• 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
You know, I can't help but wonder why Federal funding for public broadcasting wasn't eliminated during Bush's time in office, when he had 6 years with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and suddenly now the Republicans have a hard-on for getting rid of it.

They are a appeasing their anti-intellectual base -- the Palin/Beck fans.

"Let's get rid of all them thinking shows. We just like the wrastling"

Could it be that this is nothing more than political posturing, something not sincerely felt, an empty threat designed to put the Democrats in the position of being forced to sacrifice something they value less?

Exactly.
 
They are a appeasing their anti-intellectual base -- the Palin/Beck fans.

"Let's get rid of all them thinking shows. We just like the wrastling"

I don't believe that, and to be honest I don't like that tone. Aside from the way it pollutes the discussion, it gives the parties involved far too little credit. The easiest way to loose when you're ahead is to underestimate your opponent, and the left isn't exactly in the lead of American politics right now.

As for answering my own question, I think it's more like this is something they knew they could use to get their base riled up. They lack clear leadership and have for some time now, so they have to keep their supporters worked up until leadership can be found and given credibility.
 
Compared to what my local affiliate does with the other hours of the day on its four digital channels, and especially compared to the volume of genuinely educational programming -- no, it's not significant.



If Fox broadcasted a similar volume of educational material, I'd seriously consider it -- I'm not into public broadcasting for the politics.

A lot of people do consider it significant. If I played porno on a kid's channel, even if that was for one hour a day, that would be significant.
 
A lot of people do consider it significant. If I played porno on a kid's channel, even if that was for one hour a day, that would be significant.

So now you're comparing pornography -- which legally can't be played on the public airwaves -- to news programming.

Congratulations on raising the bar on this discussion. :lol:
 
How exactly is the creation of a public program by congress unconstitutional? Last I checked, laws that promote the common good are exactly within congress' enumerated powers. Broadcasting that is unswayed by any personal profit motive is clearly a public good. Unfiltered information that is not controlled by the whims of wealthy owners is an essential service in a culture like ours where so much information is presented to prove a point, rather than simply to enlighten. Publicly controlled media, that is, controlled by all of us instead of some of us, is more reliable. Congress creating a public program to promote the general welfare is quite clearly their prerogative.
 
Not in the least. Quality does not equal profit (the Japanese have been struggling with making products of excellent quality that were too expensive for profitability).

If you take a look at some of the programming that lands the highest Nielsens, you'll see what I mean.

This again would come back to efficiency and cost vs benefit. I would say that the reason many of those products of very high quality are not profitable is because the cost exceeds the benefit received from them. Yet to be flat honest with you I do not see any supremely high quality programming on the rocky mountain PBS. I just looked at the schedule, there are kids shows all day long, and then in the evening there are 3 different runnings of BBC world news, a PBS news hour, and it looks like 2 different documentaries. This is literally nothing different than the other 4 or 5 local news channels I can already get for free.
 
For the same reason that we, as a nation, support a variety of things with our tax dollars that many of us, as individuals, do not directly or tangibly benefit from.


Some things, like education and highway maintenance and law enforcement and adjudication of disputes, are too sensitive or complex to trust (or at least trust entirely) to the open market. When government fulfills its proper function, that means it does things some don't agree with -- often to the benefit of others.

I don't dispute that I will not tangibly benefit from everything, I am saying usually there are good reasons to support things that you don't explicitly receive a benefit from. For example, I personally support subisidies to education, and roads, and law enforcement because I believe that the government subsidizing these areas leads to an increase in efficiency. Education has a positive externalities, education is worth more than its value on the market, thus it is more efficient for the government to subsidize this. Roads are a natural monopoly, it is inefficient to have competing roads to the same location. Law enforcement goes within the natural sphere of government, since it naturally must be derived from something with the authority to create and enforce laws. I do not see any of these types of reasons to support a public tv or radio station.
 
