UPDATED: should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

iskim86

Banned
Jul 6, 2001
1,802
0
0
www.isaackim.org
I'm not the kind of person to sign petitions or be political at all, but this one caught my attention

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

basically the government is trying to cut funding to NPR and PBS. I signed it already, because I believe that public broadcasting is tax money well spent. i don't know if this internet petition will do jack but trying never hurts. thanks for your time.



UPDATE*****************

I got an e-mail saying they already reached 300,000 signatures! so now we have to reach 400,000 by the end of today to show the committee that we actually care...

Dear MoveOn member,
You're incredible.

In less than a day, we've blown past our goal?more than 300,000 of us have signed the petition to save NPR and PBS from losing public funding. This is huge, but we need your help.

Tomorrow, the House Appropriations Committee will decide whether to approve these severe cuts to NPR and PBS. We can stop the cuts?and save public TV and radio?with a strong show of public outrage. We'll report to the committee members on our petition before they vote.

Can you help us reach 400,000 signers by the end of the day? Please send the note below to friends, family and neighbors who count on NPR and PBS.

Thank you for all you do,

?Noah, Joan, Rosalyn, and the MoveOn.org Team
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005


well i guess my opinion did count :D
 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I say kill both of them. There's really no reason for them.

I cant say anything about PBS, but NPR is kind of important. Not only because it is commercial free, but it paints a fairly even picture of what they are talking about. Considering all the other radio news talk shows out there, NPR fits in the middle.

The more news sources we have, the better our understanding of what is going on around us.
 

HombrePequeno

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2001
4,657
0
0
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I say kill both of them. There's really no reason for them.

I cant say anything about PBS, but NPR is kind of important. Not only because it is commercial free, but it paints a fairly even picture of what they are talking about. Considering all the other radio news talk shows out there, NPR fits in the middle.

The more news sources we have, the better our understanding of what is going on around us.

There are massive amounts of news sources out there. Maybe not on the radio but considering all the newspapers, internet news sources, etc. we have out there; you're not going to have a hard time finding another news source that is in the "middle."
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
I read awhle ago it was $1 a year per taxpayer.

So if I see or hear a couple of really good shows every decade or so....it's worth it to me. :)
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
big bird = communist


Kill both of them.
IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

same with the military, police, nasa, all federal research and dev, and university/school systems. cut em loose!
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

It is not about business. They are noncommercial. That is their unique value. We need more alternatives to corporate MSM.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
I find the value in PBS as well. It provides educational shows for kids minus all the commercials. since i couldn't get cable at my house when i was a kid i only had access to PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, and a couple other stations. Out of my total viewing time - PBS was probably half (come on!! they have dr. who!!!!).
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
kinda waiting for falwell to declare bert and ernie gay. make it official you know:)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I say kill both of them. There's really no reason for them.

Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

Of course the Republicans want to kill the non-commercial broadcasts that can cast them in a bad light.

They only want church driven money making propaganda machines to further their agenda and take over.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: indianduddawg47
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Can anyone tell me how much the government acutally spends on funding NPR?

too much

Less than they are spending on that busstop in Anchorage.

In a May 20 post titled "Holding PBS Accountable," Lambro stated that PBS and NPR "receive nearly $400 million a year in taxpayer support." Lambro apparently arrived at this figure by conflating CPB's entire annual appropriation from the federal government with the funding that CPB grants to these two specific content providers. In fact, CPB provided less than $90 million in direct funding to PBS and NPR in 2004. CPB funding represented 24 percent, or approximately $80 million, of PBS' $333 million 2004 budget. NPR reported that between 1 percent and 2 percent of its 2004 budget of $369 million came from CPB. The rest of CPB's budget goes to grants to local public TV and radio stations; and grants to individual programs produced or distributed by Public Radio International, American Public Television, five minority programming consortia, and numerous small, independent TV and radio producers. While local TV and radio stations may use a portion of the money they receive from CPB to purchase programming from PBS and NPR, CPB grants provide only a fraction of the budget for these local stations. The stations also use CPB funds, along with the rest of their budgets, to produce original programming and to purchase programming from other producers, including those listed above.

