What is the point of PBS and NPR?

[eohrnberger]

If you don't think there are a diverse array of voices on NPR on a daily basis, then obviously don't listen to it much.

I listen to NPR on the way to work every morning. I don't think I've heard a single report which put any conservative thought of any kind in a positive light.

Diversity? Only in the very narrow confines of their accepted opinions, as Juan Williams can test to.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I listen to NPR on the way to work every morning. I don't think I've heard a single report which put any conservative thought of any kind in a positive light.

Diversity? Only in the very narrow confines of their accepted opinions, as Juan Williams can test to.

Well I mean like I said, NPR is good news. Bias news, but still news. Even so, the government doesn't NEED to fund it. I would be fine if some funding was channeled away from NPR and to PBS.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I suggested no such thing.

When you decide to stop making things up, I might take your posts more seriously.

As it is, I just view them as SOP from someone who struggles to make a cogent argument.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

The guy who brings up Soros and claims it as his catch-all for any argument against Trump is accusing me of making things up and not having a cogent argument. Now that is hilarious.

:lamo

 

[American]

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.

There is no purpose for them.

 

[ocean515]

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

The guy who brings up Soros and claims it as his catch-all for any argument against Trump is accusing me of making things up and not having a cogent argument. Now that is hilarious.

:lamo

I guess you're on a mission to not be taken seriously. You're excelling at it!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I listen to NPR on the way to work every morning. I don't think I've heard a single report which put any conservative thought of any kind in a positive light.

Diversity? Only in the very narrow confines of their accepted opinions, as Juan Williams can test to.

They are ridiculously PC, that is why Juan Williams was let go. It had nothing to do with his politics. Anytime I listen to a segment on NPR or show discussing a policy issue, they will always have a conservative on there and a liberal giving their point of view. On some shows like On Point, Radio Times, or 1A, the whole show can have a conservative thinker on talking about some issue.

 

[jonny5]

I still can't see where I said you should. Could you point it out to me?

You dont support public funding of public broadcasting?

 

[Mac77]

They are ridiculously PC, that is why Juan Williams was let go. It had nothing to do with his politics. Anytime I listen to a segment on NPR or show discussing a policy issue, they will always have a conservative on there and a liberal giving their point of view. On some shows like On Point, Radio Times, or 1A, the whole show can have a conservative thinker on talking about some issue.

No tax dollars for a biased leftwing propaganda outlet

I have wanted to defund npr for years and this great news

 

[eohrnberger]

They are ridiculously PC, that is why Juan Williams was let go. It had nothing to do with his politics. Anytime I listen to a segment on NPR or show discussing a policy issue, they will always have a conservative on there and a liberal giving their point of view. On some shows like On Point, Radio Times, or 1A, the whole show can have a conservative thinker on talking about some issue.

True, on representation. Also true on ridiculously PC. If they could loose the PC part, it'd be better.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

 

[ALiberalModerate]

True, on representation. Also true on ridiculously PC. If they could loose the PC part, it'd be better.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk

I have thought before that if I ever call into an NPR show, I am going to make sure I use the term "illegal immigrant", just to annoy them.

 

[MrPeanut]

You dont support public funding of public broadcasting?

I support public funding for public broadcasting in the same way I support public funding for infrastructure projects. I see it as a positive for society regardless of whether I use it or not.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What is really funny is NPR/CPB is not being cut. Federal Block Grants are being cut. They are being cut because they are frequently used to spend on pork barrel projects and if we have any intention of cutting discretionary spending, that is where we ought to start.

PBS and NPR will have to either lobby the states for the funding shortfall or find it from donations. I have a feeling they are going to be just fine. I also have a feeling in a society where we have hundreds of stations almost no matter where you live, the viewership in rural areas also will not suffer much, if at all.

 

[jonny5]

I support public funding for public broadcasting in the same way I support public funding for infrastructure projects. I see it as a positive for society regardless of whether I use it or not.

Then you support forcing me to pay for it. You said PBS "and is more trustworthy to me than the Ancient Aliens crap the history channel is pushing, or any of the sugar induced madness you get on any of the channels targeting children." Fine, thats your opinion. I disagree, but I dont force you to pay for ancient aliens, certainly not in some area you dont even live. So back to my question. Whats in it for me, that I should have to pay for content YOU like somewhere I dont even live?

 

[Visbek]

I listen to NPR on the way to work every morning. I don't think I've heard a single report which put any conservative thought of any kind in a positive light.

And yet, they routinely interview conservatives and Republican elected officials, and treat them pretty much the same way they do progressives and Democrats.

