# Pbs You



## feathed (Jul 13, 2004)

DirecTV chose to replace PBS YOU with yet another religious fundamentalist channel (TCT). Please email DirecTV's Vice President of Programming Robert M. Gabrielli at 
[email protected] or call (310) 964-5068 to complain.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

feathed said:


> DirecTV chose to replace PBS YOU with yet another religious fundamentalist channel (TCT). Please email DirecTV's Vice President of Programming Robert M. Gabrielli at
> [email protected] or call (310) 964-5068 to complain.


Why would I want to complain?


----------



## Guindalf (Jun 13, 2001)

...and exactly WHAT does this have to do with this forum? It's about hardware, not programming!



Mods?


----------



## DesignDawg (Aug 10, 2005)

THIS HAS BEEN COVERED here already...

And PBSYou doesn't exist anymore. Not DirecTV's fault.

Ricky


----------



## feathed (Jul 13, 2004)

My point was the choice of replacement. 
The PBS YOU website quote:

"6. What programming will DIRECTV or DISH offer in place of PBS YOU? 

As both DIRECTV and DISH Network are required by law to offer public interest programming to their customers, both providers will be replacing the PBS YOU channel assignment with alternative programming. The channels selected are entirely of DIRECTV/DISH Network's choosing, and have no association with PBS or its member stations."

Another channel broadcasting Pat Robertson's calls for murder is NOT in the public interest.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

feathed said:


> My point was the choice of replacement.
> The PBS YOU website quote:
> 
> "6. What programming will DIRECTV or DISH offer in place of PBS YOU?
> ...


As an old radio guy, I can tell you that "public interest programming" is very narrowly defined and that carriers are forced to carry a certain percentage of it. Religious stations are among those types of formats that do fall clearly into the category.

And you were hoping for another shopping channel, right.


----------



## Guindalf (Jun 13, 2001)

Why are you posting the same thing in three different threads? Isn't one enough for you?

Keep your politics to yourself - they are not wanted here, and will soon be cut by the mods.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3989A1.pdf

Secular Coalition for America
Attn: David A. Niose, Esq.
510 Main Street
P.O. Box 7611
Fitchburg, MA 01420

Re: Complaint against DIRECTV re Public Interest Obligations

Dear Mr. Niose:

The Secular Coalition for America (Coalition) has filed a complaint against DIRECTV that raises two issues under the rules pursuant to which direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers must reserve four percent of their channel capacity exclusively for use by qualified programmers for noncommercial programming of an educational or informational nature.1 First, the complaint alleges that DIRECTV is violating the rules by affording reserved channel access to religious programmers. Second, the complaint alleges that DIRECTV is violating its public file obligation because it does not disclose why it is granting capacity to religious programmers rather than to other qualified programmers. We herein deny the complaint.

*The rules in question implement Section 25 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.2 In part, these rules require DBS providers to reserve four percent of their channels for access by noncommercial, educational programmers at reduced rates. In order to qualify for carriage on the reserved channels, an entity must be a noncommercial programmer with an educational mission,3 and programming on qualified public interest channels cannot include advertisements.4 No other qualification criteria apply.*

We reject the Coalitions argument that programmers that carry religious programming do not meet the definition of qualified programmers. The Commissions rules and Order, and the underlying statute, do not suggest or provide that a programmer offering programming of a religious nature should be disqualified from access to reserved channels if it otherwise meets the set-aside qualifications.5 Further, the Commissions rules do not require that reserved capacity be allocated among different genres of programming; the rules specifically leave to the discretion of DBS providers the choice of which programs better suit their subscribers viewing preferences. DIRECTV is not, therefore, violating Commission rules by carrying religious programmers in satisfaction of its public interest obligations.

Your complaint further alleges that allowing religious programmers access to the reserved channels has potential Constitutional implications because the public interest channels are publically subsidized.6 The rules, however, do not provide for a direct public subsidy, nor do they establish a governmental bias in favor of or against programming that is religious in nature. Within the parameters established by the Commission, DBS providers are explicitly given discretion to choose programmers for their reserved channels. Accordingly, DIRECTVs choice of programmers for its reserved channels raises no substantial Constitutional issue.

