Looks like funding for these public services is being voted on by Congress very soon. Here is a petition you can sign to make sure they get their funding.
Sure it's through "MoveOn", but a petition for a good cause is a petition for a good cause. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Where do you sign the petition to cut/eleminate their federal funding?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That was going to be my question, Pixiest.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Terrible. If PBS and NPR goes away it means no more opera broadcasts. I grew up on PBS, discovered opera because of it and spend every Saturday during opera season listening to the Metropolitian opera on NPR. There is NO WAY federal funding should be cut for it!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Why should we fund it? Why can’t it do it on it’s own?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Dag, Pixiest why do you want to remove their federal funding?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because I philosophically oppose government funding of purely expressive activities when limited resources require content-based decisions to be made in selecting what gets subsidized.
I think Pixiest's objection might be far broader.
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
NPR is so far to the left. Their reporting is always so slanted. I hope they lose their funding. PBS I never watch so I don't know about that. Either way, why should the gov't fund such things as radio and tv programs in the first place?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I figure that if PBS cannot stay afloat with all of the Seasamie Street toys sold, it deserves to go under.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I don't want NPR and PBS to lose their funding.
On the other hand, if they are able to finance themselves totally through private grants and contributions, they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I don't want NPR and PBS to lose their funding.
On the other hand, if they are able to finance themselves totally through private grants and contributions, they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.
There's a good point... They can put all sorts of outrageous and contraversal stuff on. I know some of the best documentaries I've seen have been on PBS.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: they will no longer be beholden to government officials who want to mold or control in any way what they put on the air.
That is almost hilarious -- since NPR (especially) is to biggest government-funded ANTI-government programming I know of. The government is allowing their dollars to go to air propaganda that only slams the government. I have never understood that thinking!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
This is great, for once I agree with a majority of the posters on a political topic. Wow…. What a feeling. I think I might faint…….
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The government is allowing their dollars to go to air propaganda that only slams the government.
This makes me suspect that you have not perhaps actually listened to much NPR programming. While I'd prefer that they played less slow jazz and maybe hired somebody who didn't sound like he was on valium, I don't think you can level an "anti-American" charge at them.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I've signed...I for one don't want them to lose funding.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I listen to NPR all the time, and the really aren't all the far to the left. In fact, they aren't to the left at all. Of all the news organizations out there, they are the most unbaised I've ever listened to. Perhaps, in comparison to many of the others, that makes them seem like they are biased to one way or the other, but they aren't. The reporting is generally straight reporting of the facts and when they have commentary they'll have commentary from both sides of the issue.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's the only non-asinine programming available. Why on earth do we want to see it privatized?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I only ever watch PBS anymore. If they stop broadcasting, can you imagine how out-of-touch I'd get?
I don't know how Utah supports 2 stations with a population of only 2 million.
P.S. The email they'll be sending to my congresspeople wasn't very polite. I inserted "Thank you for the many years of PBS blah blah." The "Congress must fund PBS" doesn't seem like it will go over very well. Maybe I should volunteer to help them write a letter than doesn't sound like a threat.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:NPR is so far to the left. Their reporting is always so slanted. I hope they lose their funding.
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. A recent study of NPR news reports over the past 2 decades, concluded that NPR was neutral to slightly right leaning. They based their conclusion on the number of times conservative vs liberal persons were interviewed and the slants on the interviews.
The perception that NPR is far to left comes from right wingers who are so extreme that they have no idea where the neutral ground lies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But that underscores my reason for not wanting it funded - someone will always be underrepresented, and thus disadvantaged in the government funded forum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think you can level an "anti-American" charge at them.
She didn't claim this. She claimed that they were anti-American government.
Which is pretty accurate at the moment, but I think much of that is just because the government leans to the Right right now.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If the government only supported their cheerleaders, that wouldn't do much for the free-thought atmosphere we've long been so proud of here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have definitely, definitely heard very left-slanted stories on NPR. The most extreme bias I have ever heard there are the stories on abortion, but the election coverage was also often blatantly biased.
I am not a right-winger, and I am not extreme.
