Please Help Save Public Radio/PBS

National Public Radio (NPR), Public Radio International (PRI), the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the quality news and programs they deliver to millions of Americans are under threat. Proposed budget cuts will slash already threadbare funding and endanger one of the last bastions of 'independent' media. For those without access to the internet Public Radio and PBS are essential tools of awareness. Though far from perfect this media outlet brings to the public a quality of news and programming that's far and above the mess doled out on commercial TV. The following is a link to sources and to an online petition you can sign to help secure the future of NPR, PBS et al. Thanks

_http://airamericaplace.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20467
 
Telperion said:
quality news
one of the last bastions of 'independent' media.
essential tools of awareness.
Though far from perfect
help secure the future of NPR, PBS et al.
:shock:

Oh good god. Start thinking man.

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2007/01/spirit-of-tom-paine.html

Steven Lendman said:
The Tainted Record in Public "Non-Commercial" Spaces

Today in the mainstream there are no safe havens. All major print publications are corporate owned or controlled as are the on-air media including the two main supposed "non-commercial" alternatives established as independent, non-governmental, commercial-free public spaces now as much under the control of the interests of wealth and power as the media giants. Today so-called National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS) are beholden to the interests of capital because that's where so much of their funding comes from.

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was founded by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to provide a programming diversity alternative to the commercial broadcasters, began operating in October, 1970 and was required to follow a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." At the time, it was stipulated the federal government was prohibited from influencing its programming content, but that was controversial from the start as PBS operated with federal funding making it a target whenever it took on an issue critical of the mouth that was feeding it.

Today corporate donors make up a substantial proportion of PBS funding and with it claim and get the right to decide what programming is run and what it may contain along with Republican allies in the administration and Congress who have plenty to say and put their man, Kenneth Tomlinson, in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to see they got it when George Bush appointed him as chairman of the CPB for a two-year term beginning in September, 2003 after he was earlier appointed to its board by Bill Clinton and confirmed in September, 2000.

This was a clear case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house forcing even the administration-friendly New York Times to report a front-page story in May, 2005 that evidence was mounting that Tomlinson pressured PBS officials to produce more conservative programming and purge shows considered more liberal. It prompted an unnamed senior FCC official to tell the Washington Post the CPB chairman "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right wing agenda on PBS....almost like a right wing coup." In other words, to make sure the ideology in PBS programming was no different than the way the commercial giants see things.

This should have come as no surprise with someone like Tomlinson in charge. He had a conflict of interest based on his prior employment where he was director of US propaganda for Voice of America (VOA) from 1982 - 84, was then appointed to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), served as its chairman and in that capacity oversaw most government propaganda broadcasts to foreign countries including by VOA, Radio Free Europe, the Arab language Alhurra and Radio Marti beamed into Cuba that combined reaches 100 million people worldwide.

He was also ethically tainted at the time according to a State Department inspector general report for having "used his office to run a horse-racing operation and had improperly put a friend on the payroll" and without board approval signed off on $245,000 of invoices for questionable purposes. He never should have been put on the CPB board or gotten the top job there and now no longer does after being forced to resign in November, 2005 for trying to politicize the agency with his hard line tactics and unethical practices - something that's become standard practice on Capitol Hill under Republican control.

Sadly, things haven't improved as one Republican ideologue replaced another with the Bush appointment of Cheryl Halpern to be CPB chairperson. And on November 14, 2006, the Tomlinson record was no obstacle preventing George Bush from renominating him as chairman of the BBG for a term to run until August 13, 2007 despite his nomination having been stalled in the Senate because of allegations of misconduct. So far, no charges have been brought against Mr. Tomlinson, and it's doubtful they will be when the 110th Democrat-controlled Congress takes over in January. On Capitol Hill, the climate and culture of corruption is bipartisan, long-standing, and it doesn't take long for the new party in power to engage in the same kinds of unethical practices that drove out the former one. It just takes a while for them to get caught at it.

The situation is no better at National Public Radio (NPR) that long ago abandoned the public trust it was sworn to uphold when it was founded in 1970 as in independent, private, non-profit member organization of public radio stations in the country. It's as tainted and corrupted as its television counterpart and now also gets a substantial proportion of its funding from corporate donors demanding influence, like the kind a $225 million behest can buy. That's the amount gotten from the estate of the late Joan Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's Corporation that never needs to worry about an unfriendly report on NPR's airwaves no matter how egregious its behavior, and there's plenty of it to reveal that stays suppressed in all the major media including on NPR, the "peoples' radio."