Finally, your complaint alleges that DIRECTV is not complying with the Commissions requirement to indicate in its public file why requests for access to the public interest reserved channels have been denied. Specifically, your Complaint urges that DIRECTV should be required to disclose why it chose religious programmers over other types of programmers. The Commissions rules require DBS providers to include notations of why a request for access to the public interest channels is denied; the Commission contemplated that such descriptions should be brief.7 Your complaint does not dispute that DIRECTV maintains such a file, which provides the reason capacity full for denying access requests. A detailed discussion of why certain programmers were chosen over other programmers is not required.

Because your Petition fails to allege conduct that violates Commission rules, it is unnecessary to seek response or comment from DIRECTV.8 For the reasons discussed above, and pursuant to delegated authority,9 the Petition filed by the Secular Coalition of America is denied.

Sincerely,
W. Kenneth Ferree
Chief, Media Bureau

cc:
William M. Wiltshire
Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis
Counsel for DIRECTV
1200 Eighteenth St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

1 47 C.F.R. § 25.701.
2 Implementation of Section 25 of the Cable Television and Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992(Order), 13 FCC Rcd 23254 (1998).
3 Id. at 23290.
4 Id. at 23294.
5 See 47 U.S.C. § 335(b).
6 The Complaint alleges violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
7 47 C.F.R. § 25.701; Order at 23203.
8 We note that your complaint includes the response you received from DIRECTV, which is largely consistent with the discussion herein. We also received letters from a number of individuals supporting the petition, however none of these letters compel a different result in this matter.
9 47 C.F.R. § 0.283.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

feathed said:


> Another channel broadcasting Pat Robertson's calls for murder is NOT in the public interest.


I just checked their line-up, and Pat Robertson isn't even carried on that network, so what are you talking about? You're getting all fired up about this, calling for others join your protest, handing out the email address of DirecTV execs, and you don't even have accurate info.

[Sorry Guindalf and others - I agree that this isn't the proper forum for this, but I had to respond.]


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Boston Fan said:


> I just checked their line-up, and Pat Robertson isn't even carried on that network, so what are you talking about? You're getting all fired up about this, calling for others join your protest, handing out the email address of DirecTV execs, and you don't even have accurate info.
> 
> [Sorry Guindalf and others - I agree that this isn't the proper forum for this, but I had to respond.]


I didn't take his comment literally; but much of these televangelists tend to take extreme positions on controversial subjects; the more divisive an issue is, the more they can work up a crowd into donating money. That is, after all, what it's all about.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

dswallow said:


> I didn't take his comment literally; but much of these televangelists tend to take extreme positions on controversial subjects; the more divisive an issue is, the more they can work up a crowd into donating money. That is, after all, what it's all about.


And my point is exactly the one you are confirming for me. Rather than putting forth facts about why he is objecting to a station he has obviously not watched or researched enough to even know about their programming, he does the lazy thing and stereotypes by throwing out a well-known, controversial name. Never mind that it's not actually true, because 'they're all the same anyway'.

Prejudice and stereotyping is never okay, no matter where it is aimed. Ignorance, especially when fomented by misinformation, is a dangerous thing, and should be addressed when seen.


----------



## john-duncan-yoyo (Oct 13, 2004)

Boston Fan said:


> I just checked their line-up, and Pat Robertson isn't even carried on that network, so what are you talking about? You're getting all fired up about this, calling for others join your protest, handing out the email address of DirecTV execs, and you don't even have accurate info.
> 
> [Sorry Guindalf and others - I agree that this isn't the proper forum for this, but I had to respond.]


Are there any non-Christian religious broadcasters? I would like to see some religious diversity even though I'm not likely to watch any of it.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

john-duncan-yoyo said:


> Are there any non-Christian religious broadcasters? I would like to see some religious diversity even though I'm not likely to watch any of it.


It wouldn't surprise me that there are, but I'd also guess they'd likely be part of some international package since the interest in the US would probably be minimal.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

john-duncan-yoyo said:


> Are there any non-Christian religious broadcasters? I would like to see some religious diversity even though I'm not likely to watch any of it.


Al-Jazeera?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

john-duncan-yoyo said:


> Are there any non-Christian religious broadcasters? I would like to see some religious diversity even though I'm not likely to watch any of it.


There is Vision in Canada, pretty diverse, religion wise, plus have a mix of family friendly programming.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

classicsat said:


> There is Vision in Canada, pretty diverse, religion wise, plus have a mix of family friendly programming.


