Support Public Television as part of their drive today

SD Blog Readers asked to Support SDPB.ORG Dec 8, 2006

Some bloggers in SD have agreed to cooperate with each other without regard to ideology or perspective and request that their Blog readers contribute to SD Public TV on the evening of
Friday, December 8, 2006 fund drive. This is the evening of the Williams and Ree special.

When you call in your contribution to SD Public Broadcasting, we SD bloggers request you please mention on which blog you saw the contribution request or at least that you saw a SD blog public service ad Then we will have some idea if we should try this again with a bit better organization and planning..

Blogs have communities of their own and varying degrees of journalistic rigor; but let's see what the SD blog community can do on just one night without regard to our political or other differences..

Please call SDPB at 1-800-777--0789
Friday, December 8. Evening 7pm-9pm CST; 6pm to 8pm MST


Anonymous said…
when public tv/radio starts running something besides liberal crap i'll think about it
Anonymous said…
Don't be such a cynic. It is the Christmas season.
Anonymous said…
Let me re-phrase- holiday season.
chad said…
This is one mystery I've never been able to solve.

I wish someone could show me where/how public broadcasting is supposedly "liberal".

I think it's a case of, as Stephen Colbert likes to say ... "the truth has a severe liberal bias"
Anonymous said…
631, you apparently don't watch public tv. There are plenty of programs that have no bias.
Anonymous said…
721 - You had it right the first time!
Anonymous said…
I understand that the best way to support the Democrat party is to write checks directly to the Democrat party. Don't filter your money through public TV fundraising events.
Anonymous said…

I am disappointed. Why didn't you encourage us to give to the KNWC network of Christian radio stations? Or to the Salvation Army, who uses their money to do the most good with the least amount of administrative costs. Or to Volunteers of America?

Why SDPB???

Choose something a bit more neutral---or even a bit more conservatively bent.

Chad: You are so liberal you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the face--or even when it bites you in the ****, which I am sure that it does at times.
Anonymous said…
I will send PBS play money and credit the War College. How about that?

The legislature dealt with this but Stan A. got all huffy. Let him support this liberal venture.

Shame, shame PP for this request.

10:20 am - Right On!
Anonymous said…
What exactly is so liberal about the shows on PBS?
Anonymous said…
I question that too. What is so liberal about high school football, Dakota Life, Mystery, Frontline, Great Performances, high school orchestra concerts, Nature, Vietnam memorial broadcasts, or anything else on PBS? Has anyone else watched network tv lately? It's horrible. This fall I got to watch my son play in the championship football game, and my niece was in the high school orchestra concert. Our whole family was able to watch, including their grandparents who can't travel to the games and their cousins in Arizona who got to watch online. PBS is an important service that often gets taken for granted. Until, that is, a funding cut is proposed, and the legislators' phone lines light up with outraged supporters. I consider myself a very conservative person, I watch a lot of PBS and don't see anything necessarily liberal or conservative about it. NPR is a different story, but my support goes to the television service.
Anonymous said…
Notice how none of the SDPB bashers are giving any examples of shows that are liberal leaning? Please give us an example of a SDPB liberal show, just one, that would be great rather than making blanket statements with no grounds within reality.
Doug Wiken said…
I guess we better tell SDPB that broadcasting Gospel Music everyweek and devoting an hour or so on Sunday morning public radio to discussions of religion is a waste of time. It is not reducing the brain inflamation on the right.

And John McLaughlin and half of his gang would be surprised to know they a part of some liberal conspiracy.

I hope there are some true conservatives who see the value of a public broadcasting system that is not continuously broadcasting sexual titilation and commercial hype for products most of us really don't need.

Each serves a purpose, but they are not the same. Commercial broadcasting does not give full coverage to Rounds speeches and proceedings in the Republican-controlled legislature.

PP, if you catch a lot of grief for this, I will stick a PSA for some non-partisan group of your choosing on my Blog.
GOP come home said…
Hey jackasses:

Nobody is complaining about south dakota football. You are a stupid if you think we are talking about that.

What about NOW by Bill Moyers, what about Frontline and how about all the pathetically liberal morning shows on public radio.

If South Dakota public broadcasting would purchase national shows that were more fair and balanced yeah I would contribute.

also, the idea of publicly funded media is in direct contravention to our way of life in america. Let this media outlet sink or swim based on its merit.

also the vociferous liberal outcry is the best evidence that public broadcasting is biased.

I say more football, more south dakota stuff and less crazy liberal national crap from NPR.
Anonymous said…
Holy paranoia!

I just got back from lunch at a liberal restaurant. I had a leftist burger -- topped with some moderate cheese -- along with some exteremely liberal french fries. My beverage, of course, was an overtly Democratic coke. My waitress brought my food on a liberal serving tray and then the busboy cleared my dishes into a Marxist tub.

When I left the restaurant, I got in my left-leaning automobile and drove in the LEFT lane (even our roads are biased) back to my socialist job in state government.

Along the way, I listented to, what else, neo-communist SD Public Radio.
PP said…
I just got off the road for a while to stop for Lunch, and I see the comments - Jesus H.! What's the big deal?

A couple of things for clarification.