Despite its mandate to be unbiased and serve the public interest, NPR steers clear of that in its one-sided kind of "journalism." It's careful to shy away from all controversial topics that may be sensitive to corporate interests that include those providing it funding support or might wish to like Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and Walmart that already do. It's also "respectful" of whichever party is in power with Republican administrations getting special deference as they were from 1994 until the Democrats took control of the Congress in the November, 2006 mid-term elections. Even George Bush's most extreme transgressions can't get NPR's ire up enough to report accurately on them.

That's made even clearer when it's known what kind of man it has in charge - current president and CEO Kevin Klose. Like the CPB during the Tomlinson tenure, so too is NPR run by a man who used to be the director of all major worldwide US government propaganda dissemination broadcast media including VOA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. And like Tomlinson, it made him an ideal choice for a comparable job at NPR, the "peoples' radio," that like the "peoples' television" and its flagship Lehrer News Hour, never met a US-instigated war it didn't love, support and report endless supportive propaganda about while suppressing all news unfriendly to the US empire and its business interests.

So far as its known, however, Mr. Klose hasn't been accused of the kinds of activities attributed to his former CPB counterpart, staying free from the taint that forced Mr. Tomlinson to resign. That aside, it's had no positive impact on NPR's programming that's just as committed as PBS to serving the interests of wealth and power feeding it while ignoring the public trust despite the considerable funding it gets from that source from frequent on-air fund-raising efforts it has no right or justification asking for.
 
Well, thanks for the feedback Shane. A few of my issues though starting with the offering by Mr. Lendman -

S. Lendman said:
That's made even clearer when it's known what kind of man it has in charge - current president and CEO Kevin Klose. Like the CPB during the Tomlinson tenure, so too is NPR run by a man who used to be the director of all major worldwide US government propaganda dissemination broadcast media including VOA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti. And like Tomlinson, it made him an ideal choice for a comparable job at NPR, the "peoples' radio," that like the "peoples' television" and its flagship Lehrer News Hour, never met a US-instigated war it didn't love, support and report endless supportive propaganda about while suppressing all news unfriendly to the US empire and its business interests.

So far as its known, however, Mr. Klose hasn't been accused of the kinds of activities attributed to his former CPB counterpart, staying free from the taint that forced Mr. Tomlinson to resign. That aside, it's had no positive impact on NPR's programming that's just as committed as PBS to serving the interests of wealth and power feeding it while ignoring the public trust despite the considerable funding it gets from that source from frequent on-air fund-raising efforts it has no right or justification asking for.
Well, Mr. Lendman is certainly entitled to his opinion - and what he states here is nothing but opinion. It's simply another subjective observation which by the way does not come with an offering of alternatives to NPR or PBS for the vast millions of Americans without access to a computer unable to read his blog. His fatalistic offering is this:

S. Lendman said:
Today in the mainstream there are no safe havens. All major print publications are corporate owned or controlled as are the on-air media including the two main supposed "non-commercial" alternatives established as independent, non-governmental, commercial-free public spaces now as much under the control of the interests of wealth and power as the media giants. Today so-called National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS) are beholden to the interests of capital because that's where so much of their funding comes from.
Alright then...so I suppose we are meant to avidly read his blog or search the web for reputable ''safe havens'' of news coverage? Or just sit and wring our hands? But I repeat, many, in fact HALF of adult Americans do not have access to the internet.

(_http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/8/press_release.asp)

The following site illustrates the alternative to NPR and PBS available for most Americans:

Americans:http://tvnewslies.org/html/cnn___contains_no_news.html

Also, as you can see I put the term 'independent' in quotation marks when referring to PBS/NPR/PRI - I'm well aware that no form media is immune from bias and the influence of special interests, thus my caveat "though far from perfect...".

