Time for the idea of public broadcasting to end?

[Denny Crane]

Obviously biased, and rather anti-semitic as well.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/08/n...conservatives-and-tea-party-touting-liberals/

NPR executives caught on tape bashing conservatives and Tea Party, touting liberals


And with all the talk of slashing their funding...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/we...uts-ron-schiller-on-administrative-leave.aspx

NPR Cans Ronald Schiller

 

[maxiep]

The worst part is where he says NPR would be better off without Federal funding.

The guy is a slimeball; I remember him giving a talk to us about our obligations to "repay" the U of C (he used to run their alumni fundraising office). I'm sure he was trying to read the people across the table and shine them on. I don't really believe he has an opinion of his own he wouldn't sell for a donation.

 

[maxiep]

And now Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron Schiller) is gone, forced out by the NPR board.

Too little, too late, IMO. Man, did NPR kill the golden goose.

I look forward to listening to an NPR and watching a PBS detached from the government teet.

 

[maxiep]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/ceo-3-10-2011.html

NEW NPR CHIEF DONATED TO DEMOCRATS: From the this'll-add-fuel-to-the-fire file: Joyce Slocum, National Public Radio's new interim chief executive, has made five federal-level political contributions of more than $500, all to Democrats, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of campaign disclosures shows.

The Center's research indicates that between 1999 and 2002, Slocum spread about $3,500 between Democratic U.S. House candidate Regina Montoya Coggins and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Ron Kirk, who today serves as President Barack Obama's chief trade representative.

 

[barfo]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/ceo-3-10-2011.html

I'm unclear on what the problem here is. Is anyone who has made a political contribution unfit for a job at NPR? Why?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm unclear on what the problem here is. Is anyone who has made a political contribution unfit for a job at NPR? Why?

barfo

Why should the govt. give $400M+ that turns out to be a campaign donation (free political ads) and is messing with freedom of the press by funding it in the first place?

 

[Eastoff]

Just to be clear, donating to democrats, bad. In office republicans donating public money to private industry in wisconsin, then running out of state money and killing unions, good.

 

[maxiep]

Just to be clear, donating to democrats, bad. In office republicans donating public money to private industry in wisconsin, then running out of state money and killing unions, good.

Sometimes, you make it difficult to have reasonable conversation.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just to be clear, donating to democrats, bad. In office republicans donating public money to private industry in wisconsin, then running out of state money and killing unions, good.

Feel free to donate to democrats. Just no govt. money to 'em. Same goes for republicans, in my book.

 

[MARIS61]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/ceo-3-10-2011.html

By this logic we certainly have to disbar every judge in the land who has ever made a political donation in their previous life (nearly all, I suspect).

I mean since PBS is America's Most Trusted Institution then our Justice System is already only 2nd at best.

 

[maxiep]

Right from the horse's mouth...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/la...-it-serves-liberal-highly-educated-elite-wond

 

[julius]

Interesting video.

[video=youtube;v2XVXASRqUI]

 

[maxiep]

Interesting video.

[video=youtube;v2XVXASRqUI]

I think we should cut all those programs that woman brings up. I don't find the argument "it's just a small percentage of the Federal Budget" argument very convincing. My thought is that if you start collecting nickels and dimes, pretty soon they add up to dollars.

Nor do I find her argument about getting news to those poor ignorant flyover states that begin with "I" very convincing either. They all have cable, satellite and teh interwebz. CPB fulfilled its mission by getting news outlets to rural areas, but now private enterprise does it as well or better.

I should note that I'm an avid NPR listener and watcher of public television. I understand that others have been subsidizing my personal enjoyment and news outlet. I'm more than willing to up my contributions to both OPB and CPR and plan to do so if their Federal funding is removed. I would hope other fans of public broadcasting will do the same.

 

[barfo]

I think we should cut all those programs that woman brings up. I don't find the argument "it's just a small percentage of the Federal Budget" argument very convincing. My thought is that if you start collecting nickels and dimes, pretty soon they add up to dollars.

And similarly, the nuke boys in Fukushima could have said Friday "well, we've got a lot of safety problems here. Let's start by putting in a non-skid surface on the men's room floor, someone could slip and hurt themselves in there."

barfo

 

[Shooter]

I don't really give two shits about the left-leaning bias of public broadcasting . . .

That's nice for you. However, a lot of people think that a network funded by taxes from all Americans, both liberal and conservative, should strive to be neutral rather than support the liberal point of view. I really see no logic to conservatives having to fund a network that is adamantly opposed to their values.

 

[julius]

That's nice for you. However, a lot of people think that a network funded by taxes from all Americans, both liberal and conservative, should strive to be neutral rather than support the liberal point of view. I really see no logic to conservatives having to fund a network that is adamantly opposed to their values.