It is a very worthwhile project that should be continued. As for the argument that there are other sources; newspapers, tv stations, radio stations...those are all, for the most part, owned by a very limited group of individuals and corporations. The fact that my kids can see shows that actually TEACH while trying to entertain and I can hear things that I don't ever read in the local papers or hear on the local news or other "talk" radio stations is well worth it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Both are excellent sources of programming and news. It's nice to be able to listen to news that isn't filtered to suit the commercial interests of the sponsors, and to receive a lot of other programming free of the same sort of influences. The kids' programming is topnotch- Big Bird and friends have taught several generations of children how to read and to reason. Who's taking their place- Ed, Edd, and Eddy?

Other than the internet, NPR is the one source of news beyond the grasp of religious and corporate interests, generally offering less opinion, less spin, and less "color" than any commercial outlet.

Total annual funding for both is about 1 day's occupation of Iraq, offering a lot more in terms of tangible benefits... which is, naturally, the reason that Repubs want to kill it...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

It is not about business. They are noncommercial. That is their unique value. We need more alternatives to corporate MSM.

So is XM radio but I dont see the govt footing the bill for it either.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

It is not about business. They are noncommercial. That is their unique value. We need more alternatives to corporate MSM.

So is XM radio but I dont see the govt footing the bill for it either.

how is XM radio non-commercial? people pay for the service just like cable TV (hbo, etc.).
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Don't you folks worry. Soon, Republican control of all media will be complete and you won't even have the MSM to watch.

McCain Unveils Measure To End Analog Broadcasts

By Drew Clark

Leaders of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks joined Tuesday with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to promote his legislation setting a fixed date for the end of analog television broadcasting.

Under the bill, which was scheduled to be introduced late Tuesday, broadcasters would have to return analog TV channels by Jan. 1, 2009 -- clearing stations numbered 52 to 69 and freeing 108 megahertz of spectrum for other uses, including those of "first responders" to acts of terrorism and disasters.

Last July, the 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress pass legislation forcing broadcasters off four television channels -- or 24 megahertz of frequencies -- that had been promised to public safety officials when broadcasters vacated them.

But the 1997 legislation granting broadcasters a second television channel said they did not need to vacate until Dec. 31, 2006, or until 85 percent of households received digital broadcast signals, whichever was later.

McCain -- who chaired the Senate Commerce Committee until late last year -- said the 85 percent clause "is an impossible goal." He added that broadcasters "have committed several times that they would have that spectrum turned over," and he blasted the National Association of Broadcasters.

"Why they would choose not to act in the public interest is something they will have to answer for," McCain declared.

Said Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission: "There were lives lost on 9/11 because public-safety representatives could not communicate effectively with each other. It is really obscene that four years after 9/11 that we still haven't got this done. Lives could be lost because we haven't passed this important legislation." , chairman of the 9/11 panel. "It is really obscene that four years after 9/11 that we still haven't got this done. Lives could be lost because we haven't passed this important legislation."

In a statement, NAB chief Eddie Fritts responded: "Local television stations provide a lifeline service during terrorist attacks, hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. We are committed to completing the digital transition in a timely fashion, including return of analog spectrum, and will work with Congress to ensure that millions of consumers are not left stranded by a premature end to analog broadcasting." said in a statement. "We are committed to completing the digital transition in a timely fashion, including return of analog spectrum, and will work with Congress to ensure that millions of consumers are not left stranded by a premature end to analog broadcasting."

The bill introduced Tuesday is similar to legislation that McCain introduced last September, fixing the digital transition at Dec. 31, 2008.

In the House, Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, has offered draft legislation also setting a hard date of Dec. 31, 2008. And Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said last week he supports a hard date of Jan. 1, 2009.

