PBS versus NPR

[amfmxm]

C'mon, Dude--I offered a truce rather than watch this thread devolve into name-calling. And now we're down to "Marxism."

If you do indeed listen to NPR as you say, you must appreciate the content. If not, and you're investing your time listening to something you despise... uh, you need a hobby, man! 

[Talk_Dude]

C'mon, Dude--I offered a truce rather than watch this thread devolve into name-calling. And now we're down to "Marxism."

If you do indeed listen to NPR as you say, you must appreciate the content. If not, and you're investing your time listening to something you despise... uh, you need a hobby, man! 

I have a hobby. It's discussing things on internet discussion forums.

I'm sorry, but if someone is so sensitive about "name calling" that they get their knickers in a twist because of the use of the word "Marxism" to describe a position on the extreme left of the spectrum, that's too sensitive for me to worry about. I also don't worry the least about offending anyone who will exaggerate my observation that NPR is liberal with the false accusation that I "despise" NPR. I never said that, so your assertion that I "despise" it is a lie. Why should I worry about offending a liar by using the word "Marxism" to define a position on the extreme left of the political spectrum?

I do appreciate the content of NPR. I appreciate it for what it is, liberal propaganda. Stories that support the liberal agenda are objectively covered, stories that support the conservative position are ignored. With that methodology, anyone can look at what NPR covers on a story-by-story basis, and they'll find no bias within any story. The lack of mention of any story that supports a conservative agenda wouldn't show up on any analysis of the content of NPR's news. That's a pretty effective way of maintaining an appearance of neutrality and still pushing the liberal agenda.

Plus, there are lots of non-political filler pieces that are interesting.

[amfmxm]

The only thing "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" are good models of is how to slant the news with subtly. They do an excellent job of masking their bias, but their careful selection of which stories to cover and which stories to ignore manages to push the left's agenda while presenting the pretense of objectivity.

The English language is a wonderful thing. While I may think that "despise" is a fair characterization of your statement above, you may think that "dislike" is more accurate. Okay, I'll go along with that--though you'll no doubt argue the point. "Liberal propaganda" is certainly not a compliment. But, no, I'm not especially sensitive--just tired of the same old rightwing BS.

The greater point for all of us on this board who do appreciate NPR, and public radio in general, is to recognize that engaging TD in conversation on these topics is a waste of time.

[Talk_Dude]

The only thing "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" are good models of is how to slant the news with subtly. They do an excellent job of masking their bias, but their careful selection of which stories to cover and which stories to ignore manages to push the left's agenda while presenting the pretense of objectivity.

The English language is a wonderful thing. While I may think that "despise" is a fair characterization of your statement above, you may think that "dislike" is more accurate. Okay, I'll go along with that--though you'll no doubt argue the point. "Liberal propaganda" is certainly not a compliment. But, no, I'm not especially sensitive--just tired of the same old rightwing BS.

The greater point for all of us on this board who do appreciate NPR, and public radio in general, is to recognize that engaging TD in conversation on these topics is a waste of time.

No, the waste of time is expecting to engage in "conversation" in which both parties simply agree with each other and offer murmurs of assent. A series of Alphonse and Gaston exchanges is not conversation, it's an insomnia cure.

If someone cannot handle a little mild disagreement, but insists on nothing but lockstep agreement on all points, that's the person that it is a waste of time to engage in conversation. There is nothing more boring than listening to a bunch of people agreeing with each other.

[Don Juannn]

Why is NPR so good and PBS so bad? I have been listening to NPR for years and i love it. But PBS is a mess. Cartoons all day followed by mediocre programs at night.

You think Frontline, Nova, American Masters, American Experience, Great Performances, Independent Lens and POV are all "mediocre" programs?

Ratings confirm the PBS is an also-ran in ratings, while NPR is a goliath. Same CPB, NPR gets less money but produces more popular programming. What keeps PBS from being any good? Why does NPR stay on top?

NPR is "on top"?  Well, it depends who you ask.  Most would say they do respectably well, and in a few cities they do very well...but many of the smaller NPR stations don't even come close to competing with the other commercial outlets.

That being said, what is the measure of success for NPR and PBS?  Is it to match the audience of the top commercial stations in town?  If that were the case they could easily run Jerry Springer all day.

Or is the success of a public/non-comm station to provide alternative programming that would never see the light of day in commercial based Radio/TV?  Add to that....attract an audience that will support the programming....and, in my opinion, you have a successful station serving it's community.

[Talk_Dude]

Why is NPR so good and PBS so bad? I have been listening to NPR for years and i love it. But PBS is a mess. Cartoons all day followed by mediocre programs at night.

You think Frontline, Nova, American Masters, American Experience, Great Performances, Independent Lens and POV are all "mediocre" programs?

Given that "mediocre" means "of moderate or low quality", if one compares those programs to their equivalent counterparts on commercial basic cable networks, it's a far statement that they could be described as being of "moderate quality". In particular, the quality level of the dramatic programs you mention is very inconsistent from one episode to the next.

[Don Juannn]

Why is NPR so good and PBS so bad? I have been listening to NPR for years and i love it. But PBS is a mess. Cartoons all day followed by mediocre programs at night.

