• 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!

Trump set to cut off PBS, NPR

It was always my go to for news when I lived in the US, they cut through the bull****. Doesn't also provide a lot of educational programming for people who can't afford cable etc?

Just cut some of the fat from your bloated F22 program, that should find it for decades ;)

Nope. Making a bunch of planes we won't ever use is much more important than funding educational programs.
 
That's one of the differences. With PBS, the viewers are the customers. With commercial TV, the viewers are the product, what they sell to their customers. Hence the dumbed-down, leave-nobody-behind nature of commercial TV. Shows like 'The Apprentice', for example.

Okay then maybe they can operate like HBO does. They can have no commercials and charge for their service. HBO survives this way. If NPR and PBS are so awesome then they can survive this way too. If they're not awesome then perhaps tax payer money shouldn't be supporting them?

Honestly though I don't care that they're publicly funded because the amount they get is pretty tiny when compared to what the U.S. spends on most other things.
 
Okay then maybe they can operate like HBO does. They can have no commercials and charge for their service. HBO survives this way. If NPR and PBS are so awesome then they can survive this way too. If they're not awesome then perhaps tax payer money shouldn't be supporting them?

Honestly though I don't care that they're publicly funded because the amount they get is pretty tiny when compared to what the U.S. spends on most other things.

... Why... would a channel known mostly for gay puppets and a guy with an afro painting... also called the PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE... emulate HBO?
 
Okay then maybe they can operate like HBO does. They can have no commercials and charge for their service. HBO survives this way. If NPR and PBS are so awesome then they can survive this way too. If they're not awesome then perhaps tax payer money shouldn't be supporting them?

Honestly though I don't care that they're publicly funded because the amount they get is pretty tiny when compared to what the U.S. spends on most other things.

The whole point of PBS and NPR is to provide educational programming that is accessible to everyone. It isn't based on if you can afford it or not.
 
I don't know about Trump, YET!! But this has been my problem with the GOP for the last 10 years or so. The only government spending cuts they give a rats ass about are cuts that jive with the rabid 'social agenda'.

On everything else like the DoD they spend like drunken sailors. But PP, NPR, dept. of Ed., EPA, then they are all for cutting. Only cut social programs they don't like. Everything else they spend more then the Dems. Fiscal conservatives my ass.
 
Yes, let's kill off thought, thinking be bad..................
 
... Why... would a channel known mostly for gay puppets and a guy with an afro painting... also called the PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE... emulate HBO?

Because HBO is successful and supports itself which allows it to run whatever programming it darn well chooses to run without government interference.
 
It's really a shame to lose public broadcasting. It's the one station you can always depend on if you don't have a lot of money. Oh well, maybe Trump is just hoping those British mystery viewers will switch over to the Apprentice.

NPR and PBS are great when they stay away from politics. I love a lot of PBS' documentary style programs. I'd like to keep funding them, under the stipulation that they are required to cut out the partisan politics.
 
Because HBO is successful and supports itself which allows it to run whatever programming it darn well chooses to run without government interference.

Yes, HBO is successful because a small number of people pay $15 a month to see it. A similarly small number pay to watch HBO sponsored events. PBS was created with the purpose that Americans who couldn't afford the luxury of cable (no, a TV set hasn't been a luxury since the 1960s) still had access to basic programing. Why would they emulate the exact opposite of why they were created?

:lol:
 
NPR and PBS are great when they stay away from politics. I love a lot of PBS' documentary style programs. I'd like to keep funding them, under the stipulation that they are required to cut out the partisan politics.

I don't see how the NPR we have today is openly partisan. Maybe it is the case, but I'm more inclined to think a lot of people took a hard right and from their current perspectives everything not Breitbart is partisan.
 
I really enjoy some NPR programs, I'm even currently listening to an NPR podcast right now (intelligence squared debates), however I am in complete agreement on this.

I could care less about bias or lack thereof of, the government should not be using federal funds to support it. If they want to continue to provide their services then they can find sponsors or run ads to support them. They put out a quality product that can fund itself. Even if it were a conservative publication like the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro's podcast/news site) I would be against using government funds to support it simply on principle.
 
At least twice a year I get told how my donation dollars are what fund the local NPR/PBS stations and how little they get from the government. Now all the sudden that tiny little government stipen is pulled and the whole system collapses. Viewers and listeners like me don't mind throwing in 10 more month.

Trump may be a douche but the only way this fails is if people choose not to support their local stations. If a majority of people don't choose to support their stations than that is proof that the programing is not what people want and should not have tax dollars throw at it.


For the price of just one cup of Starbucks a week, a Maddona concert ticket or a few new pink ***** hats you can help public broadcasting survive.
 
The point is, we spend way too much on our military.

I disagree. When you're just a little bit stronger than your enemy, your enemy might think he can destroy you by say getting in the first shot. As Japan did at Pearl Harbor for instance. But when you're much stronger than your enemy they know not to mess with you.

Ukraine decided not to build up their military because they wrongly thought the west would protect them. Now Russia is biting off pieces of them.


Strong militaries aren't for fighting wars. They're for preventing wars.
 
I disagree. When you're just a little bit stronger than your enemy, your enemy might think he can destroy you by say getting in the first shot. As Japan did at Pearl Harbor for instance. But when you're much stronger than your enemy they know not to mess with you.

Ukraine decided not to build up their military because they wrongly thought the west would protect them. Now Russia is biting off pieces of them.


Strong militaries aren't for fighting wars. They're for preventing wars.

There's a difference between having a strong military, and spending way too much on the military.

But like I said, this is a conversation for another day. I don't want to derail this thread.
 
Yes, HBO is successful because a small number of people pay $15 a month to see it. A similarly small number pay to watch HBO sponsored events. PBS was created with the purpose that Americans who couldn't afford the luxury of cable (no, a TV set hasn't been a luxury since the 1960s) still had access to basic programing. Why would they emulate the exact opposite of why they were created?

:lol:


Can't the free local stations provide this basic programming?
 
Yeah, there's nothing like a state run media...eh?


NPR provides a lot of quality programming. The problem is, it's hard to sell quality in a manner that doesn't offend advertisers.

It's not like we have a state monopoly on media, so your argument is emotional without rational basis
 
I don't see how the NPR we have today is openly partisan. Maybe it is the case, but I'm more inclined to think a lot of people took a hard right and from their current perspectives everything not Breitbart is partisan.

NPR has always leaned left. A former NPR executive was placed on leave after meeting with people he thought were affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, and was filmed telling them how much he hated the GOP, the tea party, etc. Of course he was then tossed under the bus by NPR, which pretended like his views surprised them.
 
Back
Top Bottom