The new version of McCain's bill includes a $463 million authorization for the government to purchase digital set-top boxes for 9.3 million households whose incomes do not exceed twice the poverty line. The bill McCain offered last year included $1 billion for that authorization.

Barton refused to support McCain's language last year because he wanted to clear the entire 108 megahertz by Dec. 31, 2006.

McCain said he did not want to wait for Stevens to act, although that is expected within weeks. A Stevens aide said the committee is planning a hearing on digital television June 29.

Officials from the Consumer Electronics Association, National League of Cities and Association of Public Safety Communications-International endorsed the McCain bill.
 

filterxg

Senior member
Nov 2, 2004
330
0
0
Go ahead and kill NPR and PBS, oh and kill amtrak too. The only one of those type of "businesses" the government should be into in the Post Office, and even then they should be close to self-sufficent.

And as far as this killing the analog TV channels. They could kill UHF today for all I care. I'd like to see VHF stick around for awhile longer. I know when the hurricanes hit we lost cable for well over a week, but getting to watch some TV was a real moral boost.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: indianduddawg47
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Can anyone tell me how much the government acutally spends on funding NPR?

too much

Less than they are spending on that busstop in Anchorage.

In a May 20 post titled "Holding PBS Accountable," Lambro stated that PBS and NPR "receive nearly $400 million a year in taxpayer support." Lambro apparently arrived at this figure by conflating CPB's entire annual appropriation from the federal government with the funding that CPB grants to these two specific content providers. In fact, CPB provided less than $90 million in direct funding to PBS and NPR in 2004. CPB funding represented 24 percent, or approximately $80 million, of PBS' $333 million 2004 budget. NPR reported that between 1 percent and 2 percent of its 2004 budget of $369 million came from CPB. The rest of CPB's budget goes to grants to local public TV and radio stations; and grants to individual programs produced or distributed by Public Radio International, American Public Television, five minority programming consortia, and numerous small, independent TV and radio producers. While local TV and radio stations may use a portion of the money they receive from CPB to purchase programming from PBS and NPR, CPB grants provide only a fraction of the budget for these local stations. The stations also use CPB funds, along with the rest of their budgets, to produce original programming and to purchase programming from other producers, including those listed above.

It is a very worthwhile project that should be continued. As for the argument that there are other sources; newspapers, tv stations, radio stations...those are all, for the most part, owned by a very limited group of individuals and corporations. The fact that my kids can see shows that actually TEACH while trying to entertain and I can hear things that I don't ever read in the local papers or hear on the local news or other "talk" radio stations is well worth it.

yes yes!
i dont watch pbs but i consider npr to be dangerously close to actual journalism these days.
the only source of news that i absolutly trust and the only source of opinion-based programs that are...civil! it can happen! diane rehm! seriously, almost every damn day she has on people who disagree with each other about various political issues and never once does someone scream. never once does someone call the other guy a jackass. or fat. or a nutjub. and the only time someone gets cut off is because they need to take a break! its actual content oreinted media.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

It is not about business. They are noncommercial. That is their unique value. We need more alternatives to corporate MSM.

So is XM radio but I dont see the govt footing the bill for it either.

how is XM radio non-commercial? people pay for the service just like cable TV (hbo, etc.).

i think he meant literally, no commercials.
but thats not true, either, is it?

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
NeoCons and Repugs won't be happy until they have 100% control over the media. In the meantime they will attack anybody with enough guts to give the whole truth.

Support NPR and PBS. It's a bargin.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: PatboyX
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: charrison
Kill both of them.

IF they are worth supporting, they will find funds to stay in business.

It is not about business. They are noncommercial. That is their unique value. We need more alternatives to corporate MSM.

So is XM radio but I dont see the govt footing the bill for it either.

how is XM radio non-commercial? people pay for the service just like cable TV (hbo, etc.).

i think he meant literally, no commercials.
but thats not true, either, is it?

i'm not sure if it's true or not - but that is probably what he meant. but regardless it seems useful to have a news outlet that isn't looking for profit.