Just nostalgia. I wasn't using that as a reason to continue funding PBS, just pointing out why some folks might be against it
OT: Thoughts on the elimination of PBS and NPR in the new budget
- Thread starter tigers30cocks0
- Start date
Nah, it just looks that way when you are ultra left or right.
This is absolute nonsense. No other show goes to such great lengths to show both sides. You evidently have not listened in years.
Add, Fox to your sentence and you might have a good point.
If you listen to their news shows like All Things Considered and their afternoon news shows, when a controversial topic is discussed they will go out of their way to get voices from both sides. Sometimes they will reach out to one side or the other and they will not be available, but they will tell you that too.
It's such a fallacy. This cut is directly aimed at poor people. Lets face it.
Wait, do you actually believe that Fox News is down the middle (or fair and balanced)?
Because poor people AND rural people don't have cable. I grew up in the sticks, PBS was 3 of the 6 channels I got.
ITS POLITICS. They want to cut it to appease their base. But its actively detrimental to the population and it saves almost nothing and doesn't offset the huge deficits that are a result of actual policy and legislation. It's just politics.
What I believe is irrelevant. Harvard study shows that Fox is pretty much down the middle.
I don't really watch much new on TV to be honest. Most is all opinion at this point. I get my info online and weed through lots of sources.
N---
It's not your imagination: Study finds Trump coverage overwhelmingly negative
By Howard KurtzPublished May 22, 2017
Fox News
NOW PLAYING
Kurtz: How the mainstream media are piling on Trump
You may have gotten the impression that the coverage of President Trump is kinda sorta pretty negative.
That’s not quite right: It’s overwhelmingly negative. Stunningly negative. Head-shakingly negative.
That’s according to a new study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, a widely respected operation that chronicles media coverage.
And adding to the sharply negative tone is the sheer volume. It’s not your imagination—Donald Trump is the most heavily covered president ever.
The center examined the coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in three major papers—the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post—and the main newscasts of CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News.
The top line figure: Some 80 percent of these stories and segments had a negative tone, 20 percent positive (beyond those that were neutral). That is bad. In fact, it’s twice as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and much more negative than that for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
And the differences are stark when you drill down by news organization.
At CNN and NBC, 93 percent of the stories were negative in tone toward Trump, the study says. Put another way, their main newscasts could find only 7 percent of stories worth being positive toward the president.
CBS wasn’t far behind, at 91 percent negative. Then there was the New York Times (87 percent) and Washington Post (83 percent).
The Wall Street Journal clocked in at 70 percent negative.
And Fox News was, well, fair and balanced. The study found Bret Baier’s “Special Report” to be 52 percent negative and 48 percent positive toward Trump. The network that is often derided by the rest of the media for being too pro-Trump was actually the fairest, according to the Harvard researchers.
What’s more, issues matter. It’s telling that 96 percent of the coverage of immigration was negative, along with 87 percent of the coverage on health care and Russia’s impact on the election. Some 81 percent of the coverage on Trump’s fitness for office was negative. Those are all subjects with a pretty clear media narrative. By contrast, “only” 54 percent of the stories on the economy were negative.
Even in the president’s best week of the period examined, when he ordered airstrikes against Syria, his coverage was 70 percent negative.
Overall, say the researchers, the coverage of President Trump “was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press.”
And all of this resonates in a very loud echo chamber. On the national networks studied, 41 percent of the stories involved Trump. That means of everything going on in the world, more than four out of 10 stories dealt with this president—three times the usual level, Shorenstein says.
And Trump was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of these reports, talking or tweeting. So if Trump seems inescapable, he is.
Why? He drives ratings, pure and simple. Boring presidents don’t rate as much airtime. And whether you like or loathe Trump, it’s fair to say he’s never boring.
Trump isn't the definition of conservative. He's a profiteer and a con man, hence all the negative coverage.What I believe is irrelevant. Harvard study shows that Fox is pretty much down the middle.
I don't really watch much new on TV to be honest. Most is all opinion at this point. I get my info online and weed through lots of sources.
N---
It's not your imagination: Study finds Trump coverage overwhelmingly negative
By Howard KurtzPublished May 22, 2017
Fox News
NOW PLAYING
Kurtz: How the mainstream media are piling on Trump
You may have gotten the impression that the coverage of President Trump is kinda sorta pretty negative.
That’s not quite right: It’s overwhelmingly negative. Stunningly negative. Head-shakingly negative.
That’s according to a new study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, a widely respected operation that chronicles media coverage.
And adding to the sharply negative tone is the sheer volume. It’s not your imagination—Donald Trump is the most heavily covered president ever.
The center examined the coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in three major papers—the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post—and the main newscasts of CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News.
The top line figure: Some 80 percent of these stories and segments had a negative tone, 20 percent positive (beyond those that were neutral). That is bad. In fact, it’s twice as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and much more negative than that for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
And the differences are stark when you drill down by news organization.
At CNN and NBC, 93 percent of the stories were negative in tone toward Trump, the study says. Put another way, their main newscasts could find only 7 percent of stories worth being positive toward the president.
CBS wasn’t far behind, at 91 percent negative. Then there was the New York Times (87 percent) and Washington Post (83 percent).
The Wall Street Journal clocked in at 70 percent negative.
And Fox News was, well, fair and balanced. The study found Bret Baier’s “Special Report” to be 52 percent negative and 48 percent positive toward Trump. The network that is often derided by the rest of the media for being too pro-Trump was actually the fairest, according to the Harvard researchers.
