Republicans want to cut funding to NPR and PBS oh no!

On facebook I have lots of friends that are going nuts because supposedly the people in the White House want to cut government funding to NPR and PBS.

I don't see the big deal. Seems like having government fund your news is probably the worst thing one could ever want. Why would a journalist investigate any wrongdoings of the government if that's where their paycheck is coming from?

Seems like NPR at least is pretty well funded by the Bill and Melinda gates foundation and even Nissan the last time I listened.

Americans look at things like State TV in Iran as bad, and State TV in Egypt as bad and controlled. But seem to be ok with funding our news from the government. Weird.

the FEDs only supply about 10% of the operating budget of PBS anyhow...the rest is supplied by donations private and corporate... so i don't really see the big deal.

FYI i am a big fan of PBS and listen to NPR daily...

QUOTE I don't see the big deal. Seems like having government fund your news is probably the worst thing one could ever want. Why would a journalist investigate any wrongdoings of the government if that's where their paycheck is coming from? END QUOTE

I don't know how much "government " money goes into the news casts, but I doubt it is very much. They have plenty of big name sponsors

Of much more importance is, it allows for programing directly produced for children. This programing is seen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children that have only this input of ethics and social graces.

Considering the well known benefits I would like to see public TV get more money.

You may not remember this. but years ago when the GOP started its campaign against public TV it was because they claimed slanted TV. It wasn't slanted, it exposed the GOP for what it really is, A morally and ethically corrupt, mentally and emotionally dysfunctional group of people. Of course they want to cripple or delete anyone or any thing that exposes them. Just look at what Bill Moyers did to them.

I would vote to continue funding for PBS.
Not so much NPR. but definitely PBS.
I'd much rather have tax dollars going there than, say, to buy more bombs, or CCTV cameras, or to the TSA.

Originally posted by subject x
I would vote to continue funding for PBS.
Not so much NPR. but definitely PBS.
I'd much rather have tax dollars going there than, say, to buy more bombs, or CCTV cameras, or to the TSA.

Thats a very good point. I still think its a great idea, as long as they gave the tax money back to the people. Merely putting the money towards something else like bombs or cameras isn't cool. Then with the tax money that people aren't paying they can decide what they want to do with it. People can donate directly if they feel it is a worthy cause, instead of indirectly from the government.

Just imagine if the government was funding ATS or Alex Jones, people would go nuts. (maybe they are funding them?) cue weird alien music.

reply to post by mayabong


Your friends on facebook are idiots. We really don't want our government controlling the media. And anyone with half a brain knows NPR is super liberal. They fired Juan Williams too- the only left wing journalist I like. Boooooo!

If they are going to cut funds, the first funds should be the money going overseas.

Then, and only then start on domestic cuts.

If they ICs want U.S. military around the globe, let them pay for it.

reply to post by mayabong


Yes, but this is the US and everything is on its head. You could say that in the US, privatization is the new State control mechanism. It's inverted.

For example, I would argue that what goes for state-run media in this nation is corporate media. The redeeming feature of NPR is that there are not advertisers, per say. Although, there are underwriters and perhaps that does affect or skew the messages delivered by The Diane Rhem Show and The Story, and probably to a lesser extent Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me (joke).

The main thought is that NPR is left, but if I remember correctly, the balance was at 54% conservative last time I checked (and whatever that means: just the employees or the stories covered, not sure).

Ironically, I would argue that the impression that NPR gets for being "left" is either that the country is so far right, centrism looks leftist or that any argument against the main messages of the corporate media has been spun to seem anti-American, and the same people who would see the opposition of those two sides that way would also probably, to some extent, see left as synonymous with anti-American.

When it comes down to it, I would rather see media be 100% independent of corporations, single influencial persons or groups, and perhaps, arguably, the government (I would support local government sponsorship of local media - but that does nothing to get the news out of Lybia to my TV screen or radio).

I don't think there is an easy answer here, but considering the state of affairs regarding ComcastMSNBCNNewsCorpTimeWarnerDisney, I'd rather see some balance by maintaining NPR and PBS in place, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I've been getting calls about this for a couple of weeks now at my job.

Apparently it's a big deal to cut PBS funding now.

Everytime I brought it up in the past I always got "PBS is t federally funded" and "any funding PBS gets is minuscule and hardly worth mentioning."

So the same people who told me PBS hardly gets anything at all if it gets anything at all yesterday are crying about how horrible it would be to cut that miniscule funding today.

So which is it? So much PBS would die or hardly anything at all? I guess it all depends on how you have to spin it for the cause of the day.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com