Here's a bunch of neutral articles, just from this morning's All Things Considered:

Trump pushes health care bill
President Trump Pushes GOP Health Care Bill On Capitol Hill : NPR

Rep Ted Yoho explains why he's voting against the GOP health care bill
Rep. Ted Yoho Explains Why He's Voting Against GOP Health Care Bill : NPR

UK joins US in electronic device block on some flights
U.K. Joins U.S. In Restricting Electronic Devices On Some Flights : NPR

Republicans paint Gorsuch as fair minded on day 2 of hearings
Republicans Paint Gorsuch As Fair-Minded On Day 2 Of Hearings : NPR


Some shows are certainly leftist, in both content and cultural orientation (On the Media, This American Life). Even many of those shows include many conservative voices (Fresh Air, Brian Lehrer) or make fun of both left and right (Wait Wait). Others deliberately balance sides (Intelligence Squared).

Of course, if you see anything to the right of Breitbart as "liberal," then NPR won't sound neutral....

 

[Visbek]

What is really funny is NPR/CPB is not being cut. Federal Block Grants are being cut. They are being cut because they are frequently used to spend on pork barrel projects and if we have any intention of cutting discretionary spending, that is where we ought to start.

PBS and NPR will have to either lobby the states for the funding shortfall or find it from donations. I have a feeling they are going to be just fine. I also have a feeling in a society where we have hundreds of stations almost no matter where you live, the viewership in rural areas also will not suffer much, if at all.

Uh... No, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not part of any block grants. It's an independent federal agency which provides funds to NPR, PBS, and local affiliates.

This is completely separate from the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program cuts.

Yes, CPB or its affiliates will have to try to increase private donations. The problem is, unsurprisingly, that Trump's voters will be hit the worst by this. Stations in urban areas have more viewers, better funding networks, more access to corporate donors. Rural stations already have funding issues, and would likely go dark. No more Sesame Street, and less local news, for millions of Trump voters.

Ironically, this could result in public broadcasting becoming more leftist in orientation, as Republican administrations have repeatedly used threats of defunding to exert editorial influence. What's the phrase? Cut of one's nose, to spite one's face?

 

[Mac77]

What is really funny is NPR/CPB is not being cut. Federal Block Grants are being cut. They are being cut because they are frequently used to spend on pork barrel projects and if we have any intention of cutting discretionary spending, that is where we ought to start.

PBS and NPR will have to either lobby the states for the funding shortfall or find it from donations. I have a feeling they are going to be just fine. I also have a feeling in a society where we have hundreds of stations almost no matter where you live, the viewership in rural areas also will not suffer much, if at all.

You mean PBS isnt going to disappear from the face of the earth if they dont have federal funding?

Aw shucks.

But at least they won t be brainwashing the progressives with our tax money.

 

[MrPeanut]

Then you support forcing me to pay for it. You said PBS "and is more trustworthy to me than the Ancient Aliens crap the history channel is pushing, or any of the sugar induced madness you get on any of the channels targeting children." Fine, thats your opinion. I disagree, but I dont force you to pay for ancient aliens, certainly not in some area you dont even live. So back to my question. Whats in it for me, that I should have to pay for content YOU like somewhere I dont even live?

I already gave you the reason. It's the same reason that public funding can be used for things like roads and dams regardless of where you live. Taxes are the toll we pay to live in a society. If you are so concerned about paying for things other people use go ahead and move to an uninhabited island.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Uh... No, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not part of any block grants. It's an independent federal agency which provides funds to NPR, PBS, and local affiliates.

This is completely separate from the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program cuts.

Yes, CPB or its affiliates will have to try to increase private donations. The problem is, unsurprisingly, that Trump's voters will be hit the worst by this. Stations in urban areas have more viewers, better funding networks, more access to corporate donors. Rural stations already have funding issues, and would likely go dark. No more Sesame Street, and less local news, for millions of Trump voters.

Ironically, this could result in public broadcasting becoming more leftist in orientation, as Republican administrations have repeatedly used threats of defunding to exert editorial influence. What's the phrase? Cut of one's nose, to spite one's face?

Block grants are given to the states with very loose guidelines on what to spend it on. Public broadcasting funding is included in that block grant funding. What is entirely more likely to happen is states will pony up the money and exert more control over their programming.

 

[Mac77]

Uh... No, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not part of any block grants. It's an independent federal agency which provides funds to NPR, PBS, and local affiliates.

This is completely separate from the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program cuts.

Yes, CPB or its affiliates will have to try to increase private donations.

The problem is, unsurprisingly, that Trump's voters will be hit the worst by this. Stations in urban areas have more viewers, better funding networks, more access to corporate donors. Rural stations already have funding issues, and would likely go dark. No more Sesame Street, and less local news, for millions of Trump voters.