I love NPR, and I want it to keep its funding. I don't care about PBS, but NPR is different from anything else on the radio, and I like that, even if I don't agree with everything I hear.
----
Annie, I think that's the reason it is biased. They'd rather take action than be cheerleaders, and that often means moving contrarily to the largest coherent source of power and activity, the government. That means a left-leaning voice.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
NPR isn’t biased??!?! Please. That is unreal to even say. That’s like saying John Kerry and Hillary Clinton aren’t liberal. I’ve heard their news, it’s even more biased then CNN. Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?
Besides, they’ve already admitted they’re liberal: NPR Admits a Liberal Bias Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd say that there's bias in NPR's reporting; honestly I don't know if it's possible for a news piece *not* to have some sort of a slant, due to the fact that human beings are the ones producing the stories, and even choices such as which bits of information to include, where to cut off the sound bite, etc can't help but have an impact on how a story is going to be perceived.
For example, it's only on NPR that I've heard the recent clip in which Bush was talking about conditions in the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay played through long enough to get to the point where Bush refers to the former inmates of the camp who are telling tales of their treatment there as "disassemblers", and then goes on to explain to the reporters gathered that a "disassembler" is someone who tells lies. It's possible that more conservative news sources have aired that part of Bush's speech, but I haven't heard them doing so, and I'd be surprised if they did, since he comes off as a bit of an idiot in it.
I'm also fairly sure that I've heard more coverage of the Downing Street memos on NPR than I have from more conservative news stations.
I don't think that it's a bad thing, to have a news source that isn't completely in step with the others, and I think that it's an actively good thing to have a news source that isn't owned by a for-profit corporation. Having the news media be owned by a handful of companies and individuals is a dangerous thing, I think, and if I had my way it wouldn't be allowed. The existence of entities such is NPR, PRI, and BPS is an actively good thing, as they are news channels that by definition aren't going to be owned by the Ted Turners and Rupert Murdochs of the world. I'm glad that NPR exists, and I think that it serves a purpose in this country that is well worth funding.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I've never gotten the anti-government vibe from NPR, and I listen to it almost exclusively on my way to and from work every day. If anything, they tend to give more coverage to the Republican powermonger point of view.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yanno, I just can't get as fired up about saving public broadcasting as I used to. I'm not going to shout "Down with PBS", but its (and NPR's) survival, sadly, just gets a lukewarm, uninspired feeling from me.
Maybe it's because even though I see a need for non-commercial broadcasting, I'm just so unenthused by their programming. Once in a great while something comes on PBS that is the most interesting thing on TV at that moment. But it is once in a GREAT while.
And NPR ... man, I've had my share of opera, slow jazz and chamber music. The news is as dry and slanted as the south side of Cheop's last condo.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I'm trying my best to stay out of the political debates. However, I do enjoy some of the programming I've seen on PBS and NPR.
I hope they get their funding. I don't care how much people politicize it, and try to destroy it for their own means. If PBS is eliminated, I'll be sad for the loss to our country. I truly think they provide some good service.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
My big down of supporting PBS is that there are so many channels doing the same thing that are doing it via commercial support. National Geographic, History Channel, Biography Channel and on and on. Why do we need to be spending money on something that others seem to be able to do without national support?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: And NPR ... man, I've had my share of opera, slow jazz and chamber music. The news is as dry and slanted as the south side of Cheop's last condo.
Very funny metaphor.
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: NPR isn’t biased??!?! Please. That is unreal to even say. That’s like saying John Kerry and Hillary Clinton aren’t liberal. I’ve heard their news, it’s even more biased then CNN. Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?
I also think continued support of NPR is an acceptable way to spend my tax dollars.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: Is there a chance you didn’t notice the bias since you agreed with it?
Is there a chance you that you see a bias, because you are unaware of the extent of your own right leaning bias?
My comment was not based on my personal observations but the report of study done last year which systematically investigated bias in NPR news reports. That study found NPR reports to be neutral to slightly right leaning. The study found that over the past 15 years, NPR was more interviewed more republicans than democrats (even when democrats controlled the executive and legislative branches) and that they were more likely to present republicans in a positive light than democrats.