Shane said:
Oh good god. Start thinking man.
Thank you very much for your concern Shane however my post was not indicative of my naive, unconditional loving support of NPR/PBS, though I do in fact financially support them. My point was herein:

Telperion said:
For those without access to the internet Public Radio and PBS are essential tools of awareness. Though far from perfect this media outlet brings to the public a quality of news and programming that's far and above the mess doled out on commercial TV.
The level of '"awareness" a person can achieve is today (sadly) very much dependent on one's access to certain technologies in this age of the computer. Thankfully SOTT brings us one of the 'purest' forms of news coverage available on the web. Unfortunately at least 31 million Americans do not have access to this information. If Mr. Lendman has a preferable and practical quality news alternative for these millions of Americans without internet access I would very much like to hear about it.
 
telperion said:
Well, Mr. Lendman is certainly entitled to his opinion - and what he states here is nothing but opinion. It's simply another subjective observation which by the way does not come with an offering of alternatives to NPR or PBS for the vast millions of Americans without access to a computer unable to read his blog. His fatalistic offering is this:
This is, in fact, an illogical 'argument' - just because people don't have access to other forms of information does not make public television/radio a 'good' form of information. It is wholly corrupted, as is all public, mainstream media.

What Lenderman states is actually observable fact - not opinion. However, again - Telperion is identified with his viewpoint and understanding of something, and to have that challenged is - to Telperion - to have himself challenged.

If he were not identified with everything he posts, this would not be the case and he would be able to understand that criticism of what he posts is NOT criticism of him.

T said:
Alright then...so I suppose we are meant to avidly read his blog or search the web for reputable ''safe havens'' of news coverage? Or just sit and wring our hands? But I repeat, many, in fact HALF of adult Americans do not have access to the internet.
Not at all. The simple truth of the situation is that if a person seeks the truth, they will WORK to find it - internet or not.

T said:
Thank you very much for your concern Shane however my post was not indicative of my naive, unconditional loving support of NPR/PBS, though I do in fact financially support them. My point was herein:
Yes, actually it was indicative of your identification with NPR/PBS - and your rather emotional response proves that. Your self-importance is showing again, Telperion.

T said:
The level of '"awareness" a person can achieve is today (sadly) very much dependent on one's access to certain technologies in this age of the computer.
This is not necessarily true. There are literally hundreds of thousands of books, periodicals and publications available to anyone with a search for knowledge (ask Laura how many books/publications are currently on her desk) - no computer necessary, although it can take longer to get them.

T said:
Unfortunately at least 31 million Americans do not have access to this information. If Mr. Lendman has a preferable and practical quality news alternative for these millions of Americans without internet access I would very much like to hear about it.
For a person who truly seeks knowledge, there are many - many - ways to find it. The fact of the matter is that a vanishingly rare number of people truly seek knowledge. NPR/PBS serve a very important cointelpro purpose because people who support them (and identify with that action) think they are getting information that is of 'a higher quality' - when, in fact, they are simply getting a different flavor of horse hockey.

This post of yours, Telperion, is a classic example of identification - with your opinion, with NPR/PBS, with your whole understanding of the world as you think it is. Instead of interpreting Shane's post as additional information from which you could learn, you became defensive because you can see no difference between what you post and who you are.

There is, in fact, a difference between the two, but you are so identified with your self important need to be perceived as correct or informed that you cannot see that difference.

(This is quite a common problem - and one that can be overcome with sincere effort.)

Quite a valuable lesson, if you can see it - also, the cass glossary can help, if necessary, with an understanding of the use of the word 'identification' in this post. http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=41&lsel=
 
Thanks Anart for your offering, I found most of it insightful and useful. I did in fact learn something from Shane's post, yet one article from a maverick blogger like Lendman is not quite enough to make me throw the baby out with the bathwater where NPR/PBS is concerned. For those existing entirely within a paradigm of deception and illusion there can be stepping stones on to a greater awareness of what is really going on and I view NPR/PBS as one of these stepping stones, not the end all nor even the gold standard. Not everyone is amenable to the terrible shock of taking the red pill and the vast majority of people are just not ready to contemplate hyperdimensional beings, ''programs", cyclical cataclysm, ponerology, etc...I am open to considering these possibilities/realities, and I credit the journalism and programming of NPR/PBS in part for this. That being said I appreciate the mention of the COINTELPRO aspect of NPR. This is something I never thought of before but I will now.
 