I see no logic in "liberals" having to fund a wars that are adamantly opposed to their values.

 

[maxiep]

That's nice for you. However, a lot of people think that a network funded by taxes from all Americans, both liberal and conservative, should strive to be neutral rather than support the liberal point of view. I really see no logic to conservatives having to fund a network that is adamantly opposed to their values.

My point is, TH, that it's not the point of my contention to give them public dollars. I think CPB has met its goal of ensuring that everyone in the country has access to news, so it should be defunded. Any other argument for keeping it or defunding it is secondary.

 

[maxiep]

I see no logic in "liberals" having to fund a wars that are adamantly opposed to their values.

Except that providing for the common defense is outlined in the Constitution, where I haven't read anything about public broadcasting in that document. And if you have a beef about "liberals" having to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan, you should probably go back and see who voted to fund those conflicts. You'd find plenty of "liberals" signed up.

 

[julius]

Except that providing for the common defense is outlined in the Constitution, where I haven't read anything about public broadcasting in that document. And if you have a beef about "liberals" having to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan, you should probably go back and see who voted to fund those conflicts. You'd find plenty of "liberals" signed up.

Not the ones I respect (Ron Wyden for example).

Also I'm fairly certain, had conservatives been actually serious about budget cutting, the funding for NPR (and the condemnation of Teachers/unions) wouldn't have been brought up as a serious issue, considering it's small potatoes compared to the real waste of tax money and the structure of the system.

But they're easy targets, and people can beat their chest and be proud that they found someone/something to blame for the issues instead of actually trying to fix it. I liken it to complaining about your car running bad and getting horrible gas mileage, and then proclaiming you found a major reason why, and replace the light bulb in the dome light. After all, it shed light on the situation!

If we're going to claim that NPR shouldn't be funded due to the reasons shooter wrote (or the other reasons listed/referred to), then I'm afraid we should be cutting the funding on a LOT of stuff. But what happens when we do that? It makes it worse for the society, because we can't afford to fund a lot of stuff that the government does for us. If you take away a lot of the public funding of things, you leave it solely for the wealthy who can afford it.

And I don't believe NPR has a "liberal slant", as much as some people are so conservative they think anything 1 degree to the left of them is "too liberal". But I might as well be yelling at the clouds when trying to get certain factions of politically active people to use their logic brain instead of their sheep brain.

NPR/Public Broadcasting gets very little of their total budget from the Government (which creates an argument for both sides of the coin here). The amount they get doesn't mean that the government any say. And if we're going to go off of the "funding" issue, and control/influence, there is a lot of funding the government does that is far worse influence. Also, if we're going to bring up what is in the constitution for what the government has to fund, we're going to have to cut a lot. AND if we're going to follow the constitution closer then we do, we might have to start arresting former Presidents, and cabinet members for violating it. And we didn't really get a declaration of war from the congress till after we were already there.

So, there's always that.

 

[maxiep]

Not the ones I respect (Ron Wyden for example).

Also I'm fairly certain, had conservatives been actually serious about budget cutting, the funding for NPR (and the condemnation of Teachers/unions) wouldn't have been brought up as a serious issue, considering it's small potatoes compared to the real waste of tax money and the structure of the system.

But they're easy targets, and people can beat their chest and be proud that they found someone/something to blame for the issues instead of actually trying to fix it. I liken it to complaining about your car running bad and getting horrible gas mileage, and then proclaiming you found a major reason why, and replace the light bulb in the dome light. After all, it shed light on the situation!

If we're going to claim that NPR shouldn't be funded due to the reasons shooter wrote (or the other reasons listed/referred to), then I'm afraid we should be cutting the funding on a LOT of stuff. But what happens when we do that? It makes it worse for the society, because we can't afford to fund a lot of stuff that the government does for us. If you take away a lot of the public funding of things, you leave it solely for the wealthy who can afford it.

And I don't believe NPR has a "liberal slant", as much as some people are so conservative they think anything 1 degree to the left of them is "too liberal". But I might as well be yelling at the clouds when trying to get certain factions of politically active people to use their logic brain instead of their sheep brain.

NPR/Public Broadcasting gets very little of their total budget from the Government (which creates an argument for both sides of the coin here). The amount they get doesn't mean that the government any say. And if we're going to go off of the "funding" issue, and control/influence, there is a lot of funding the government does that is far worse influence. Also, if we're going to bring up what is in the constitution for what the government has to fund, we're going to have to cut a lot. AND if we're going to follow the constitution closer then we do, we might have to start arresting former Presidents, and cabinet members for violating it. And we didn't really get a declaration of war from the congress till after we were already there.

So, there's always that.

If you're talking fiscal conservatives (social conservatives often have little interest in limiting the role of government), then they've been wildly underrepresented in Congress. Hell, take a look a the House Leadership; they can barely scrape together a measly $61B in cuts from discretionary spending, and those are supposed to be the guys who are limiting spending! It's a joke.

