• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

OK Governor vetoes bill to re-create OETV authority

The governor isn't talking about selling OETV. But they're also not talking about shutting it down.

This just appears to be a temper tantrum.
True and the allegations Governor Stitt is ranting about PBS and OETA is not in Kids programs. The part where LGBT issues that are discussed are from the divisions of local PBS affiliates that do News and Documentaries.
 
True like New Jersey a decade ago sold NJN TV Stations to WNET-TV
NJN Radio, too. Their stations got gobbled up by WNYC and WHYY.

Christie promised that "New York Public Radio will create a new public radio station focused on New Jersey news, and with a bureau in the Garden State." But as far as I can tell, their NJ stations are just a simulcast of WNYC, except for one half-hour weekday program, and an overnight simulcast of Newark's Jazz station WBGO.
 
Oklahoma legislature voted to override the governor's veto of the OETA funding bill:




It wasn't a close vote either.

That's the original vote from back in April.

Last week's vote was 73-23 in the Oklahoma House to override the OETA veto and the Oklahoma Senate did the same thing later in the day.
 
These folks are really afraid of gay & trans people. More afraid of 'catching' what they have than getting covid.

Last I checked, gay & trans people are citizens who pay taxes. They are covered by all the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. That alone makes all these laws unconstitutional.

Regarding OETV in the OP, from what I can see, the bill had enough votes to override the governor's veto.


If the governor doesn't want the network to do certain things, he can tell them not to do it. That's no reason to shut them down completely.

I don't think these poiticians whining about LGBT content on PBS and NPR even considered that they borrowed a playbook from China all for political gain similar to the Xi Jinping Administration. But in the United States we protest by the ballot box by considering the congressional allies we vote for. Also we need to wait for multiple Congressional hearings and Supreme Court rulings to find out in our case.

No 'sissy men' allowed​

An intolerance of supposedly "effeminate" men is not exclusive to Chinese culture. But the Chinese government openly endorses the stance, even actively promotes it.
Earlier this year, the education ministry called on schools to reform their physical education offerings, in a notice with a title that left no doubt about its ultimate goal: The Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents.
The text advised recruiting retired athletes and people from sporting backgrounds to help develop sports with a view to "cultivating students' masculinity".It came months after top political adviser Si Zefu voiced concern that there was a trend among young Chinese males towards "feminisation", which "would inevitably endanger the survival and development of the Chinese nation" unless it was "effectively managed". Then, in September, China's broadcasting regulator issued a ban on "effeminate" men appearing on TV and video streaming sites - even using a Chinese derogatory term in the process.
 
Last edited:

I don't think these poiticians whining about LGBT content on PBS and NPR even considered that they borrowed a playbook from China all for political gain similar to the Xi Jinping Administration. But in the United States we protest by the ballot box by considering the congressional allies we vote for. Also we need to wait for multiple Congressional hearings and Supreme Court rulings to find out in our case.
Russia as well, not to mention Hungary.
 
Iraq, Iran, and most of the MidEast. And many of the countries in Africa.

It's a form of religious terrorism used against people who are viewed as being counter to a particular religion.

The laws being passed in this country against these groups are based in religion, and therefore unconstitutional.
Not with this Supreme Court, they aren't. Yes, we are being compelled to practice the religion of a few select branches of Christianity.
 
Not with this Supreme Court, they aren't. Yes, we are being compelled to practice the religion of a few select branches of Christianity.

Correct. Conservatives don't understand that Christianity is not a unified religion. The reason the Pilgrims came to the US was to escape religious persecution from other Christians. The reason why the founders wrote the 1st amendment was to protect Christians from other Christians, never expecting Muslims or Jews or atheists. The use of government to impose religion-based laws on everyone is against the 1st amendment.
 
The reason why the founders wrote the 1st amendment was to protect Christians from other Christians, never expecting Muslims or Jews or atheists.
That was resolved by the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams in 1796, which explicitly states "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion":

 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom