January 22, 2005

• inconvincible inconvertible incontubular incombustible incarsonsass
• fwiw, the "feedback" link on pbs.org gives the following: "Sorry, this script will only work with web sites on PBS Online." nice.
• As if Tucker Carlson *ever* made sense? I mean, who is this Tucker guy related to that got him these media jobs? I've never heard a coherent arguement on any issue from him. "Sorry, Tucker Carlson's script will only work with idiots."
• well, he's pretty. And he speaks well. My problem with him is that "What is your opinion on the death penalty? Tucker: I'm torn. On one level, I wholeheartedly support it. People who commit certain sorts of horrible crimes absolutely deserve to die, and it doesn't bother me a bit when they do. At the same time, though, I'm bothered by the creepy nature of the death penalty as it is carried out..." he's a fucking hosebag shithead being broadcast by anyone.
• Newsflash: He's been on PBS since June. But yes, I agree. WTF, PBS?
• I've seen Tucker's show and it's about as interesting as dust. Now, if Robert Novak, who is the very absence of light, were given a show on PBS, I'd become physically ill.
• PBS Now and if you follow that link and want to know what frocked means - there you go.
• I'm getting the vaguest of senses that petebest doesn't like this character much. Should I back my intuition?
• A government-subsidized (in part) network usually leaning to the left Why is challenging mainstream views with evidence and anecdotals mean "leaving to the left"? Also, since when does not challenging pols on their statements, and uncritically retransmitting them mean being centrist or fair and balanced. To say that PBS leans to to the left is utter horseshit. This is the network that carried Buckley's "Firing Line" for years and years, if I'm not mistaken. If we are equivocating critical and "left leaning" there's really no hope, is there?
• petebest and Sully have swapped accounts for the day. Just doin' their part to keep it fresh here.
• Jon Stewart clearly demonstrated the fact that Tucker is a Fucker.
• "Challenging mainstream views" is the exact current definition of liberal. Entertaining arguments and acknowledging points on both sides of the issue is considered liberal. Admitting that you have previously been wrong or that your argument is not infallible is considered liberal. Liberals need to come out, stand up, and say, "I am a liberal. This is what liberal means to me. These are examples of other liberals in history:" Instead, they run from the word and let conservatives define it.
• "You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show"
• petebest and Sully have swapped accounts for the day. Just doin' their part to keep it fresh here. That's news to me. As for Tucker, he will always be remembered for going against Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I don't think Tucker came out of that debate well.
• You have a point bernockle, but it's more complicated than that. The terms liberal and conservative mean a set of values and issues that differ a lot between the people who use them. It's not a simple matter of challenging the status quo any more as "liberalism" is in a large part a defensive stance now a days. The terms are also, for a large number of people, a tradition they've inherited from family and peers more than cohesive, static ideologies that resemble today what they've been through out time. That said, you do not want one group to appropriate and be given something like critical thinking. You do not want whistle blowers to be lumped in with a group that represent so much that is objectionable to the people you define liberals against.
• And why the fuck should we even talk about being liberals and conservatives? Is there really any room for dicussion with each other, then? Can you really recieve ideas from a "conservtive" in the same way you do from a "liberal"? And why such binary terms? Why does it have to be split between black and white? Good and bad? Red and blue (which is really a great idea: Let's reduce the problem to a matter of geography, of fat that just needs shed if we're ever going to get on with our liberal Eutopia)? If there were no such artificial division, do you think so many people would stand for what George Bush and his junta are doing? If they were just people making decisions and we'd just judge them by addition of their sins and virtues rather than such a rediculously encompassing beliefs?
• relevant (Salon daypass required.)
• *cough*
• "The thing to remember with public broadcasting is that everything is steered by the money," the executive said. "What used to be a unique thing is now in this competitive environment and has to do whatever it can to survive, which means bending in a way it used to never bend."
• Tomlinson quits public broadcasting board WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Kenneth Tomlinson, the former board chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accused by critics of trying to politicize public television and radio, has resigned from the board, it said on Thursday. Tomlinson, a Republican, quit shortly before CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz was to publish a report after investigating his activities, including paying outside researchers to check public programing for liberal bias. Critics, including broadcasters and congressional Democrats, accused Tomlinson of trying to advance his own conservative agenda in public broadcasting, which is supposed to be non-partisan. Details of the investigation have not yet been reported. It also looked into the selection of a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee as CPB president, according to Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. The CPB said both the board and Tomlinson believed it was in the best interest of the CPB that he step down. "The board does not believe that Mr. Tomlinson acted maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB or public broadcasting, and the board recognizes the Mr. Tomlinson strongly disputes the findings in the soon-to-be-released inspector general's report," the board said in a statement. The board commended Tomlinson for "his legitimate efforts to achieve balance and objectivity in public broadcasting." During a Senate hearing in July on CPB's funding, Tomlinson defended his hiring of outside lobbyists, saying they were needed to temporarily augment his agency's small staff. CPB is a federally funded nonprofit corporation and the largest single source of money for U.S. public television and radio programing, including PBS and National Public Radio. It is governed by a presidentially appointed board. Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester, a critic of Tomlinson, said his departure was unlikely to stop what he described as behind-the-scenes programing pressure on PBS and NPR. "Board chair Halpern and vice chair Gaines will continue Tomlinson's legacy to reshape public broadcasting more to the liking of conservatives," Chester said in a statement. Veteran Republican Party fund-raisers Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines were elected in September as CPB board chairman and vice chair, respectively. More to come, as they say.