I see that as an argument for ending that loophole, not for funding NPR/PBS.Sure he is. Because Murdoch got a huge taxpayer slice in setting up Fox... courtesy of a special rider Newt Gingrinch put in a bill in 1996 that amounted to about $10 mil.
Its in the public record.No he didn't.
Should NPR and PBS continue to receive federal funding?
Fox 'News' is a criminal enterprise. It's license shouldn't be removed.Sure he is. Because Murdoch got a huge taxpayer slice in setting up Fox... courtesy of a special rider Newt Gingrinch put in a bill in 1996 that amounted to about $10 mil.
Its parent company has admitted to bribing policemen, hacking phones and trying to cover it up with lies. Thanks to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, News Corp. can be held responsible for it's corrupt oversea practices in our courts.What crimes have they committed?
True, but there may not be cause and effect here. People who listen to them are already more objective, rational thinkers than partisans who watch MSNBC or Fox. I consider myself one those people (yes I know that sounds egotisticalPBS viewers and NPR listeners are generally better informed than those who rely on other sources.
REally? Fox is a shill for a political perspecitve. NPR is a neutral reporter... Fox does not run stories that are harmful to their advertisers. NPR has no advertisers.No. NPR and PBS deserve public funding no more than Fox News deserves to be publicly funded.
go look it up.... I dare you.I doubt that. You probably made that up.
Look it up. Look up who sponsored the extension of the sale of minority owned media business tax exemption. And got a multi million dollar book deal within 6 mos from the primary beneficieary of that tax extensionNo it's not.