Browsed by
Tag: PBS

Reject Bush’s Cuts to Public Broadcasting

Reject Bush’s Cuts to Public Broadcasting

Take Action: Tell Congress: Reject Bush’s Cuts to Public Broadcasting

Once again, President Bush is trying to cripple the public broadcasting system by slashing its funding.

I just signed a petition to Congress to reject these proposed cuts, and I hope you will too.

Mr. Rogers would be proud of you.

In 1969, Richard Nixon attempted to cut PBS funding by 50%. A senate hearing chaired by “hatchetman” Senator John Pastori couldn’t push it through as long as there was someone like Fred Rogers to speak for at least some of the reasons that public broadcasting is important.



Bring Mister Rogers Back to Atlanta

Bring Mister Rogers Back to Atlanta

I try to pay attention to recurring thoughts, and I’ve been having thoughts of Fred Rogers for the last few months. Why, I ask myself, am I thinking of “Mister Rogers” – and why now? I don’t often get haunted by thoughts, and I thought I had better listen to myself and find out what it was that I should do about it. I thought – “maybe I’ll watch the show with Ben later on and figure it out.” So I went online to find out when it aired here, only to discover that neither of the public television channels here in Atlanta carry Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood anymore.

Would you join with me to ask Atlanta Stations to carry the show?

Contact WPBA-TV Channel 30 Public Broadcasting Atlanta
General Comments & Television Programming Schedule- Karen Bell
Educational Services Manager, Atlanta Public Schools – Bernice McLean, 678-686-0321

Contact GPB – Channel 8 Georgia Public Broadcasting
General Email
Director GPB Education, Mike Nixon
Education Program Schedule Questions
(404) 685-2649 (Atlanta area) 1-888-501-8960, Ext. 2649 (Toll-free)

Check to see if Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood is shown on your PBS station.

I well remember how much those lessons in navigating feelings meant to me. Fred Rogers was a true gem. His kindness was clearly genuine, and he knew how to speak – his very slow pace forced you to listen. When Rogers pretty much single-handedly saved the funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting years ago, his testimony gave even Senator Pastori goosebumps. Rogers’ death in spring of 2003 made front-page news all over the country. The Topeka Capital-Journal in Kansas summed it up: “Goodbye, neighbor — Mister Rogers was the real thing, on or off the air.”

Jack Dominic, chief operating officer of PBS station WCET in Cincinnati, sent this message to executives at other PBS stations:

A group of about 30 preschool kids marched about five blocks from their school to our studios with a banner expressing their love for Mr. Rogers. The faces of these kids, their innocence, their potential was such a fitting tribute to Fred Rogers, and more than enough for us to remember why we are in this business.

I think his work provides an enormous public service. The messages of kindness and acceptance and understanding and self-affirmation are sorely needed in this city – and across the nation. Obviously, it would be great for a new show to pick up where he left off, but I’ve seen all the shows and it doesn’t exist yet.

I think that children (and possibly adults!) would still respond to this show, and more so than some others that are on now. I know that the show airs on several other stations, and I would like to see it back on here too.

I would like my son and his friends to grow up with these messages of care so that they, and their generation, might help to heal our nation.

Here is Fred Rogers’ goodbye – Bring back Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.

Do Political Blogs Change Your Views on Issues?

Do Political Blogs Change Your Views on Issues?

In answer to NOW’s Question of the Week: Do you read blogs? Tell us if blogs change your views on political issues.

Blogs are of many kinds: scrapbooks, personal journals, advertising spaces, photo logs. Political blogs are only one form of the blog. The blogosphere is about freedom of expression – dittoheads, propaganda portals, soap boxes, fake identities, but also debate, discussion, original ideas, and scrapbooked information/evidence/argument.

Some political blogs actually investigate and report news. Some are focused tightly on one specific topic so that there is a constant flow of targeted and detailed information. Others are like a scream of despair, or a series of billboard advertisements.

Blogs do affect my political views, if for no other reason than that they are a valuable supplement to the information and perspectives that I am able to glean from other media. If you are interested in a particular topic, you can search for related keywords (using search engines or more specific tools like Technorati) and get the latest range of feedback and opinion. Subscribe to your favorite blog rss feeds, and it’s like building your own newspaper. Through a service like Feedblitz, you can even have the feeds delivered via e-mail.

What is still more powerful, however, is that because of the ease of blog publication, more people are writing and publishing. There is a sense of political empowerment that comes from dwelling with your thoughts and observations long enough to claim your own distinct perspective – and then to express it, to “offer it up” to others. Blogs encourage this. People who might never write an article or book for print publication can still have a syndicated column as a blogger. Blogs are used for political opinion, activism and reporting. Blogs can distribute information, and calls for political action. Bloggers can report on things that even investigative journalists never observe – and they offer the viewpoints of many who are otherwise never heard.

Blogs encourage people to read, think, write and debate – all in mutally reinforcing feedback loops that make them better at doing all of them. What’s not to love?

As opportunities for real political discussion in public spaces dwindle, the blogosphere offers one form of the social arena for information exchange, conversation, and debate that in other times and places might have been held at the local pub or cafe or quilting bee or bowling night or barbeque. In many cases, we simply don’t have the places or the occasions for those discussions, but we need them more now than at any other time in my life’s memory.

We need more debates in the public sphere. We need politicians to debate in front of us rather than simply reading their statements to the press. Pundits and spokesmen and think tank representatives aren’t enough for us anymore. Americans do smell mendacity, and we are working it out for ourselves as best we can. Political blogs help us to do that.