My request for support isn't sinister. Most of the SD bloggers are doing a thing today to support public television, partially as an experiment to see if we can rally support for worthy causes.

It's one day. It's not like I'm on a permanent crusade.

This is not a commentary one way or another on how much of a surplus they carry at budget time (I actually don't think they should have much of one at all, and I agreed with the Senate conservatives on it).

Believe it or not, I actually watched a lot of their election coverage (which was neutral) and I'll watch them during session. (which is also politically neutral). I'd liken their political coverage closer to C-Span than 'Air America.'

The Crew at SDPB did a nice job of looking in depth at issues. They covered the ballot issues 10x better than the vapid 2 minute network stories.

Do I think some of their programming is questionable at times? Sure. But is there some of it I like? Yes. I'm sure some people like lawrence welk as well as the uber-liberal crap programming that they put on from time to time that I don't watch.

And I'm sure some of those viewers would rather watch their stuff than legislative news.
GOP come home said…
PP et. al.:

Here's SDP's mission:

To serve the people of South Dakota by operating a quality, not-for-profit, statewide radio and television network that strives to reflect the diversity of the state's population and breadth of its interests; to satisfy programming needs that are not being met by other media services; to utilize the potential of radio and television to educate, inform, entertain, and delight; and, to enrich listeners and viewers of all ages and in all walks of life by illuminating the challenges faced by society and presenting civilization's highest achievements.

Go to: for their FY 07 state budget.

Local progamming is 195 hours out of almost 7000 tv hours alloted to the national stuff.

on radio there is 400 hours of local production out of a total of 4000 for news and information.

First, the mainstream is already doing many of the things that SDPB purports to do.

Second, I don't think anyone is complaining about the local programming of which there is not very much. They would get run out of the state if local programming was overtly partisan.

The chief complaint here is the overly partisan political commentary found on pbs that is bought and paid for by all of us through our state tax dollars and public contributions.

I think there is great public support for the small amount of local production. Unfortunately we are subsidizing a great amount of liberal national crap.

I want to see a bill that takes money away from divisive national liberal crap programming and put more into local programming that talks more about South Dakota.

In fact I say more money for PBS if they are willing to feature more South Dakota and less divisive programming that the MSM already takes care of for them.
Doug Wiken said…
Guess most South Dakotans failed to notice that Bush,Inc. plugged in a very conservative head of PBS who then apparently less than perhaps legally hired a very conservative analyst to go over all PBS newscasts, etc. with a fine tooth conservative comb.

Then apparently fired up the equivalent of a bureaucratic gestapo to get everybody marching in lockstep. Goodbye Bill Moyers.

They found very little to complain about, but their use of federal money and contributions to do the "analysis" failed the sniff test.

I think that conservative inquisitor left under a dark cloud.

Watch Fox "news" if you want slanted news with a minimum of detail and investigation.

What has been on Frontline recently that has been peculiarly slanted? I seem to remember something which might have had information similar to that provided by the War Commission of Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, Justice O'Conner, et al.

The problem with most information on PBS is that whether or not it is conservative or liberal, it is easier to kill the messenger than refute the information.

The discussion here is an interesting window into something.

We all have the option of contributing or not contributing and if we do contribute mentioning that we saw something on this blog or some other blog.

Nothing much more sinister than that. It is an experiment which may show that all of us bloggers and blog readers are a bunch of cheapskates or it may indicate some of us actually appreciate expanded news coverage that requires more than 30 seconds of continued attention and doesn't always confirm our unthinking prejudice.

Obviously your mileage may vary.
Anonymous said…
gop wrote:
"The chief complaint here is the overly partisan political commentary found on pbs..."

Give us one example of this. One specific example.
Anonymous said…
you know, now that you paranoid freaks mention it, I just realized that my FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS are going to pay the salaries of LIBERAL CONGRESSMEN and their ULTRA LIBERAL STAFFERS.

Therefore, as an ULTRA CONSERVATIVE, I will not pay my taxes this year out of protest.

That will teach those LIBERAL CONGRESSMEN that I'm not going to be the sucker who gets mixed up in their crazy schemes.
pbs is liberal here's an example said…
Here's an example:

One frontline documentary starts out with the assertion that the united states is contracting out the mission in iraq, implying that it is a grand conspiriacy to enrichen Haliburton, yet fails to mention that Clinton cut the military by 40k troops and contractors are doing the jobs that those soldiers used to do.

Acts of ommission are acts of liberal bias. Want me to name some more?
Anonymous said…
That's a pretty crappy example. Try again.
Douglas said…
Acts of ommission are acts of liberal bias. Want me to name some more?"

Sure. Let's see the whole list and also the web sites for the source, etc.

I suppose that failing to mention that George Washington hired Hessians to fight were also an omission that related to the corporate fraud and waste in Iraq or somehow balances that.

There was good reason to cut the number of US soldiers after the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations effectively took the Soviet Union out of the scene as a reason for squandering billions on military boondoggles.

Bush,Inc. in any case could not claim ignorance of the number of soldiers available prior to the ill-begotten Iraq invasion and the heavy reliance on cost plus fixed profits for contractors often selected without any true competitive bidding or anything other than interesting connections to the Bush Administration.

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long