I realize that you do not usually talk about things you know....including NPR and PBS....but try listening sometime. They are neither leftwing, nor affiliated with the democrats. They are completely non-partisan because they are not controlled by sponsors. It is not their fault that the facts do not lend themselves to your point of view.No, they are propaganda and fundraising machines for the Democrat Party.
I realize that you do not usually talk about things you know....including NPR and PBS....but try listening sometime. They are neither leftwing, nor affiliated with the democrats. They are completely non-partisan because they are not controlled by sponsors. It is not their fault that the facts do not lend themselves to your point of view.
NPR receives very little money from the government. They do fund raising all the time, so it's not like they just wait for a government check. During one 60s music special, they advertised so much I turned them off.I would like for the Government to give them SOME money, but, less than what they have now. There is no reason that both NPR and, PBS can not advertise a little....
OK, then why did they fire two employees for participating in an OWS rally?No, they are propaganda and fundraising machines for the Democrat Party.
You should hear underwriting spots. The main difference (there's that word again)...is that an underwriting spot can have no "call to action" and no product advocacy. You have spots such as : Thistle and Shamrock is made possible by listener members and by The Bluebird Cafe, home to Sunday's Open Mic Nights"...REALLY?
I have yet to hear a commercial on NPR.
They need to do so, during regular hours, not just at fundraisers. Perhaps limit them as to how much commercial time per hour they can do, maybe even limit some of the advertisers, as this is a Government entity.
I really do not see why we can not find a way for NPR to be completely, or, almost completely, self-supporting.
PBS might be a bit more difficult, but there are still things that could be done, in order to make it more self suffecient.
(MORE people need to watch PBS. And, listen to NPR...although they can sometimes be hard to find, and, at times, get on stories that someone may care nothing about, and spend 30 minutes on it...which is one of the reasons I like NPR...more "depth" to their stories...)
Bleh, though, I was just thinking...obviously there is NO real market for NPR, or else someone would try to do something similar.....(PBS, however, has many who have copied it's general format, and been incredibly successful: TLC, History, Discover, etc.)
Horse$#@!
It probably could. If govt funding was removed, presumably some large donors would help keep it afloat--as the economist (Charles Wheelan) explains in that link (about 8:00).I really do not see why we can not find a way for NPR to be completely, or, almost completely, self-supporting.
Yup, they should keep on funding even if pubs don't like them. I don't like Hannity but Murdoch keeps him on the payroll. I wonder how much of my tax money is paying for Murdoch's and Hannity's tax loopholes. My answer would be for the pubs to shut up and listen to it and they might learn something (maybe).Should NPR and PBS continue to receive federal funding?