• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

De-fund NPR and PBS

Defund NPR and PBS!

  • I agree!

    Votes: 41 47.7%
  • I disagree.

    Votes: 45 52.3%

  • Total voters
    86

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,586
Reaction score
32,112
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.
 
Of course. Partisan political outlets should be subsidized by taxpayers. Let George Soros do it.
 
House Shamefully Votes to Defund NPR | Save the News $1.50 Per tax payer per year.

NPR funded by tax dollars? 3.3 cents per taxpayer in the $100,000 tax bracket

House votes to cut NPR's federal funding - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com Backs up the data from the second source (the $64 million public funding for NPR).

My point is, the amount of money we each spend on NPR (I'm not sure about PBS, but I'm lazy, and will assume its not horrible worse than NPR's funding situation) is pretty minimal. I listen to NPR every morning on my way to school, and honestly, its worth the money my family puts into it in terms of tax dollars.
 
Last edited:
My point is, the amount of money we each spend on NPR (I'm not sure about PBS, but I'm lazy, and will assume its not horrible worse than NPR's funding situation) is pretty minimal.

The amount of money public sector workers make is pretty minimal in comparison to the amount corporations save on tax breaks. This means nothing to conservatives.
 
House Shamefully Votes to Defund NPR | Save the News $1.50 Per tax payer per year.

NPR funded by tax dollars? 3.3 cents per taxpayer in the $100,000 tax bracket

House votes to cut NPR's federal funding - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com Backs up the data from the second source (the $64 million public funding for NPR).

My point is, the amount of money we each spend on NPR (I'm not sure about PBS, but I'm lazy, and will assume its not horrible worse than NPR's funding situation) is pretty minimal. I listen to NPR every morning on my way to school, and honestly, its worth the money my family puts into it in terms of tax dollars.

You can still listen to it. Defunding isn't going to shut them down as long as all the listeners and wealthy donors stay on board. Supposedly their listeners have a median income of 87,000. Or Gee... they could do like everyone else and get some advertizers.
As far as PBS, Sesame Streets CEO gets a 900,000 salary. So I think people can stop crying that the Republicans are trying to kill Big Bird.

Personally I don't want a dime of mine going to NPR.
Would you want a dime of your's going to Rush Limbaugh?
 
The fact is defunding NPR, PBS isn't going solve our deficit, nothing the politicians are doing right now is going to solve the deficit. Unless we tackle military spending, social security, and medicare our deficit will still be a problem.

Also I don't know about NPR, but PBS does alot of educational programing that is used in schools, and I support federal money for PBS.
 
PBS has one of the best, most balanced news shows period, and a bunch of PBS programming is simply excellent. For the low cost, I have no problem with the continued funding.

For those trying to make this into a cost savings issue, for gods sake, look at something that actually matters, not tiny budget items. This is typical of too many conservatives, who go on and on about the deficit and spending, but either go after things that are tiny in relation to the problem, or who design bills they know will fail, just so they can say "hey look, we proposed cuts and they got blocked". If you want to get credit for being a deficit hawk, then come up with plans to cut spending that will get passed, and will matter. In other words, compromise some.
 
This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is to punish NPR for having a mostly neutral (not conservative) news outlook.
 
This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is to punish NPR for having a mostly neutral (not conservative) news outlook.

Liberal media = no conservative bias.
 
First off, I think it important that everyone understand how NPR and PBS came into existance and how it has helped shape politics and education via it's listening expanding listening audience and viewership (NPR and PBS, respectively). Only then do I believe one can give a fair accessment.

From Wikipedia:

NPR, formerly National Public Radio, is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to 797 public radio stations in the United States of America. NPR was created in 1970, following congressional passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also created the Public Broadcasting Service in addition to NPR. A CPB organizing committee under John Witherspoon first created a Board of Directors chaired by Bernard Mayes. This Board then hired Donald Quayle to be the first President of NPR with studios in Washington D.C., 30 employees and 90 public radio stations as charter members.

NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Individual public radio stations are not required to broadcast all NPR programs that are produced. Most public radio stations broadcast a mixture of NPR programs, content from rival providers American Public Media, Public Radio International and Public Radio Exchange, and locally produced programs. NPR's flagships are two drive time news broadcasts, Morning Edition and the afternoon All Things Considered; both are carried by most NPR member stations, and from 2002–2008 they were the second and third most popular radio programs in the country. In a Harris poll conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the U.S.

