• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Defund NPR, PBS?

marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here is one. I used to enjoy listening to Juan when I lived across the state. Here I have never gotten the hang of what our NPR station broadcasts. It is like nothing I have ever heard before. Quite different. More local and college-centered. None of the good national programs that I am familiar with. Also a lot more advertising than previous NPR stations. One of the original specifications of both public radio and public television was that there would be no advertising. There sure is now. So, all that said, if Juan is ever on our local NPR station, I'd like to know it. All the other old favourites also. We do not even get hourly news. Fifteen minutes every two hours. Maybe that's enough, considering the news but.....
 
DrBaltar said:
In reality he donated 100 reporters to NPR.
Click to expand...

No, in reality he donated money. And, given that said reporters are employed by NPR's members stations (not NPR), your characterization reflects a complete lack of knowledge about how NPR operates.

Don't you think this will influence the type of reporting that is done on NPR in any way?
Click to expand...

Any evidence that it has? No? Didn't think so.

Did Soros take part in the hiring or vetting of these reporters? No? Didn't think so.

Do you have any evidence that these donations came with any strings attached? No? Didn't think so.

I know logic fades when the subject is political but try thinking critically.
Click to expand...

Helpful hint for the day: "thinking critically" is not a synonym for "agrees with everything DrBaltar says without question."
 
marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am. I'm a regular donor to WNYC (New York City's NPR), and I have a tote bag collection to prove it. That said, despite my being disappointed with NPR's handling of Juan Williams, I will continue to support them with donations (though, not anything near what Soros contributes).

I am, however. ambivalent about public funding for broadcast. As much as I enjoy the content, I am not very comfortable with tax money being spent to fund other people's speech.
 
DrBaltar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why don't we just review the evidence? Do you have any to support your claim?

Or are you just falling back on your own party line?
 
Hazel said:
Here is one. I used to enjoy listening to Juan when I lived across the state. Here I have never gotten the hang of what our NPR station broadcasts. It is like nothing I have ever heard before. Quite different. More local and college-centered. None of the good national programs that I am familiar with. Also a lot more advertising than previous NPR stations. One of the original specifications of both public radio and public television was that there would be no advertising. There sure is now. So, all that said, if Juan is ever on our local NPR station, I'd like to know it. All the other old favourites also. We do not even get hourly news. Fifteen minutes every two hours. Maybe that's enough, considering the news but.....
Click to expand...

I'm with ya on the pseudo-advertising thing. And my local station had to drop Car Talk because it was too expensive. To be honest, I don't listen to much in the way of politics on NPR and wouldn't mind if that went away. But I do like their news and a I do like a format where they can spend 15 to 20 minutes exploring a subject -- something I don't think commercial television demands would allow.
 
Brainster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where go you get this stuff?
From this link http://www.npr.org/news/national/hearings.html
Live Coverage
Join NPR on-the-air and online for live coverage when the full House debates the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Read the articles of impeachment.

Archived Coverage
Saturday, December 12, 1998
Listen as Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., discusses the hearings with NPR's Neal Conan and Nina Totenberg.
Listen to NPR analysis prior to Saturday's debate.
Listen to the morning debate.
Listen to NPR's Neal Conan, Nina Totenberg and Daniel Schorr.
Listen to the debate and vote on the fourth article of impeachment.
Listen to the debate and vote on censure.
Listen as the committee wraps up their discussion.
Check out our online report.
Click to expand...

And it goes on and on. NPR covered the impeachment.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Where go you get this stuff?
From this link http://www.npr.org/news/national/hearings.html


And it goes on and on. NPR covered the impeachment.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Do we need to realize that not every NPR station airs the same programs? You may get a debate or news analysis in your city that I won't get in mine. And this is true everywhere. I have e-mailed my friend in Texas because of something very good on my station and she'd find it not on hers which comes to her from Louisiana. For example, she'd not be able to get the BBC news that we got.

This makes it hard to agree on how good or not good NPR as a whole is.
 
ANTPogo said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

The explosion of cable and satellite channels, for one thing. Plus a little project that came out of DARPA. Something to do with computers, and connecting them. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The media landscape today is vastly different from the media landscape of 1969.
 
excaza said:
Would never happen. People gripe about taxes enough as it is.
Click to expand...

