If you recall several days back when I wrote about a social media post from former legislative candidate Joel Koskan against public broadcasting’s funding, the issue seems to have come up again.
Except this time, it’s coming from close to the top as a member of Governor Kristi Noem’s staff mentions that it could be an issue in the near future:
When reached for comment on the governor’s stance regarding SDPB’s funding, Noem’s Communication Director Ian Fury credited the idea’s discussion with SDPB “supporting radical ideology,” but avoided saying the governor supported cutting funding now.
“We’re not surprised to see citizens and legislators voicing their opposition to SDPB supporting radical ideology,” Fury said. “Ibram Kendi and out-of-state professional activists do not represent the values of South Dakotans. SDPB should challenge those individuals on-air for their radical liberal and Marxist beliefs, not give them a free pass from critique. SDPB can do better.”
💥Joel Koskan with the win. First homeschooling now this!
Absolutely should be defunded. But I’ll believe it when I see it. I doubt our legislature has the guts to do it
WHY??
If you want to watch PBS Newshour and BBC World News and the likes of Christiane Amanpour and Yamiche Alcindor your more then welcome. But you pay for it yourself. Not with tax dollars
Sounds reasonable. Remind me what the rationale for public funding of SDPB/NPR is again? The fare is generally either boring, leftwing, or both. Not really a public good if you ask me.
If political hacks want to feign seriousness and journalistic integrity on air, fine — but let them go earn their living in the marketplace.
(I mean, not everyone at SDPB/NPR is a hack, of course… but, boy, more than a few are.)
Here’s an idea: The public should take what it gives to SDPB and NPR and instead give it to Greenwald, Taibi, Weinstein, and other people like that over at substack and other alternative venues. The most important journalism being done today is by people like that and not the crusty, arrogant legacy-left media anyway.
Yeah, we should fund only right wing- nut media… DO you even have a clue what you are suggesting? Do you know that stupidity is the greatest threat to this country? Do you know what you are suggesting is a big part of fascism? No, and you people don’t care….
Is it fair to have to watch legislative sessions at midnight if you want to find out what is happening at the Capitol. What’s worse is that both chambers were broadcast at the same time.on 2 different South Dakota Public channels. Crazy.
I wasn’t being serious that we should use public dollars to fund Greenwald etc. (everyone I mentioned is, in fact, on the left, btw). I am, however, serious that we should consider defunding SDPB/NPR. Having public dollars go to politically biased news outfits is problem.
You got it! Glad to see someone with some brains posting here.
Hell is freezing over.
Pull the funding for this left wing operation.
Let all the left leaning businesses support their friends at PBS and radical agenda.
Roll tape!
You are an insult to Ed Murrow…. If it was left to you fascists the only media allowed would broadcast only praise and celebration of your “glorious leader”—-
it has nothing to do with ideology.
The purpose of public broadcasting was to supply communication to such sparsely populated media markets that it wasn’t economically viable for commercial broadcasters to provide service.
It was considered important to civil defense, for one thing.
To fill air time not consumed by air raid drills and tornado warnings (remember hearing “this is a test. for the next sixty seconds this station will conduct a test of the emergency broadcast system. This is only a test?” ) the public broadcasting companies had educational programming.
The need for it is over. There are no under-served media markets left. Time has come to stop funding it; they can sell advertising spots like everybody else
in the business.
That is exactly what today’s main stream media do and what social media allow. Just who is fascist?
What a bunch of crybabies. I remember when the SDGOP rank and file didn’t cry every time someone they didn’t like was interviewed on the radio. How far we’ve fallen.
Whiners, all. Abolish the funding.
Republicans have for over 50 years been idiotically funding their opponents on PBS and NPR.
Maybe we should just make all the pbs folks take loyalty pledges to America and we can monitor their online activity like the nsa is doing to Tucker now.
Ps- will kelo or kdfy cover session going forward once we stick it to the libs?
Ksfy and kelo both have a fairly prominent presence at session
Of course it’s a great idea, not to mention about 20 years late. But we are being gaslit as usual by our Governor. Stop believing these phony liars and start holding them accountable for the constant lies.
Exactly! If she wants it done then DO IT. Don’t support it then oppose it after it passes like she has been known to do
all of you who think it deserves a penny of public money need to answer one question:
where in the US is public broadcasting the only telecommunication service available?
I’ll wait.
South Dakota Public Broadcasting is exceptionally biased and subjective toward anti-American gateway ideologies.
There is zero doubt in my mind that top shelf journalism is completely wasted on South Dakota. Y’all deserve Joel Koskan and his mob.
Over forty years ago, Governor Janklow appointed me to the SDPB board. During my short service (I had to resign when I left the state to finish my education), I took great effort to understand all the different missions of SDPB, many of which are unrelated to the liberal bias at the center of most criticism. Some of them include:
1). TV and radio coverage of the Legislature, which to this day is actually done more by SDPB than the other media sources.
2). Coverage of major SD high school athletic events. Again, they actually have expanded coverage from my days on the board.
3). Daytime educational programming for children.
4). Opportunity to culture (I.e. classical music and plays) not otherwise available to rural South Dakota.
5). Access to more in-depth news, opinion, and analysis than was found on commercial media.
While there are other missions, as you can see, in some cases, SDPB has actually become more critical (#1, #2, and #5 with regard to state news. And in others (#3, #4, and #5 with regard to national news) where alternatives have become available.
Like many areas of government, the above pressures for reform have been coming for decades and like in the case of #4 accelerated in the past decade but SDPB (and even more so the national entity) has not been proactively been adjusting (or doing so too slowly).
On top of this, some (liberal elements) have been willing use the entity as a political mouthpiece in the public square while some (conservative elements) were willing to just throw out the entire thing because of its liberal bias in mostly the news (which is a small component of the whole entity).
Both sides failed to try to make it better and more relevant as realities in the real world changed as neither at the national and state legislative/executive levels diddo the hard work of forcing the entity to reform itself as the world changed but chose to make political hay so we now have a moribund behemoth with huge problems. To me the analogy is public broadcasting has become an old building falling down from neglect and a nostalgia for its old carpeting and wood paneling.
Personally, SDPB can be a positive resource in our state. Unfortunately, SDPB didn’t reform itself so it is imperative the Legislature honestly and sincerely force reforms lest it continue to become a building which has to be torn down.
I still believe public broadcasting has a place but it must be remodeled or in the end it will fall down like an old barn in the prairie, as it is perilously close to being beyond repair.