You can talk about "right wing talking points" all you want, but everything you say is the same we've heard for years. Just because Congress lacks the will to do anything about it, the American public is on to the scam. It's only a matter of time before the taxpayers stop subsidizing public media.
To many people who take the letter of the law seriously, that question is a matter of principle. In any situation where the amount of tax revenues should be given to businesses is zero, then any amount of money, no matter how much or how little, is to much. When the proper amount to be given is none, then "some" is too much.
Well, when they quit subsidizing corporate business jets, and when they quit subsidizing the $60,000 pick-up trucks parked at my local supermarket, and when they quit having these bidding wars where people move their factories and their corporate headquarters to whatever state will bribe them with the most cash, then come back and we can talk about the chicken-feed that gets spilled on public broadcasting.
I'm sorry some of the threads from two and three years back on this site are not easily accessible. I guess we are going to have to dig out the numbers all over again.
What percentage of the operating costs of PBS and NPR and all the local stations is actually paid for with taxpayer subsidies?
There are some rural area, low-population density markets where you can come up with a station budget that shows significant, measurable government funding, but people who keep stirring the conversation-pot on this topic belong to the same school-of-logic as the folks who are convinced we can balance the federal budget by eliminating government funding of eye-brow mascara for the gnats on the donkeys that people ride on the trails in The Grand Canyon.
Tell us how much money the Federal government puts into "public broadcasting" each year, and tell us what the total budget of public broadcasting is.
Except for one small thing: There was an act of Congress passed in 1967 that set the whole thing up. It's the law. You can dislike certain laws all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the law. Taxpayers can't stop following the law. So there is no impasse, and there is no bias. It's all something you've made up.
This is all off topic, so let's let this thread return to the guy in Philly who's mad at his local talk station.
I know it's not a lot of their operating budget. Which is why they can do without it.
No amount of facts are ever going to change your mind
I may be the only person in the world who has this view, but smart public broadcasters (and smart community leaders) always want the government to put at least 3 to 8% of the cost of public broadcasting into the pot.
This is all off topic, so let's let this thread return to the guy in Philly who's mad at his local talk station.
You probably think CBS is liberal too, and are purposely not carrying Hannity.
I may be the only person in the world who has this view, but smart public broadcasters (and smart community leaders) always want the government to put at least 3 to 8% of the cost of public broadcasting into the pot. It is a great way to say no to corporate underwriters who want better "copy", a great way to say no to politicians who want news slanted their way, "I'm sorry but we can't change our policy to do what you are asking. Since we receive some government funding, we are not allowed to do what you want."
And I suspect a significant portion of the public and listening audience see it that way too. Sometimes the government rules are a pain, but sometimes they get the monkey off your back.... including local board members of your station.
Taking away all government funding would lead to taking away all government curbs on what you can and cannot do, and public broadcasting would eventually become 3rd rate crap like you hear on about 40 to 50% of commercial stations today.
Hey, make sure when you use my tax dollars to go on vacation you tip the maids at the hotel.
God forbid they have to compete in the market with the rest of us, right?
God forbid they have to compete in the market with the rest of us, right?
My station and I do just fine without tax dollars and we don't have to "slant news". In fact I told a well known politician that very thing recently when she accused our news department of attacking her for simply running an AP story about her.
But I can see why YOU think it's vacation.
And that's why they don't slant their news.
The mistake you make is trying to see them through your eyes and experience.
Most commercial stations I've listened to don't slant the news, they simply don't broadcast any news.
It's a false narrative put forth for years by the public radio bunch that news departments are somehow slaves to the sponsors,
I'd put the news staffs at every station I've worked at up against any public radio hack any day of the week.
Pot. Kettle. Yadda yadda.
Because I'm paying for it?