Another Public Radio Employee Canned for 'Occupy' Activism

[TheBigA]

Still, the ascertion that we can no longer afford to fund public radio stands on it's own merit.

BS. I worked on Cap Hill for 5 years. We have Congressmen riding in chauffer-driven limos all over DC every day, traveling to the multiple staffed offices they use at taxpayer expense. If you had any idea how much money this government pisses away just on bottled water, you'd realize how silly your statement is.

The media is not a luxury. It is a public service. Private limos and multiple offices for Congressmen is a luxury. Let them give up their perks before the taxpayers give up theirs.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Still, the ascertion that we can no longer afford to fund public radio stands on it's own merit.

The Feds pour maybe 56 BILLION dollars every year into Farm Price Supports. You know: we pay farmers NOT TO GROW certain crops to keep the prices up so farmers can "make a living".

The Feds pour maybe 110 MILLION dollars every year into public radio.

Yeah'p. That pretty well proves that it is what we turn over to public radio that is putting out Federal budget in the toilet.

 

[TheBigA]

The Feds pour maybe 110 MILLION dollars every year into public radio.

Here's how the money was divided last year:

$93.94 million (22.3% of total CPB budget) for public radio, distributed as:
$65.41 million as grants to individual public radio stations
$21.74 million as grants for radio programming acquisition
$6.79 million for public radio programming

By contrast, the Smithsonian Institution, a group of museums in Washington, receives $800 million a year in federal money.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Here is another totally useless factoid to use for comparison.

In 2009, members of The House of Representatives spent $45 MILLION dollars sending mass-mailing letters to constituents, robo fone-calls to announce town hall meetings, newspaper ads to announce meetings where the public could meet their congressman. I couldn't find a comparable figure for the Senate for that year.

It is going to be hard to put the pressure on these people to squeeze public radio out of the Federal budget while explaining how it makes sense for them to spend almost that much money on promoting themselves.

When NPR insists on journalists being journalists, it is really hard to come up with valid reasons for convincing your legislator that NPR is an evil being, undeserving of the first cent of public money. Yes, the amount of such funding is a valid public debate. Reducing it to zero... not so valid as a discussion.

 

[Silkie]

Meanwhile the debt has reached $15,000,000,000.00; Al Qaeda's North African branch has gotten Libya's arsenal, China is calling us a bunch of cry babies who want something for nothing all the time, and we are talking about a bunch of snot noses who have taken up residence in a park, with taxpayer funded employees of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting taking the occasion to cry the blues about the wealthy. They don't have enough money to fix it anymore.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

They don't have enough money to fix it anymore.

They (they who?) don't have enough money to fix it (it what?) anymore.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

[/quote]

BS. I worked on Cap Hill for 5 years. We have Congressmen riding in chauffer-driven limos all over DC every day, traveling to the multiple staffed offices they use at taxpayer expense. If you had any idea how much money this government pisses away just on bottled water, you'd realize how silly your statement is.

The media is not a luxury. It is a public service. Private limos and multiple offices for Congressmen is a luxury. Let them give up their perks before the taxpayers give up theirs.
[/quote]

Ironically, your response is like an apple that fell from the same tree as mine did. WASTE IS WASTE, no matter whose federal pet-project we scrutinize. The federal government can no longer afford to subsidize runaway WASTEful perks like those you listed. Nor can it afford to fund Public Broadcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

The federal government can no longer afford to subsidize runaway WASTEful perks like those you listed. Nor can it afford to fund Public Broadcasting.

Public broadcasting is not a wasteful perk. It's a public service. Big difference.

The role of government is to serve the public, and public broadcasting is one way to do it.

 

[Silkie]

They don't have enough money to fix it anymore.

They (they who?) don't have enough money to fix it (it what?) anymore.

Reading a statement in its entirety and in the context of the whole is often a useful literary tool.

 

[Tom Wells]

The federal government can no longer afford to subsidize runaway WASTEful perks like those you listed. Nor can it afford to fund Public Broadcasting.

Public broadcasting is not a wasteful perk. It's a public service. Big difference.

Subjectivity alert.