NPR manages the Public Radio Satellite System, which distributes NPR programs and other programming from independent producers and networks such as American Public Media and Public Radio International. Its content is also available on-demand via the web, mobile, and podcasts.

No, NPR should not be defunded. IMO, it remains the most non-bias and most informative news source in the country. If Congress wishes to reduce the amount of funding it has received over the years to meet budgetary requirements (say, 10% reduction), I think most people would agree to that in this difficult economic times. But to totally defund NPR would be wrong. Why? Because NPR IS the People's radio station by law.
 
Liberal media = no conservative bias.

Yep. If it was about budget issues, that money would have been cut period. The way the thing is written though is that it was cut for NPR but the money is still funded.
 
This has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It is to punish NPR for having a mostly neutral (not conservative) news outlook.

Liberal media = no conservative bias.

I'll just repost what I stated in another thread on this same subject:

It's not even about that!

NPR is to liberal media what talk radio is to Conservatives. Thus, for the GOP it's about removing or severely limiting the range of a Liberal information source that's funded in-part by the federal government. It's the counter attack to what the GOP claims the FEC is trying to do in implementing the Fairness Doctrine...mussle Conservative talk radio.

That's what this along with union busting is all about....silencing and/or keeping the liberal base as silent or as uninformed as possible so that their voice can :spin: their propaganda the loudest and most often.

That's what this is really all about. Frankly, I'm surprised no one else has figured this out yet.
 
I never listen to NPR, so I don't really have an opinion. I don't really see any inherent societal benefit of the government funding a radio station though. I'm not going to be that upset if the government stops funding NPR.

PBS is great. It's widely considered one of the most reliable sources of news, and it has great educational programming that truly DOES provide a benefit to society. I'm not sure how competitive that would be in a free market, so I don't have any problem at all with government funding PBS.
 
The Constitution does not authorize the funding of a government propaganda network.

Nor should people who oppose the socialist message of NPR be forced to pay taxes to support it.

NPR should compete for dollars on the same free-market place that Limbaugh, Beck, and John and Ken are competing in. If they can't remain financially solvent then that's proof enough that the majority don't want it, and as Mayor Sokum keeps hearing from the left, the will of the majority is supposed to prevail.
 
Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.
Absolutely not, I would be in favor of increasing their funding. All industrial democracies have public funding. Commercial stations are biased by their advertisers, NPR and PBS are not dependent on advertisers.

And You are Welcome
 

Nothing shameful about it.

That's the Mayor's buck and a half and he shouldn't be robbed of it.

Here's an idea. Let all the people who want NPR subscribe to it on Satellite radio. Let all the rest of us who have no use for that crap keep their money.

What are you going to insist on next, that people who think "Piss Christ" is a complete waste of everything be forced to subsidize it via the unconstitutional funding of the National Endowment for the Arts?

The nation is going bankrupt, the government has to stop funding unconstitutional pet projects, especially when those unconstitutional projects don't serve the public interest.[

My point is, the amount of money we each spend on NPR (I'm not sure about PBS, but I'm lazy, and will assume its not horrible worse than NPR's funding situation) is pretty minimal. I listen to NPR every morning on my way to school, and honestly, its worth the money my family puts into it in terms of tax dollars.

The Mayor's point is that if you listen to it, you pay for it, and stop demanding people who don't listen to it pay for it, too.
 
I never listen to NPR, so I don't really have an opinion. I don't really see any inherent societal benefit of the government funding a radio station though. I'm not going to be that upset if the government stops funding NPR.

PBS is great. It's widely considered one of the most reliable sources of news, and it has great educational programming that truly DOES provide a benefit to society. I'm not sure how competitive that would be in a free market, so I don't have any problem at all with government funding PBS.

If you enjoy PBS, you need to stand firm in maintaining funding for NPR because both are owned and operated by the same company, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

From Wikipedia:

NPR, formerly National Public Radio, is a privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization that serves as a national syndicator to 797 public radio stations in the United States of America. NPR was created in 1970, following congressional passage of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also created the Public Broadcasting Service in addition to NPR. A CPB organizing committee under John Witherspoon first created a Board of Directors chaired by Bernard Mayes. This Board then hired Donald Quayle to be the first President of NPR with studios in Washington D.C., 30 employees and 90 public radio stations as charter members.

NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Individual public radio stations are not required to broadcast all NPR programs that are produced. Most public radio stations broadcast a mixture of NPR programs, content from rival providers American Public Media, Public Radio International and Public Radio Exchange, and locally produced programs. NPR's flagships are two drive time news broadcasts, Morning Edition and the afternoon All Things Considered; both are carried by most NPR member stations, and from 2002–2008 they were the second and third most popular radio programs in the country. In a Harris poll conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the U.S.

NPR manages the Public Radio Satellite System, which distributes NPR programs and other programming from independent producers and networks such as American Public Media and Public Radio International. Its content is also available on-demand via the web, mobile, and podcasts.

Defund one, you reduce the effectiveness of both!
 
The fact is defunding NPR, PBS isn't going solve our deficit,

Nickels and dimes built the deficit, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars out of completely non-essential and completely unconstitutional services will add up, too.

Also I don't know about NPR, but PBS does alot of educational programing that is used in schools, and I support federal money for PBS.

Just in case you missed it, the Federal government is prohibited from spending money on public education. That's something Thomas Jefferson pointed out in his request for an Amendment authorizing that. The Congress of the time agreed that it was unconstitutional and declined to Amend the Constitution. So it's still unconstitutional.
 
I never listen to NPR, so I don't really have an opinion. I don't really see any inherent societal benefit of the government funding a radio station though. I'm not going to be that upset if the government stops funding NPR.

PBS is great. It's widely considered one of the most reliable sources of news, and it has great educational programming that truly DOES provide a benefit to society. I'm not sure how competitive that would be in a free market, so I don't have any problem at all with government funding PBS.

I have listened to NPR some on long drives across country. It has simply put the best in depth news coverage. Newspapers and magazines wish they had as solid of news coverage.
 
Personally I don't want a dime of mine going to NPR.
Would you want a dime of your's going to Rush Limbaugh?

I won't just automatically assume you meant this so I want to clarify.

Do you think NPR is the liberal version of Rush Limbaugh?
 
Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.

NPR and PBS are excellent, award-winning sources of news and information; they establish a high standard for a wider industry. For the few cents a month they cost, they probably represent the best investments Americans could possibly make in this world.

I was opposed to the Iraq War but there was no opting-out of paying for that. The American republic is like that.
 
You can still listen to it. Defunding isn't going to shut them down as long as all the listeners and wealthy donors stay on board. Supposedly their listeners have a median income of 87,000. Or Gee... they could do like everyone else and get some advertizers.
As far as PBS, Sesame Streets CEO gets a 900,000 salary. So I think people can stop crying that the Republicans are trying to kill Big Bird.

Personally I don't want a dime of mine going to NPR.
Would you want a dime of your's going to Rush Limbaugh?

Liberals enjoin radio welfare. And besides, no govt program should ever be cancelled.
 
Do you agree or disagree that we need to stop giving federal $$ to NPR and PBS? I'd like someone who disagree with the defunding, to give some good reasons why the taxpayers should be forced to give money to a radio and TV station.

Thank you.

I am pissed because as I was posting I got timed out, and it erased my post.

Basically, I want to continue federal funds to NPR and PBS. In brief, I think that they provide me with political news, as opposed to commercial radio news stations that instead provide political opinion.

Also, NPR and PBS are more prone to political discussion, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend towards political debate. NPR actually lets people talk and discuss issues, whereas commercially sponsored shows tend to validate their host in order to bring in their audience to bring about high ratings to bring in more advertising revenue.

Another point was that the reason why NPR and PBS is being targeted to have it's funding reduced is because of it's political news shows. However, not every show it airs is about politics or news. Some are about other subjects such as cuisine or automotive advice, and so is more educational than journalistic or entertaining.

One more point is that I commercially sponsored shows are more biased. This is because shows rely on corporate sponsorship to bring in ad revenue. If corporate sponsorship becomes the only way for journalists to express news, then they'll be less likely to publish reports that go against those corporations. So having only corporately sponsored news shows will be detrimental to the journalistic integrity of reporters, especially investigative journalists. I would prefer that the people have at least one source of news that doesn't have to worry about criticizing those who write their paychecks.

That's the long and short of why I want funding for NPR and PBS to continue.
 
Back
Top Bottom