One of the biggest reasons is that they don't have commercials and thus are not influenced by large corporations. Also, not every area in the U.S. has the propulation to support commercial radio - they have PBS to keep them informed. Ironically, these areas are more than likely conservative and without funding these small NPR stations would go dark.
NPR helps support our democracy and I think the better question would be "Why shouldn't we support them?" All freedom loving countries have government sponsored radio.

I really do not see the benefit of having no influence of large corporations. The areas that do not have enough people to support radio probably should not have a radio station. The costs exceed the benefits. I really don't care what demographic lives there. Furthermore, with the strides in technology we have achieved there are several other options. We have satellite TV, satellite radio, Internet, etc, etc, that these people can still receive live news from.
 
How exactly is the creation of a public program by congress unconstitutional? Last I checked, laws that promote the common good are exactly within congress' enumerated powers.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
---- Thomas Jefferson--Hater of Liberals

Broadcasting that is unswayed by any personal profit motive is clearly a public good. Unfiltered information that is not controlled by the whims of wealthy owners is an essential service in a culture like ours where so much information is presented to prove a point, rather than simply to enlighten. Publicly controlled media, that is, controlled by all of us instead of some of us, is more reliable. Congress creating a public program to promote the general welfare is quite clearly their prerogative.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."
----James Madison--Father of the Constitution--Hater of Liberals


Clearly the Left's bastardized interpretation of General Welfare is 100% different than what the Founders and Forefathers intended.
.
.
.
.
 
You know, I can't help but wonder why Federal funding for public broadcasting wasn't eliminated during Bush's time in office, when he had 6 years with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and suddenly now the Republicans have a hard-on for getting rid of it.

Could it be that this is nothing more than political posturing, something not sincerely felt, an empty threat designed to put the Democrats in the position of being forced to sacrifice something they value less?

As far as the republicans recent move, yes it is very obviously political grandstanding.
 
One of the biggest reasons is that they don't have commercials and thus are not influenced by large corporations.

Large corporations .......like THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING?

Begin making excuses.....now.

Also, not every area in the U.S. has the propulation to support commercial radio - they have PBS to keep them informed. Ironically, these areas are more than likely conservative and without funding these small NPR stations would go dark.

Im sure all 7 listeners would somehow survive........

NPR helps support our democracy and I think the better question would be "Why shouldn't we support them?" All freedom loving countries have government sponsored radio.

Yeah.....like China......Iran......North Korea...........
.
.
.
.
 
Large corporations .......like THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING?

Begin making excuses.....now.



Im sure all 7 listeners would somehow survive........



Yeah.....like China......Iran......North Korea...........
.
.
.
.

I seriously doubt you have even heard/watched NPR/PBS
 
How exactly is the creation of a public program by congress unconstitutional?

How about nationalizing all media. Would that be unconstitutional?
 
This again would come back to efficiency and cost vs benefit. I would say that the reason many of those products of very high quality are not profitable is because the cost exceeds the benefit received from them.

No, the profitability issues stemmed from the fact that they cost more than the market would bear. That is not the same thing as a cost which exceeds the benefit, and precisely why some services must be either be provided by or assisted by the government -- because we can't afford to leave them to the untender mercies of the marketplace.

Yet to be flat honest with you I do not see any supremely high quality programming on the rocky mountain PBS. I just looked at the schedule, there are kids shows all day long, and then in the evening there are 3 different runnings of BBC world news, a PBS news hour, and it looks like 2 different documentaries. This is literally nothing different than the other 4 or 5 local news channels I can already get for free.

Wow, you get a schedule full of educational programming, BBC world news and 2 different documentaries on your local news channels?
 
I don't dispute that I will not tangibly benefit from everything, I am saying usually there are good reasons to support things that you don't explicitly receive a benefit from. For example, I personally support subisidies to education, and roads, and law enforcement because I believe that the government subsidizing these areas leads to an increase in efficiency. Education has a positive externalities, education is worth more than its value on the market, thus it is more efficient for the government to subsidize this. Roads are a natural monopoly, it is inefficient to have competing roads to the same location. Law enforcement goes within the natural sphere of government, since it naturally must be derived from something with the authority to create and enforce laws. I do not see any of these types of reasons to support a public tv or radio station.

