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 457
Location: Hunt Valley, MD
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:43 am
|
|
|
daxomni wrote: |
Goodpenguin wrote: | I ... feel the PBS corporation makes a lot of it's own PR/perception problems by being stubborn with political programming. |
I thought you were describing Newscorp there for a moment. I guess your concern is only focused in one direction. How surprising. |
Oh, I've got to keep up my end of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. I just finished a coverage wrap-up this morning with working colleagues who are attached to the NY Times and the Washington Post, those notorious bulwarks of conservatism. Later today, I have to 'teach' (read: graduate slave labor) an undergraduate class on Marxism, and then pow-wow with my thesis adviser in political theory. You just know a lot of right-wing things are going down when you get a bunch of political science/theory academics together.
Very obviously your not looking for an honest conversation, your locked into a pre-formed narrative and your looking to soap-box. I'll give you credit for not saying 'Speak Truth to Power!' yet though.
PS- Newscorp is a private business which profitably caters to an audience. PBS is a quasi-public entity that conspicuously runs news programs of an often perceptible ideological leaning, which bumps up against their congressional funding mandate. If they just picked up a small handful of very cheaply produced, moderate right-leaning editorial programs (like the '(Wallstreet) Journal Editorial Report') and stuck it on non-premium news time-slot, it would be leagues easier for them to defend shows like 'Frontline'/'Now' etc. That's a programing take, not a partisan take.
samuelp wrote:
Quote: | Cspan doesn't make the politicians more careful about what they say on the house floor... anything controvertial now-a-days would be played on a 24 hour loop on MSNBC anyway... |
Fighting words when you take on the C-spans! In seriousness, the C-spans aren't about making politicians watch their P's and Q's, it's about letting the public have free access to Congressional business and airing political interviews/shows. The C-spans do a wonderful job of giving time to views of all stripes as well, and take no government funding to boot.
|
Back to top |
|
|
samuelp
Industry Insider
Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2238
Location: San Antonio, USA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:30 pm
|
|
|
Goodpenguin wrote: |
Fighting words when you take on the C-spans! In seriousness, the C-spans aren't about making politicians watch their P's and Q's, it's about letting the public have free access to Congressional business and airing political interviews/shows. The C-spans do a wonderful job of giving time to views of all stripes as well, and take no government funding to boot. |
Ah, yes, that's right... They aren't funded, but they are used as a bargaining chip by the cable companies in preventing the FCC from regulating them .
It's sad, though.... I used to listen to cspan radio every day driving to high school in wash. d.c. a decade ago, and washington journal was always filled with intelligent callers and guests. Now, it seems like the only people who call in are insane: Either ron paul fanatics or conspiracy theorists or god-forbid, the worst of the lot, the die hard HD-DVD fans... okay maybe not the last one.
|
Back to top |
|
|
daxomni
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Somewhere else.
|
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:05 am
|
|
|
Goodpenguin wrote: | Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. |
Putting words in other people's mouths isn't a great way to make any sort of reasoned point.
Goodpenguin wrote: | PS- Newscorp is a private business which profitably caters to an audience. |
Talk about kid gloves...
Goodpenguin wrote: | PBS is a quasi-public entity that conspicuously runs news programs of an often perceptible ideological leaning, which bumps up against their congressional funding mandate. |
And suddenly the gloves are off again.
Goodpenguin wrote: |
moderate right-leaning editorial programs like the 'Wallstreet Journal Editorial Report' |
And now the gloves are back. I shudder to think what you would consider far-right editorials.
Goodpenguin wrote: | it would be leagues easier for them to defend shows like 'Frontline'/'Now' etc. |
Shows like Frontline and Now are defended by their own fact-checking process.
Goodpenguin wrote: | That's a programing take, not a partisan take. |
Oh really?
Goodpenguin wrote: | it's about letting the public have free access to Congressional business and airing political interviews/shows. |
So the relevance of PBS is determined by viewership numbers while the relevance of C-Span is determined by its content? How do you explain that?
|
Back to top |
|
|
|