• 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!

What is the point of PBS and NPR?

Absolutely. Thought you would be a Christian? Help. Your fellow man. Or the good old American way? I'm ok, screw the rest.? Very noble.
Just because you like being an ignoramus doesn't mean we others like to give people the chance for education
Resent 5c / year?
No problem with 1/2 our discretional spending going to the glorified military? That's billions

Im not a Christian. But if YOU like to give people the chance for education, Im not stopping YOU from funding it. Im asking you to stop making me do it, without first getting my consent through the legal process, getting 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment allowing spending on such things. Kind of like we did with the military. Now, if you want to try passing an amendment to block congress from raising a military youre welcome to try that.

The purpose of the federal govt is to protect my life and freedom, not to educate or entertain me.
 
Rather surprised that you'd on one hand consider it as biased news, and then also call it good news. I kinda always thought that news should be factual and unbiased. But maybe that's just me.

News can still be biased and be high quality. Maybe NPR shouldn't count as good news, but it's less biased than 70-80% of what is out there. I didn't say it was the best of the best, but it IS factual and they cover the important issues well. It isn't my go-to source, but I'll read/listen an interesting article they post from time to time. All news isn't political anyway.
 
News can still be biased and be high quality. Maybe NPR shouldn't count as good news, but it's less biased than 70-80% of what is out there. I didn't say it was the best of the best, but it IS factual and they cover the important issues well. It isn't my go-to source, but I'll read/listen an interesting article they post from time to time. All news isn't political anyway.

That's tells me 80% of whats out there is biased crap. Just because there aren't good products out there doesn't mean we should subsidize the ones that are supposedly good.
 
News can still be biased and be high quality. Maybe NPR shouldn't count as good news, but it's less biased than 70-80% of what is out there. I didn't say it was the best of the best, but it IS factual and they cover the important issues well. It isn't my go-to source, but I'll read/listen an interesting article they post from time to time. All news isn't political anyway.

That's tells me 80% of whats out there is biased crap. Just because there aren't good products out there doesn't mean we should subsidize the ones that are supposedly good.

I'd have to agree with OC here. From my view, the vast majority, OK, let's use the 80% figure, of the news reporting is biased left, both at the content level - of how something is reported, as well as at the editorial level - what is reported. Above the fold front page for something that casts Republicans and conservatives in a bad light, retractions of previous untrue claims, corrections, or something that casts Republicans and conservatives in a good like at the back. And vice versa for Democrats / liberals / progressive. Yeah, editorial bias at it's finest.
 
That's tells me 80% of whats out there is biased crap. Just because there aren't good products out there doesn't mean we should subsidize the ones that are supposedly good.

I'd have to agree with OC here. From my view, the vast majority, OK, let's use the 80% figure, of the news reporting is biased left, both at the content level - of how something is reported, as well as at the editorial level - what is reported. Above the fold front page for something that casts Republicans and conservatives in a bad light, retractions of previous untrue claims, corrections, or something that casts Republicans and conservatives in a good like at the back. And vice versa for Democrats / liberals / progressive. Yeah, editorial bias at it's finest.

I never said we should subsidize it, if you read my previous posts I actually said the opposite. I personally enjoy listening/reading it because I'm slightly Liberal and they do actually have good stories and not all news is political, but that doesn't mean I think the government should subsidize a Left-leaning newspaper. I would say NPR is still "good" news, or at least what should be considered OK news. I was implying that 80% of what is out there is crap with my comment. Bias news is still news as long as it's factual, and honestly there are only like 2-3 news sources I know of that come even close to being unbiased.

I am still 110% behind PBS funding though.
 
I never said we should subsidize it, if you read my previous posts I actually said the opposite. I personally enjoy listening/reading it because I'm slightly Liberal and they do actually have good stories and not all news is political, but that doesn't mean I think the government should subsidize a Left-leaning newspaper. I would say NPR is still "good" news, or at least what should be considered OK news. I was implying that 80% of what is out there is crap with my comment. Bias news is still news as long as it's factual, and honestly there are only like 2-3 news sources I know of that come even close to being unbiased.

I am still 110% behind PBS funding though.

Where in my post that you quoted did I speak of subsidizing PBS or NPR?

Fine that you believe PBS should have public funding. Other opinions differ. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, last I recall (or did the left ban that too now?)
 
Let's subsidize Fox.

We can have the Friends guys do educational programming, O'Reilly with a "history" series, Hannity's "aliens" , the ladies giving tips on how to show leg and avoiding harassment from your bosses and Tucker can give us the arts and dance lessons.
 
I never said we should subsidize it, if you read my previous posts I actually said the opposite. I personally enjoy listening/reading it because I'm slightly Liberal and they do actually have good stories and not all news is political, but that doesn't mean I think the government should subsidize a Left-leaning newspaper. I would say NPR is still "good" news, or at least what should be considered OK news. I was implying that 80% of what is out there is crap with my comment. Bias news is still news as long as it's factual, and honestly there are only like 2-3 news sources I know of that come even close to being unbiased.

I am still 110% behind PBS funding though.

But we DO subsidize it. That's the problem.
 
What appears might be an interesting discussion broke out in the cartoons thread.





Not wanting to run afoul of the cartoon thread rules, I thought I'd bring the discussion here.