What’s more, issues matter. It’s telling that 96 percent of the coverage of immigration was negative, along with 87 percent of the coverage on health care and Russia’s impact on the election. Some 81 percent of the coverage on Trump’s fitness for office was negative. Those are all subjects with a pretty clear media narrative. By contrast, “only” 54 percent of the stories on the economy were negative.
Even in the president’s best week of the period examined, when he ordered airstrikes against Syria, his coverage was 70 percent negative.
Overall, say the researchers, the coverage of President Trump “was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press.”
And all of this resonates in a very loud echo chamber. On the national networks studied, 41 percent of the stories involved Trump. That means of everything going on in the world, more than four out of 10 stories dealt with this president—three times the usual level, Shorenstein says.
And Trump was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of these reports, talking or tweeting. So if Trump seems inescapable, he is.
Why? He drives ratings, pure and simple. Boring presidents don’t rate as much airtime. And whether you like or loathe Trump, it’s fair to say he’s never boring.
What I believe is irrelevant. Harvard study shows that Fox is pretty much down the middle.
I don't really watch much new on TV to be honest. Most is all opinion at this point. I get my info online and weed through lots of sources.
N---
It's not your imagination: Study finds Trump coverage overwhelmingly negative
By Howard KurtzPublished May 22, 2017
Fox News
NOW PLAYING
Kurtz: How the mainstream media are piling on Trump
You may have gotten the impression that the coverage of President Trump is kinda sorta pretty negative.
That’s not quite right: It’s overwhelmingly negative. Stunningly negative. Head-shakingly negative.
That’s according to a new study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center, a widely respected operation that chronicles media coverage.
And adding to the sharply negative tone is the sheer volume. It’s not your imagination—Donald Trump is the most heavily covered president ever.
The center examined the coverage of Trump’s first 100 days in three major papers—the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post—and the main newscasts of CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News.
The top line figure: Some 80 percent of these stories and segments had a negative tone, 20 percent positive (beyond those that were neutral). That is bad. In fact, it’s twice as negative as the coverage of Barack Obama’s first 100 days, and much more negative than that for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
And the differences are stark when you drill down by news organization.
At CNN and NBC, 93 percent of the stories were negative in tone toward Trump, the study says. Put another way, their main newscasts could find only 7 percent of stories worth being positive toward the president.
CBS wasn’t far behind, at 91 percent negative. Then there was the New York Times (87 percent) and Washington Post (83 percent).
The Wall Street Journal clocked in at 70 percent negative.
And Fox News was, well, fair and balanced. The study found Bret Baier’s “Special Report” to be 52 percent negative and 48 percent positive toward Trump. The network that is often derided by the rest of the media for being too pro-Trump was actually the fairest, according to the Harvard researchers.
What’s more, issues matter. It’s telling that 96 percent of the coverage of immigration was negative, along with 87 percent of the coverage on health care and Russia’s impact on the election. Some 81 percent of the coverage on Trump’s fitness for office was negative. Those are all subjects with a pretty clear media narrative. By contrast, “only” 54 percent of the stories on the economy were negative.
Even in the president’s best week of the period examined, when he ordered airstrikes against Syria, his coverage was 70 percent negative.
Overall, say the researchers, the coverage of President Trump “was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press.”
And all of this resonates in a very loud echo chamber. On the national networks studied, 41 percent of the stories involved Trump. That means of everything going on in the world, more than four out of 10 stories dealt with this president—three times the usual level, Shorenstein says.
And Trump was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds of these reports, talking or tweeting. So if Trump seems inescapable, he is.
Why? He drives ratings, pure and simple. Boring presidents don’t rate as much airtime. And whether you like or loathe Trump, it’s fair to say he’s never boring.
um your reading comprehension is not strong. this article is related to negative coverage, not the accuracy or bias of such coverage. when you have a president as bombastic and idiotic as trump, of course the vast majority of coverage will be negative.
How is it actively detrimental to the population? We also don’t have cable, but I have access to PBS and it’s afiiliates/sub-channels.
I don’t necessarily disagree that there are bigger issues to address regarding the ballooning debt, but the accessibility of the programming isn’t going to be impacted. I think you could reasonably argue that it may increase accessibility and viewership of certain programs depending on what happens with the rights to those programs.
The only thing more futile than this thread is thinking that ANYTHING in the president’s budget has a chance to be enacted by Congress. We will be right back to Continuing Resolutions and no budget will pass for the next few years.
As for Amtrak - I will take the Acela to NYC from Washington any day of the week over flying. It isn’t perfect but the traffic congestion in the NE Corridor would be horrific if it weren’t for Amtrak.
As for Amtrak - I will take the Acela to NYC from Washington any day of the week over flying. It isn’t perfect but the traffic congestion in the NE Corridor would be horrific if it weren’t for Amtrak.
I imagine all the Tickle me Elmo sales could fund both for a while
And all of the british shows on a US funded channel will find a home at Amazon or Netflix.
If PBS started a pay streaming site for a $4.99 fee. I wonder how many would buy it.
And all of the british shows on a US funded channel will find a home at Amazon or Netflix.
If PBS started a pay streaming site for a $4.99 fee. I wonder how many would buy it.
So the solution is to put PBS on cable or streaming, things that poor people should apparently not be spending money on?