You, and most of the right wing in the US, are begging the question when they make accusations that the media has a liberal bias. Prove it to me. Show me where the media has selectively excluded data to make the lefts position more favorable. Show me that this is a consistent trend in reporting and not an isolated incident. Perhaps you percieve a liberal bias because the facts just don't support your conservative POV.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
yeah, Tom. I wasn't talking about the jazz (I actually like jazz) -- pretty much all I've heard on NPR is NPR News, and I wasn't very impressed.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Rabbit -- did you have a internet link to that study? I would like to read it.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
:D
I just got it. Very funny, Sopwith.
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]
My comment was not based on my personal observations but the report of study done last year which systematically investigated bias in NPR news reports. That study found NPR reports to be neutral to slightly right leaning. The study found that over the past 15 years, NPR was more interviewed more republicans than democrats (even when democrats controlled the executive and legislative branches) and that they were more likely to present republicans in a positive light than democrats.
I think you can find that report on the same page as the story about L. Brent Bozell in the link I give above.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is there a chance you that you see a bias, because you are unaware of the extent of your own right leaning bias?
There's a chance, but I don't think so. There's also a chance that the study you cite is crippled by its own prejudices.
Example of bias (taken from my own post on another forum):
I noticed it first during a discussion on abortion. Someone did a study that says if a certain number of justices die, are replaced by anti-abortion judges, the right case comes before the court, and the stars align in an unholy pattern, abortion may be made illegal. That was the only side presented, and the story closed with a warning that if Bush is re-elected this terrible thing may happen.
It was as if there wasn't even another side to the abortion question, and those that did not consider abortion to be a natural right were part of a dangerous fringe group instead of half the nation. I've seen the same attitude in every major publication I can think of. Even normally balanced entities (like Newsweek tried to be before it turned into a fluffy shopping mag) have wildly unbalanced abortion stories.
50% of America does not think abortion should be granted freely as long as it is the woman demanding it, instead preferring that some restictions are there. The desired restrictions range from the type of procedure allowed to the limiting abortions depending on the circumstances under which the woman got pregnant, but you'd never know that half of America objects to abortion from NPR's coverage that I've heard.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Prove it? Ok. Easy enough. CBS fake documents. Dan Rather. Here’s a website that makes a living by Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias: http://www.mrc.org/ Have fun.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Bias at CBS, which is completely unrelated to PBS and NPR, proves bias at PBS and NPR? I am astonished.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I love NPR and PBS. I agree that some of their programming has a leftward slant. I'm thinking in particular of Fresh Air, an interview program with Teri Gross (sp?). But, even though I'm mostly conservative, I love to listen to her, and much of the other programming on NPR. My kids are allowed to watch only three things on TV: 1) videos of our choice; 2) sports, with no commercials; and 3) PBS children's programming, under our supervision. They love shows such as CyberChase, Between the Lions, and DragonTales, and so do we. I grew up on Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers and Electric Company.
Many of the most valuable shows on PBS and NPR are "Dry" in the sense that they have little commercial appeal. Without public radio/television, these programs would not air at all. I don't want (im)pure market forces to decide that these shows die, while Yu-Gi-Oh and Fear Factor stay on TV and Tom Leykis stays on the radio.
I get Dagonee's point about content-based judgments, but when a large portion of the programming is educational, community-based, or arts/crafts (in the case of PBS) or news (world, national, economic), human interest, and art (in the case of NPR), then there is really only limited room for politically charged programming, anyway. Most of the programming has little to no room for political positions, because it's about something else entirely.
I say keep funding the CPB, and maybe even increase the funding by cutting other places in the budget.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
What I wish ANY news program would do is curb the notion that only trouble and rumors of trouble is news. I would like to hear more about the positive during a news show. What's going RIGHT in the world? What problems are being solved? Where are people cooperating and getting along?