Kobie, now granted the meme is a bit over the top, but I'd like to understand more of your points "Save me the taxpayer and "marketplace of ideas" garbage. That's not the point of PBS and NPR."

Specifically:
What is the point of NPR and PBS?
Why do you think that the taxpayer and "marketplace of ideas" is a garbage position?

Does not NPR and PBS receive at least some of their funding from the government, i.e. the tax payers?

And do please elaborate as to what is 'point' of NPR and PBS.

Read this Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 | CPB
 
Where in my post that you quoted did I speak of subsidizing PBS or NPR?

Fine that you believe PBS should have public funding. Other opinions differ. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, last I recall (or did the left ban that too now?)

You had previously talked about how we shouldn't subsidize it, we've been at this a almost a week I think now :)

And I by and large agree with your reasons why we shouldn't fund NPR. I'd previously stated why I think we should fund PBS, but that's just an opinion as well, no need to demonize it. I never said any against people with different opinions.

I'm not even that left leaning anyway, and in some areas I'm fairly conservative, like gun control and economics.
 
You had previously talked about how we shouldn't subsidize it, we've been at this a almost a week I think now :)

And I by and large agree with your reasons why we shouldn't fund NPR. I'd previously stated why I think we should fund PBS, but that's just an opinion as well, no need to demonize it. I never said any against people with different opinions.

I'm not even that left leaning anyway, and in some areas I'm fairly conservative, like gun control and economics.

Fair enough. Suppose that we can leave it at opinions differ.
 
Been on vacation...a refreshing escape from all the hustle and bustle of the political world. Ah...

Without going through this poll, I'll simply say PBS and NPR are very important sources of independent, well sourced news and information society needs in order to make well informed decisions. A great majority of the news and information reported on PBS and NPR is unfiltered, non-bias and impartial. Moreover, despite all the accusations that both of these public broadcasting entities are federally funded, most of their reporting comes from "contributions from viewers like you" - John Q Public - as well as a vast assortment of charitable foundations.

Something else people don't seem to take into account is how much the states depend on public broadcasting as well. Here in Alabama, for example, the PBS networks have been expanded. We now have 4 different PBS channels offering very different forms of information: children's programming, local/nationals/international news, cooking/home improvement/self-improvement programming and then their flagship PBS station which airs just about anything for public viewing.

Frankly, I think public broadcasting is a good thing. The only people threatened by it are those who believe they're hidden agenda (whatever it might be) will eventually be exposed through independent journalism.
 
Been on vacation...a refreshing escape from all the hustle and bustle of the political world. Ah...

Without going through this poll, I'll simply say PBS and NPR are very important sources of independent, well sourced news and information society needs in order to make well informed decisions. A great majority of the news and information reported on PBS and NPR is unfiltered, non-bias and impartial. Moreover, despite all the accusations that both of these public broadcasting entities are federally funded, most of their reporting comes from "contributions from viewers like you" - John Q Public - as well as a vast assortment of charitable foundations.

Something else people don't seem to take into account is how much the states depend on public broadcasting as well. Here in Alabama, for example, the PBS networks have been expanded. We now have 4 different PBS channels offering very different forms of information: children's programming, local/nationals/international news, cooking/home improvement/self-improvement programming and then their flagship PBS station which airs just about anything for public viewing.

Frankly, I think public broadcasting is a good thing. The only people threatened by it are those who believe they're hidden agenda (whatever it might be) will eventually be exposed through independent journalism.

I agree except for the part about the government being in the broadcasting business. I hope they continue the quality programming as they move to an advertising based revenue model.
 
I agree except for the part about the government being in the broadcasting business. I hope they continue the quality programming as they move to an advertising based revenue model.

Except one of the main reasons I watch PBS is because they don't constantly run adds.
 
Except one of the main reasons I watch PBS is because they don't constantly run adds.

Then figure out how to run it on private donations. It is not the role of government to operate broadcast networks.
 
If you need to ask the question, I am quite sure you have never watched more than 15 min of PBS.

"I love the uneducated"-D Trump

Keep em stupid and watching crap reality shows
 
Then figure out how to run it on private donations. It is not the role of government to operate broadcast networks.

Then the government shouldn't run public museums or parks. PBS is a public good that provides educational content for free for everyone. You can sit your toddler to your tween in front of PBS Kids and know they will see high quality content without being indoctrinated with consumerism.
 
Then figure out how to run it on private donations. It is not the role of government to operate broadcast networks.

When you put it that way, no. But the role of the government is to get the best bang out of a tax buck with the taxpayers benefit in mind, and PSB has proven to be a worthy investment. For the cost of chump change found in the seat cushions of the tax budget couch, it's worth has proven tenfold. Makes me wonder why it seems only conservatives have issue with PBS. Why is it? Is it a talking point? Is it because the news programming is not biased like FoxNews? I simply don't get it.


Then the government shouldn't run public museums or parks. PBS is a public good that provides educational content for free for everyone. You can sit your toddler to your tween in front of PBS Kids and know they will see high quality content without being indoctrinated with consumerism.

We Canadians have the government run CBC and there would be a revolution if the government decided to take it away from our cold dead hands. And that would include our conservatives.
 
Back
Top Bottom