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

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BBond
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

Hey brainiac we are already tentatively scheduled for Jan 1st 2007 to have all open air broadcasts be digital.

LOL. :thumbsup:

I was wonder WTF he was trying to get at. The fact that we are switching over from analog to digital television is a sign that the Republicans are trying to kill all dissentient media? 😕

And this from someone who like to throw around the "kool-aid' bit? Someone's posts are going to be lumped in the "whacko - ignore" pile from now on.

From now on? I have been lumping his in for months now ever since he couldnt grasp the idea of the fake trust fund for SS and then tried to label me the brainwashed sheep.

With every post he just backs up my opinion.

 

[raildogg]

No because PBS is a great channel with a lot of programming people find useful. Many kids across America watch PBS after school. They have great shows like Arthur and Dragon Tales etc. They also have great documentaries sometimes. I don't listen to NPR and don't really care for it. So yes, cut NPR.

 

[azazyel]

PBS is one of the only stations that I can find anything worthwhile to watch. Is it me or has TV sunk to a new level. I don't know what I would do with out my NOVA specials. I have already ordered quite a few DVDs from the PBS store.

The one of the Vikings really kicked arse.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: raildogg
No because PBS is a great channel with a lot of programming people find useful. Many kids across America watch PBS after school. They have great shows like Arthur and Dragon Tales etc. They also have great documentaries sometimes. I don't listen to NPR and don't really care for it. So yes, cut NPR.

the lack of sexually and violence charged ads during the programming makes it well worth it if you ask me - little kids don't need to see that kind of stuff.

edit: and oh yeah - NOVA is one of my favs as well.

 

[Vic]

should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

Yes. There is no reason why the viewers should not fit the bill.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Tiger

Nope. Not very convincing at all.

Doesn't have to be. I'm just voicing my opinion.
I was wrong about the PBS funding 15-20% is funded by the governemnt through CPB.
The last numbers I saw were a $1.8B budget of which $285M is public. If public funding of PBS is only 15-20% of their budget cut them totally off the public teat and let them sink or swim on their own.

Here is what I found from a source that might not have been thought of....PBS and their annual report (FY 2001).

Link

What is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in 1967 to provide financial support and services to the public broadcasting system, which includes such organizations as PBS and National Public Radio, public television and radio stations, and individual program producers. Congress appropriates federal tax dollars to CPB ($340 million in fiscal 2001) for distribution within the public broadcasting community. CPB distributes more than 95 cents of every dollar of its budget to public broadcasting enterprises for programming, station operations, and system support and development.

Why is CPB funding vital to PBS and public television stations?

CPB funds comprise a small but vital component of support for PBS and its member stations. The federal appropriation provides critical seed money that is leveraged to bring in additional funding; every dollar invested in public television at the federal level draws five to six dollars from other sources. A stable national funding source enables public television to stay noncommercial in an often volatile economy. Public television is a public-private, national-local partnership that works, offering high value for low cost. Universally available and free of charge, public television costs 98 cents per person per year in federal funding. Americans rank public broadcasting among the five best values for services received in return for their tax dollars, according to a May 2001 Roper Starch Worldwide poll.

How are PBS member stations funded?

Funding from a wide variety of sources ensures that public television remains independent of, yet responsible to, its many stakeholders. Membership contributions are the largest single source of support for public television stations. Membership accounted for 23 percent of public television stations' total revenues in fiscal 1999, with approximately 4.7 million individuals and families nationwide voluntarily contributing $373 million to their local stations. CPB funding and federal government grants and contracts accounted for approximately 15 percent of the revenue total. Additional funding sources for individual stations include state and local government, businesses, foundations, and colleges and universities, among others.

NPR's situation is even better than that of PBS (in terms of money coming from the fed).

Link

NPR is an independent, self-supporting media organization. It is also a membership organization of separately licensed and operated public radio stations across the United States.
(Read more about NPR's mission and operations.)

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 780 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Published reports in Worth Magazine and Consumers Digest cited NPR as a leading U.S. nonprofit charity because of the organization's program spending efficiency, high level of private support, and outstanding public service.

On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member stations) receive the largest percentage of their revenue (34%) from listener support, 25% from corporate underwriting and foundations, and 13% from CPB allocations.*

(* These figures are derived from the most recent CPB data available, FY02. The remaining average revenue breakdown is: 6% from local and state governments, 15% from institutional support, and 7% from all other sources.)

