obvs. the only way rethugnicans win elections is by fooling the masses into thinking they're decent human beings, let alone competent politicians

3/18/2011 12:59:03 AM

Yeah, there's way this could be approved by the senate and the President.

The onus should really be on those that support NPR funding to make the case for why everyone's money should be taken by force and used in this manner. Does no one see potential conflict of interest when a media outlet is funded by the same entity that it is supposed to be serving as a watch dog against?

There's no denying that NPR has some quality segments. That it does is not a reason to fund it using tax revenue, or in this case, debt. The fact that it's a drop in the bucket doesn't matter.

3/18/2011 1:54:10 PM

clearly it would make more sense for them to be privately funded. that way we could be assured there is no bias in the reporting



people's money is taken by force to pay for wasteful and idiotic programs like the F-35. my money gets taken so people who serve in office that I don't agree with get paid.

to whittle that argument down to just NPR is both idiotic and extremely shortsighted.

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/18/2011 2:02:18 PM

Have you read my posts? I've got a bone to pick with a lot more than NPR.

News media will always be biased as long as it's produced by humans. The issue I'm pointing out is that government funding will lead to a pro-government bias. That's something we don't need - when the government is committing atrocities, we don't want a news outlet turning a blind eye because they're afraid of funding being pulled.

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2011 2:40:18 PM

And yet, the same government you're worried about wants to cut-off NPR....hmmm

Seriously, the only way NPR is going to have a pro-goverment bias is if the content creators receive funding from pro-government entities (which they do, e.g. Open Society Institute). As it is now, government money primarily goes towards upkeep for stations that can't fully support themselves on donations. Member stations are required to be non-commerical and run 18 hours a day.

3/18/2011 3:16:17 PM

Yeah, how dare my fraction of a fraction of a penny go to support the BBC. Let the Brits fund it if they want to force us to hear about soccer and cricket.

3/18/2011 3:39:01 PM

Quote :

" And yet, the same government you're worried about wants to cut-off NPR....hmmm"

That in no way addresses anything I said. The partisan bickering isn’t of any concern to me. I’m saying you need to make the case for NPR to receive funding, and you aren’t doing it.

Quote :

" Seriously, the only way NPR is going to have a pro-goverment bias is if the content creators receive funding from pro-government entities (which they do, e.g. Open Society Institute). As it is now, government money primarily goes towards upkeep for stations that can't fully support themselves on donations. Member stations are required to be non-commerical and run 18 hours a day."

I don’t care how the money is used. I care about where the money is coming from and who it’s going to.

Quote :

" Yeah, how dare my fraction of a fraction of a penny go to support the BBC. Let the Brits fund it if they want to force us to hear about soccer and cricket. "

I agree.

3/18/2011 3:49:17 PM

Well, if I ever have the privilege of meeting you in person, then I will give you a shiny penny for your trouble. Hell, I might even give you 5 if you're lucky just to cover the next couple of years.

3/18/2011 4:00:16 PM

Quote :

"I’m saying you need to make the case for NPR to receive funding, and you aren’t doing it."

It competed for the funding and won. Be more specific.

3/18/2011 4:29:43 PM

^^Believe me, that’s not the point. The issue with NPR funding is a symptom of a larger problem – that the role of federal government is no longer clear to anyone, especially the people running it. It seems like the taxpayer can be made to foot the bill on anything that the President and a majority of both houses of Congress perceive to be a worthy cause. Future generations (that will be represented by an entirely different set of politicians) are required to deal with the consequences of those decisions by default.

Pop politics (generally characterized by “progressive,” Stewart-esque beliefs) says that principle should take a backseat to pragmatic or utilitarian concerns. What we get in return is a totally unrestrained government that is capable of good or unspeakable evil, depending on the whims of politicians and voters of the day. This issue is a great example of how funding, once granted, can’t be taken away without major public discontent. That’s why hardly anything is ever repealed or abolished.

Quote :

"It competed for the funding and won. Be more specific."

Think about what you're saying. Every other private news agency has to compete in the market. If they don't make more money than they spend, they can't continue to function. Imagine if I stole your car, and then had my friends participate in a foot race (compete) to determine who gets it?