It's a valuable service that wouldn't do well in the marketplace because most of what sells currently is drek.
 
No, the profitability issues stemmed from the fact that they cost more than the market would bear. That is not the same thing as a cost which exceeds the benefit, and precisely why some services must be either be provided by or assisted by the government -- because we can't afford to leave them to the untender mercies of the marketplace.



Wow, you get a schedule full of educational programming, BBC world news and 2 different documentaries on your local news channels?

I would not call sesame street and arthur educational programming. Your local news channels (like channel 4, or channel 9) have a morning news show, then a few kids shows, than your soap operas, dr.phil, etc, then you have the evening news, the national news, then something like 60 minutes, then you have primetime tv shows, gameshows, etc, then you have the late local news, then you have a late show, then the late late show. Much better in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I would not call sesame street and arthur educational programming. Your local news channels (like channel 4, or channel 9) have a morning news show, then a few kids shows, than your soap operas, dr.phil, etc, then you have the evening news, the national news, then something like 60 minutes, then you have primetime tv shows, gameshows, etc, then you have the late local news, then you have a late show, then the late late show. Much better in my opinion.

This is exactly why educational television should not be forced to compete with the open marketplace. Thank you for proving my point.

Soap operas . . . game shows . . .

:lol:
 
This is exactly why educational television should not be forced to compete with the open marketplace. Thank you for proving my point.

Soap operas . . . game shows . . .

:lol:

That was my local news channels, there are several specialty channels you can get. Nick, cartoon network, disney,... You want something educational there are several viarants of discovery, national geographic, the history channel. If you want headline news there are numerous options. Seriously, whatever you want there are probobly specialty channels out there.
 
Yeah, if can afford satellite or cable television there's a lot of variety out there.

I've yet to see anything which serves as a suitable replacement for PBS, and nothing that comes anywhere near that ballpark is going to be on the public airwaves.
 
Yeah, if can afford satellite or cable television there's a lot of variety out there.

I've yet to see anything which serves as a suitable replacement for PBS, and nothing that comes anywhere near that ballpark is going to be on the public airwaves.

Fine. You like NPR/PBS. So do I.

So what's stopping them from being entirely funded by the private sector. Nothing would have to change. They could have their pledge drives, and so on.
 
Your contending the majority of Americas want Subprime Single Payer Health Care and support Amnesty.........

.......The Majority of Americans had a chance to elect liberals who would do these things........

......they declined......in the largest political landslide in US History.....
.
.
.

I'm suggesting, and even providing polls that show Americans support the PUBLIC OPTION. Did I say anything about single payer? Poll after poll proves it. And I'm suggesting, and providing polls that show Americans support the DREAM ACt, which is not amnesty. I've provided polls. You have given your opinion. See the difference? Prove them wrong.
 
Fine. You like NPR/PBS. So do I.

So what's stopping them from being entirely funded by the private sector. Nothing would have to change. They could have their pledge drives, and so on.

For one thing, I don't see anything broken with the public broadcasting system, and "if it ain't broke..."

Aside from that, I've been having trouble following exactly how money gets from the government (Federal and state) to public broadcasters, and how much of an impact on their function a loss of government dollars would represent. Since I can't understand it as precisely as I'd like, I can't say intelligent things like, "Well, I suppose we could cut funding X% and it would require only Y hours of additional fundraising or a Z% reduction in programming."

Since I can't do that, I'm sticking with the fact that it does what it is supposed to do, and as such should be left the heck alone. :)
 
Of course. Partisan political outlets should be subsidized by taxpayers. Let George Soros do it.

He already gives money to them, along with many other Americans.. do you?
 
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 think it is vital to have a public broadcaster for the good of the public and public service.

And like it or not the debate in the US is not about funding, it is an ideological fantatism by the right who see PBS/NPR as a "liberal" voice. Fact is PBS/NPR get next to nothing from the public purse as it is, and the crap that the GOP pushed through in the House did not save a single dime, since the money they took from PBS/NPR was just diverted to private owned stations..
 
Back
Top Bottom