What those that are calling for the dismissal of funds to NPR from the CPB either don't know or WON'T let it be known, is that the funds that they receive are from COMPETITIVE GRANTS. They are not hand outs directly earmarked for NPR.

BTW, how much money have we given in grants and funding to the energy sector, airline industries and other corporate entities? I'll bet that it is exponentially more that NPR and PBS are getting. Maybe we could cut them off and see how much we could save?

 

[Pliablemoose]

I have no sympathy for PBS/NPR potentially losing public funding since they started mini commercials for sponsors

I listen to NPR constantly am a contributor, and try to catch Frontline on PBS.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

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."

Total horsesh!t.

I have yet to see a single person in 2 years of reading this forum ever post a fair and balanced news story that didn't come from PBS.

The day PBS dies is the day truth dies. What you will end up with is some slanted news that reports on or makes conclusions on less then all the facts. Or it won't report on an issue at all or when it does it's on the back pages and never mentioned ever again. Be it left or right.

 

[piasabird]

Move-On dot org isnt exactly a respectable source. Their main them is hate mongering. It is similar to the Republican effort to get rid of Clinton. Instead of hate lets hear some common sense suggestions to solve problems.

I kind of like NPR and PBS myself. I dont have to agree with them 100% of the time to appreciate some of the programs they have.

Who is trying to get rid of PBS and NPR?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Vic

should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

Yes. There is no reason why the viewers should not fit the bill.

they do fit most of the bill. to me PBS is an example of something that the goverment has done right. "let's bring free educational programming to everyone in the US with a TV." The cost a year is less than a few of our missles

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Tiger
A few of the kids shows may not be specifically leftist, but they do have a decidedly politically correct, "progressive" (God, I hate that word.Talk about mis-appropriating a word) bent.

So please explain to me the "progressive bent" of Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, NOVA, Scientific American Frontiers, Arthur, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Mystery!, The Red Green Show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Red Dwarf, Antiques Roadshow, Teletubbies, This Old House, Wild TV, and Zoboomafoo?

And what about:

American Photography: A Century of Images
American Valor
American Masters
America Rebuilds
Assignment Hanoi
Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State
Battlefield: Vietnam
Caught in the Crossfire
The Civil War
Conquistadors
Continental Harmony
Cracking the Code: The Continueing Saga of Genetics
Crater Lake, The mirror of Heaven
Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War
Cubism
Empires
Evening at the Pops
The Face of Russia
Farmhouses in the Heartland
Frank Lloyd Wright
Freedom: A history of US
Great Lodges of the National Parks
The Great War
The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization
Guns, Germs and Steel
In Search of Ancient Ireland
Julia Child: Lessons with Master Chefs
Junior Electician
Kofi Annan: Center of the Storm
Lewis and Clark
Living History: Living During the Industrial Revolution
Mark Twain
Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance
Napoleon
Nightly Business Report
Nobel: Visions of our Century
Out of the Past
The Perilous Fight: America's World War II in Color
Queen Victoria's Empire
Re: Vietnam - Stories Since the War
Rediscovering George Washington
The Roman Empire in the First Century
Rough Science
Tesla: Master of Lightning
Wonders of the African World

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Tiger
A few of the kids shows may not be specifically leftist, but they do have a decidedly politically correct, "progressive" (God, I hate that word.Talk about mis-appropriating a word) bent.

So please explain to me the "progressive bent" of Mr. Rogers, Sesame Street, NOVA, Scientific American Frontiers, Arthur, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Mystery!, The Red Green Show, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Red Dwarf, Antiques Roadshow, Teletubbies, This Old House, Wild TV, and Zoboomafoo?

And what about:

American Photography: A Century of Images
American Valor
American Masters
America Rebuilds
Assignment Hanoi
Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State
Battlefield: Vietnam
Caught in the Crossfire
The Civil War
Conquistadors
Continental Harmony
Cracking the Code: The Continueing Saga of Genetics
Crater Lake, The mirror of Heaven
Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War
Cubism
Empires
Evening at the Pops
The Face of Russia
Farmhouses in the Heartland
Frank Lloyd Wright
Freedom: A history of US
Great Lodges of the National Parks
The Great War
The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization
Guns, Germs and Steel
In Search of Ancient Ireland
Julia Child: Lessons with Master Chefs
Junior Electician
Kofi Annan: Center of the Storm
Lewis and Clark
Living History: Living During the Industrial Revolution
Mark Twain
Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance
Napoleon
Nightly Business Report
Nobel: Visions of our Century
Out of the Past
The Perilous Fight: America's World War II in Color
Queen Victoria's Empire
Re: Vietnam - Stories Since the War
Rediscovering George Washington
The Roman Empire in the First Century
Rough Science
Tesla: Master of Lightning
Wonders of the African World

Don't expect an answer.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Don't expect an answer.

