« Movies, movies, movies | Main | Weiners never quit »

Tuesday, June 07, 2011


NPR made sure to let us know that soldiers in Afghanistan think we need to stay there. If the bastion of "liberal" media came across any grunts who said "Why yes, I would like to come home now", they didn't put them on the air.

A soldier in an outfit willing to kill or destroy dissenters says what he is expected to say and no more.

I don't watch either, but in the words of Private Joker "I've seen some on the Tee-Vee."

Fox News: Where an honest day's work goes to die.

PBS: A good night's sleep is but a totebag away.

Mister No One of C. is right, of course; it reminds me of a conversation I've had with more than one person, regarding TV news reports in which a reporter, surrounded by well armed US forces, asks locals if they feel happier and safer with the US soldiers there, in which I've expressed a certain amount of mistrust of the answer, which is never, "Oh hell no!",

and the person I'm talking to is aghast at my cynicism.

My sig file from nearly ten fucking years ago how the FUCK is this nearly ten years fuckity fuck fuck FUCK --

ahem. Sorry. Sometimes Mr. Endless War gets into the ol' cerebellum and starts playing with the keyboard. I'm going to leave the results up just so I feel a little less alone.

Okay, regarding Jonathan's last comment, one of my old sigs:

"Ah, the freedom. Look, we have the gas-line freedom, the looting freedom, the killing freedom, the rape freedom, the hash-smoking freedom. I don't know what to do with all this freedom. "
—Akeel, a twenty-six-year-old Baghdad resident on life in the new Iraq

I hope Akeel is alive and well. I will never attempt to find out.

spouse and self still listen to wait wait don't tell me

i listened to a bit of NPR here in DC this a.m., 1st time in maybe years. 1st thing: "this weather update [or whatever brief segment] bro't to you by shell oil & lockheed martin."

i shocked my older libtarded bro awhile back stating congress couldn't gut funding for NPR/PBS fast enough. 2 minutes listening today only reconfirmed that opinion.

I call that "Wait Wait Don't Bore Me."

Has anyone EVER heard anyone non-white call "Car Talk" or (the worst title for a show in the history of shows) "You Bet Your Garden" or "Wait Wait... " or the cooking program? Ever?

How does a person with Ira Glass' voice get a job in radio? How many more musicians will Terry Gross interview and try and force her interpretation of the word "dissonant" upon, no matter how many of them inform her, Pricess Bride-style, that this word does not mean what she thinks it means. Worst... interviewer... ever.

How much better off would America be if the PBS/NPR money were just given to some smart-ass teenagers and/or the odd senior center for people to sound off about what's bothering them?

The most offensive thing about PBS to me has always been the snake oil salesmen they trot out during pledge time, flat out charlatans preaching the purchase of happiness like Deepak Chopra or going back a ways Leo Buscaglia. Yeccch.


Since PBS is a cultural icon for many pseudoliberals, politically speaking, would its dissolution be a bad thing? And if it wouldn't be a bad thing, would it even be possible?

Here's what I mean. As anon alluded to, PBS goes for more and more corporate dollars, often from the worst groups around. If cut off from congressional funds, wouldn't it just live on as a coprorate shill? So while its destruction could be politically useful (though not cost-free; there are plenty of people, though not myself, who enjoy its programming greatly, ignoring politics), is the destruction of PBS really on the table? I think what we're seeing is just another leadership shift, like what was tried in 2002-3 when rightwingers tried a power grab -- except this time it's via the pocketbook.

TBH, a rightwing power-grab would, again, be better. The pseduoliberal thrives on the margins and murk; pure republican control would diminish the harm that NPR creates by giving us the ridiculous sort of evil they're known for.

But that's not in the cards. We're going to see a bigger corporate presence and an even stricter party line.

Personally, I hold that PBS became difficult to justify the moment it stopped broadcasting Doctor Who, but nobody asks me.

My husband worked for an NPR affiliate for a while, and went through spasms of frustration every time he'd try to point their attention to something actually newsworthy. They would always shrug and say it sounded hard, and go do another "lifestyle" or "trend" piece that they could research by having lunch with their college friends and billing listeners like you. Those people are scum.

Very interesting anecdote, R; thanks for sharing it. I've seen similar things in terms of local campaigns to get PBS to show "controversial"--in other words, plainly factual--documentaries about the West Bank and Gaza. But if Ken Burns wants to spend 18 hours on baseball, that's no problem. Which is a perfect illustration of the point of the posting, since that's just the kind of in-depth analysis of the inconsequential that convinces liberals that PBS, NPR et al are giving them a broad and nuanced view of the world.

My local Pubic Broadcasting outfit just ran a fund raising ad where they claimed

1.PBS has 170 million listeners/viewers nationwide
2. 90% of listeners/viewers don't become members.

So 310 million Americans are supposed to pay for what only 5% is worth anything?

But Frontline once did a story on how the depression (current) affected upscale New Yorkers...

BAS -- seriously? Do you remember the episode name?

"Close to Home" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/ October 27th 2009

Satire is redundant

I collected a few similar reports a few years back. You'd have to be some kind of monster not to shed a tear when you hear that "formerly free-spending shoppers who were 'trading up' to high-end goods are now less likely to treat themselves to that Gucci bag."

Oh, wait, I remember this. (The link you sent didn't work for me, but I found it at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/closetohome/view/).

I had forgotten this was Frontline.

I say this without irony or apology: shit like this gives white people a bad name. This thing was vile.

I remember watching it -- it was on late. It was a trainwreck: I kept moving to turn the TV off but kept asking "If you have no money, why are you at a salon?, over and over and over so I couldn't look away.

TBH, I have the least sympathy for the older middle-class. If you're in your 50's and lived a middle- to upper-middle class lifestyle up to this point, then, frankly, this shit is partially your fault. Now, you may not have been able to do anything about it, you may have done your best to stop it, but, at a bare minimum, you tried and failed. Of course, that's bullshit for most people: most people lived well and ignored politics and now they're fucked. I mean, seriously: white middle class 55-year-olds had at least 25 years to build up some kind of security and social networking. I'm not saying the economy is fair to them, but it is by fucking far sweetest to them over every other demographic -- except, obviously, the rich.

The young are far more compelling here. If you're below 40, you haven't had the time to prep for this crap. You had a brief uptick in the Clinton era -- but that was more the result of a recovery from the Reagan/Bush era where things sucked. You were likely tricked into fucking around with the stock market and 401ks. If you listened to Greenspan, you're probably well on your way to having lost your first house. That's before you touch race.

Ten years. Ten years is all you really had if you're in your 30s to get a good financial base. While the people in that video are counting what they lost, the vast majority of America are looking at what they will never have.

The comments to this entry are closed.