-
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
Republicans Set to Defund NPR
- Thread starter The Voice of Reason
- Start date
The Voice of Reason said:
To quote Ronald Reagan; "Here we go again!" The Republicans tried this in the early 1990s and it went nowhere. However in this economy and especially with Soros' contributions, it wouldn't come as a shock if NPR ended up without federal funding.
Personally I can think of other ways to save money, which includes the elimination of the US Department of Education. But that's off topic so let me stop with that.
They might get support from the President, considering how the lot have even pulled him way farther left from where even he wanted to go. At least if how he has spoken is any indication. Sometimes you have to listen rather than just hear what you want to hear because of the letter that appears behind a name.
NPR accepts contributions from any organization. They took $200 million from conservative Ray Kroc. No one complained about that. If a right wing group wants to make a donation, they'd accept it. These Republicans think they can shut down the media because they cut funding. I hate to tell them that's not the world we live in. There are people who will report the news for free. If Republicans want to save money, they can end big corporate bail outs. That eats up a whole lot more money than CPB.
TheBigA said:
You just put your finger on a major part of the political shell game: Complain about government spending. Cut (or threaten to cut) a few million from the CPB. Then nobody notices the billions that go to corporations.
Also keep repeating "NPR is liberal" until people start believing it and repeating it. Then it becomes one of those things "everybody knows" and nobody questions. Then if they do a story politicians don't like, it can be easily discredited for much of the population.
TheBigA said:
They don't want to "shut down" anything. They're not going to the FCC every other week trying to get hosts thrown off the air for "racist" comments. Their point is that taxpayer dollars shouldn't go a biased media, and they have a very good argument that it shouldn't. NPR will be fine if they lose tax money, which is a long shot in iteself.
Of course they are biased. They are steeped in political correctness underlying an inside the beltway perspective. And they bend over backwards to placate wing-nuts screaming about NPR's presumed "bias."
But whatever slant they have, they don't need government money. They are somebody who has gotten a job but still wants welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps. If there are some smaller, community-based public radio stations barely getting by, let local institutions help. But overall, NPR and the major stations which provide national programs are doing very well, thank you. So are a lot of smaller but healthy operations. Public radio needs to give up its addiction to public money. Then we can work on getting Amtrak off the dole.
But whatever slant they have, they don't need government money. They are somebody who has gotten a job but still wants welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps. If there are some smaller, community-based public radio stations barely getting by, let local institutions help. But overall, NPR and the major stations which provide national programs are doing very well, thank you. So are a lot of smaller but healthy operations. Public radio needs to give up its addiction to public money. Then we can work on getting Amtrak off the dole.
MattParker said:
That's not the point. NPR was created by government edict. The government wanted a non-commercial media system, like every other country in the world. And they set about to fund it. It is money and a system that was promised. Now some in government want to reneg on that promise. Like they want to reneg on other promises made to people in this country. We need a government that delivers on the promises it makes.
TheBigA said:
All of radio was created by government edict. Other systems in the world are fully funded with a firewall to protect the systems from (most) political pressure. Now if you want to make over public radio on the BBC model, I'd be happy to go along. That system works and has worked well for decades (certainly better than what we have). But public radio in the US gets most of its money from advertisers/underwriters, grants (usually with strings attached) and listener donations - not the government. And public radio is subject to political pressure (via the CPB) and pressure from corporate sponsors.
The promise drawn up by the Carnegie Commission and passed by congress was for an independent broadcasting system meeting needs not met (or met well) by commercial broadcasters at the time. Funding was a means to that end - not the end itself. Besides, the media environment has changed since the late 60s. What was set down 40 years ago is due for an overhaul. They don't need government money any more. We need public radio that delivers - fully - on the promise the Carnegie Commission made. The current funding hodge-podge just gets in the way.
TheBigA said:
You say that like it's something government doesn't do every day. I'd rather them reneg on that promise than some more important ones. In case you haven't noticed about 1/5 of the country is out of work or underemployed. Like it or not, there's no Constitutional birthright to All Things Considered.
MattParker said:
So is CPB. It's set up with funding several years in advance. There are several levels between the funders and the broadcasters.
MattParker said:
The same could be said about all the other government entitlements that the Republicans want to defund.
The point is corporate and commercial broadcasting is ignoring a lot of things people need. The FCC is too focused on its own agenda. And the government is going to add a whole bunch more non-commercial LPFMs to the dial very soon. How are they going to exist?
The real question people need to ask is: Once the right wing defunds public broadcasting, what other tools will it use to shut it down? Because the defunding won't do it. Meanwhile, all my taxes are going to hundreds of countries that hate us, that are building industries that are putting our people out of work, and are training terrorists to kill us. Why isn't anyone talking about taking the hundreds of billions in foreign aid and directing it to the people in THIS country?
Don C said:
No one said there is. And federal funds don't go to All Things Considered.
TheBigA said:
None. This isn't some vast conspiracy to shut out liberal leaning media, which would be IMPOSSIBLE. It's some politicians making noise and trying to score political points over NPR getting caught with their pants down in the Juan Williams fiasco. Nothing will come of it. Even if CPB's funding was contingent on none of it being given to NPR, all parties involved would be just fine. As has been point out many times by NPR defenders, they don't get a large percentage of their funding from the feds anyway.
No one's trying to shut anyone down. They're just trying to make NPR live up to the promise that it made to them when they ask for funding.
Don C said:
Let's get something straight: If that was the issue, Congress could investigate it. But they aren't. NPR has hired an outside company to investigate and point blame. Once that's done, then people can point fingers if they want. But if that's the issue, it's being handled in a non-political way. Let the process work. Get back to the real problem, which is why so much American taxpayer money goes to people in other countries.
TheBigA said:
That has nothing at all to do with this. Red herring, yadda yadda. We might even agree on that. But taking money from foreign aid given to [insert country name here] and handing over to the CPB isn't proper, either. I doubt that's what you meant by that but I'm just demonstrating that foreign aid is about the furthest issue from public broadcasting that you could come up with.
This "attempt to get rid of public radio" is political posturing that will lead to nothing. Meanwhile, a professional race hustler has the FCC investigating the non-obscene content of certain syndicated shows. Who's trying to silence whom?
TheBigA said:
That red herring also has more chance of succeeding than "silencing" NPR with funding cuts. The FCC can start defining "obscenity" as anything they want, including making jokes about "Driving Miss Daisy". Will it happen? Doubtful. NPR losing CPB funding wouldn't stop anything. They'd just ask for more money from listeners/underwriters or cut costs. They'd survive just fine.
This is all probably a moot point, but the FCC can shut things down a lot faster than mere loss of funding.
- Status