What’s your view on this question? Post it there, post it here, post it at home.

Unconscious Mutterings 183

Unconscious Mutterings 183

Unconscious Mutterings

Weekly Unconscious Mutterings Meme – Week 183

I say … and you think … ?

  1. Affair :: of the heart, Family (that dates me), adultery, euphemism

    Family Affair: Season 2

  2. Package :: books, chunky, tied up wtih string, delivery
  3. Warner :: Brothers, Time, Dena, cartoons
  4. Drop :: cookie, balance, from the tree, down, silver, drip
  5. Balance :: drop (nice reversal there), sneakers, beam, centered, judicial, viewpoint
  6. Shore :: rocky, cliffs, New England, hug, lighthouse, hurricane, up
  7. Confirmation :: notice, payment, tickets, hearings, appointment
  8. Nose :: nuzzle, ugga-mugga, Pinocchio (and see HK), pry, needle
  9. Talking :: low, points, whispering, together, conversation, negotiation, reconciled
  10. Bend :: it (name of a song I used to warm up to), stretch, break, flex, rules

And here’s an example of the ugga-mugga, almost at the end.

Did you know that Mister Rogers once saved PBS from Nixon? This is terrific!

I would love to see a warrior of caring such as this change hearts and minds in Washingon today. I loved Mister Rogers (and I liked the comedy sketches based on him too – it was easy to make fun of him, and many did). But what a wonderful voice and what a great form of communication, especially for children. Now, as a mom, as an American, as someone who can still be affected even today by what he is saying here and how he is saying it, I can’t help but think that this is the kind of thing we’ve been missing in our public discourse.

We don’t have a love and peace movement, and I can’t see how one could succeed at the moment. Our religious leaders seem to present more of a problem than a solution. The progressive faithful still lack strong voices in the public sphere.

Are there still people who can speak in contemporary terms, who can speak like this? Wouldn’t that be something to see? Imagine how differently Senate hearings would go, for instance, if the testimonies rang with authenticity, not mendacity.

What’ll I Do

What’ll I Do

I happened to watch the Garrison Keillor Independence Day performance of Prairie Home Companion on PBS. It was recorded at Tanglewood, which made me homesick. The music was great – all of it – and I really enjoyed all the regular segments. I have a lot of admiration for the pace now that I’ve seen it rather than just listened on the radio.

I don’t think I’ve really listened to the show since my father died. The last time I heard it, a couple of years ago, I cried when Keillor sang “You are My Sunshine.” I don’t know what it is about the show that seems to touch my heart in this odd way. I guess I’ll have to go see the movie now.

I enjoyed all the music, with all its energy and harmonies and sweet sounds.

A few tears slipped out when The Wailin Jennys sang Bring a Little Water Sylvie. I’ve always loved that song, and their rendition was so sweet.

But it was so totally over the top, so completely unfair, for Meryl Streep and Garrison Keillor to sing “What’ll I Do.”

I always bawl like a baby when I hear that song; it’s like my own personal “Danny Boy.”

I was suddenly sobbing, sobbing.

I’m glad I was the only one still awake. It’s been a long time since I had a good cry.

Reframing the Terms of the Discussion

Reframing the Terms of the Discussion

I was happy that I stayed awake last night to watch Bill Moyer’s Now on PBS. The linguist George Lakoff was on. He did an absolutely marvelous piece on the framing of language in politics, which he has been publishing quite a bit about recently.

He argues that Republicans understand framing better than the Democrats. The Democrats, a bit ironically, are still in thrall to a notion of rationality in which you simply speak truth to power and reasonable people are persuaded. The Republicans know better.

An example that Lakoff uses is the mental frame evoked by the oft-repeated phrase “tax relief.”

“The relief frame is an instance of a more general rescue scenario in which there is a hero (the reliever), a victim (the afflicted), a crime (the affliction), a villain (the cause of affliction) and a rescue (the relief). The hero is inherently good, the villain is evil and the victim after the rescue owes gratitude to the hero. The term tax relief evokes all of this and more. It presupposes a conceptual metaphor: Taxes are an affliction, proponents of taxes are the causes of affliction (the villains), the taxpayer is the afflicted (the victim) and the proponents of tax relief are the heroes who deserve the taxpayers’ gratitude. Those who oppose tax relief are bad guys who want to keep relief from the victim of the affliction, the taxpayer. Every time the phrase tax relief is used, and heard or read by millions of people, this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced.” – from “Framing the Dems : How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back

How should progressive democrats REFRAME? As an issue of membership and patriotism, says Lakoff. “Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there’s an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. Wealthy Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don’t. Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country?”

Republicans spent millions every year on thinktanks to strategize on such issues. Frank Luntz puts out “a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys’ logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.” (link deleted because of malware at the site)

Last night Lakoff pointed out that the common sense Healthy Forest act was framed as a conscious opposite. It is “common sense” so experts (ecologists, environmentalists, biologists, etc) are not needed. It will make forests “healthy” – a conscious and Orwellian obliteration of the reality. Lakoff says the strategy is not simply to negate and to say that it is NOT a healthy forest initative. That has about as much power as Nixon saying “I’m not a crook.” Rather, it needs to be reframed – perhaps as The Forest Destruction Act, The Razing Act, The Slash and Burn Act.

I think he’s right. Progressives (he says we won’t be able to use the word “liberal” again for years) have to learn this strategy of reframing and repetition. It may be sad, but this is in fact the way people think.

Lakoff is part of the Rockridge Institute (as well as being a professor), where you can read more about reframing and political discourse.