Telperion said:
Thanks Anart for your offering, I found most of it insightful and useful. I did in fact learn something from Shane's post, yet one article from a maverick blogger like Lendman is not quite enough to make me throw the baby out with the bathwater where NPR/PBS is concerned.
This underlying dependence (needing an article or someone's proof to make you question things) is helping you sleep. It shouldn't be Lendman or anyone else that 'forces' anything on you and that seems like the approach you're taking. Rather, it would probably help if you started from the opposite end of questioning everything and then gather information. Conversely, you already have your information gathered (identification) and need more information to be presented to you in order to question your already full cup.

Telperion said:
For those existing entirely within a paradigm of deception and illusion there can be stepping stones on to a greater awareness of what is really going on and I view NPR/PBS as one of these stepping stones, not the end all nor even the gold standard.
I agree stepping stones exist, but they are not external. The want of 'external stepping stones' points again to the dependence mentioned above. Real progress, by its nature, cannot 'happen' to someone; the process has to start and grow internally otherwise its just another false front. Plenty of people trust NPR, Democracy Now, Alex Jones and so on to feed their beliefs in things. These are just different mediums to keep their targeted audience sleeping. Certain audiences just need higher quality lies to stay sleeping.

Telperion said:
Not everyone is amenable to the terrible shock of taking the red pill and the vast majority of people are just not ready to contemplate hyperdimensional beings, ''programs", cyclical cataclysm, ponerology, etc...
Utilizing a shock for waking up has more to do with questioning the roots of internal beliefs than contemplating external things such as most of the above. They can go hand in hand but don't have to. Someone can be shocked when faced with the reality of cyclic cataclysm or say a collapsing economy. This shock can act as powerful nutrition for someone has an 'empty cup', but it can also act as another means of reprogramming those who are identified with their world and dependent on external reality to tell them what's what.
 
Shane said:
Rather, it would probably help if you started from the opposite end of questioning everything and then gather information.
Agreed, when coming into contact with anything mainstream this is the only way to go.
 
Telperion said:
Shane said:
Rather, it would probably help if you started from the opposite end of questioning everything and then gather information.
Agreed, when coming into contact with anything mainstream this is the only way to go.
This focus on things, again, appears to be on things outside yourself. I was trying to emphasize questioning inner things: your attachments, beliefs, and opinions of what's true. I don't think it really matters if something is mainstream or off the beaten path - only if it's true or not.

Also, I wanted to revise something after thinking about it. In the last post I said, "This shock can act as powerful nutrition for someone (who) has an 'empty cup'..." I think the shock can be useful for someone who uses it to 'empty their cup'. I suppose if someone already had an 'empty cup' there wouldn't be much of a shock.
 
Shane said:
This focus on things, again, appears to be on things outside yourself. I was trying to emphasize questioning inner things: your attachments, beliefs, and opinions of what's true.

In the last post I said, "This shock can act as powerful nutrition for someone (who) has an 'empty cup'..." I think the shock can be useful for someone who uses it to 'empty their cup'. I suppose if someone already had an 'empty cup' there wouldn't be much of a shock.
Ok, but aren't these inner beliefs/attachments intrinsically connected to stimuli from the external world? I mean the beliefs handed down to one from parents, social systems, schooling etcetera build a person into what he or she is to an enormous degree, right? So what I am saying is that everything that can be found 'inside' has its origin in some external stimuli since babies are essentially blank slates that must be filled, and that 'emptying ones cup' would mean a very radical kind of interior spring cleaning. And as you know, most people hate to throw anything away that they've had for years.

Also, does the 'empty cup' metaphor represent the end of a process of disenchantment with reality?
 
Telperion said:
Ok, but aren't these inner beliefs/attachments intrinsically connected to stimuli from the external world? I mean the beliefs handed down to one from parents, social systems, schooling etcetera build a person into what he or she is to an enormous degree, right? So what I am saying is that everything that can be found 'inside' has its origin in some external stimuli since babies are essentially blank slates that must be filled, and that 'emptying ones cup' would mean a very radical kind of interior spring cleaning. And as you know, most people hate to throw anything away that they've had for years.
I agree. I just thought it was curious that you only mentioned 'maintstream' things. Our predator mind can easily see the lies of others and will try to fixate on such things when coming across a shock to maintain it's survival. I wasn't sure if thats where you were going or not.

Telperion said:
Also, does the 'empty cup' metaphor represent the end of a process of disenchantment with reality?
I think so; it would represent having cleaned out all identification and 'little i's' to become a unified I.
 
Back
Top Bottom