posted
Would those who enjoy NPR be willing to pony up enough cash to keep it going without tax dollars?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
posted
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? Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell me about it. Different perspectives are needed. Otherwise, you never get the whole picture.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
So Dag, how do you feel about the tax dollars (perhaps in the form of tax breaks) going to subsidize companies already making billions?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Who needs real news when we can have corporate hype.
