|NPR isn't going away anytime soon||ColnagoFE|
Nov 7, 2003 10:26 AM
|Big donation from Mrs Ronald McDonald it seems:
|Just an attempt to buy off the liberal media (nm)||TJeanloz|
Nov 7, 2003 10:30 AM
|They are going to change their name to...................||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 7, 2003 11:13 AM
|NP "R" you going to have fries with that?|
|Source of unbiased news survives, neo-cons livid||Cory|
Nov 7, 2003 2:42 PM
|Best news I've heard in weeks. But let's see how long it takes the no-dissent, with-us-or-with-the-terrorists GOP congress to declare that this is proof NPR can be self-supporting.|
|LOL! NPR unbiased?!||HouseMoney|
Nov 7, 2003 6:20 PM
|Best joke I've heard in weeks.|
|Can you say w/a straight face NPR's biased, O'Reilly's no-spin?||Cory|
Nov 10, 2003 8:58 PM
|Cracks me flat f*****g up when people rant about the liberal media, then you ask them what THEY listen to, and they say, "Rush Limbaugh, Fox, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage . . ." Those people ARE the media, folks. They have all the clout these days. Show me their liberal counterparts, in power and influence, and I'll let your "liberal media" BS go unchallenged. Otherwise you're just parroting what they tell you to believe.|
|Why can't NPR be self-supporting?||Live Steam|
Nov 8, 2003 6:59 AM
|Why can't they operate like any other business and survive on their own merits? With this endowment, they should certainly be able to hold their own without government grants. If they can't survive on their own at this point, they must not have the program content people want in order to sustain a viable business. Why should they go on in perpetuity, wasting the peoples money, if they have a failing business?|
Nov 8, 2003 8:22 AM
|You sound like a capitalist. "survive on their own merits"....public radio?? You gotta be kidding.
I absolutely agree with you. With the money they now have, government subsidies should stop. Start advertising guys. See if the "hordes" of NPR listeners are really out there to support you. If NPR has the content to attract the listeners, then they should be self supportive.
This isn't politics that I'm writing about - it's cutting useless government spending. If NPR has a 1/4 of a billion dollars in its' bank account, save we taxpayers some money. I'm sure the millions that NPR no longer needs could go elsewhere or God-forbid....not get spent at all!! A novel concept that will surely be lost in Washington.
Nov 8, 2003 8:34 AM
|When you actually look at NPR's operating budget, it isn't all that bad - of a $100MM budget, ~$1MM is supplied directly by Congress, the rest is raised through dues from member stations and donations. In the scheme of things, I think $1MM (or .002 dollars per person) is probably worth it to provide an alternative viewpoint on the world.|
|This is all I found so far||Live Steam|
Nov 8, 2003 9:06 AM
"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives an appropriation from the federal government. In 1999, this figure was $250,000,000. In 2004, CPB is expected to receive an allocation of $380,000,000 and $395,000,000 has been set-aside for 2005. Of this allocation, CPB, must award 95% to a small handful of public broadcasting entities (NPR, PBS, etc.)."
I don't know how much of the numbers cited go directly to NPR, but I would bet it's more than $1m. Where did you get your number from?
|I think it was from the NYTimes,||TJeanloz|
Nov 8, 2003 9:35 AM
|You are partly right, note that I said "directly" receives from Congress. According to the Times, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting only gives about $1MM to NPR - but they (CPB) gives most of its money to individual stations, which then pay "dues" to NPR for the programming. So NPR is receiving much more Government funding, but it is not directly receiving it. Your quote is fundamentally wrong, because CPB does not award most of its money to a small handful of entities - it awards most of its money to a large network of independent radio stations, which, in turn, fund a relatively small handful of entities.|
|Don't confuse Steam with facts!||OldEdScott|
Nov 8, 2003 3:26 PM
|Once again, I take a apostate position. Even as a liberal, I'm not sure why taxpayers should subsidize NPR. I believe it could survive on its own, and besides --
If the government props you up, the government can chop you down. We talk about creating a liberal radio network. Hell, we have one. Let's make it stand on its hind legs and not cringe before political winds.
Here's to a ferocious, independent NPR.
(I don't listen to it, by the way. Sounds like a bunch of mush-brained liberal pansies every time I tune in. But I like the IDEA of it, so --)
|Why support it?||dr hoo|
Nov 9, 2003 6:41 AM
|How about "for the public good"? Public education is good for everyone, not just people with kids. The goal of an educated population is necessary for a democracy. We decided that long ago. Public broadcasting serves this function.
And I am not talking just about sesame street. Also there are tons of other programs on. Most people remember watching pbs as a 4 year old. Zoom a zoom zoom?
News serves primarily an educational function. When done well. PBS and NPR do it well.
At a time when more and more media is owned by huge corporations, and programming is increasingly unidimentional across the land, I think having a non-commercial outlet improves the polity and local community.
For example, consider the issue of relaxing ownership rules for media. The CORPORATE media barely mentioned the issue, and only after the fact (not in their corporate master's interests that they speak on it). Public tv and radio were on the story from the start. They are the ones that were talking about how the FCC chair called for input, then ignored the fact that 99.9% of the millions of messages from citizens were AGAINST the new rule.
Clearly the fact that both left and right Elites in Washington listen to NPR for the value of the *news* says something.
Clearly the fact that Public media viewers/listeners hold far fewer factual errors about issues that those who rely on other media says something.
What was the line I read here a while ago? "If you like extra taxes so much, why don't you pay more?" Well, with NPR and PBS people do exactly that. Many, many, many people think it works so well that they willingly pay EXTRA to it when they don't have to.
It seems to me that public broadcasting in this country is a runaway success story. It is a government program that works. It serves rural areas where for profit media is sparse. It does local and importantly state news well. It is a SMALL budget item.
Should we really be going after small programs that work, when we have so many large programs that don't?
Nov 9, 2003 3:09 PM
|I sigh and agree. But as a radical liberal, I'd still prefer not to rely on the whimsical politics of who's in office for something so ... needed, is I guess the word.
Public broadcasting does a pretty good job of raising money from 'viewers like you' and from benevolent corporations. I like that. I don't want Dick Cheney to be able to torpedo public broadcasting by rearing up from his 399th stint operation in an anaesthesia stupor and a foul mood and snarling: Shut off the spigot!
If I were in Congress, I'd vote to lay money on 'em. They do lovely work. But I gotta tell you, this pragmatic moving-to-the-center gives me a migraine.
Nov 10, 2003 6:20 AM
|I agree wholeheartedly. I contribute to NPR and think I have fairly moderate views on things. From what I've seen, liberals and conservatives on the far ends are certain that the media is conservative or liberal, respectively.|| |