"Secret Files of the Inquisition" and "The Flying Nun"!

http://www.visiontv.ca/

You can't go wrong with a lineup like that!

What are we arguing about here?


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

dtremain said:


> "Secret Files of the Inquisition" and "The Flying Nun"!
> 
> http://www.visiontv.ca/
> 
> ...


Don't forget "Amen". Love that Sherman Helmsley!


----------



## Jabberer (Oct 4, 2000)

Boston Fan said:


> Prejudice and stereotyping is never okay, no matter where it is aimed.


So, you're prejudiced against the prejudiced?  

Overall, I agree with your sentiment, but I personally would not say "never okay, no matter where it is aimed". I'm perfectly happy with the stereotype of Nazis being evil bas...er, jerks, or the KKK being nearly univerally reviled just because of what they are, etc.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

Jabberer said:


> So, you're prejudiced against the prejudiced?
> 
> Overall, I agree with your sentiment, but I personally would not say "never okay, no matter where it is aimed". I'm perfectly happy with the stereotype of Nazis being evil bas...er, jerks, or the KKK being nearly univerally reviled just because of what they are, etc.


I hear what you are saying, but I would not view those statements as stereotypes as much as they are satements of fact about groups that made willful decisions to commit egregious acts against others (based, in fact , on their own hateful stereotyping).

I'm referring to statements of ethnicity, etc. ("all germans are nazis" to modify your example) as the sort of stereotypes that must be challenged.

In any case, I think we are on the same page  .


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Boston Fan said:


> I hear what you are saying, but I would not view those statements as stereotypes as much as they are satements of fact about groups that made willful decisions to commit egregious acts against others (based, in fact , on their own hateful stereotyping).
> 
> I'm referring to statements of ethnicity, etc. ("all germans are nazis" to modify your example) as the sort of stereotypes that must be challenged.
> 
> In any case, I think we are on the same page  .


Exactly. It is the dedicated purpose of Nazis or the KKK to do evil and, therefore, they should be seen as the foe and defeated. Stereotypical statements about a group, on the other hand, are, by their nature, untrue, because they do not represent the function of the group itself or most of its members. To view black people, for example, as criminals, is untrue in the larger number. Therfore, that is a prejudicial statement.

To view Pentacostal Christians as mindless right-wingers who want to kill people is also a prejudicial statement.

Criticizing individuals who make such statements, even as a whole, is not prejudicial. It is not prejudicial to be against bigots because they *are* bigots. They are not some group of people who are being unfairly labeled as such because of some other identification.


----------



## jaydro (Oct 19, 2003)

Yeah, good thing we locked up that Nazi Wernher von Braun and threw away the key. What a menace he was!


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

jaydro said:


> Yeah, good thing we locked up that Nazi Wernher von Braun and threw away the key. What a menace he was!


Actually, von Braun was never a Nazi, objected to the use of the rocket that his team had developed as a "vengeance" weapon against England, insisted that the technology would best be used to explore space, and was seen as an impractical dreamer by Hitler; he was, therefore, arrested and detained by the Nazis. After that incident he decided, after some consideration, to surrender himself to the American forces, bravely travelilng through war-torn Germany to do so.

All that being the case demonstrates my point rather than contradicts it. Learn a little history rather than just going with what you "thing you know."


----------



## DavidS (Sep 27, 2000)

Jabberer said:


> So, you're prejudiced against the prejudiced?
> 
> Overall, I agree with your sentiment, but I personally would not say "never okay, no matter where it is aimed". I'm perfectly happy with the stereotype of Nazis being evil bas...er, jerks, or the KKK being nearly univerally reviled just because of what they are, etc.


And Godwin's Law is proven once again!


----------



## jaydro (Oct 19, 2003)

dtremain said:


> Actually, von Braun was never a Nazi [rest of revisionist apologist view of von Braun deleted]


Don't tell me to learn a little history while citing as fact what has been often disputed. My point, which I tried to make in a light-hearted and factual manner, was that you can't justify *any* stereotyping. But, yes, Godwin's Law has been proven here. *sigh*


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

jaydro said:


> Don't tell me to learn a little history while citing as fact what has been often disputed. My point, which I tried to make in a light-hearted and factual manner, was that you can't justify *any* stereotyping. But, yes, Godwin's Law has been proven here. *sigh*


No. What I presented was detailed history. The viewpoint you accept would be totally illogical given the immediate American acceptance of von Braun. Do you really think he would have been given the security clearance to act as he did had he been a Nazi? Just how stupid do you think Truman and Eisenhower were?