That is totally subjective. Many people can justly declare what is wasteful.
Subjectivity and free will to see different realiites means that just as many people can say why something is NOT wasteful.

Information is of no value to a starving person.
Not that we truly suffer much real hunger yet here in the US.
But when you're truly starving, you're in less of a position to really care much about "other things",
and it would be much easier to see something like NPR as wasteful.

 

[TheBigA]

That is totally subjective.

But it's not subjective. The government has defined broadcasting as a public service. It's the government that is funding public broadcasting. It's not put up for popular vote. The government created public broadcasting because private broadcasters failed at providing a public service. It is the role of government to provide services for its people. Not limos for legislators. That is waste. Service is not a waste.

There are politicians who are saying we are a poor country because we have debt. That isn't true. We are a wealthy country that saves the world and gives away billions to other countries. If we can afford billions for other countries, we can afford a few million for our own citizens.

 

[johnbasalla]

The price we pay for getting services from the government is loss of some freedom. That is why small government is the best government. "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen". The #1 role of government is to protect the people. National security at the Federal level. Now on to broadcasting -- Is it worthy to consider that with the growth of the internet, cable TV news stations, local TV news, which has added a number of hours in most markets, and the plethera of News/Talk stations on radio, that the need for government to fund broadcasting is no longer there?

 

[TheBigA]

Is it worthy to consider that with the growth of the internet, cable TV news stations, local TV news, which has added a number of hours in most markets, and the plethera of News/Talk stations on radio, that the need for government to fund broadcasting is no longer there?

Kind of like saying that because people can go to Disneyland, there's no reason for the government to fund the national parks any more.

The reality is that even with all of the options, they're all motivated by profits and ratings. Non-commercial broadcasting removed the profit and ratings motive from the equation. And public broadcasting offers more than news/talk.

Having said that, the cable TV industry supports C-SPAN, which is a non-commercial service from Capitol Hill. The feds want to impose a spectrum fee on OTA broadcasters to support free broadband service. Perhaps the solution is to still impose the spectrum fee on commercial broadcasters, but use it to fund non-commercial broadcasting. The problem with that idea is that the spectrum fee will cause further staffing cuts to OTA broadcasting. And the group that opposes government funding for public broadcasting ALSO opposes any new revenues.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Information is of no value to a starving person.
Not that we truly suffer much real hunger yet here in the US.
But when you're truly starving, you're in less of a position to really care much about "other things",
and it would be much easier to see something like NPR as wasteful.

You, too, are being a bit subjective. Other media will tell you that there are hungry people. Then they will broadcast a quote from a radical conservative explaining that people are hungry because it is their own fault. Then the other media will get the radical liberal who will give a quote that people are hungry because radical conservatives don't care about people. So out of this there is a lot of snarling and sweating and wheel spinning.

Public Radio, on the other hand, is likely to broadcast a thoughtful interview with a rational human being who can explain why people TODAY are hungry which is different that why people A DECADE AGO were hungry, and then interview someone else who has an organization that is devoted to meeting the needs of the hungry and how you can contact that organization and which of two such organizations may be the best fit for a listener who wants to get off his/her rear end and go do something to help the hungry.

And while mainstream media is giggling about which movie star is making out with another movie star, Morning Edition on NPR may be doing a story on organizations the hungry can look to to learn how to tell the difference between healthy foods and unhealthy foods when you go shopping.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The price we pay for getting services from the government is loss of some freedom. That is why small government is the best government. "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen". The #1 role of government is to protect the people. National security at the Federal level. Now on to broadcasting -- Is it worthy to consider that with the growth of the internet, cable TV news stations, local TV news, which has added a number of hours in most markets, and the plethera of News/Talk stations on radio, that the need for government to fund broadcasting is no longer there?

Let me give you an example of how keeping things small can eat your lunch. I moved to Indiana a number of years ago and it was the perfect place to wallow in conservative thinking. It was a place that believed small was usually better than gargantuan. We had this state law (as did many other states at one time) that banks had to stay in their own county. No branch banks in the neighboring county. And certainly no branch banks 10 or 15 counties away. And in the 1960s we had the most delightful bunch of folksy banks, small enough to appreciate even a small customer.