NPR is really good at bringing up a whole host of problems, interviewing a bunch of people to flesh out those problems, and then leaving me with the impression that there is no solution and that the world is going to pot. Some days I can take the weight of all the negative news, but sometimes I have to turn the station and listen to some music. Nothing ever seems to be going well on the news.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Actually, I feel like NPR does a BETTER job of covering positive news than do other sources. They often have whole programs devoted to just that. And even the more tragic and depressing news is presented in a less sensationalistic tone, and in a more matter-of-fact way.
I change the channel when I start getting too much repetition. The nature of NPR news means that you get in-depth coverage of big stories, but lots of repetition throughout the news day. That's good because people tune in at different times, but that also means you have to tune out after a while, too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't get a lot of positive from Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Although Morning Edition seems to have a bit more upbeat cast to it. But yeah, a lot of other shows on NPR are positive. I think Car Talk is the best show on radio, regardless of whether you know anything about cars. I laugh through that whole show.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I personally love NPR. I don't listen to the radio that much. But when I do, that's the only station I ever tune in to. I like the music. I love the news, and the way they do stories about things that you'd never hear about elsewhere. I love programs like Car Talk and All Things Considered. And I find their internet resources and archives incredibly valuable. That being the case, I have no problem with my tax dollars supporting NPR. And the same goes for PBS.
There is an important distinction, however. While I don't mind my money funding programming that I enjoy, I don't feel comfortable with taking other peoples' money to support my own tastes in information and entertainment. I'm sure there are plenty of people who have never listened to NPR, and never will do so in the future. Whether it is because of a political opinion or just lack of interest, it is their right to choose their diversions, and not their responsibility to fund mine. They didn't ask me to chip in when they bought a ticket to Monster-in-law or picked up the latest Kelley Clarkson album, and I don't think it would be fair for me to do the equivalent.
I sincerely hope that NPR doesn't go under. I have contributed to them in the past, and if the government cuts their funding, I'll probably contribute more in the future. But if they can't stay afloat with the resources of the people that listen to them, I can't see how it would be fair to blame the government or the uninterested taxpayer.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Car Talk is truly cool. And I don't know anything about the workings of cars, or have any interest therein.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
"What I wish ANY news program would do is curb the notion that only trouble and rumors of trouble is news."
Amen to that. This is why I generally don't watch the news. I used to watch News Hour until Paul Gigot left. Brooks seems out of his depth.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Three Words:
This American Life.
That show alone is worth the price of admission. Add other fantastic programming like Selected Shorts, Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, Car Talk, Whad'ya Know, and the always wonderful A Prairie Home Companion, and I don't see how anybody could support doing away with NPR. For the love of God, don't take my NPR away from me!!
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I like Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion. Though he might be well-known enough to get picked up by a commercially run station. Same for Click and Clack. I wouldn't want them to have to change to be more commercially viable.
And I think the news shows tend to have positive ones more often than you think -- just today they had a funny story about a woman in Alaska's living room was trashed by an eagle with a salmon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fugu, Jay was responding to this:
quote:Show me where the media has selectively excluded data to make the lefts position more favorable. Show me that this is a consistent trend in reporting and not an isolated incident.
It's clearly not limited to PBS/NPR.
quote:I get Dagonee's point about content-based judgments, but when a large portion of the programming is educational, community-based, or arts/crafts (in the case of PBS) or news (world, national, economic), human interest, and art (in the case of NPR), then there is really only limited room for politically charged programming, anyway. Most of the programming has little to no room for political positions, because it's about something else entirely.
My point isn't limited to just political views. Why should craft shows get public support? Why should art, or human interest?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, in that case, the CBS thing doesn't constitute more than an isolated incident. And they didn't selectively exclude data, either, they included data based on inadequate fact checking. Very different.