3/18/2011 4:49:31 PM

No, what we get in return is programming that people fucking love and provides a valuable service to the community. I enjoy the fact that I can get news and entertaining shows that don't have to whore themselves out to Pro Flowers, Lifelock, Goldline, Food Insurance, etc. Yeah, the pledge drive cut into my programming periodically, but it's part of the charm.

Out of all the piddly shit that the governments gives money to that usually only benefits a handful of people THIS is what you want to raise a fuss about?

3/18/2011 5:17:28 PM

Quote :

"No, what we get in return is programming that people fucking love and provides a valuable service to the community. I enjoy the fact that I can get news and entertaining shows that don't have to whore themselves out to Pro Flowers, Lifelock, Goldline, Food Insurance, etc. Yeah, the pledge drive cut into my programming periodically, but it's part of the charm. "

So that's your justification? If people like the programming and it's considered a valuable service (no clue who determines that or what metrics are used), the entire federal tax base must be forced to fund it? You've just laid the ideological groundwork for a completely nationalized, state controlled media. Grats.

Quote :

"Out of all the piddly shit that the governments gives money to that usually only benefits a handful of people THIS is what you want to raise a fuss about?"

No, but given that this thread is...you know, about NPR funding...

3/18/2011 5:25:58 PM

You sound a bit paranoid. It's simply NPR and despite what Rush and Hannity would have you believe they are far far far from state controlled media.

3/18/2011 5:35:03 PM

You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm not saying NPR is state controlled; they're just partially state funded. I'm saying that if the justification used for funding an organization is "people like it," then the government should be funding anything and everything that people like.

3/18/2011 5:42:59 PM

I would like to see the nationalized, state-controlled library system, museums and senior citizen centers defunded as well

[Edited on March 18, 2011 at 6:03 PM. Reason : Throw a few more taxpayer funded unjustified valuable services out the window too]

3/18/2011 6:01:52 PM

"GOP Congressman: NPR Defunding ‘Does Not Actually Save Taxpayer Dollars’ "
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/18/gop-rep-npr-defunding-does-not-save-money/

Quote :

"H R 1076 does not actually save taxpayer dollars; it merely blocks CPB from exercising its discretion to send funding to NPR. The funds CPB does not send to NPR under the bill are returned to CPB to be spent subsidizing other private radio producers. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to require that any funds not sent to NPR be redirected to pay down the deficit, but the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore, public broadcasting will not see any reduction in federal funding even if this bill becomes law."

3/18/2011 6:03:30 PM

Quote :

"I would like to see the nationalized, state-controlled library system, museums and senior citizen centers defunded as well"

None of those things are federally controlled.

3/18/2011 6:05:36 PM

Is NPR?

3/18/2011 6:28:26 PM

Quote :

"You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm not saying NPR is state controlled; they're just partially state funded. I'm saying that if the justification used for funding an organization is "people like it," then the government should be funding anything and everything that people like."

3/18/2011 6:32:17 PM

libraries, museums, senior citizen centers, et al are partially (or wholly) funded by taxpayer dollars

not all people like libraries, museums, senior citizen centers

defund them

3/18/2011 6:38:43 PM

Do you understand the difference between federal, state, local, and private funding?

3/18/2011 6:39:58 PM

what does it matter what level it's funded at? if it's tax-payer funded and is justified by "people like it", that seems to be the criteria you're establishing for dangerous government-controlled organizations

3/18/2011 6:42:32 PM

Yes, it matters. First and foremost, the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to help fund a private broadcasting company.

I realize you probably don't care about the Constitution though, so let's move on from that. It does matter what level it's funded at. You may be familiar with the concept that the government closest to the people governs best. Local policy makers are much, much more likely to be in tune with their voters interests than a federal policy maker. If Cary decides that they want to use tax money to fund a museum, I can object and move to Apex. If the federal government decides they want to use tax money in a way that I find objectionable, I have to leave the country. The latter is a much bigger deal than the former, for obvious reasons.