I don't expect one really. I just wanted to post a very small list of PBS funded programing. My generation was the first one to grow up with PBS and I credit PBS for teaching me more about science, history and art than public education ever has. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers were essential aspects of my childhood in not only helping me understand math but learning to spell and read.

The "right" has struck on PBS and NPR because there are a couple shows with hosts that lean to the left, but at the same time they ignore shows and programming that is right leaning and completely disregard that 95% of PBS programming is devoted to Science, History and the Arts and an essential educator of many of our youth in the abscense of reasonable education in our public schools. In particular because PBS is broadcast over the airwaves in benefits the poor the most.

 

[azazyel]

Super Grover owns all!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Don't expect an answer.

I don't expect one really. I just wanted to post a very small list of PBS funded programing. My generation was the first one to grow up with PBS and I credit PBS for teaching me more about science, history and art than public education ever has. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers were essential aspects of my childhood in not only helping me understand math but learning to spell and read.

The "right" has struck on PBS and NPR because there are a couple shows with hosts that lean to the left, but at the same time they ignore shows and programming that is right leaning and completely disregard that 95% of PBS programming is devoted to Science, History and the Arts and an essential educator of many of our youth in the abscense of reasonable education in our public schools. In particular because PBS is broadcast over the airwaves in benefits the poor the most.

All television and radio station use public airwaves (they belong to the citizens) to serve the public interest. In the case of Fox News, who is blatantly biased (even to their own admittance), they should either have to pay dearly for the use of OUR airwaves or have their broadcast license revoked.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Vic

should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

Yes. There is no reason why the viewers should not fit the bill.

they do fit most of the bill. to me PBS is an example of something that the goverment has done right. "let's bring free educational programming to everyone in the US with a TV." The cost a year is less than a few of our missles

isnt it "foot the bill" when talking about who will pay for something?
"fit th bill," i thought, was in "meet criteria"

regardless, i still hold fast to my faith in npr as a news source. this o'reilly BS about hardcore left-wing seems to be based on nothing more than a generalization about "everything on it" with very little experience/facts to back it up. the mere existence of an ombudsman at the news group already goes above and beyond most cable news. these guys are serious about news, serious about being taken seriously and are not in it for money or political agenda pushing.
they report things that occur as accurately as humanly possible.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Move-On dot org isnt exactly a respectable source. Their main them is hate mongering. It is similar to the Republican effort to get rid of Clinton. Instead of hate lets hear some common sense suggestions to solve problems.

I kind of like NPR and PBS myself. I dont have to agree with them 100% of the time to appreciate some of the programs they have.

Who is trying to get rid of PBS and NPR?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&c...n&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=cpb&btnG=Search+News

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Don't expect an answer.

I don't expect one really. I just wanted to post a very small list of PBS funded programing. My generation was the first one to grow up with PBS and I credit PBS for teaching me more about science, history and art than public education ever has. Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers were essential aspects of my childhood in not only helping me understand math but learning to spell and read.

The "right" has struck on PBS and NPR because there are a couple shows with hosts that lean to the left, but at the same time they ignore shows and programming that is right leaning and completely disregard that 95% of PBS programming is devoted to Science, History and the Arts and an essential educator of many of our youth in the abscense of reasonable education in our public schools. In particular because PBS is broadcast over the airwaves in benefits the poor the most.

All television and radio station use public airwaves (they belong to the citizens) to serve the public interest. In the case of Fox News, who is blatantly biased (even to their own admittance), they should either have to pay dearly for the use of OUR airwaves or have their broadcast license revoked.

In England FOX did have their licenese suspended for a while.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

No. It's one of the few channels on TV that are actually worth the time to watch.

I don't listen to NPR so I won't comment on it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Basically PBS has to cave to the Republicans as the Republicans say it's our way or the highway.

