portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

drug war | government | human & civil rights | imperialism & war | police / legal

opb looses funding?

any info?
I saw yesterday on the front page of the oregonian sitting in the box, that opb has or will loose state funding. Any info on status?


If this is the case, it's pretty ironic being they're the most dangerous right wing propaganda mill in the area. Maybe they'll shut down. Doubt it unfortunately.

OPB 06.May.2003 23:22

TLA

OPB probably stands for oregon public broadcasting

um 07.May.2003 08:00

joe

Yes, that's what it stands for, but why?

here is the deal 07.May.2003 08:19

Gertha

State funding provides only 2% of OPB's budget, so it's not likely that the loss of that income will be a serious threat to continued operation. Having said that, while I'm no great fan of PB editorializing, I would be sad to lose access to programs like Frontline, Now, Nova, etc....

the shows 07.May.2003 09:33

bill

Those shows you mentioned are all corporate sponsored

So what bill? 07.May.2003 09:54

Gertha

I'm not a complete idiot! I am aware of the self-agrandizing adverts [by real nasties too! (ADM, Shell, Exxon)] run before and after everything on OPB. What are you getting at? Should we shun every last thing with corporate money tied to it? Clarify...

Should we shun every last thing with corporate money tied to it? 07.May.2003 11:48

indy reader

in a word, yes.

One more try 07.May.2003 13:44

Gertha

I don't know if I let the window stay open to long, or if it's a bug, but when I clicked the "submit" button I got a fresh comment box instead of the upload of my comment.

Anyway, I should clarify my own comment. I should have asked: COULD (rather than should) we, in our current circumstances, shun everything tied to corporate money?

I'm getting a bit annoyed with the condensension, so before anyone else enlightens me with comments like "in a word, yes", or "those shows you mentioned are all corporate sponsored", let me say that I'm well aware of the influence sponsors have on content, I'm also aware that the programs I mentioned are not always on "our" side, or even honest. I am not against corporations alone, but against all forms of illegitimate power, including capitalism. I believe that a healthy human world could not exist with dependence upon any kind of mass(ive) media, let alone with one of the corporate variety. But...those programs I mentioned have been, at times, quite useful to me and many, many others. I'm not even arguing that PB should be saved (liberal backstabbers that they are), just that it's not based entirely on the dark side of the force, or some other similar b.s.

in a word, no 07.May.2003 13:48

indy reader #2

Nova may be sponsored by Exxon, but that doesn't mean Exxon has any say in the content of the show. OPB might very well tell Exxon to f*** off if Exxon tried to tailor Nova to its own specific needs. I agree that we can boycott the sponsors of shows like Michael Savage or Lars Larson, but if we boycotted all stations who had corporate sponsors, we'd be hard up for news. Humor me for just a second. Visit  http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news and tell me the site doesn't carry solid news. Now tell me that the lionshare of the news on that site isn't corporate sponsored. Tell me where I am going to get my news if the world woke up one day and simply decided to shun any news source which had corporate funding/advertising. It's a good thing to support small businesses with your money, and to favor shopping at the small businesses who sell non-corporate products. It's a good thing if you tell broadcasters about which of their sponsors you think suck, and if you tell corporations they are funding shows that you think suck. But when you're doing all this, remember that news agencies are actually important to us. They need money from somewhere and nowadays there may not even be enough small businesses to support our printed and broadcast news media. We need to transition away from corporate dominion, but the key word is transition. But while we break free, we need to recognize that we're screwed if we fail to recognize that there is some quality news coming out of the corporate-sponsored world.

to gertha 07.May.2003 17:34

bob

bertha, we should DEFINITELY throw out the baby with the bathwater. things are either good or bad, black or white. there is no middle ground.

oh, shit, that's the president's thinking, too.

alternative 07.May.2003 18:03

pedant

a bit frazzled there gertha?

Anyway, to the person wondering where to get news which isn't corporate/government shaped just go to kboo, or  http://www.democracynow.org , or  http://www.webactive.com , or  http://www.democracynow.org , or  http://www.webactive.com , or  link to www.wpkn.org or... plenty of other places. OPB is good for entertainment and science shows, the problem is they are also mistaken for an objective news source when they aren't.

problems with those "alternative" sources 07.May.2003 19:57

indy reader #2

Pedant, you list some great places to shop for news, but let's not go so far as to say that they provide us with, "news which isn't corporate/government shaped". They're a great filtering house (propaganda + news goes in, and they send out mostly news), BUT they also derive much of their news from corporate sources to include as the factual basis of their articles. How many journalists did democracynow have in Iraq? That's right--without the Washington Posts and BBCs of the world, the alternatives wouldn't be able to give us as much news as they do. Greg Palast, the guy who uncovered some of the more serious aspects of the '02 Republican voting scandal, is sponsored by newspapers which have corporate advertising (in fact the newspapers themselves are corporations). That's ONE of many examples. We need to get rid of corporate influence, but to do that successfully, we need to pry the news from their hands rather than yanking. Oh well, you say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. Let's work together to cut corporations out of our tax-dollar pie.

thank you thank you 07.May.2003 20:29

pedant

you don't know what you're talking about

really, would you care to explain? 08.May.2003 13:39

indy reader #2

Pedant, what exactly is it I've said that you contest? Examples?

I'm bored 08.May.2003 15:23

pedant

The sources I've listed get much of their info from their own reporters

bored, or wrong? 08.May.2003 17:03

indy reader #2

A quick glance at their headline news of  link to www.democracynow.org It's not a Democracy Now scoop even though Democracy Now doubtless does a better job of following up and reporting it than the original source. The next article was based upon a "study by the General Accounting Office" AKA NOT independent media. The third article is made possible by the New Yorker. And so on. Democracy Now may have their own reporters, but it's clear that they get many of the ideas for their news from sources which derive much of their income from corporate funding, government funding, and funding from sources that many of us Indy readers would prefer to do without. Please stop deluding yourself; the corporate funding runs deeper than you seem to think.

bored 08.May.2003 17:53

bore

boring. I don't participate in the argument clinic. I'm right, you're wrong, I know this because I am omnipotent