Quote :

"if it's tax-payer funded and is justified by "people like it", that seems to be the criteria you're establishing for dangerous government-controlled organizations"

It isn't clear what you mean by this. If the justification used for funding is, "people like it," what process should legislators use to determine what gets funding and what doesn't? People like all kinds of things.

It's becoming very clear that the three of you have not thought about this much, beyond your initial reaction. You like NPR, so you feel that you should defend it. I like NPR (at least certain parts of it) too. I also like South Park, but I'm not suggesting that the federal government fund it.

3/18/2011 6:54:13 PM

i don't care if NPR gets federal tax dollars or not. but if that's the motive, let's be sure to take away all the other funding the federal government does that isn't expressly outlined in the constitution. i don't see a whole lot of clamoring for defunding of valuable public services unless conservatives think it's going to give them a political edge

3/18/2011 7:10:28 PM

Quote :

"Think about what you're saying. Every other private news agency has to compete in the market. If they don't make more money than they spend, they can't continue to function. Imagine if I stole your car, and then had my friends participate in a foot race (compete) to determine who gets it?"

Private news agencies don't have to submit their content for approval from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Private news agencies can sell air-time to advertisers. Private news agencies are not "non-profit".

I don't think you understand how NPR gets federal funding. It competes with other public broadcasting companies for grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

It doesn't sound like your beef is with NPR. It sounds like you're against publicly funded radio in general.

3/19/2011 3:52:40 AM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r: Pop politics (generally characterized by “progressive,” Stewart-esque beliefs) says that principle should take a backseat to pragmatic or utilitarian concerns. What we get in return is a totally unrestrained government that is capable of good or unspeakable evil, depending on the whims of politicians and voters of the day."

Explain.

3/19/2011 6:26:20 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't sound like your beef is with NPR. It sounds like you're against publicly funded radio in general."

It is. I despise when government picks winners and losers.

^My point is that policy should be decided by principles, rather than just...whatever seems like a good idea. I'm sure you could agree that certain policies have negative, [possibly] unintended consequences. We should avoid those. We should also expect a government that is fair and treats everyone equally, if there should be a government at all. The fact that people like NPR shouldn't be weighed in this situation at all. That isn't a good enough reason to require people to fund it, period.

The part about good or unspeakable evil is pretty clear. If you're a strict constitutionalist, the bounds of government are well known. If you're not, then the government really has no bounds, other than what you can dupe the people into believing is acceptable.

3/19/2011 9:04:39 AM

Quote :

"I enjoy the fact that I can get news and entertaining shows that don't have to whore themselves out to Pro Flowers, Lifelock, Goldline, Food Insurance, etc. Yeah, the pledge drive cut into my programming periodically, but it's part of the charm. "

No, instead they whore themselves out to Pepsi, Herman Miller, and other companies.

3/19/2011 5:08:33 PM

Yeah, those insipid underwriters!

3/19/2011 5:19:22 PM

3/19/2011 5:24:19 PM

Because a 45sec wink and a nod to various underwriters is sooooooo much worse than 5+ mins of commercial advertising.

3/19/2011 5:29:35 PM

worse? no. comparable? pretty much

3/19/2011 8:05:20 PM

to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing public broadcasting lose fed funding and then see them go into full fledge progressive mode and start directly attacking the other MSM outlets about their biases, etc. My point being, NPR is pretty vanilla on the progressive front for their opinion based shows (Dianna Rehm)...I see way more progressiveness in the blogosphere than I see out of NPR. I can see their de-funding and consequent more control of what they say backfiring on the GOP as the stories they would begin running would be more hard hitting and more progressive.

3/20/2011 10:37:46 AM

Does Public Radio Have a Liberal Bias? The Finale!
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/03/25/03

3/29/2011 9:09:05 AM

because if there i one person I trust to tell me if they have a bias, it's the organization in question! I guess that makes Fox News truly Fair and Balanced, right?

anyway, interestingly enough, On the Media had a segment today about the evil WSJ's editorial last week blaming the Oslo attacks on Islamic terrorism. They failed to mention, however, that an Islamic group originally claimed credit for the attack. Oh, and they also failed to mention the liberal sources that plastered headlines saying the guy was a "Christian extremist." No bias there, I assure you!