As for why those shows should get public support, dag, it depends; is there a legitimate government interest in supporting that sort of show? There's a legitimate government interest in criminalizing many seemingly mild things (such as bottle rockets), and I don't see how there should be some huge barrier to having a legitimate government interest in various sorts of programming. Thus, art shows should get public support if there's a government interest in promoting art; craft shows for craffts; human interest for the appropriate topic. Fairly decent arguments can be made for all these things.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Would those who enjoy NPR be willing to pony up enough cash to keep it going without tax dollars?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I love This American Life, especially the segments by David Sedaris and Sarah Vowell. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thanks to Joan Kroc, they most likely would be able to. PBS is a different story, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for why those shows should get public support, dag, it depends; is there a legitimate government interest in supporting that sort of show? There's a legitimate government interest in criminalizing many seemingly mild things (such as bottle rockets), and I don't see how there should be some huge barrier to having a legitimate government interest in various sorts of programming. Thus, art shows should get public support if there's a government interest in promoting art; craft shows for craffts; human interest for the appropriate topic. Fairly decent arguments can be made for all these things.
I know. I'm not raising a constitutional issue and saying it can't be done.
Given the inherent imbalance that will result given limited air time, though, I think it's an inappropriate place to spend our airtime. It's the government saying, "This is what we think it's good for people to know. But it's not so important that we're actually going to try to get the message out. It's just important enough that it should be there if they want it."
The people who watch PBS skew higher in income and education. They can afford to pay for this themselves.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:They can afford to pay for this themselves.
Dags is correct. I already contribute to NPR and if my favorite NPR shows move to satellite radio, I will probably subscribe to that as well. I have no problem with that.
However, I fell in love with NPR in high school and my family wasn't exactly wealthy. If NPR was a paid service back then, I would have lost out on a whole world of culture and information.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why should big corporations get federal funding and tax breaks? I say cut part of their funding, even a small fraction of it, and give it to PBS. Art and culture is important and should be supported. PBS shows all sorts of documentaries that channels like the Discovery channel wouldn't show. And that thing about the higher income, nope. If I could, I'd give funding to PBS and to the metropolitan opera broadcasts (which seem to have lost their corporate funding.) It will be years before I could afford to donate to them.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You see, it really all depends on what sort of country you want to live in.
Do you want to live in a country that supports art and culture (even if you don't necessarily like all of it).
Or do you want to live in a country that just goes out into the world and ****ING KILLS EVERYBODY!?!?!
(sorry, I just gotthrough watching that hilarious MAC rant video, and some of it has, I'm afraid, rubbed off)
--Steve
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
NPR is our version of the BBC, imo. And I think we should do what the UK does with the BBC funding... that way they are totally neutral and free from nasty corporate influence.
I think there should be a trust or endowment to forever preserve the independence of PBS/NPR.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
NPR is almost completely supported by nasty corporations influence. The majority of their money comes from nasty corporations. McDonald's founder's widow (or maybe someone else with McD's) left something like $200 million to PBS. They can exist without taxpayer money. I do want to live in a country that supports art and culture, but PBS/NPR is not art and culture exclusively. Remove their "news" shows and stick with things like Car talk and that would be just fine to have taxpayer support
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Do you want to live in a country that supports art and culture (even if you don't necessarily like all of it).
Or do you want to live in a country that just goes out into the world and ****ING KILLS EVERYBODY!?!?!
Can't we have both?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Reading this thread makes me realize how much my local NPR station kicks serious ascot. I have never heard slow jazz on it before. In fact, they play a lot of indie pop and rock bands. I think it helps that it is produced on a college campus, but doesn't suffer from the standard college radio stigma. It's quite professional, acutally.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I personally love my NPR station (way beyond the news, although I find the news on NPR to be far less sensationalized than commercial news).
From what I understand (from a local NPR spot), the portion of their funding that they receive from the government is 45%, with the rest supported by donations.
I personally don't see a whole lot of bias in NPR's news, but that's me. And, Jay, you think Fox News is unbiased, so I think some of us might have a bit of trouble giving credence to your definition of unbiased.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here is another link for those interested in saving PBS.
I told my Uncle who is a retired Colonel about this and he sent back a very interesting reply.
quote:Karl:
I think that two old sayings are germane:
"Even paranoids have enemies."
and
""Revolutions owe their allegiance to their source of arms."
What has always struck me as ironic is that those who oppose public funding for this or that because they perceive it has an "off-center" political bend - don't realize that they risk driving the effort into the open arms and deep pockets of people who really do.
