House defunds NPR 236 to 181 (but...)

[raccoonradio]

...will it pass the Senate?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262386/house-votes-defund-npr-daniel-foster

>>The House just voted 236-181 to remove federal funding for National Public Radio via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nothing wrong with public radio--as in voluntary contributions by listeners (and corporate and
foundation funding). What's wrong is government funding by confiscatory taxation. Why not fund
Fox News while we're at it?

 

[recto101]

NO!

 

[TheBigA]

What's wrong is government funding by confiscatory taxation. Why not fund
Fox News while we're at it?

The Fox News question came up during this morning's debate. The government buys commercials that air on Fox News. So the Democrats asked why shouldn't those commercials be banned. Good question. All of those drunk driving spots you see are ad buys, not PSAs, from the US Department of Transportation.

This is clearly an ideological vote based on a biased video, without any real analysis done about whether or not the accusations of bias in reporting actually exist. It also makes demands on stations that go beyond the role that the government should play with regards to the media. We all know this bill won't pass the Senate, but it should be challenged in court. Too many misconceptions about public broadcasting that need to be explained.

The House is out of control...even the Speaker can't control his members. This country is in trouble when a couple of idealogues can hijack the government.

 

[marshall miles]

So I guess to be fair, there also should be no tax incentives for movies, movie productions, television productions, also, I guess we should drop the federal subsidies and tax breaks for private companies like oil companies, electric companies, etc, etc, etc. And then, let public radio stations sell advertising, and also let public radio stations sell lucrative political advertising as well....hell, lets just end public broadcasting and make all of us commercial stations! Yea, that's the ticket....I'm game.

 

[TheBigA]

You're making way too much sense. These are the folks who still think Obama is a Muslim and the revolutionary war was fought in New Hampshire. They're too wrapped up in their own ideology to be able to see the hypocricy.

 

[Mark Giardina]

To answer the question with the U.S. Senate also defund NPR, the answer is no. Even if that happened, Obama said he would veto the bill. So basically this legislation is going no where.

Yet there is some food for thought regarding this vote.

I have always maintained, even when I worked at an NPR-affiliated radio station, that more public broadcasting listeners and viewers need to 'step up to the plate' and contribute to their local public broadcasting stations. This way there wouldn't be this constant fear of the government revoking federal funds.

It might not happen now folks, but down the road eventually the day is going to come that federal funding for public broadcasting is going to end. Why? Because we've just experienced the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a reduction in government funding for numerous programs. Wait and see what happens at your local level when state and federal funds start to dry up as efforts are underway to reduce the huge deficit we currently are experiencing.

There might be 170 million Americans who listen to NPR. The real question is how many of those 170 million bother to contribute during pledge drives?

 

[TheBigA]

There might be 170 million Americans who listen to NPR. The real question is how many of those 170 million bother to contribute during pledge drives?

As I've said, how many people would pay their electric bill if there wasn't the threat that the power would get shut off. Same with cable TV.

Not many people are willing to pay money for something unless there are consequences for NOT Paying. That is what is needed. Just the threat of it going away simply isn't enough.

 

[Bongwater]

How ironic the GOP defunds NPR now when right now, the only source of continuous TV news from Japan after this disaster and the nuclear crisis happening right now MOST ironically comes from Japan's PUBLIC broadcaster, NHK.

And what about those tiny rural stations in Barrow and Kotzebue, Alaska? Does the House REALLY think Clear Channel, CBS or Entercom is going to set up shops THERE?

Maybe they won't, but there's no doubt a sat-casting Jesus network will.....with NO local programming.

Geez.......

 

[SML]

"What's wrong is government funding by confiscatory taxation."

Yeah, I am so sick of my tax money going to fix roads in South Dakota and Georgia. And paying for wars I don't like. And schools for other peoples kids. And so on and so forth ad nauseum.

Americans in general are not a selfish bunch. But there sure are a bunch of short-sighted fools in Congress these days. And loud mouth supporters of that same selfishness.

You can ask your local tea party congresscritter to pass a law that gives everyone the right to vote for the taxes they like, and vote down the ones they don't like. It might feel real good.

But don't complain when the roads are not paved, the lights don't come on, and the police and fire departments won't help you. Democracy requires cooperating with each other. And funding the common good.

 

[marshall miles]

Bingo Don....bravo!

 

[musichead1029]

You can ask.... to pass a law that gives everyone the right to vote for the taxes they like, and vote down the ones they don't like. It might feel real good.

It might actually call attention to how much unnecessary stuff we're compelled to pay for by political operatives. But it wouldn't ultimately solve anything. Look at California with its direct-line propositions. They don't stop people from pretending they can get anything they want for free. Cut taxes, but gimme gimme everything!

We need to find political operatives who actually want to improve things beyond lining their own nests. Rare birds, but they're out there.

Once again: Roads = essential. Radio = non essential.

Mark_Giardina gets the bingo. He says in two paragraphs what I've tried to communicate in the better part of two whole threads. Support NPR because it's worth something to you, but don't force people to support it who would rather not.

A half bingo ("bing"?) to Marshall:

So I guess to be fair, there also should be no tax incentives for movies, movie productions, television productions, also, I guess we should drop the federal subsidies and tax breaks for private companies like oil companies, electric companies, etc, etc, etc.

Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep and yep. Just lowering the tax rates once spending has been brought under control and prioritized would obviate the need to dole out 'breaks'. But how to convince a public that's been lulled into a false sense of entitlement?

But:

And then, let public radio stations sell advertising, and also let public radio stations sell lucrative political advertising as well....hell, lets just end public broadcasting and make all of us commercial stations!

The current underwriting rules are part of the deal that includes a reserved spot in the spectrum. We already have more than enough commercial stations. (As Marshall knows, having taken one noncommercial.) I know you're working in a smaller market on the front lines and this stuff may not be easy, but if noncomms can't band together to find adequate support, they're going to have to ask the hard questions.

 

[TheBigA]

Democracy requires cooperating with each other. And funding the common good.

Whatever happened to that? How did we fall off the road?

Maybe this is what happens when the "me generation" gets into Congress.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again: Roads = essential. Radio = non essential.

Until snow or a flood takes out the local road, and you want to know how to get to work. Whoops! What's essential now?

Mark_Giardina gets the bingo. He says in two paragraphs what I've tried to communicate in the better part of two whole threads. Support NPR because it's worth something to you, but don't force people to support it who would rather not.

If you figure out a better way to collect money from people who use a service but won't pay unless there's consequence, let me know. As others here have said, I'm forced to pay for a lot of things I'd rather not, and a lot of them are non-essential. It's obvious to anyone who has read the commentary from the sponsor of this bill that it's all about ideology, and most of it isn't based in real fact. But in the meantime, how can I withhold my money that will be used to get rid of Kadaffi? Because I don't want my tax money funding another war.

if noncomms can't band together to find adequate support, they're going to have to ask the hard questions.

They HAVE banded together, and the way they've done that is with something called NPR. They pay money to them for programming. But now the hard liners in the House are telling them that they can't do that anymore. Seems like big government overstepping its role. Where are all the fans of limited government now?

 

[musichead1029]

Democracy requires cooperating with each other. And funding the common good.

Whatever happened to that? How did we fall off the road?

Maybe this is what happens when the "me generation" gets into Congress.

No, this is what happens when quaint notions like 'common good' are bandied about. I know the 'common good' is served by fiscal discipline. But some equate the 'common good' with entitlement to a radio station.

'Common good' isn't much of a benchmark. The common don't even seem know what's good for them. How could you or I purport to know better?

 

[TheBigA]

'Common good' isn't much of a benchmark. The common don't even seem know what's good for them. How could you or I purport to know better?

I know this may seem like a quaint or obsolete idea, but the "common good" is achieved when all sides of an issue get together in a room, discuss the issue calmly, and come to a conclusion they all like. This country was built on common good. That's how government used to work. That was before the era of hardliners who donn't believe in compromise got elected. It's really very simple. LISTEN to the other side for once. Recognize that there's more to life than ME. And do something nice for someone else for a change. That may seem liberal, but it's not...it's just being nice.

 

[TheBigA]

But some equate the 'common good' with entitlement to a radio station.

Let me add that it would be an entitlement if the government paid for ALL of it. But this is what we call a public-private partnership, where the government pays a share, while the listeners and local businesses pay a share. That's not an entitlement. That's working together. That's investing in our own country and our own people. Don't they teach civics in school any more?

 

[Nate Wesley]

...will it pass the Senate?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262386/house-votes-defund-npr-daniel-foster

>>The House just voted 236-181 to remove federal funding for National Public Radio via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Nothing wrong with public radio--as in voluntary contributions by listeners (and corporate and
foundation funding). What's wrong is government funding by confiscatory taxation. Why not fund
Fox News while we're at it?

Because there's a demonstrable value in having news coverage and arts/educational programming that isn't prioritized by ad dollars, metered ratings, and shareholders, that's why. And as for consficatory taxation...what a f'n joke. You will lose more pocket change to couches than the direct 'burden' CPB funding is to your tax-paying wallet.

Looked at another way--you're not entitled to a refund for roads you don't use or the fire department you don't have to call. So the partisan choice *not* to make use of NPR or PBS programming, even when so much it could benefit you personally without ANY controversial coverage--you're wasting your own money.

 

[kenglish]

But, if NPR goes away due to lack of funding, won't we just be able to listen to it for FREE on the INTERNET? :
(At least...that's the idea the "new generation" has about everything, ain't it?)

 

[TheBigA]

All eyes are on the New York Times, who last week announced a subscription plan for its web site. You get to read a certain number of stories for free, after which you must subscribe. I bet the majority will read for free until the pay wall comes up, then switch to the Washington Post. People are cheap.

 

[musichead1029]

All eyes are on the New York Times, who last week announced a subscription plan for its web site. You get to read a certain number of stories for free, after which you must subscribe. I bet the majority will read for free until the pay wall comes up, then switch to the Washington Post. People are cheap.

Some news has unique value. Most doesn't. The Wall Street Journal has had a profitable paywall site for years, because they offer unique content that people will pay for. The Times has failed to attract enough paying online consumers in the past because it doesn't have enough compelling unique content. That has not changed.

Compounding the underwhelming content, the NYT has done much over the past 40 years to tarnish its reputation for trust, descending into a partisan presentation that plays well with its Upper East Side clientele in NYC, but renders the paper ultimately dispensable when most can find better free news sources elsewhere on the web.

This lack of uniqueness and trustworthiness, coupled with an unrealistic online pricing structure, is reflected in The Times' dramatically decreased hard copy circulation and will result again in the failure of a Times paywall to achieve profitability.