Defund NPR, PBS?

[T.A.M.]

Although I loved many of the shows on PBS and liked NPR's in-depth analysis of current events right up until they decided they were not going to cover the impeachment of President Clinton, I do think they're outmoded dodos, relics of the days when there were 4 or 5 channels available. Today, with cable TV and satellite/internet radio and the realization that narrowcasting can be highly profitable, they're redundant.

Perhaps, but they have so many classic shows (PBS I am speaking of). As well, for the many people who have basic cable, they still serve a purpose. Not everyone can afford the hundreds of channels offered, and many I am sure simply have the basic cable (which I am sure varies from location to location).

TAM

 

[Upchurch]

Does NPR reflect the views of the public or George Soros?

False dichotomy.

"The public" is a wide range of people that represents a large number of views. It would be hard for any one organization to reflect all of the views of the public.

It's possible that NPR reflects some of the views of George Soros. It's not likely that they reflect his views on everything. I have no reason to think they might aspire to reflect his views in particular.

He donated $1.8 million to hire 100 reporters for 50 of its radio stations.

Good for him. NPR is a good cause. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to defund NPR, please find a better reason than the one that brought this on.

OK: how about the fact that there isn't a good reason for the federal government to fund them?

 

[T.A.M.]

It's in the original post. About 15%.



Is that moving the goalpost, or changing the subject? Ah well, six of one...

lol...thanks, I had forgotten.

As for goalpost moving...not really. I was merely pointing out that the cost of funding these two quality media items, is certainly tolerable, given all the other pork wastage seen from BOTH sides of the aisle.

TAM

 

[Ziggurat]

As for goalpost moving...not really. I was merely pointing out that the cost of funding these two quality media items, is certainly tolerable, given all the other pork wastage seen from BOTH sides of the aisle.

It's true that the spending is small compared to other waste, but that doesn't justify it. Either the spending is worthwhile on its own merits, or it is not.

 

[T.A.M.]

Don't forget I am Canadian...We fund the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Company) to the tune of $1Billion per year.

Interesting article (for those interested) on this, here,

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/602565#article

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

It's true that the spending is small compared to other waste, but that doesn't justify it. Either the spending is worthwhile on its own merits, or it is not.

I feel the funding of quality, informative and educational shows to be more then valid.

I say fund any channel that provides quality science and cultural based programming for America (and the world) to utilize and enjoy.

TAM

 

[Davidlpf]

Perhaps, but they have so many classic shows (PBS I am speaking of). As well, for the many people who have basic cable, they still serve a purpose. Not everyone can afford the hundreds of channels offered, and many I am sure simply have the basic cable (which I am sure varies from location to location).

TAM

I didn't even needed basic cable to get PBS here. I live just on the Canadian side of the border on a ridge of a river valley, one side Canadian the other side American . The local PBS station here built their transmission towers on a ridge on their side the CBC built theirs in the valley so we got a better signal from PBS than from the CBC. We did donate once and a while.

While the stations probably won't go off the air immediately the quality of programming will probably decline.

 

[T.A.M.]

I didn't even needed basic cable to get PBS here. I live just on the Canadian side of the border on a ridge of a river valley, one side Canadian the other side American . The local PBS station here built their transmission towers on a ridge on their side the CBC built theirs in the valley so we got a better signal from PBS than from the CBC. We did donate once and a while.

While the stations probably won't go off the air immediately the quality of programming will probably decline.

[shameless nostalgia]
I remember when I was a child, about 4-5 years old, poor as hell (my mother was a single mom at the time). We grew up on FREE Sesame Street and other shows that the CBC obtained from PBS...[/shameless nostalgia]

Hopefully the removal of such funding, if it occurs, will not effect the programming quality too much.

TAM

 

[Almo]

Institute a $10 per month tax on TV owners. Throw that money at PBS. Expand PBS to 2 national channels. Let them produce dramas, comedies, documentaries and news; whatever they think people will watch.

Works wonders for the BBC.

Note: I am completely serious. Having lived in the UK, US and Canada, I know in which country I watched the most TV.

 

[excaza]

Institute a $10 per month tax on TV owners. Throw that money at PBS. Expand PBS to 2 national channels. Let them produce dramas, comedies, documentaries and news; whatever they think people will watch.