The size of the audience of NPR will not be materially affected by whether it is privately or publically funded. On the other hand, the internal culture of self restraint is definitely driven by why folks think they were hired. People who think they were hired as "public servants" may indeed acquire a liberal or conservative bend over time, but are usually subject to correction if required. Folks who think they were hired to espouse a liberal or conservative viewpoint have a whole other idea about where their center line is supposed to be.
In the Clinton-Gore era, a tiny corner of the annual Army appropriation became an analogous battleground. It's called the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), or sometimes referred to by the title of the (then 12 person) office that ran it : the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM).
This program originated in the early 1900s, and was part of the whole cluster of policy ideas, like ROTC and the National Guard, that addressed pre-mobilization military training in the population at large. The program existed as a vehicle to sponsor shooting matches using US military service rifles, the idea being that guys who did this for a hobby would zip right through part of Basic Training if they were drafted in time of war. Over time, excess military ranges were made available to DCM. After WWII, as an incentive to increase membership, a program was initiated whereby a citizen, once a member of a DCM club and participant in X-number of matches, could purchase a surplus M1 rifle from the government through DCM for $1.
Before it became a political lobby, the NRA was primarily concerned with putting bullets down range, and worked closely with DCM. Over years of budget cuts, the little DCM staff basically just ran the rifle transfer program and general oversight of the National Service Match competition at Camp Perry, OH. The NRA gradually, assumed the rest.
Somewhere in early Clinton-Gore Space, the same kind of attack that is being waged on NPR was mounted on DCM. "How dare we spend Tax Dollars to practically give Battle Rifles away?!!!" "How dare we basically subsidize the Cynical, Evil and Satanic Gun Lobby, who are slaughtering our children on our streets and in our schools?!!" "Not in my name ... not with my tax money." "Mothers of America, unite!!!" etc. etc. etc.
The political fight went back and forth for several years. In the end DCM was "saved", but what very little of their public authority that remained was all but neutered.
I doubt that those who have their sights on NPR have this bit of history in mind, but maybe they should.
Posted by Parsimony (Member # 8140) on :
I have never found NPR news to be unbiased. I listen to it all the time. Heck, it's not like there's ever anything else on the radio worth listening to. I am considered pretty conservative by those who know my opinions, but I think NPR is pretty fair. ::shrug::
Our local NPR affiliate just had a fundraising drive a couple months ago, and they did just swimmingly. Even I, a lowly college student, gave them 40 dollars.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
AR, did you write what you mean to say? You post seems to contradict itself. First you said:
quote:Originally posted by Parsimony: I have never found NPR news to be unbiased.
[italics on "unbiased" added by me]
Then you said:
quote:Originally posted by Parsimony: I am considered pretty conservative by those who know my opinions, but I think NPR is pretty fair. ::shrug:: --ApostleRadio
So, do you consider them biased, or unbiased? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm trying to figure out what the appropriate word for me is in this contex. Hypocrite is close, but only as used in the common vernacular, not as the word really means.
In principle, I believe that the government should be involved in those things that we need a government to take care of. If it is possible for non-governmental entities to handle it, I think the government should stay out of it.
But the fact remains that I really like NPR and PBS. I don't want them to go.
Maybe it's not that I'm a hypocrite, but that I don't have a lot of conviction of those principles I earlier said I espouse.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
With all the Oil and Energy subsidies Bush and Company have laid out under their new enegry bill, we simply cannot afford to fund NPR and PBS any more.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
To get ride of PBS and NPR is basically saying we no longer care about real news or healthy programing. That we have surrenedered our airwaves and TV's to the dozen or so people that control alomst all of the media now. Bring on the meta-nationals... Who needs real news when we can have corporate hype.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Tell me about it. Different perspectives are needed. Otherwise, you never get the whole picture.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To get ride of PBS and NPR is basically saying we no longer care about real news or healthy programing.
quote:Different perspectives are needed. Otherwise, you never get the whole picture.
And yet no one has yet advanced a reason why government funding for this particular perspective is needed.