6-15-2005 PBS Updates Editorial Standards

WASHINGTON - The Public Broadcasting Service is hiring an ombudsman and revising editorial practices in the face of criticism that its programming has given short shrift to conservative views.

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has specifically accused the show hosted by Bill Moyers of featuring guests hostile to conservative views.

Revisions adopted by the PBS board include a requirement that commentary and opinion be labeled as such, and that program producers offer more information on how they gathered material and made their editorial decisions.

PBS also said it would hire an ombudsman to review controversial programs.

PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise that serves the nation's 348 public noncommercial television stations, reaching nearly 90 million people each week.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Vic

should the government cut funding to NPR and PBS?

Yes. There is no reason why the viewers should not fit the bill.

they do fit most of the bill. to me PBS is an example of something that the goverment has done right. "let's bring free educational programming to everyone in the US with a TV." The cost a year is less than a few of our missles

Relative cost is unimportant. Those who do not watch PBS should not be forced to pay for it. Those who object to some of its more controversial programming should not be forced to pay for it, even if the amount is pennies. OTOH, those who do watch and use PBS should be forced to pay for it.

I like PBS, but I see no reason why they need government assistance. If their programming is as good as people here seem to think it is, then why don't the viewers pay for it? Only bad art needs a handout.

And yes, I meant "foot" the bill. Sorry for the typo.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Basically PBS has to cave to the Republicans as the Republicans say it's our way or the highway.

6-15-2005 PBS Updates Editorial Standards

WASHINGTON - The Public Broadcasting Service is hiring an ombudsman and revising editorial practices in the face of criticism that its programming has given short shrift to conservative views.

The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, has specifically accused the show hosted by Bill Moyers of featuring guests hostile to conservative views.

Revisions adopted by the PBS board include a requirement that commentary and opinion be labeled as such, and that program producers offer more information on how they gathered material and made their editorial decisions.

PBS also said it would hire an ombudsman to review controversial programs.

PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise that serves the nation's 348 public noncommercial television stations, reaching nearly 90 million people each week.

Crying that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Boohoo :roll:

See my post above. If PBS wants to keep feeding at the public tit, then public sentiment is going to force its programming. If they turn to viewer contributions alone for their funding, then they don't have to worry about government interference, and its programming will be influenced solely by the desires of its viewers.
Otherwise, what you're crying about above is completely normal. You want a democracy, you got it. You want government-sponsored TV programming, then expect it to air what the democratically-elected government dictates. Get a clue for once in your life, eh?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Tiger

the programming is what it is - who determines what is "conservative" and what is "liberal"? things are often not as clear cut as this. for fun though - name some instances of liberalism that you find offensive on PBS.

Where to start?
Just about anything done by WGBH in Boston.
Now, even without uber pinko Bill Moyers.
Frontline.
A few of the kids shows may not be specifically leftist, but they do have a decidedly politically correct, "progressive" (God, I hate that word.Talk about mis-appropriating a word) bent.

Please don't tell me to turn the channel if don't like the programming. I'm paying for this programming, unlike commercial broadcasting, and my values and should be equally represented.

Lots of talk no action...Can you cite an example?

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Assume they primarily pushed a radical right wing agenda. Would you want funding cut?

I would.

Unlike many I also want funding cut now because of their radical left wing agenda.

I'm consistent. Who else is consistent?

Newsweek actually did LIE! :| People DIED! 🙁
CBS actually did LIE! :| People would have DIED! 🙁
Senator Kerry LIED! :| Before or After 2000, choose one! 🙁

If that were true, yes. Now could you provide some examples demonstrating their "radical left wing agenda"?

Edit: Why was your sig included in my reply?

Fair enough question. Difficult to quantify. Initially it was based on my listening to NPR radio. Especially since so much of the information on their website is in sound format. However....

Yes, I do listen to various radio shows with viewpoints from all over the board. My favorites are Mark Davis and Alan Colmes. While Mark is a bit more in the center than Alan, Alan has view points all over the political spectrum, as do I. Frequently he is just wrong.... of course, that is when I'm "obviously" right! 😉 (humor challenged individuals dont read the last sentence.)

Here are a few examples:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4632189
Q: In your journey through conservative universities, what did you learn about the missionary generation?

I'm not sure I would refer to them as simply conservative. What defines them is their religious identity more than their political one.
(notice the attempt to label them as conservative.)

Q: Have you also explored the rise in students attending conservative Christian law schools? What do you see as its possible repercussions?
(again they labeled them conservative.)

