De-fund NPR and PBS

Badmutha said:

Except Glenn Beck isn't a recipient of US Tax dollars......

.....

.....is 2 weeks ago sufficient?
.
.

Click to expand...

First, so what, he thought he was having a private conversation. He is allowed to have and express opinions. He wasn't on the air or even speaking to the public. Second, several reputable news sources have now said that the way the video was edited was dishonest and made his statements sound worse. Last, he and his boss resigned. I didn't think they needed to but that is what honest people do when they have damaged the reputation of their network.

If you want to find bias, look at the jerk who makes these videos.

Layla_Z said:

First, so what, he thought he was having a private conversation. He is allowed to have and express opinions. He wasn't on the air or even speaking to the public.

Click to expand...

.....and we saw the bias required to command DNC TV/RADIO.....

Second, several reputable news sources have now said that the way the video was edited was dishonest and made his statements sound worse.

Click to expand...

Yes "reputable" Liberal media outlets who attack any non-Democrat whistleblower....

Last, he and his boss resigned. I didn't think they needed to but that is what honest people do when they have damaged the reputation of their network.

If you want to find bias, look at the jerk who makes these videos.

Click to expand...

.......so how would you feel if government was stealing money from you and giving it to O'Keefe?
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

.....this is why Democrats cant bring themselves to even cut a Cowboy Poetry Contest.......why this country faces massive debt and deficit......why this country is destined for Bankruptcy.....because of this liberal attitude of "Well its only (insert any number) million/billion taxpayer dollars".
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me, this country faces massive debt because of NPR and PBS? Really!?! This country has massive debt because of two wars and tax breaks for the richest people. De-funding NPR/PBS would do nothing except make close minded conservatives with their heads up their butts feel better. This is another attack by the right on something they don't like. Why, because they can. That has always been a good enough reason for the ultra conservative right to do anything. I mean really, what jackass wants to take away or even risk damaging Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, or my favorite, Electric Company? NPR is the only sources of unbiased, in-depth news coverage on the radio. Causing these networks to compete with commercial networks would ruin them.

Layla_Z said:

Are you kidding me, this country faces massive debt because of NPR and PBS? Really!?! This country has massive debt because of two wars and tax breaks for the richest people.

Click to expand...

Wow.....did you hear that on NPR?

De-funding NPR/PBS would do nothing except make close minded conservatives with their heads up their butts feel better. This is another attack by the right on something they don't like. Why, because they can. That has always been a good enough reason for the ultra conservative right to do anything. I mean really, what jackass wants to take away or even risk damaging Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, or my favorite, Electric Company? NPR is the only sources of unbiased, in-depth news coverage on the radio. Causing these networks to compete with commercial networks would ruin them.

Click to expand...

Of course its ubiased......you can tell by all the bipartisan support going around.
.
.
.

Barbbtx said:

I think the things that can be defunded with the least amount of pain, should be. I think thinks like PBS,NPR,NEA fit that category. Others need to be cut a certain percentage even if it will hurt some people. The WIC program and Headstart are two really good proprams that are supposedly getting cut some. This kind of stuff has to be done. I really don't see much sense in just cutting some from the ones that are not needed. Just get rid of them all together.

Click to expand...

I would argue that NPR/PBS serves their communities well and for the tiny cost there is no reason not to continue with some funding. As this thread shows though, it has nothing to do with cutting the budget(since for all intents and purposes, this does not affect the budget), and is all about scoring points.

Redress said:

I would argue that NPR/PBS serves their communities well and for the tiny cost there is no reason not to continue with some funding. As this thread shows though, it has nothing to do with cutting the budget(since for all intents and purposes, this does not affect the budget), and is all about scoring points.

Click to expand...

NPR if it is funded by the taxpayer, then should do the bidding of the taxpayer, which currently it does not.

The point should not be cost. The point is that we are funding a program that has biases against our belief system. I do not care if it's divine revelation compared to Glenn Beck. People are reporting, and they bound to be biased. Many in this thread are Liberal, so the bias will stick out less to them, but as an NPR listener, I can tell you that a slant does sometimes show itself.

Redress said:

I would argue that NPR/PBS serves their communities well and for the tiny cost there is no reason not to continue with some funding. As this thread shows though, it has nothing to do with cutting the budget(since for all intents and purposes, this does not affect the budget), and is all about scoring points.

Click to expand...

There are already thousands of radio and TV stations. I cannot really think of any reason why NPR/PBS could make TV/radio more efficient. There is plenty of competition in the market place, and if you already have a TV or radio there are numerous stations you can already pick up for free. So as you said, they may serve their communities well, but I am not convinced we are any better off funding NPR/PBS than we would be without them. Applying a basic cost vs benefit analysis I would say cut them.

Layla_Z said:

Are you kidding me, this country faces massive debt because of NPR and PBS? Really!?! This country has massive debt because of two wars and tax breaks for the richest people.

Click to expand...

Except Tax Revenue increased AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts........



Surely since you are a daily NPR listener.........you heard this......
.
.
.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

The point should not be cost. The point is that we are funding a program that has biases against our belief system. I do not care if it's divine revelation compared to Glenn Beck. People are reporting, and they bound to be biased. Many in this thread are Liberal, so the bias will stick out less to them, but as an NPR listener, I can tell you that a slant does sometimes show itself.