I don't care about the perceived bias. I care about the fact that government money is being spent on a very particular set of expression, as if that expression is inherently more valuable than other forms of expression.
I don't want government making that decision. And, if people are correct that decisions made by PBS and NPR are seperate from government, then I want to know why the government is involved at all.
Most people have to either pay or put up with commercials in order to see the programming they want to see. Why should the viewers of PBS get the special treatment of not needing to do that? What is inherently different about opera that it needs such protection? Or All Things Considered?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Let's do away with the delusion that a news program, written by humans and reporting on things affecting humanity, can be free of bias.
I disagree with NPR's stance on a lot of things. BUT-- I still support them because they are intelligent, thought-provoking, and considerate, and they cover lots of news that doesn't make it into the mainstream.
The service they provide is good enough to outweigh the negatives.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing- How is PBS a liberal media outlet? And if it is, why is that a bad thing? What is wrong with having a liberal perspective out there. The right has Fox News at least, and many of the news outlets fear the liberal label so much they are starting to lean a little to the right. It doesn't help that companies like GE or Disney own much of the media and only seem to report stories about the latest scandal instead of real news. It's bad enough Texaco-Chervon stopped supporting the Metropolitian Opera radio broadcasts. They are still trying to raise funds for it. I'd send them money if I could. What I think is that certain people only want one perspective out there and one perspective alone. It's not the first time the Republican party has tried to do away with public television's funding. How much tax money does it cost a year? How much tax money does it cost to subsidize companies that are making billions? I know I'd rather my hard earned tax dollars go to PBS. I can't think of a legit reasons NOT to support them and culture and the arts. If these people can spend billions of tax dollars to support people who don't need any support, they can spend a fraction of that to keep PBS and NPR alive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is PBS a liberal media outlet? And if it is, why is that a bad thing? What is wrong with having a liberal perspective out there.
Once again, I've not advanced any perspective as to whether or not PBS is a liberal media outlet. Nor have I advanced that as a reason for funding it. But if it were true, then it would absolutely be a reason to stop.
quote:What I think is that certain people only want one perspective out there and one perspective alone. It's not the first time the Republican party has tried to do away with public television's funding.
Alternatively, people don't think it's a legitimate function of government. But if you are seriously advancing this as a reason for funding PBS, then you are basically conceding that it is biased.
quote:I can't think of a legit reasons NOT to support them and culture and the arts.
I can't think of a legit reason to fund them. But if we should be funding things that one can't think of a legit reason not to fund, I'd like a less sexist, less commercialized pro-wrestling circuit. Right now, the only pro-wrestling available is saddled with jingoistic, sexist storylines and characters. I'd like to be able to see matches without these things, which are basically inserted for commercial reasons.
I don't think NPR and PBS shouldn't exist. I just don't think they should be subsidized.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
So Dag, how do you feel about the tax dollars (perhaps in the form of tax breaks) going to subsidize companies already making billions?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not a fan of it.
But I don't consider tax deductions "subsidies."
If people want to make television production and broadcast costs tax deductible, I'd be fine with that. As long as the policy was applied without respect to viewpoint or content.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well, I said perhaps in the form of tax breaks. From what other people have said here, I would guess that there are many examples of federal funding going to for profit companies for one reason or another. That was more what I was talking about. I'm too tired to do the research for myself though. But the point I was going to make was: if you're against funding for PBS, then should you not be more against funding for those companies? And in that case, wouldn't it be more worth it to go after the funding given to for profit companies than to slash the funding for PBS? It seems extremely hypocritical to try and do away with PBS funding, and leave funding for a bunch of for profit companies. And if this is what is really happening, it makes me think that there is a very different motive behind the funding slashing attempts than dislike of government funding of services such as PBS. That alone makes me want to fight it.
But then, I don't really know much on the issue. That argument was mostly formulated on what people have said in this thread, with little outside knowledge and therefore may be based entirely on false data. I mostly support continuing to fund it becuase I personally feel that PBS and NPR is a most excellent use of tax dollars and would like it to continue.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Very funny metaphor.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Who needs real news when we can have corporate hype.