Our neighboring states loosened up and city banks began gobbling up rural county based banks. Indiana held tight far too long. And when Indiana finally loosened up a bit, it was way too late. By then the Feds got involved and decreed that Federally chartered banks could open branches across STATE lines. So what we thought were our BIG BANKS in Indiana turned out to be in the new competitive cross-state banking, little wimpy banks. The banks of Ohio and Illinois had grown big and strong as STATEWIDE banks and when the dust settled, I don't think Indiana was the home base of any significant bank. The survivors were based in Chicago and Columbus and Cincinnati.

This is a lesson that Grover Norquist and friends need to look at. If we keep our government "small enough that you can drown it in a bath tub like a baby"..... then as world economics plunges ahead, there are plenty of countries, including China, that will indeed be able to "drown us in a bath tub".

Down underneath it all I'm still an old fashioned conservative, a'la Indiana 1965, chomping at the bit to elect Barry Goldwater. But my memories of the Midwest in the 1960s are about as useful as were my father's memories of Texas agriculture in the 1930s. We don't live there any more.

A cute little tiny government seems so quaint, so pleasant... but keep it small enough and someone like Rupert Murdock will buy the United States someday to add to his charm bracelet. It's not your government who may take your most important freedoms, but some one else's government that has grown bigger and bigger to meet the times, and is big enough to snuff out the little tiny government some people in our country dream of.

Some of us see that picture because NPR brings us facts that help us understand that... and NPR has decided not to employ people who are tied to polemics of one side or the other. If you are a conservative, listening to NPR will help you understand conservatism. If you are a liberal, listening to NPR will help you understand liberalism. And both sides learn to understand each other, which is a GOOD thing.

 

[Open Source]

Perhaps the solution is to still impose the spectrum fee on commercial broadcasters, but use it to fund non-commercial broadcasting.

As our friends across the pond would say, that's mental.

How about non-comms support themselves and stop depending on others to prop them up? Many of them obviously do so, and do quite well. It's not the government's business to be in broadcasting, regardless of whatever promises have been made.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not the government's business to be in broadcasting, regardless of whatever promises have been made.

The government is in broadcasting. The government regulates broadcasting. The government is responsible for the spectrum. Most of the spectrum is owned by the government. The government owns the Voice of America. The government owns Armed Forces Radio & TV. The government is in broadcasting. Lots of state governments and about a dozen city governments also own broadcasting. So regardless what you believe, it IS the government's business to be in broadcasting, and the opinions of a small extreme group won't change that. Get used to it.

Private industry needs to step up to the plate and do a better job of serving the public and taking care of its employees. It's not the 18th century any more.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

It's not the government's business to be in broadcasting, regardless of whatever promises have been made.

The government is in broadcasting. The government regulates broadcasting. The government is responsible for the spectrum. Most of the spectrum is owned by the government. The government owns the Voice of America. The government owns Armed Forces Radio & TV. The government is in broadcasting. Lots of state governments and about a dozen city governments also own broadcasting.
Private industry needs to step up to the plate and do a better job of serving the public and taking care of its employees. It's not the 18th century any more.

Sorry, BigA, soapboxing about "ownership" by the fed's only serves to expose it's own violation of the spirit of the commerce clause. But I do agree with your call to private industry to step up to the plate, especially in broadcasting.

 

[TheBigA]

Sorry, BigA, soapboxing about "ownership" by the fed's only serves to expose it's own violation of the spirit of the commerce clause.

Aren't you suggesting the current Congress violate the spirit of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967? Following the law means you follow ALL the laws, not just the ones you like. A law is the law and must be followed until that law is repealed.

If you'd like to challenge the existence of the FCC, be my guest. It was formed by Republicans Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, who were doing the bidding of RCA's David Sarnoff.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Perhaps the solution is to still impose the spectrum fee on commercial broadcasters, but use it to fund non-commercial broadcasting.

How about non-comms support themselves and stop depending on others to prop them up? Many of them obviously do so, and do quite well. It's not the government's business to be in broadcasting, regardless of whatever promises have been made.

Thanks for posting some common sense!