If we are to get rid of government support to public broadcasting, let's also get rid of tax exempt status to religious organizations. In the last few weeks the catholic churches altars are being used as political soapboxes. This, I believe is not allowed under the tax exempt rules, and having to listen to political messages from the altar, when most of us are desiring to hear spiritual enlightment is extremely irritating, like nails scratching a chalk board.

Public broadcasting is under attack, not because of costs, but because it does not participate in the current main stream propaganda, brainwashing and manipulation of the American people.

Do not do like Obama in the debate, dont be passive lowering your head to these attacks. Stand strong and expose the political forces behind this movement. Follow the money....

Stacy Harris from Nashville, Tennessee

I have yet to encounter any critique of President Obama's debate performance that has noted the presence of a split screen. When the president appeared (in head shots) to be looking down and disengaged he may have actually been taking notes, just as Mitt Romney was at times (in full body shots) when he appeared to be more engaged than the president.

And, of course, as anyone who has ever been on a debate team will tell you, none of the presidential candidates' "debates" meet a dictionary definition.

Stacy Harris
Publisher/Executive Editor/Media Critic
Stacy's Music Row Report
http://stacyharris.com

I have yet to encounter any critique of President Obama's debate performance that has noted the presence of a split screen. When the president appeared (in head shots) to be looking down and disengaged he may have actually been taking notes, just as Mitt Romney was at times (in full body shots) when he appeared to be more engaged than the president.

And, of course, as anyone who has ever been on a debate team will tell you, none of the presidential candidates' "debates" meet a dictionary definition.

Stacy Harris
Publisher/Executive Editor/Media Critc
Stacy's Music Row Report
http://stacyharris.com

How did this debate segment fail to mention that the New York Times made no mention of the Romney victory (landslide?) on its front page or even in the inside pages. The operative word was "spar", as if 45 million Americans were watching an academic debate. (Even Thomas Friedman's Sunday Oct 7 column acknowledged the Romney victory).
We all know the feelings about the Times on the Obama/Romney issue, but why didn't On The Media even mention the distortion of the news of the seminal debate, in this case by omission?
Could On The Media be harboring the same biases? If so, who is going to out public radio?