Click to expand...

Here is the thing though. There is a potential for bias in all aspects of the government. Every gov agency has a website, many publish research papers, some advertise on TV or at sporting events. Defunding it just because there is a potential of funding something that will present a bias/slant, or go against some viewers beliefs is not really valid nor practical in my eyes.

Badmutha said:

Except Tax Revenue increased AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts........

Surely since you are a daily NPR listener.........you heard this......
.
.
.

Click to expand...

Tax revenue also increased after Clinton's tax increases, and after Reagan's tax increases. What does this tell you?

TacticalEvilDan said:

Because, of course, funding NPR is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of the unConstitutional activities of the Federal government. :lol:

Click to expand...

Given the topic of this specific thread, define the purpose of your comment.

Your Star said:

Her point is, that people who think NPR has a liberal bias, is people that think no conservative bias=liberal bias.

Click to expand...

That point is incorrect.

However, since NPR IS biased, and since the Constitution does not permit the establishment of a national media corporation, then NPR should be taken off the corporate welfare list.

Mr. Invisible said:

Defunding NPR is idiotic as it would save only $60 million. $60 million is nothing, not even a drop in the bucket. This has nothing to do w/ saving $$$$, rather it has everything to do with getting rid of media that isn't Fox News-esque.

Click to expand...

Why is it "idiotic" to stop spending money on a luxury the Constitution does not permit in the first place?

If we cannot cut projects the Constitution does not allow, how is the budget supposed to be balanced, considering that a taxation rate of 100% wouldn't come close to closing the deficit?

Mayor Snorkum said:

However, since NPR IS biased, and since the Constitution does not permit the establishment of a national media corporation, then NPR should be taken off the corporate welfare list.

Click to expand...

All three of the statements in there, that NPR is biased, that the constitution does not allow it, and that it should have funding removed are what we call opinions.

rocket88 said:

As opposed to all the negative press Rupert Murdoch gets on Fox...

Yes, NPR doesn't badmouth it's donors. Just sounds smart to me, especially if you'd like them to stay your donors.

Click to expand...

LOL, that's ridiculous. Apples and oranges.

I posted at least a dozen links, ( there are many more) of NPR tootin' the Soros horn. What's that got to do with Murdock and FOX?

deltabtry said:

NPR if it is funded by the taxpayer, then should do the bidding of the taxpayer, which currently it does not.

Click to expand...

Who gets to decide if they are doing the bidding of the taxpayers? How do you make that decision?

Layla_Z said:

1995 - really we're going back that far. OK, that was a nasty thing to say but she didn't say it on the station. She also apologized for it. Is she the only public person to say something they shouldn't have? Heck, Glenn Beck does it every day.

Click to expand...

No she said it on another station, just like Juan did. The difference is he said it on FOX and he got fired. She didn't.

Please listen to this audio about shielding donations, specifiying programing and her talking about million and millions of dollars. Then tell me they need, or should get federal dollars.
National Public Radio: Part II | James O'Keefe's Project Veritas

National Public Radio was eagerly anticipating a $5 million donation from the fictitious Muslim Education Action Center, according to the latest secret recording released by Project Veritas, which set up MEAC to sting NPR and in turn caused the resignation of two top officials early this week.
The second recording, an audio of a phone call, demonstrates that NPR had not "repeatedly refused" the donation, as an NPR spokesman said after Project Veritas unleashed the first secret video, which showed NPR executives eating lunch with the phony Muslims and calling members of the Tea Party racist.

Click to expand...

Your Star said:

Even if you don't like NPR, defunding it won't solve anything. It's nothing more than politicians grandstanding, and pretending to do something, while they let the real problem grow bigger.

Click to expand...

It solves a problem of government spending taxpayer money to provide something the private sector would have no problem stepping up to fund.

It solves the problem that many are uncomfortable with tax money going to an organization they perceive to have a distinct bias in its political editorial shows.

It helps, even if just a little, contribute to solving our "too many bills -- not enough money" problem.

I like NPR. I like many of it's shows. I think the narrow worldview shared by many of it's broadcasting employees is often implicit in its programming.

The day the US government stops sending my money to the CPB is the day I make pledge to KERA. I can tell you my pledge will likely be larger than the money they reap from me at the point of a gun.

Dezaad said:

Socialism, as you call it, gained credence in this country as a direct response to the rise of corporatism.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The Constitution was not amended, ergo, socialism is still against the law.

Also, just because a whole bunch of easily led people are led to believe they can get something by making the government steal it from other people doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and it certainly does not mean it will work.

It is my contention that the founders were explicitly opposed to corporatism, while only vaguely opposed to socialism.

Click to expand...

Your contention is flatly wrong. The Constitution is written to forbid the excesses of a tyrannical government, specifically the tyranny of a mindless mob electing a self-serving congress with absolute power to steal, pillage, and rape the nation. The nation had experience of a nation run by a Congress with no brakes. That's why the Senate was correctly established as a an appointed body of elders that who were required to approve of the actions of the Congress before any bill could be passed to the President for final approval or rejection.