Q: How different are these schools from the secular ones?
(note, in this question they did not state. How different are these conservative schools from the liberal ones? Why no label this time?)

Q: Is there much diversity of opinions in these schools?
(warning: I'm pasting in answers from two differnet questions here.)
As far as political opinions go, there's not a large amount, but there's some. I visited a range of schools, so it's hard to offer a blanket answer. There aren't very many people on the Brigham Young campus voting for a Democrat, but plenty of people at Notre Dame are. There is some disagreement on religious campuses about things like foreign policy, but there is almost universal agreement that faith has a place in public debate. Most people think abortion is wrong, but they're a little more accepting of homosexuality. I'm not sure that there is much less diversity of opinion on religious campuses than there is on secular ones. Religious campuses are generally a little more transparent about what is and is not within the realm of reasonable discussion, though. At secular campuses, everyone is just supposed to know what the orthodoxy is.

(now for the other answer)
I think there is also a preconception (thanks in large part to Bob Jones) that most Christian schools hold racist attitudes. But with the exception of some people at Bob Jones, I don't think this is true at all. Most of these schools seem to be pursuing racial diversity as much if not more so than secular schools. In part, they think it is part of their religious mission to reflect "the Kingdom of God."



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4702366
Of course, I don't know what is correct. Here is what I do know about this case. 14 different judges over 19 years reviewed this case and found no evidence of racial bias. The blurb given is not a bad statement. I have no objection to it. My objection is they did not mention the other 14 judges nor did them mention that evidence that "suddenly became available" was used in making the determination. Thus, they give one side to the story, not all sides.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4703284
Again, one sided that does not give the entire details. You can guess which side is given favorable treatment. In this case Senator DeLay has been asking for a meeting with the Ethics Committee but the Democrats quickly moved to delay the meeting. Why was that not mentioned. Nor, does it mention any other Democrat or Republican that has had their families on their re-election campaigns nor taken trips at taxpayer expense. Remember the full planes of friends of President Clinton going to China? Or meetings with heads of states being postponed so Chelsea could go along? None of this excuses any ethics violations. My point is that both sides say they did nothing wrong so why go after DeLay only?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4677290
Read the story closely. It never mentions what Watergate was really about. But, in this case, that is not my issue. Look at the language used. You see the same language in these forums only in these forums the language is even more repulsive.

Allow me to point out the labels. If you inclined to say sheesh how petty. Then good for you. That is exactly what all groups (both sides) want you to think. However, even with my children (acutally step children having had none of my own) I taught them to be color blind. My son still remembers coming home and telling me that it would be hard to get the starting spot on a particular team because his competitor was black. To which I asked what being black had to do with ability and challenged him on why he had to mention that he was black. I understood though, all children are liberal at heart. My daughter's husband is a rabid liberal! He got the same treatment my son did. A couple of weeks ago he mentioned a new neighbor came over and yelled and cursed at him for a mistake of my son-in-law. He started the conversation with, the black man from next door... ooops, I stopped him and said does color and sex matter to this story? He didn't like that!

The moral, pay attention to the language, it is very important.

While activists on both ends of the spectrum have decried the compromise, most of the rancor has come from the right. Many pro-family conservatives have vowed to remember John McCain's
(what about pro-family democrats? why one sided? why any labels?)

Search for the label "left wing." 3 pages +6 entries.
"right wing" 9 pages +10 entries.
Three times the labeling of right wing vs left wing. Why any labels?


Search for the label "radical left" 3 entries.
"radical right" 6 entries.
Two times times the use of negative labels.




Ok, my answers are not very satisifying. What I can say is that when I listen to NPR the NPR representative is typically using negative words and lables when referring to conservatives and using positive words and avoiding labels when referring to liberals.

Discussions on issues where there are clear delineations of thought (global warming, abortion for convenience, etc.) the discussion usually (1) ignores rational conservative responses and emphasizes knee jerk responses and (2) suppresses thought that does not support their beliefs.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrongHere is what I found from a source that might not have been thought of....PBS and their annual report (FY 2001).

Link

See, 7% will not significantly hurt them and it will appease individuals such as myself that don't believe slanted "edcuational" media should be supported with our tax dollars.

I belive most who disagree with me would agree with me if PBS suddenly started airing shows shunning abortion for convenience and promoting Christianity. Right?