Works wonders for the BBC.

Note: I am completely serious. Having lived in the UK, US and Canada, I know in which country I watched the most TV.

Would never happen. People gripe about taxes enough as it is. Hell, the people in my town won't even vote in a tax override so the streets that are falling apart can get repaved (yet they approved the override to purchase a shiny new fire truck that can't get down 40% of the roads).

 

[marplots]

I have to wonder how many of the people who are outraged about the firing of Juan even listened to him on NPR? Or even listen to NPR at all.

 

[headscratcher4]

I like and subscribe to public radio and watch public TV. I have to say I am very ambivelent about government funding. The original rationale for it, in my understanding, was to provide access and programming that might otherwise be lacking in the media market. On TV alone, given the proliferation of cable channels, surely there is a market now outthere that can be scaled to work for NPR like programming?

More than that, I'm tierd of these constant arguments...it is too liberal bias, no its not! Regardless, maybe it is in fact time to get the government out of the broadcast business altogether.

Anyway, at one time I think public broadcasting made a kind of sense that it doesn't anymore, the traditional media is changing and the internet has blown public access as well as public creation of content wide open, the logic of NPR just doesn't hold the same valence as it once may have. Let it go.

BTW, I also think that NPR was wrong in firing Williams...though what he said was both bigoted and patently absurd (IIRC, not a one of the 9/11 bombers looked like William's discription of a Moslem, they looked like disheveled college students or business travelers...but maybe williams was really worried about their dark skin...wouldn't that be ironic). Anyway, people say dumb stuff all the time. I don't think that Helen Thomas should have lost her job either...

But, to solve the problem, let's just get the government out of the broadcast subsidy business altogether, than NPR can hire or fire who they want and Fox can rage and I can go on better ignoring the whole brewhaha.

 

[Ziggurat]

But, to solve the problem, let's just get the government out of the broadcast subsidy business altogether, than NPR can hire or fire who they want and Fox can rage and I can go on better ignoring the whole brewhaha.

Shame on you, headscratcher! Such reasonableness was entirely uncalled for!

But I think you spelled a word wrong. Unless you're referring to some sort of local ale variety. In which case, tell me more.

 

[A'isha]

OK: how about the fact that there isn't a good reason for the federal government to fund them?

This guy had some very good reasons.

 

[DrBaltar]

Shouldn't you be asking David Brooks this question?

Didn't you know? We solve all the world's problems on this forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

This guy had some very good reasons.

That's over 40 years old. More than a few things have changed since them.

 

[Hazel]

Institute a $10 per month tax on TV owners. Throw that money at PBS. Expand PBS to 2 national channels. Let them produce dramas, comedies, documentaries and news; whatever they think people will watch.

Works wonders for the BBC.

Note: I am completely serious. Having lived in the UK, US and Canada, I know in which country I watched the most TV.

I agree. I lived in another city where our NPR station broadcast midnight to 6:00 AM programs from BBC. They also broadcast news from BBC at noon and again at 7:00 PM. It was wonderful to get such quality. We also received classical music on NPR radio and had two other classical music stations. We have none here.

I am told by those who get it that BBC's television programming is just as good. I know their online news is superior. People in UK pay a television fee to receive broadcasts. We get them free here. The difference definitely shows.

If I lived in UK, I'd buy a televison set and pay willingly. Here, I do not even own a television set. They tell me cable is better but cable is far too expensive and (something else I am told) they have a lot of repetition.

I don't know the answer. I am just glad I can still enjoy good books, although the book stores are even turning to other things to draw in customers.

Enough from me.

 

[headscratcher4]

Shame on you, headscratcher! Such reasonableness was entirely uncalled for!

But I think you spelled a word wrong. Unless you're referring to some sort of local ale variety. In which case, tell me more.

I'm sure its my spelling...I have no local variety.

 

[DrBaltar]

That bastard! How dare he donate money to non-profit organizations!

In reality he donated 100 reporters to NPR. Don't you think this will influence the type of reporting that is done on NPR in any way? I know logic fades when the subject is political but try thinking critically.

Good for him. NPR is a good cause. What does that have to do with anything?

Again, don't you think this will influence the .... oh who am I kidding. We all know our comments depend entirely on which party we support. Score one for determinism.