The Founders had all the experience needed to know that the whims of the mob as expressed by their elected idiots representing them HAD TO BE balanced with mature debate and deliberation before becoming law. The Constitution they wrote granted the Congress specific powers and ONLY those specific powers. None of the subsequent amendments to the Constitution significantly altered Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment has not been modified, nor has the Ninth. The Congress does not have the authority to impose socialism or any socialist style program on the people.

The Founders were perfectly familiar with the concept of stealing from the rich. They were, after all, closer to that silly Robbin' Hood legend than we are. MOST importantly, they included that pesky clause in the Fifth Amendment requiring just compensation for property taken from private parties.

So their awareness of the failings of people, including their propensity for the silliness now known as socialism but which reared it's ugly destructive head to contribute to the destruction of the Roman Empire, was incorporated in the Constitution they wrote by prohibiting unjust takings.

One aspect of the modern symptoms of socialism is the vociferous defence of publicly funded education. Unfortunately for your argument, while Jefferson did indeed support federal funding of education, he was knowledgeable enough of the Constitution to state in his sixth state of the union address the following:

Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads,rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumerationof Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separationwill disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is hereplaced among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of privateenterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal, but a public institution can alone supply thosesciences which though rarely called for are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to theimprovement of the country and some of them to its preservation.

The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because if approved by the time the State legislatures shallhave deliberated on this extension of the Federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed and other arrangements made for theirexecution, the necessary funds will be on hand and without employment.

I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are notamong those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.

Thomas Jefferson's Sixth State of the Union Address: Information from Answers.com

Click to expand...

Jefferson may have been a proto socialist, but he wasn't the Father of the Constitution.

I believe they would be appalled at what has become of our democracy, and our media, today.

Click to expand...

Don't be silly. Just look at what the media of HIS day did in their attempt to destroy Jefferson's reputation before an election. You're doing a lot of supposing without understanding the circumstances.

Layla_Z said:

Right now Les Miserables is on PBS. How else would this glorious music be accessible to everyone. Listening to it on CD is just not the same. What a loss PBS and NPR would be.

Click to expand...

There's this thing called the "Internet". Perhaps you've heard of it?

There's Netflix. They seem to have some kind of distribution network to deliver opera to people who like that sort of thing, anywhere they live.

That's just two possibilities that don't require the taxpayer getting fleeced.

A final possibility is that they could do what I did, long ago, I admit, and read the damn thing in French but USING THIER OWN DAMN MONEY TO BUY THE BOOK. That might require them to marry a Parisian to help with the hard parts, but the best things in life are not easy, nor free.

Mr. Invisible said:

Let's pause the debate for a second. I have a question: Has anyone here listened/watched NPR/PBS within the last, say, two-three weeks?

I need to know this because some people here have admitted that they listened/watched years ago. If that is the case, then wait until tomorrow and legitimately watch PBS, then get back to me.

Click to expand...

Why? Would wasting Mayor Snorkum's time listening to NPR alter either the fact that NPR is a gross violation of the Constitution or the fact that NPR is a commercially viable entity not requiring the federal corporate subsidy hypocritically approve of for their pet proganda network but disapprove of (and rightly so) for ethanol subsidies?

No, it would just waste my time because NPR hasn't changed it's left wing anti-American bias since it's inception in 1967.

Redress said:

I would argue that NPR/PBS serves their communities well and for the tiny cost there is no reason not to continue with some funding. As this thread shows though, it has nothing to do with cutting the budget(since for all intents and purposes, this does not affect the budget), and is all about scoring points.

Click to expand...

If it's a tiny cost it can be carried by private donors. So you should start writing checks.

And yes, cutting this budget is going to require cutting major programs...

...AFTER the low hanging fruit like NPR/PBS and NEA are plucked.

What, you think the government should try to cut a quarter trillion dollars out of the budget and all the luxuries like NPR should be left alone?

Don't be silly. The cutting must be done, and yet you people are balking because your favorite irrelevant perk has it's pinky on the chopping block, as if you're pretending you can stave off complete national collapse by standing in opposition to the sensible recommendations that will ease the more difficult choices that will be made in the future, regardless of what party is in power.

It can only be concluded that the left's need for other people's money is a deep seated addiction immune to reason. Mayor Snorkum can understand the opposition the staff of NPR feels towards losing 5% of their budget, that might mean they have to let a janitor go or something. Mayor Snorkum will not expend wasted effort to comprehend the degree of irrationality of others who lose nothing by making a business stand on it's own merits without subsidy.

Redress said:

All three of the statements in there, that NPR is biased, that the constitution does not allow it, and that it should have funding removed are what we call opinions.

Click to expand...

No. Unless one is confused. Opinions are conclusions drawn from fact. Two facts were presented, one conclusion.

NPR's bias is inescapable to honest listeners. Fact.

The limitations on Congress by the Constitution are written in plain english. Fact.

That NPR should be stricken from the list of recipients of corporate welfare (ummmm.....shouldn't 100% of recipients of corporate welfare be taken off that list?)...is a conclusion from established fact and hence, of course, an opinion.