• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Defund public broadcasting

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Given our current financial situation, we have plenty of other areas we could cut such as the war on drugs, government-funded abstinence-only education, DoD's excessive budget, etc. I do think it is funny to see Republicans going after NPR and PBS for making too much money, it's almost hypocritical. Also, in a day and age where information is butchered and repackaged daily and the truth is only a suggestion and not law, I think the last thing we need is to eliminate the most unbiased news sources available and leave America at the whim of subpar reporting from CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others that insist that stories such as celebrities vomiting are headlines.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Unbiased? :lol: Only those who do not listen to NPR or lean left could suggest that they are unbiased. I listen to NPR and they are quite liberal. From their on-air personalities, to their callers, to their programming such as "all things considered" and even the Keynesian "marketplace" there can be little doubt that they are liberal biased. They have shown their bias and high level execs even admit they don't need taxpayer money.

Why should the taxpayer-funded heads of CPB and their different business units make more that the POTUS? If they are so necessary and awesome why can't they survive without taxpayer money to spread their liberal tripe? They are currently having a fund drive so all those that enjoy their liberal bias can pony up and keep them afloat. I'm sure the highly paid executives will appreciate the donations from the middle class so that they can continue to enjoy their upper class income and lifestyle.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Given our current financial situation, we have plenty of other areas we could cut such as the war on drugs, government-funded abstinence-only education, DoD's excessive budget, etc. I do think it is funny to see Republicans going after NPR and PBS for making too much money, it's almost hypocritical. Also, in a day and age where information is butchered and repackaged daily and the truth is only a suggestion and not law, I think the last thing we need is to eliminate the most unbiased news sources available and leave America at the whim of subpar reporting from CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others that insist that stories such as celebrities vomiting are headlines.
1. The isssue is not where are we also spending too much money and where else can money be cut, the issue is should the government continue subsidizing public broadcasting. Where else we are spending money is irrelevant.

2. Hypocritical? They aren't going after them for making too much money, they're going after them for recieving public funds and not being unbiased by any stretch of the definition. Most conservatives believe in the open market and want them to compete in the open market just like everyone else does. If NPR and PBS can sell ad space and stay competitive and on the air, more power to them. If they can't, too bad. The point is my tax money shouldn't be funding them.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
There can be no doubt that there are many areas where spending can be cut. But I would think that we should all be able to agree that we should not be borrowing money from China that our children will have to repay so that CPB executives can be wealthy.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Unbiased? :lol: Only those who do not listen to NPR or lean left could suggest that they are unbiased.
In your opinion. Not trying to be a dick here, but you've suggested that I do not speak in similar absolutes as well. Only makes sense for you to be held to those same standards.

I listen to NPR and they are quite liberal. From their on-air personalities, to their callers, to their programming such as "all things considered" and even the Keynesian "marketplace" there can be little doubt that they are liberal biased. They have shown their bias and high level execs even admit they don't need taxpayer money.
Can I have some evidence that isn't your opinion of this extreme left tilt?

Why should the taxpayer-funded heads of CPB and their different business units make more that the POTUS? If they are so necessary and awesome why can't they survive without taxpayer money to spread their liberal tripe? They are currently having a fund drive so all those that enjoy their liberal bias can pony up and keep them afloat. I'm sure the highly paid executives will appreciate the donations from the middle class so that they can continue to enjoy their upper class income and lifestyle.
:sigh:

I'll wait for you to introduce a counterpoint that isn't thinly veiled jabbing or partisan knocking, please. Your last comment is interesting since I swear I've heard you argue in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.

1. The isssue is not where are we also spending too much money and where else can money be cut, the issue is should the government continue subsidizing public broadcasting. Where else we are spending money is irrelevant.
You don't think it's worthwhile to discuss where else the government is spending money . . when talking about defunding something federally funded? Why? Also, if you read the link SS introduced, it's quite concerned with money NPR makes and brings in. So, naturally, I think discussing where else tax payer money goes is worthwhile. If it's not what you want to discuss, fine, but it does seem to be a point/theme the article repeats several times.

2. Hypocritical? They aren't going after them for making too much money, they're going after them for recieving public funds and not being unbiased by any stretch of the definition. Most conservatives believe in the open market and want them to compete in the open market just like everyone else does. If NPR and PBS can sell ad space and stay competitive and on the air, more power to them. If they can't, too bad. The point is my tax money shouldn't be funding them.
We could talk for days about the shit you and I should and shouldn't be paying for. I mean, the government even spends $37 million per year on NASCAR sponsorships. Isn't that the kind of stupid we should be talking about?

However, it would be incredibly difficult to argue there is even such thing as open market news that isn't slanted heavily in one direction. People can believe NPR or PBS are some sorts of liberal news giants which is kind of stretching it but it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what people think. Public broadcasting is important and has been since its inception because it's free from private sector influence (at least, a lot more than the private sector ever could be). I personally see it like this:

Privatized news requires substantial financial upkeep. How do they obtain this revenue? Advertising, one of the biggest industries in the country. With advertising, comes influence. Now the interests of the advertisers has to be taken into consideration which can alter news flow and information. After all, now they're forced to protect their investments which in turn gives advertisers sway over privatized news.

