15
   

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

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 10:03 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
If you hate FOX you don't have to financially support it, but if you hate NPR you do.


someone hates government funding of the military. can they opt out of financially supporting it?

someone opposes paying licensing fees for their vehicles. can they opt out?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 10:09 am
This Wikipedia article on NPR makes interesting reading. Local stations are not required to broadcast NPR produced programs, and competing companies such as Public Radio International and American Public Media provide programming, too. (CBC listeners should recognize PRI, as CBC broadcasts their programming, too.)

Of particular interest is the section on accusations of bias. Not only is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting accused of a liberal bias, it is accused of a conservative bias, too.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 10:18 am
From that link, i found this very interesting:

Quote:
NPR's flagships are two drive time news broadcasts, Morning Edition and the afternoon All Things Considered; both are carried by most NPR member stations, and from 2002–2008 they were the second and third most popular radio programs in the country. In a Harris poll conducted in 2005, NPR was voted the most trusted news source in the U.S. (emphasis added)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 10:22 am
WOSU in Columbus, Ohio, always refers to itself as "Listener supported public radio." It has donation drives which yield about a half a million dollars each year.

From that link, this is also interesting:

Quote:
In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships. According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local government funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of CPB grants. NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government. About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.


I susupect the military gets more than that by orders of magnitude. Fact checking is a bitch, ain't it, Finn?
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 02:24 pm
http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/cartoon-images/2010/10/cartoon101028/8928849-1-eng-US/cartoon101028_full_600.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 03:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
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.


Having a conservative bias isn't possible because then public radio would be filled with lies and distortions. That's not what one wants in public radio. That role is filled by the Faux Network, Rush Limppaw and others like him and the religious stations.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 03:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
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.


Not only that, this is demonstrably untrue. NPR's economic reporting certainly isn't liberal by any means, and yet, I still approve of federal funding for them.

Cycloptichorn
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 03:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but a far better case can be made that a federal effort to financially support American agriculture is in the public interest


You would only embarrass yourself worse than you normally do if you tried to defend that position.

Quote:
If you are honest, you will admit that you could come up with a hundred reasons why the government should not be funding media that you believed ran contrary to your ideology.


When have you been honest?

What if your ideology is one that finds it repulsive to use the military and the covert military to torture, rape and murder innocents? What if you find it horrific that your military is being used to illegally invade sovereign nations and again, murder people and destroy their lives and homes?

Odd that you, Finn, find a few cents an onerous burden to taxpayers so that they can receive a measure of accurate information, but you have no problem spending tons of money to sow carnage upon the innocents of the world.

No, wait, that's not odd at all! That's Finn in a nutshell.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 03:28 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Voice of America clearly has an intent that largely incorporates propaganda, but it is directed towards people in other countries, not American citizens.

When Voice of America starts broadcasting post-modernist crap about America,


You're developing quite the talent for shooting yourself in the foot, Stumpy.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Oct, 2010 09:02 pm
"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. "

That statement serves to show the difference in thinking between typical conservatives and liberal. This is normal conservative thinking in that they would not understand why one would fund something unless it serves a purpose of furthering your own agenda, while a liberal would be quite comfortable with funding broadcasting that had a goal of accurate information dispersal and let the information speak for itself.

Watching one viewing of Glenn Beck and then the Jon Stewart Show would serve to prove this point.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:46 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
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.


Not only that, this is demonstrably untrue. NPR's economic reporting certainly isn't liberal by any means, and yet, I still approve of federal funding for them.

Cycloptichorn


OK - demonstrate away.

From your perspective NPR does not have a liberal bias. I'm not surprised.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
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.


Not only that, this is demonstrably untrue. NPR's economic reporting certainly isn't liberal by any means, and yet, I still approve of federal funding for them.

Cycloptichorn


OK - demonstrate away.


I just did.

Quote:
From your perspective NPR does not have a liberal bias. I'm not surprised.


Reading skills, Finny; their economic reporting isn't liberal in the slightest, and at many times highlights a downright Conservative point of view. I have never detected a Liberal bias in their various pieces slamming Keynesian economics or championing cutting taxes on businesses in various ways, nor their love of Free Trade.

Can you point to elements of their economic reporting that you consider to be Liberal? I doubt it. Asking you for facts to back up a narrative is an exercise in futility, because you're not really interested in facts. You're going to go on believing whatever you want anyway, all the while viewing yourself as some sort of oppressed, put-upon, Galtian minority surrounded by grifters and parasites.