True. But that means I have little hope that TV will improve. As the revenue gets tighter with the internet, they load shows down with more and more ads, which makes it less and less likely that I will watch it.

Hazel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cable is not better. With about 50 channels on cable in the US or Canada, we watched way less TV than we did in the UK picking up 5 channels off the air. With BBC there, the other channels (notably 4 and ITV) had to keep their quality up. State-funded BBC raises the bar for everything else. Why would I watch crap on another channel if I can just switch to BBC? It also stabilizes the number of ads on commercial TV. There are breaks only every 15 minutes on ITV and 4 (well, that's what it was like when I left in 2004).
 
As an American, I support public tv/radio every month ... I pay to download BBC programming. The American counterpart is seriously lacking in quality ... unless you enjoy 50's doo-wop reunions ... or octogenarians talking politics... or milquetoast Minnesotans reciting folksy poetry.

I'll stick with the Proms... international news... original radio dramas, etc.
 
Almo said:
True. But that means I have little hope that TV will improve. As the revenue gets tighter with the internet, they load shows down with more and more ads, which makes it less and less likely that I will watch it.



Cable is not better. With about 50 channels on cable in the US or Canada, we watched way less TV than we did in the UK picking up 5 channels off the air. With BBC there, the other channels (notably 4 and ITV) had to keep their quality up. State-funded BBC raises the bar for everything else. Why would I watch crap on another channel if I can just switch to BBC? It also stabilizes the number of ads on commercial TV. There are breaks only every 15 minutes on ITV and 4 (well, that's what it was like when I left in 2004).
Click to expand...


That's good to hear. We should maybe take lessons?
 
Hazel said:
Do we need to realize that not every NPR station airs the same programs? You may get a debate or news analysis in your city that I won't get in mine. And this is true everywhere. I have e-mailed my friend in Texas because of something very good on my station and she'd find it not on hers which comes to her from Louisiana. For example, she'd not be able to get the BBC news that we got.

This makes it hard to agree on how good or not good NPR as a whole is.
Click to expand...
The issue is National Public Radio, not individual affiliates. The statement that NPR,
decided they were not going to cover the impeachment of President Clinton
Click to expand...
is absolutely false.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
Where go you get this stuff?
From this link http://www.npr.org/news/national/hearings.html


And it goes on and on. NPR covered the impeachment.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

Once the actual proceedings began, yes. But if you were looking for coverage of the Lewinsky affair in the Spring and Summer of 1998, you had to go elsewhere, as NPR gave scant attention to the topic that everybody was talking about. I remember because I was a longtime NPR listener, and I had to go elsewhere to find any coverage of the latest developments.

And it wasn't hard to figure out why. Every time they devoted any significant segment to Monicagate, callers flooded the lines, all saying the same thing: "Who cares? I want to hear about X or Y or anything but Lewinsky."

Here, for example, is the Talk of the Nation archives for May 1998. You'll find entire shows dedicated to Needle Exchange, and Wedding Nightmares and Raising Boys and Gas Guzzlers and even Elderly Love, but nary a mention of the topic on everybody's lips. Ditto for June 1998. In April, they dedicated an hour to Paula Jones' suit being thrown out, but nothing about the continuing scandal swirling around Clinton.
 
Brainster said:
Once the actual proceedings began, yes. But if you were looking for coverage of the Lewinsky affair in the Spring and Summer of 1998, you had to go elsewhere, as NPR gave scant attention to the topic that everybody was talking about. I remember because I was a longtime NPR listener, and I had to go elsewhere to find any coverage of the latest developments.

And it wasn't hard to figure out why. Every time they devoted any significant segment to Monicagate, callers flooded the lines, all saying the same thing: "Who cares? I want to hear about X or Y or anything but Lewinsky."

Here, for example, is the Talk of the Nation archives for May 1998. You'll find entire shows dedicated to Needle Exchange, and Wedding Nightmares and Raising Boys and Gas Guzzlers and even Elderly Love, but nary a mention of the topic on everybody's lips. Ditto for June 1998. In April, they dedicated an hour to Paula Jones' suit being thrown out, but nothing about the continuing scandal swirling around Clinton.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have said what you meant in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom