Here's a great retort to all the folks who complain about "tax money going to NPR."
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15985_0_4_0_C
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15985_0_4_0_C
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Mississippi Channels Taxpayer Cash to Conservative Talk Radio
- Thread starter smedge2006
- Start date
...hardly surprising. Haley Barbour is the worst political slime in the country (and, yes, I am taking Joe Arpaio into consideration)...
This is hardly a comparison. Governments advertise in all media; this is not directly handing over taxpayer money for propaganda like NPR, Pacifica, etc.
Having said that, however, I would agree with any review of places the governmetn overspends its advertising dollars for two reasons:
1. If it's necessary to purchase space or time for such purposes and why they are doing it.
2. If they are spending their advertising dollars wisely.
Having said that, however, I would agree with any review of places the governmetn overspends its advertising dollars for two reasons:
1. If it's necessary to purchase space or time for such purposes and why they are doing it.
2. If they are spending their advertising dollars wisely.
Lando Griffin said:
...typical pseudoconservative kneejerk reaction. What "propaganda" on NPR are you talking about? Unless you mistake newscasts without a political bias in editing to somehow be "propaganda," in which case the flaw is in you, not the network...
Lando Griffin said:
Funny, I don't recall anyone at NPR ever endorsing a candidate, or going out of their way to slime political opponents.
Is there perhaps something you'd like to share with us, such as proof?
Ultimajock said:
What stresses the term "typical" more is the knee-jerk reaction from lefties like yourself as they defend their subsidized radio whilst only using a portion of my comment as an example.
FightingIrish said:
First, I note you did not include Pacifica in your retort.
As for NPR, I will start with a UCLA Study:
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:MgLUahnXyZwJ:www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx+npr+media+bias&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
Ther is more, but I should at least come down from accusing NPR as being as socialist as Pacifica. That probably wasn't fair.
Also, on a lesser note, the Northeast's Alan Chartock, the quasi-famous subsidized owner of a string of public network stations, constantly brags about his anti-Bush rhetoric -- with his six-figure salary -- all on the taxpayers' dime.
My challenge was with the comparison that was brought up in the thread. If any of the public radio defenders want to take issue with the comparison, that's fine.
Lando Griffin said:
...the originating post didn't mention Pacifica, either...
...and, of course, you can't come up with any example of NPR being biased, either, just some third-party claim that its news is not substantially different from those of the "mainstream media." So, if it doesn't promote Republican politics and demonise everybody else, like the pseudoChristian stations who gleefully violate tax laws while BushCo look the other way, you claim NPR's news is propaganda. What crap...
Ultimajock said:
Okay, I get it -- you like NPR. Fine -- you will defend it to the hilt
Now, please stop being so selective when referring to my posts. If you read the whole thing, then you wold realize that your defense of NPR was unneccesary.
O suppose your use of the term "BushCo" like your shepherds at MoveOn.org tell you to do tells me where you stand. You likely would agree with Mr. Chartock.
I think this whole thread points out a difference between neo- and paleo-conservatives. Neo's will gladly funnel tax money to their friends and supporters (and give government jobs to the loyal over the competent). Paleo's would oppose funneling tax money to their business friends, even if they thought the "other side" was doing it somehow. Supertalk's owner is clearly a Friend of Haley -- these contracts bypassed the bid system -- why would the state of Mississippi use the Supertalk format to reach single moms with info about Medicaid?
smedge2006 said:
You are right -- this is where the government should be more accountable to the people. I understand advertising is important sometimes to a local government as a public service, but unwisely spending that money for political gain is a true disservice to the people they had been chosen to represent.
I may not be a fan of the mandatory bidding system and how decisions are made from it, but when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money the governments need to take a refresher course on being responsible with it.
A media-savvy aide might do a better job distributing the ad money to get the message out to the right people, but as you mentioned before, Smedge, some governments choose to add cronies over competent help.
- Status