You think Frontline, Nova, American Masters, American Experience, Great Performances, Independent Lens and POV are all "mediocre" programs?

Given that "mediocre" means "of moderate or low quality", if one compares those programs to their equivalent counterparts on commercial basic cable networks, it's a far statement that they could be described as being of "moderate quality".

I don't think it's a fair statement at all.

You consider the above programming that was listed as "moderate quality"?

[Talk_Dude]

Why is NPR so good and PBS so bad? I have been listening to NPR for years and i love it. But PBS is a mess. Cartoons all day followed by mediocre programs at night.

You think Frontline, Nova, American Masters, American Experience, Great Performances, Independent Lens and POV are all "mediocre" programs?

Given that "mediocre" means "of moderate or low quality", if one compares those programs to their equivalent counterparts on commercial basic cable networks, it's a fair statement that they could be described as being of "moderate quality".

I don't think it's a fair statement at all.

You consider the above programming that was listed as "moderate quality"?

Overall, yes. They have some good episodes, and some terrible ones. Compared to similar programs on basic cable channels, they are "moderate" in their quality. Some of the Ken Burns mini-series programs were outstanding, but those weren't on the list. Many of the Independent Lens and POV shows aren't very good, though the do manage to do a good one every now and then. American Masters and American Experience have the same problem with consistency. Nova is good, but compared to what's on Discovery, National Geographic Channel, the Science Channel, and the other basic cable channels producing similar shows, the stuff on Nova is usually only fair by comparison.

I'm not saying that they are always bad, though surely someone will accuse me of it. They are of "moderate" quality usually, when compared to similar programs on commercial basic cable channels.

Of course, there are far too many people who can only understand extremes, and who can't recognize that there is a middle ground in between the extremes. Perhaps you just can't cope with the word "moderate". Would it be clearer to you if I used the word "average"? Do you understand the concept of grades, as in A, B, C, D, and F? Most basic cable programs like the PBS shows mentioned grade at around B, maybe B-. Most of the PBS programs mentioned would average a C, though that's based on some entries being B's and some being D's. Overall, that works out to a C. That's "average". It's a passing grade. Considering that most of the world is average, being average isn't nearly the same as being slightly below average or worse.

[Don Juannn]

Why is NPR so good and PBS so bad? I have been listening to NPR for years and i love it. But PBS is a mess. Cartoons all day followed by mediocre programs at night.

You think Frontline, Nova, American Masters, American Experience, Great Performances, Independent Lens and POV are all "mediocre" programs?

Given that "mediocre" means "of moderate or low quality", if one compares those programs to their equivalent counterparts on commercial basic cable networks, it's a fair statement that they could be described as being of "moderate quality".

I don't think it's a fair statement at all.

You consider the above programming that was listed as "moderate quality"?

Overall, yes. They have some good episodes, and some terrible ones. Compared to similar programs on basic cable channels, they are "moderate" in their quality. Some of the Ken Burns mini-series programs were outstanding, but those weren't on the list. Many of the Independent Lens and POV shows aren't very good, though the do manage to do a good one every now and then. American Masters and American Experience have the same problem with consistency. Nova is good, but compared to what's on Discovery, National Geographic Channel, the Science Channel, and the other basic cable channels producing similar shows, the stuff on Nova is usually only fair by comparison.

I'm not saying that they are always bad, though surely someone will accuse me of it. They are of "moderate" quality usually, when compared to similar programs on commercial basic cable channels.

Of course, there are far too many people who can only understand extremes, and who can't recognize that there is a middle ground in between the extremes. Perhaps you just can't cope with the word "moderate". Would it be clearer to you if I used the word "average"? Do you understand the concept of grades, as in A, B, C, D, and F? Most basic cable programs like the PBS shows mentioned grade at around B, maybe B-. Most of the PBS programs mentioned would average a C, though that's based on some entries being B's and some being D's. Overall, that works out to a C. That's "average". It's a passing grade. Considering that most of the world is average, being average isn't nearly the same as being slightly below average or worse.

Would it be clearer to you if I used the word "average"?

Um...no, it would be clearer if you backed up your feeling and opinions with some kind of rationale.

You stated your opinion and your assessment....and then took another post to restate that with nothing to back it up.

I don't agree with you at all....unless you are confusing quality with glitz and simple production values...neither of which is related to "quality".

[Talk_Dude]

Um...no, it would be clearer if you backed up your feeling and opinions with some kind of rationale.

You stated your opinion and your assessment....and then took another post to restate that with nothing to back it up.

I don't agree with you at all....unless you are confusing quality with glitz and simple production values...neither of which is related to "quality".

If you don't agree with me, then don't agree with me. But don't expect me to provide you with "rationale" that you haven't demonstrated first. If I say the show are mediocre and you dispute me, present some rationale as to why they are not mediocre.

Personally, I think no such hard and fast rationale exists. It's not something that can be objectively measured. I've watched some of what's on PBS, and I've watched what's on the basic cable channels. I've compared the two. I've reported what I saw. If you think that a case can be made one way or the other by using "rationale", demonstrate what you're talking about by presenting a rationale for why "Nova" is better than what's on National Geographic, Discovery, or any other basic cable channel. Or, shut up. Take your pick.