We borrow $4B a day. It can't continue. We've been able to borrow that money because we're the world's benchmark currency. We're the world's currency because we're a safe haven. Borrowing erodes that stability. It has to stop or we're going to be replaced. At that point, the taps are shut off.

Government has to radically trim back and requires a full reorganization. Dump the Departments of Education, Energy and Transportation. Cut way back on HHS and Agriculture. Whack the superflouous Generals and Admirals at DoD. Get serious about closing bases domestically and abroad. Start demanding payment from countries for us ensuring their security (Korea and Saudi Arabia come to mind). Give states more power to run those issues themselves. And then it's time to be upfront with people 55 and under. You're going to have to pay more for Medicare and you're going to have to retire later, much later in fact.

Like I said, I like public broadcasting. I understand my commitment to it is going to have to increase if I want it to continue in my area. If I think CPB is being run well, I'd be happy to directly pledge to them. I hope others do the same.

 

[agoo]

[video=youtube;dy7jcvsLrHg]

 

[Denny Crane]

Some of you miss the point of the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. PBS isn't free press, and can never be if funded by the govt. It flies in the face of the 1st to have even the perception of bias or a government propaganda outlet.

The press is supposed to be like a fourth branch of government with all the checks and balances that go with it.

 

[maxiep]

[video=youtube;dy7jcvsLrHg]

A wannabe Alan Grayson.

 

[Shooter]

I see no logic in "liberals" having to fund a wars that are adamantly opposed to their values.

The decision to go to war is made by the President and Congress--and is based on a multitude of factors: our national interests, the interests of our allies, the particulars in the country where we attack, the perceived threat, and so on. You may not like the final decision, but you still have the ability to vote against that president and that Congress in the next election.

National Public Radio, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. They're not subject to elections, and have been given a free rein to push a liberal agenda for their entire existence. Money from all tax-paying citizens should not be used to promote the interests of just one party, year after year after year.

 

[julius]

The decision to go to war is made by the President and Congress--and is based on a multitude of factors: our national interests, the interests of our allies, the particulars in the country where we attack, the perceived threat, and so on. You may not like the final decision, but you still have the ability to vote against that president and that Congress in the next election.

National Public Radio, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. They're not subject to elections, and have been given a free rein to push a liberal agenda for their entire existence. Money from all tax-paying citizens should not be used to promote the interests of just one party, year after year after year.

All that is neat, but it doesn't change or really answer what I said.

 

[bluefrog]

Why are conservatives going after NPR with such fervor? Does it warrant an "emergency session"?

National Public Radio, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. They're not subject to elections, and have been given a free rein to push a liberal agenda for their entire existence. Money from all tax-paying citizens should not be used to promote the interests of just one party, year after year after year.

What news source is more "fair and balanced" than NPR?

 

[MARIS61]

And then it's time to be upfront with people 55 and under. You're going to have to pay more for Medicare and you're going to have to retire later, much later in fact.

The effect of such a draconian step would be a steady brain-drain of young Americans emmigrating to other countries to live and work. Why would anyone stay in a country that gives you nothing at all for your labor? We already lag far behind most industrialized countries in rewarding our workers and caring for our elderly. The average American earns about 1/3 what his father did for the same effort after accounting for inflation, stagnant wages and loss of benefits.

As for medicare, eventually unavoidable socialization of the health care system will bring costs in line with worldwide levels, and there won't be a problem. Social Security, when refunded with interest for the illegal robbing of the trust fund by previous administrations, will be fully solvent for at least the next 80 years.

How about stopping this war BS, slashing the military and it's bases and equipment to 10% of it's current levels? Sell off the 90% to the countries where we have bases and GTFO. Budget balanced, just like that.

Or end all business tax credits, exemptions, loopholes and subsidies. How about stopping government aid to colleges? Let grownups pay for their own education. Why should people who paid attention in K-12 have to pay for the slow-witted to get do-overs?
Budget balanced, just like that.

No need to pick on the less fortunate and elderly. Our taxes mostly subsidize the rich and powerful. That's where the true savings are to be made.

 

[MARIS61]

National Public Radio, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. They're not subject to elections, and have been given a free rein to push a liberal agenda for their entire existence.

I question your ability to discern "a liberal agenda".

NPR is the closest thing there is to an objective and unbiased news source in the entire world.

It is the most trusted institution in America.

 

[Denny Crane]

I question your ability to discern "a liberal agenda".

NPR is the closest thing there is to an objective and unbiased news source in the entire world.

It is the most trusted institution in America.

 

[bluefrog]

Still waiting for an answer from someone.

What news source is more "fair and balanced" than NPR?

(Christian Science Monitor, BBC and The Economist are all pretty good too)