Two questions – one answer

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 2nd, 2017 at 08:00 am

The New York Times: “Is PBS still necessary?”

PBS: “Is the New York Times still necessary?”

(Via necessary Rich Stadnik)

Posted by Tim B. on 02/24/2008 at 10:29 AM
    1. Answer:  No.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 02 24 at 10:44 AM • permalink


    1. I agree: No.

      But it’s still amusing watching the blue-on-blue engagements.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 24 at 11:10 AM • permalink


    1. I believe the correct answer is hell no.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 24 at 11:15 AM • permalink


    1. A plague on both their houses.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2008 02 24 at 11:25 AM • permalink


    1. #4: Paco Enterprises’ military ordnance subsidiary is selling to both sides. PBS has been a big purchaser of our line of instagrenandes (“Pull pin, count to one, then throw”), while the NYT has invested heavily in the P-47 automatic rifle (the one with the U-shaped barrel).

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 24 at 11:50 AM • permalink


    1. The NYT is nothing more than a concept (liberal rag) to me.

      PBS is at least of some use. NOVA, Antiques Roadshow, and Motorweek are (barely) enough justification for it’s continued existance, for me anyway.

      Oh, and some of the PBS HD channel travel shows look good.

      Posted by rinardman on 2008 02 24 at 12:12 PM • permalink


    1. The New York Times: “Is PBS still necessary?”

      PBS: “Is the New York Times still necessary?”

      Absolutely! I depend upon them for political, moral and social guidance. Whatever they advocate, I do the opposite.

      Even their movie reviews are invaluable. Had it not been for the NYT, I might have seen Michael Clayton at the theater rather than Transformers. That was a hella stoopid-fun popcorn-muncher!

      Posted by Dave S. on 2008 02 24 at 12:12 PM • permalink


    1. Ululululululu!!

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 24 at 12:25 PM • permalink


    1. So the UK Muslims are going after Doritos now? WTFF?

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 02 24 at 01:08 PM • permalink


    1. From paco’s Daily Mail link:

      “In previous assessments by Muslim scholars, foods and drinks that contain trace amounts of ethyl alcohol have been confirmed as permissible for Muslim consumption because of both the fact that the ingredient does not bear its original qualities and does not change the taste, colour or smell of the product, and its very low level.”

      Not that seems to deter the Islamic Seethe Brigades…

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 02 24 at 01:11 PM • permalink


    1. …commercials in all but name have been a regular feature on public television, and that’s not to mention pledge programs, the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding.

      Lol.  Very true.

      Posted by Mystery Meat on 2008 02 24 at 01:21 PM • permalink


    1. 1.  I do enjoy Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery on PBS; can’t think of a thing my life would lack without the NYTimes.

      2.  I agree with this fellow:  “More crisps for me then.”

      – Daniel, Ambleside, Cumbria

      Posted by ushie on 2008 02 24 at 01:26 PM • permalink


    1. Of course we need PBS. Where else will we get to watch endless episodes of such stellar contributions to the arts as Are You Being Served? and Antique Roadshow?

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2008 02 24 at 01:50 PM • permalink


    1. I find PBS and NPR embarrassing on many levels, but the #1 reason is their pandering to BoBo Anglophilia. Why does NPR have to use the BBC as a regular news provider? We fought a war to become independent from Britain, but these Volvo liberals cast longing eyes on England’s gun control and government health care and pine for the mother country’s shriveled teat.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2008 02 24 at 02:06 PM • permalink


    1. Hey, I don’t get cable.  PBS is the only place I can my Felicity Kendal fixes.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 02 24 at 02:44 PM • permalink


    1. Answers:

      1.  No

      2.  No

      3.  the Madagascar Cork Weevil (yes, it was a trick question)

      4.  Felicity Kendal is available on DVD

      Posted by Baby M on 2008 02 24 at 03:30 PM • permalink


    1. I understand the Old Grey Lady’s stock market value is heading towards Venezuela at a cracking pace

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 02 24 at 04:51 PM • permalink


    1. After the recent job cuts at the NYT it seems the readers have made up their minds who is not needed.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 02 24 at 05:14 PM • permalink


    1. One of those conservatives spilling over the local opinion levees is Paul Sheehan. He has taken the NYT to task over the McCain Affair.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 24 at 05:23 PM • permalink


    1. No and No. However, not even life itself is “necessary”. Better question is: Are the NYT and PBS deserving of continuance. NO and NO.

      Anyway, good to see the lefty orgs go at each other with such gusto.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 02 24 at 06:30 PM • permalink


    1. Only good thing on PBS is car Talk with teh Tappet Brothers.

      I haven’t seen the NYT for so long, I can’t even imagine what might be worthy in it. The stock price page, perhaps?

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 02 24 at 06:33 PM • permalink


    1. #7 DaveS, I got to see Michael Clayton on my flight back from my week in the aquarium Caribbean. I didn’t pay five bucks for the headphones, so I was able to concentrate upon that Cluney’s acting ability. Zero. He didn’t move a facial muscle once. No character development. Nada. And it wasn’t that the director was saying: “poker face, remember poer-face”.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 02 24 at 06:41 PM • permalink


    1. When’s the PBS Museum Sounds recording that I saw on The Simpsons coming out?

      What’s the prime content, muffled farts?

      Posted by egg_ on 2008 02 24 at 07:06 PM • permalink


    1. The stunning (and stunningly expensive) BBC documentary “Planet Earth,” for example, which in the old days would have been a natural for PBS, was instead broadcast on the Discovery Channel, which could presumably better afford it. The Showtime series “The Tudors” is just the kind of thing — only better produced and with more nudity — that used to make “Masterpiece Theater” (now simply “Masterpiece”), once the flagship of PBS, so unmissable. Now it’s so strapped for cash that it has pretty much settled into an all-Jane Austen format.

      The partially? privatised Beebs is now producing more spensive content, which is going to (users)Pay TV?

      The punters no longer subsidising highbrow entertainment? – Phatty, quick, watch out!

      No more cinematic tedium produced on the Oz public teat? … please!

      Posted by egg_ on 2008 02 24 at 07:17 PM • permalink


    1. ’still’?

      Posted by bgates on 2008 02 24 at 08:10 PM • permalink


    1. NYT all the news that is fit to stink.
      While the PBS is Probably B… Stupid.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 24 at 08:19 PM • permalink


  1. Everybody else: “Are the NY Times and PBS still necessary?”

    Answer: No.

    All Jane Austen? Heck, Saturday night my PBS station played a 1987 program about Natalie Wood!

    Posted by JimC on 2008 02 24 at 11:11 PM • permalink