And regarding Godwin's law, the subject here is not Nazism but prejudice against individulas (it started out as those who watch Christian television) based upon false associations. You know, Pat Robertson the murderer. Von Braun the Nazi.

PS. And, by the way, to argue that von Braun does not appear to have been a Nazi does not in any way negate the reality of Nazism, the evil of Hitler, Goering, or any of their ilk, the landmark, unforgettable, unforgivable sinful horror of the Holocaust and the attempt to take over Europe, or any of the rest of it, before someone starts wrongly labeling anyone as an anti-Semite here.


----------



## Guindalf (Jun 13, 2001)

.....and all this is _precisely _ why the mods should have killed this thread when it first appeared!


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

DavidS said:


> And Godwin's Law is proven once again!


That's funny! I had never heard of that before  .

"Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Guindalf said:


> .....and all this is _precisely _ why the mods should have killed this thread when it first appeared!


You're probably right. This has gotten way out of hand, and I will attempt to escalate it no further.

I just got riled up when bigots became a protected class a few postings ago.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

Guindalf said:


> .....and all this is _precisely _ why the mods should have killed this thread when it first appeared!


Ah, well. One thread as a philsophical diversion to the technical....


----------



## Tekneek (Sep 23, 2004)

Since the topic is here, and some have checked out the programming of this channel, what educational programming do they carry?


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

Tekneek said:


> Since the topic is here, and some have checked out the programming of this channel, what educational programming do they carry?


I only tuned the station in a coulple of times to check it out after seeing this thread. From what I understand, although I am far from an expert on the topic, religious programming meets the standards of being educational.


----------



## john-duncan-yoyo (Oct 13, 2004)

dtremain said:


> Al-Jazeera?


Isn't that the Fox News of the middle east.


----------



## Phantom Gremlin (Jun 20, 2002)

john-duncan-yoyo said:


> Isn't that the Fox News of the middle east.


Just like CNN is the Fox News of Manhattan and Santa Monica.


----------



## Tekneek (Sep 23, 2004)

Boston Fan said:


> I only tuned the station in a coulple of times to check it out after seeing this thread. From what I understand, although I am far from an expert on the topic, religious programming meets the standards of being educational.


Just by virtue of being religious it is automatically educational? So, any 'channel' that is entirely religious and lacking commercials automatically qualifies as a 'public interest' channel. What a nice deal.


----------



## Jabberer (Oct 4, 2000)

Guindalf said:


> .....and all this is _precisely _ why the mods should have killed this thread when it first appeared!


Why? Are we so concerned about always being politically correct that even a civil discussion about the world as this (mostly) is is verboten? Sad state of affairs if that's true.

As to my Nazi reference, I'll appologize to those of you offended by it - it was simply what popped into my mind at the time. Perhaps if I had used the Khmer Rouge that would have been better? 

Godwins Law is what it is because the "N" people (can't use the word anymore, alas ) are universally known and reviled. Few other groups fall under that umbrella, so they make a handy comparator. Just because they're over-used doesn't mean it's wrong to use them.

As to whether or not the groups I used can be said to be stereotypes or not, I stand by my statement. While the group can be said to be evil, not *all* "N" people were evil, I'm sure, just as I'm sure that not all Democrats and Republicans are evil.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

Tekneek said:


> Just by virtue of being religious it is automatically educational? So, any 'channel' that is entirely religious and lacking commercials automatically qualifies as a 'public interest' channel. What a nice deal.


Like I said, I'm not an expert on FCC regs (or an apologist for the station that started the discussion, as I don't watch it). The following quotes are from the FCC letter posted earlier in the thread:

"...(DBS) providers must reserve four percent of their channel capacity exclusively for use by qualified programmers..."

"In order to qualify for carriage on the reserved channels, an entity must be a noncommercial programmer with an educational mission,3 and programming on qualified public interest channels cannot include advertisements.4 No other qualification criteria apply."

"The Commissions rules and Order, and the underlying statute, do not suggest or provide that a programmer offering programming of a religious nature should be disqualified from access to reserved channels if it otherwise meets the set-aside qualifications.5 Further, the Commissions rules do not require that reserved capacity be allocated among different genres of programming."