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 02:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
From the link i posted above, which i suspect Finn hasn't bothered to read:

Quote:
Allegations of conservative bias

A December 2005 column run by NPR ombudsman and former Vice President Jeffrey Dvorkin denied allegations by some listeners that NPR relies heavily on conservative think-tanks. In his column, Dvorkin listed the number of times NPR had cited experts from conservative and liberal think tanks in the previous year as evidence. The totals were 239 for conservative think tanks, and 141 for liberal ones. He noted that while the number of times liberal think tanks were cited was less, in addition to think tanks the liberal point of view is commonly provided by academics.

In 2003, some critics accused NPR of being supportive of the invasion of Iraq.


Apparetly, Mr. Dvorkin considers academic and liberal to be synonymous. Ain't propaganda a wonderful thing?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 05:04 pm
I'm perfectly happy debating whether or not NPR has a liberal bias (it does) and I will return to that specific discussion, but the mere fact that it is an issue subject to debate (not withstanding the certainty of some on A2K that it is not) is the reason why it should not receive government funding in any amount.

So-called Public Radio and TV do not serve the greater common good. No matter what you think of the manner and quality of their product, it can be found elsewhere through "private" media, and even if it couldn't, media have so specialized that if there is even a modest market for it, it will become available.

The government should not be funding biased media and it should not be determining what is objective and what is biased.

According to liberals, nothing is liberal. You can no more call NPR liberal than you can call breathing liberal. Yes, of course, you can call many things conservative because when something deviates from the natural order of things, it must be conservative. There is no political spectrum for hard core liberals. There is normal and right, and there is abnormal and wrong, and those of us who are "abnormal and wrong," need to just shut our toothless Hillbilly mouths and let the "normal and right" decide upon what our tax dollars will be spent.

Now someone could probably spin a tale that reverses the positions relative to liberal and conservative, but this is precisely why the government should not be funding the media.

The possibility of a government funded medium with a conservative bias is quite real, but it would be just as wrong, and oh how our liberal friends would then howl.

Part of the problem is that hard core liberals tend to believe that their beliefs and a corporate presence can't co-exist.

(Actually they think the truth and a corporate presence can't exist.)

And yet we have (among others)

MSNBC
The New York Times
The Nation
Salon
Slate
The New Republic
The LA Times
And even The Guardian in the UK.

Even if you accept the silly notion that liberal opinion = truth, all of these sources are providing Truth. Why do we need my tax dollars to support another superfluous source of Truth.

Don't frame it in politics, frame it in fiscal prudence.

No one's going to be in favor of a government funded football league, why should we be OK with the government funding yet another source of Truth?


Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 05:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

So-called Public Radio and TV do not serve the greater common good.


Assertion unsupported by fact. There are reasons for the dissemination of information that have nothing to do with the profit motive, and do in fact serve the common good.

Quote:

According to liberals, nothing is liberal.


Another unsupportable assertion. Many magazines, some newspapers and a few TV shows are clearly Liberal in nature. Many are Conservative in nature. NPR has liberal social reporting and Conservative economic reporting.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Oct, 2010 05:15 pm
@ehBeth,
No they can't but no one can opt of funding NPR.

The military serves the greater common good and national security can't provide an "in" or "out" choice for citizens.

If our country should be invaded, would anyone be OK with the notion that people who opted out are not defended?

Likewise means (ie licenses) to pay for public roadways.

If you opt out of paying for roads, you not only don't get to drive on those roads, you don't get to avail yourself of the goods that come to your locale via those roads.

NPR is in the same category?

Really?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Oct, 2010 01:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
The military serves the greater common good and national security can't provide an "in" or "out" choice for citizens.


You might have an argument, Finn, if that's what the US military actually did. Instead, for the last hundred years, they've pretty much committed to illegal invasions, doing various and sundry war crimes,of course, doing the odd nice thing for the propaganda mill.

Has there ever been a bigger misnomer than "national security" as it is used by and in the USA?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 10:48 pm
WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior news executive at National Public Radio who played a key role in firing commentator Juan Williams has resigned, NPR said Thursday in announcing the completion of a review of the Williams controversy.

The radio network said in a statement that Senior Vice President for News Ellen Weiss has resigned and NPR's Board off Directors also recommended new internal procedures for handling personnel decisions and disciplinary action after reviewing Williams' dismissal in October.

The statement said NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller also accepted responsibility as top executive and while the board expressed confidence in her leadership going forward, it voted against a bonus for her covering 2010 amid "concern over her role in the termination process."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTr2VUGDRO0CnylS9Ad10_n0x3Bw
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2020 at 03:17:00