Publicly funded news as its name suggests, is funded by taxpayer dollars. This means it will not have to deal with the toxicity of America's advertising monoliths and won't suffer from that sway the private sector has to consider. They're free to report the news how they see fit and without having to worry about what some multinational corporation thinks of it. If they're right or left, it doesn't matter. What is important is they're not being directed by the dollar.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Interesting. I'm not sure what this is supposed to show as the narrator seems to defend NPR and mock the flawed attempt at journalism by the original producers of the video. Sure, the guy is an elitist but I'm not sure how one guy is proof that an entire organization of news reporting is somehow super-liberal. If we want to go that route, can we assume Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin is the sole voice of FOX news? Doubtful.

You can dislike NPR, that's obviously your opinion and you're entitled to it. I'm not sure however why their political affiliation would even be an issue here.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
You don't think it's worthwhile to discuss where else the government is spending money . . when talking about defunding something federally funded? Why? Also, if you read the link SS introduced, it's quite concerned with money NPR makes and brings in. So, naturally, I think discussing where else tax payer money goes is worthwhile. If it's not what you want to discuss, fine, but it does seem to be a point/theme the article repeats several times.
On the contrary, I do think it's worthwhile to discuss. It has no relevance on this issue, however.


We could talk for days about the shit you and I should and shouldn't be paying for. I mean, the government even spends $37 million per year on NASCAR sponsorships. Isn't that the kind of stupid we should be talking about?
Except that in the First Amendment there is a guarantee of the freedom of the press. I would argue any administration or Congress funneling money to any news source violates that amendment and implies there is no objectivity.

However, it would be incredibly difficult to argue there is even such thing as open market news that isn't slanted heavily in one direction. People can believe NPR or PBS are some sorts of liberal news giants which is kind of stretching it but it's not up to me or anyone else to decide what people think. Public broadcasting is important and has been since its inception because it's free from private sector influence (at least, a lot more than the private sector ever could be). I personally see it like this:

Privatized news requires substantial financial upkeep. How do they obtain this revenue? Advertising, one of the biggest industries in the country. With advertising, comes influence. Now the interests of the advertisers has to be taken into consideration which can alter news flow and information. After all, now they're forced to protect their investments which in turn gives advertisers sway over privatized news.
There's no doubt advertising can influence the news but advertisers aren't in charge of collecting and spending our money. The two can't be compared.

Publicly funded news as its name suggests, is funded by taxpayer dollars. This means it will not have to deal with the toxicity of America's advertising monoliths and won't suffer from that sway the private sector has to consider. They're free to report the news how they see fit and without having to worry about what some multinational corporation thinks of it. If they're right or left, it doesn't matter. What is important is they're not being directed by the dollar.
But they are being directed by the dollar, the dollar given to them by Congress who is by far more influential in our daily lives than any corporation is.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
On the contrary, I do think it's worthwhile to discuss. It has no relevance on this issue, however.
Why? Like I said, did you read the article? They're quite concerned with what the government is spending money on and if we're going to respond to the article, isn't it important to note what else the government is spending money on since it's quite likely we'll end up discussing what is worth spending money on?

Except that in the First Amendment there is a guarantee of the freedom of the press. I would argue any administration or Congress funneling money to any news source violates that amendment and implies there is no objectivity.
I'm not sure how that replies to what you had quoted. Needless to say it's an interesting point. I don't think many people see it as 'funneling', that just sounds like a creative way to vilify it. Yet, public broadcasting has been powered by taxpayer money for a while and there's never been noticeable influence from any political parties, so I'm not sure why people would think so. However, I believe the reason NPR and PBS are finally being noticed is because their viewership is rising due to the general decline of news quality in this country.

No one bothered with them years ago because people weren't watching/listening. Now that that have larger audiences, I think it's beginning to get peoples' attention.

There's no doubt advertising can influence the news but advertisers aren't in charge of collecting and spending our money. The two can't be compared.
Of course they can.

Like I said, news corporations rely heavily on advertising dollars. Advertisers can have direct effects on what is and isn't shown on the news simply by throwing their weight around.

But they are being directed by the dollar, the dollar given to them by Congress who is by far more influential in our daily lives than any corporation is.
Except they're not. I think you've missed what I was saying. They are being supported by taxpayer dollars, not profits. This means they don't owe favors to advertisers or stockholders. Their content also cannot be swayed by them either (as you admitted it could be). Yet, we haven't seen any administration censor, persuade or bully them so I'm not sure what makes you think the government is driving them. I mean look at public schools, they aren't being forced to teach kids that the US is the best country ever and nothing we've done has ever had any negative consequences (well, most states) yet they receive federal funding.

Private sector is directly and immediately swayed and changed by such factors where public is not.
 
Top