Sen. Jim DeMint's latest target: NPR, over Juan Williams firing

I think once more you are wrong about that in many cases.

If you've got a link, I would certainly reconsider.

Nor should it. Since listeners cannot donate to NPR directly, those who wish to withhold money from it have only one place to withhold it from. That place is their own local station. Is it fair to the local radio America's local public radio stations? No. But that's they've set up NPR to work.

AGREE

My wife and I actually volunteer for phone duty at WUNC for the fund drive every year. Last week, each of us had a few people mention the situation, but the responses were generally positive about NPR's decision, and even the negative folks still pledged.
I think it's pretty much a non-issue.

Good for you! My own reaction to the episode was negative as well. But I wouldn't want to see it turn into a weapon in a political drive to de-fund public radio.

I would hate to see public radio be greatly harm but on the other hands there need to be accountability for misdeeds.

The federal government should not be funding newspapers, radio or television irrespective of editorial bias.

That liberals consistently approve of federal funding of so-called public radio and TV is proof that this media has a liberal bias. If they had a conservative bias, liberals would be going nuts, and rightly so.

The fact that NPR has a liberal bias is without serious question, but immaterial.

The government doesn't belong anywhere near the news business, and with the myriad of news outlets available to citizens, there isn't even a remote justification for their involvement.

NPR is not "telling the truth" no other news outlet will. That's a simply a ridiculous claim, but if someone actually believes it, let's see some evidence.

Even if they were, are we really to trust that level of objectivity to government funding?

I listen to NPR. I like the breadth of their coverage. I don't like their liberal bias on political subjects, but I don't listen to them for their political reporting.

I have contributed money to NPR because I feel like I should pay for what I consume, but that's voluntary. People who want nothing to do with NPR for whatever reason should not be forced to subsidize it with their tax dollars.

If federal funding is so small a share of their revenues as they claim then they shouldn't care if federal funding is reduced to zero.

If the people who love NPR aren't willing to pay for what the love...screw 'em.

As for it being non-commercial...give me a break. Anyone who listens to NPR knows that the acknowledgments "contributing" businesses insist upon are about 15 seconds shy of an ad spot on commercial radio.

If news and opinion with a liberal bias can't survive without federal funding, then it's more irrelevant than even I imagined.

Jim DeMint is my senator. I cringe every time I think about that. If you look at where his campaign funding comes from you realize he is a tool of the very worst of the far right wing. He sees the world as a battleground and he is a soldier. He is a zealot. An example of everything that is wrong with politics in America today. If he lived in Germany in the 30s he would have been a Nazi party leader.

Am I clear enough?

Oh, he does nothing to help the people of South Carolina, other than himself.

Do you think that if NPR didn't have federal funding, it could survive in its current form?

If so, how?

If not, would you mind if it disappeared?

edit: this is interesting. I asked but did not know the answers, was curious what Finn thought. A little research turned this up:



http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/2010/10/21/first-interview-with-nprs-vivian-schiller-on-juan-williams-firing/

(Emphasis mine.)

I thought NPR had a lot more federal funding than that. But also seems like the government isn't very "involved" with NPR.

A lot of people have some pretty gross misunderstandings about NPR and what they are. Plenty seem to think that they are government run media outlet. People tend to think the same about things like C-SPAN (which is a complementary services funded by the cable companies). What is interesting to me is that the money NPR gets isn't directly from the government. It's through orgs like the Natl Endowment for the Arts or the NSF. People can't really "defund" NPR without there being a correlating fiscal collateral damage to these groups (who would be defunded as a means to defund NPR???).

Then again, some conservatives probably don't give a dame if the National Science Foundation loses its money.

NPR is non-profit and puts a lot of it's money into reducing the costs to member stations. taking away the very little they get from the government would only make NPR's programming more expensive to local stations in the end.

A
R
T

And that would be bad why?

It doesn't really matter whether or not NPR "needs" federal funding, it shouldn't receive it, no matter what the amount.

NPR loves to claim they only get a tiny sum from the Feds, and maybe they are being truthful, but you can bet that they spend time and money keeping political relationships that will continue the income, in good standing.

NPR and PBS are a whole lot more "commercial" now than ever before, but there isn't anything inherently beneficial to the common good in non-commercial media.

Non-commercial media is not free. The folks who produce it don't and wouldn't do it if they couldn't make a living at it, nor should they.

Everyone benefits from the tax-payer supported armed forces. Everyone benefits from tax-payer supported highways (whether or not they drive on them). It's even arguable that everyone benefits from agricultural subsides (although there's a lot of room for debate there), but an argument that everyone benefits from tax-payer supported news and entertainment media or art is specious at best.

Does anyone believe that a national referendum on tax-payer funding of NPR or PBS would result in continued funding?

Therefore, in order to support its continuation, a credible argument has to be made that it actually is a benefit to the public at large. Such an argument cannot be made.

Don't vote for him the next time he runs. Obviously a large number of your fellow SC citizens don't agree with you.

Am I being clear enough?

the electorate are the worst judges of character, look at the idiots they elect

I won't.

I like to think I wouldn't have voted for Herr Hitler either.
Unlike many of my fellow South Carolinians.

Maybe you should consider moving from SC. Would you have remained in Germany after the Nazis took over?

Well, neither should farmers or oil companies or foreign countries or private businesses of any type. But for various reasons we have determined that sometimes it is in the country's best interest to help fund certain activities.

However, I really don't see a lot of railing on the part of Conservatives to end foreign aid, tax breaks for oil companies, or subsidies to farmers. Just those who they consider to be politically opposed to them. Hard to take you seriously when you ignore the elephant in the room, only to focus on the mouse.

Cycloptichorn

Probably not, or I might have wound up in a concentration camp with my Jewish wife and her family

Believe me, I have thought about it, and without current family ties I may just make the move. And before anyone says it, I won't let the door hit me on the way out.
I know these feelings are bad for me and I try to let them go, but the local politics are difficult to avoid. Much of what is wrong on a national level came from SC in the form of Lee Atwater in the Reagan years. Seeing that demonizing your fellow politicians only will result in a larger group of demons sees to be lost of much of today's crowd. I see no benefit reaching the people of SC, one of the poorest states in the country.

A voting referendum would have to be on the groups that give NPR money (NSF NEFA etc). Congress doesn't directly fund NPR.

A
R
T