Ironically, this could result in public broadcasting becoming more leftist in orientation, as Republican administrations have repeatedly used threats of defunding to exert editorial influence. What's the phrase? Cut of one's nose, to spite one's face?

Thanks for your concern but I think we will survive

 

[Visbek]

Block grants are given to the states with very loose guidelines on what to spend it on. Public broadcasting funding is included in that block grant funding. What is entirely more likely to happen is states will pony up the money and exert more control over their programming.

Again, this is incorrect.

Minor correction to my earlier statement: CPB is a non-profit corporation created by, and funded by, Congress. (It's not a federal agency.)

CPB is a national entity. It is funded directly by Congress. None of its funding comes from the states. None of it is from block grants.

Many states provide separate funding for local public broadcasting stations. But that's not a block grant from Congress, that is spending their own funds.

The states are not likely to spend more money on public broadcasting. They are already cutting back. E.g. West Virginia took an axe to funding for public broadcasting (a whopping $4.6 million), so a cut to the CPB will probably wipe out public broadcasting in much of the state.

The end result will be many stations in rural areas facing huge cuts or closure; and in the stations that survive, government will basically lose any editorial influence. While this will generally be good for the stations as a whole, it will also defeat the goals of many conservatives to influence the content.

 

[Visbek]

Thanks for your concern but I think we will survive

Yes, because.... no rural Trump voters have kids that watch Sesame Street?

 

[Mac77]

Yes, because.... no rural Trump voters have kids that watch Sesame Street?

Most rural voters have cable of satilite which carries pbs

But if Rome does fall to the barbarians rural voters will survive

 

[OpportunityCost]

Again, this is incorrect.

Minor correction to my earlier statement: CPB is a non-profit corporation created by, and funded by, Congress. (It's not a federal agency.)

CPB is a national entity. It is funded directly by Congress. None of its funding comes from the states. None of it is from block grants.

Many states provide separate funding for local public broadcasting stations. But that's not a block grant from Congress, that is spending their own funds.

The states are not likely to spend more money on public broadcasting. They are already cutting back. E.g. West Virginia took an axe to funding for public broadcasting (a whopping $4.6 million), so a cut to the CPB will probably wipe out public broadcasting in much of the state.

The end result will be many stations in rural areas facing huge cuts or closure; and in the stations that survive, government will basically lose any editorial influence. While this will generally be good for the stations as a whole, it will also defeat the goals of many conservatives to influence the content.

I have explained this to you several times and you don't seem to be getting it. Funding for individual public stations in states comes from block grant funding sent from the Fed to the states. Full stop.

 

[eohrnberger]

I have thought before that if I ever call into an NPR show, I am going to make sure I use the term "illegal immigrant", just to annoy them.

That would be most excellent, and most honest. Illegal alien is, I believe, the official legal term for people who sneak into the country, or over stay their visa.

I tire of the 'spin doctoring' and 'forcing / controlling the context of the conversation' that undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant are purposefully used. It's dishonest. People who sneak into the country or over stay their visas are illegal immigrant or illegal aliens, and that's the fact.

 

[eohrnberger]

And yet, they routinely interview conservatives and Republican elected officials, and treat them pretty much the same way they do progressives and Democrats.

Here's a bunch of neutral articles, just from this morning's All Things Considered:

Trump pushes health care bill
President Trump Pushes GOP Health Care Bill On Capitol Hill : NPR

Rep Ted Yoho explains why he's voting against the GOP health care bill
Rep. Ted Yoho Explains Why He's Voting Against GOP Health Care Bill : NPR

UK joins US in electronic device block on some flights
U.K. Joins U.S. In Restricting Electronic Devices On Some Flights : NPR

Republicans paint Gorsuch as fair minded on day 2 of hearings
Republicans Paint Gorsuch As Fair-Minded On Day 2 Of Hearings : NPR


Some shows are certainly leftist, in both content and cultural orientation (On the Media, This American Life). Even many of those shows include many conservative voices (Fresh Air, Brian Lehrer) or make fun of both left and right (Wait Wait). Others deliberately balance sides (Intelligence Squared).

Of course, if you see anything to the right of Breitbart as "liberal," then NPR won't sound neutral....

It'd be to the 'left of Breitbart', wouldn't it?

I've been a listener to NPR for many years, typically either the morning or the evening commute. I've watched (listened) to them drifting ever further to the left.

It's rare, if at all, that a conservative or conservatism is presented in a positive light, and that's a fact. Yes, there are even programs that are even further than their news coverage, as you point out. If it were balanced, seems to me that there should be some conservative programming to balance (unbias) it out, shouldn't there be? But there is not. So on the whole . . . .