7/31/2011 7:59:20 PM

NPR is a long way from being biased. They had commentators on last week killing Obama over this whole debt thing. No, not right leaning guests versus left leaning guests...I'm talking about NPR personalities killing him.

7/31/2011 8:10:35 PM

way to go NPR. calling Herman Cain a minstrel on air this morning. wow. can you imagine the reaction if anyone called Obama a racial slur. holy cow

11/11/2011 9:18:54 AM

The fuck?

11/11/2011 9:31:42 AM

uncle tom's cabin was notorious for being distorted in minstrel shows by white performers in blackface.

11/11/2011 9:48:41 AM

Minstrel show != minstrel

11/11/2011 10:14:25 AM

Lol how did I miss this back in July

Quote :

"anyway, interestingly enough, On the Media had a segment today about the evil WSJ's editorial last week blaming the Oslo attacks on Islamic terrorism."

How dare they skewer the WSJ for jumping to conclusions with false information and just happened to blame the right's favorite bad guys (no bias here)

Quote :

" They failed to mention, however, that an Islamic group originally claimed credit for the attack. "

Tisk. Failing to mention the non-credible evidence they may or may not have been working from!

Quote :

"Oh, and they also failed to mention the liberal sources that plastered headlines saying the guy was a "Christian extremist." No bias there, I assure you!"

Failing also to mention the liberal sources that plastered headlines with factual information.


[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2011 10:46:29 AM

are you a fucking idiot chance?

1) NPR was saying hermain cain was a WHITE PERFORMER in BLACKFACE,

or

2) hermain cain is a "medieval musical entertainer; especially : a singer of verses to the accompaniment of a harp."

lets see, all the goddamn rhetoric ive heard saying cain is just another old/rich/pro-business/anti-poor/warmongering/elitist retard that happens to be black would TEND TO MAKE MY EXPLANATION MAKE SENSE.

but no youre right- he obviously sits in a tree playing a lute.

"ho eyo he hum!"

11/11/2011 11:00:00 AM

Regardless, the person that fucking made that statement was this guy:

"Jack E. White, a writer and political analyst who is a frequent contributor to the black website TheRoot.com"

Not NPR.

fucking mron

11/11/2011 11:12:58 AM

are you fucking serious?

if so we can just disregard every statement that TSB has taken issue with concerning guests on foxnews then right?

11/11/2011 11:18:39 AM

Die in a fire

11/11/2011 11:20:45 AM

NPR did not call Cain a minstrel. A blogger interviewed by NPR called him a minstrel, and he cited examples of Cain's minstrel-like behavior. Immediately after that, NPR interviewed a Herman Cain supporter, a Harvard Law Professor, who had nice things to say about Cain.

NPR interviewed two people with two different, justified opinions. They even let the conservative go 2nd (the rebuttal), which is usually reserved for whichever side the writer agrees with. Fuck the hell off.

11/11/2011 11:49:38 AM

Quote :

"Regardless, the person that fucking made that statement was this guy: "Jack E. White, a writer and political analyst who is a frequent contributor to the black website TheRoot.com" Not NPR. fucking mron "

and, again, have someone come on ANY news outlet and call Obama a minstrel or say he was cow-towing to his white masters and see how well that goes. I don't give a rats ass if it was an NPR host or a guest. They still played it ON NPR. period.

I don't like Cain, but the piece was one of the most biased ones I've ever heard on Morning Edition. it was pretty bad.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2011 1:46:43 PM

Did your ears stop working right before the rebuttal?

11/11/2011 2:13:07 PM

I've detected the presence of a strong bias on NPR.

A vegeterian bias. Actually, I've noticed this bias in several major news organization including CNN.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/27/141666659/the-paleo-diet-not-the-way-to-a-healthy-future

11/11/2011 2:15:26 PM

^^ actually, I was so freaking shocked that a major presidential candidate was called a racial slur without ANY reaction by the NPR interviewer that I did miss some following parts of the segment. But, I guess as long as the black guy being called a racial slur is a Republican, it's A-OK with you.

11/11/2011 2:39:32 PM