----------



## Tekneek (Sep 23, 2004)

I guess the only room for debate would be how the programming on these channels qualifies as having an "educational mission" and whether that is determined by the channel or some other body. Any channel could claim they have an "educational mission", just wondering how a purely religious programming schedule brings with it that mission. 

I just thought somebody might know what part of the programming indicates a clear "educational mission." I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else involved with the thread.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Jabberer said:


> As to whether or not the groups I used can be said to be stereotypes or not, I stand by my statement. While the group can be said to be evil, not *all* "N" people were evil, I'm sure, just as I'm sure that not all Democrats and Republicans are evil.


I disagree. It is not the stated purpose of the Democratic or Republican Party to do an act that the civilized and moral world would universally view as evil.

Go read _Mein Kampf_ and learn what the German people knew they were buying into when they democratically elected Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor and put his party into power.

The philosophical movement of the "superman" which had swept through Germany during the 19th century from the writings of Nietzsche to the operas of Wagner came to an ugly head after the economic devastation that Germany suffered as a result of World War I. When the economy went into the toilet and everyone was out of work, they looked for the non -"ubermensch" to blame. That "other" race became the Jews who had known great financial success as merchants.

Desperation easily turned to hatred and the people chose leaders who they knew would seek a terrible solution in driving the new-found "cause" from the landscape.

When a people act in such a way, they are acting evily. There is no justification, only the nightmare of man's gross inhumanity. Threre are no good Nazis. There were, however, many Germans who were in the minority and were not Nazis. If they were open about it, they did so at their own great risk.


----------



## dtremain (Jan 5, 2004)

Tekneek said:


> I guess the only room for debate would be how the programming on these channels qualifies as having an "educational mission" and whether that is determined by the channel or some other body. Any channel could claim they have an "educational mission", just wondering how a purely religious programming schedule brings with it that mission.
> 
> I just thought somebody might know what part of the programming indicates a clear "educational mission." I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else involved with the thread.


Without getting into any kind of secularism here, clearly, any effort at religious "teaching" is educational. By precedent, relligious programming has long fallen squarely into this FCC regulation. Pretty much any religious programming you see, or hear on the radio, is being used to fulfill the requirement.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

Tekneek said:


> I guess the only room for debate would be how the programming on these channels qualifies as having an "educational mission" and whether that is determined by the channel or some other body. Any channel could claim they have an "educational mission", just wondering how a purely religious programming schedule brings with it that mission.
> 
> I just thought somebody might know what part of the programming indicates a clear "educational mission." I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else involved with the thread.


I didn't take it as anything other than a good question  .

By their very definition, religious stations exist to educate about their religion. A quick check of their line-up over the past couple of days lists shows like "Ask the Pastor", "School of Bible", Christian documentaries, and sermons. All of these seem to clearly fit the definition of educational, although the audience is very specific.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

dtremain said:


> Al-Jazeera?


Al-Jazeera actually has a very strong reputation as a good news organization.

Of course they are biased towards the Arab world as that is the world-view of most of its employees. But all US-based news agencies are biased towards the US as the world-view of their employees is US-centric.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> Al-Jazeera actually has a very strong reputation as a good news organization.
> 
> Of course they are biased towards the Arab world as that is the world-view of most of its employees. But all US-based news agencies are biased towards the US as the world-view of their employees is US-centric.


I saw an interesting piece on them a year or so ago. It seemed to indicate that many in the Arab world get irritated by Al-Jazeera because they see them as too pro west.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Phantom Gremlin said:


> Just like CNN is the Fox News of Manhattan and Santa Monica.


Funny. I watch CNN and think they are totally right-wing. Yet others watch them and think they are left-wing.

But, of course, I'd have anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 shot for treason if I could.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Boston Fan said:


> I saw an interesting piece on them a year or so ago. It seemed to indicate that many in the Arab world get irritated by Al-Jazeera because they see them as too pro west.


A good sign of a news organization is to be seen as biased by both sides of a paritcular issue. Same as any good bargain derived from negotiation makes both sides feel like they gave up too much.


----------



## Boston Fan (Feb 8, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> A good sign of a news organization is to be seen as biased by both sides of a paritcular issue. Same as any good bargain derived from negotiation makes both sides feel like they gave up too much.


The best negotiations are the ones where each side feels like the OTHER side gave up too much .


----------



## unixadm (Jan 1, 2001)

This is way off topic....time to


----------

