Discussion in 'Government Offices and Programs' started by moddem38, Mar 9, 2012.
Should NPR and PBS continue to receive federal funding?
yes, and so say 170 million of our fellow citizens.
that funding is needed to provide PBS to rural America.
EVERYtime the Fox/GOP reshits NPR/PBS-hate, the polling comes out the same. 90%+ of Americans wish for the funding to continue.
that doesnt mean they deserve it, just that americans want it. and so they shud have it
Whether you like them or not, they provide niche broadcast content that wouldn't exist without them being there.
There wouldn't have ever been a Nova series without PBS and you wouldn't hear Click & Clack doing Car Talk or Echoes without NPR.
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.
I picked the third option--but whatever your position this is a fascinating podcast: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/03/28/134863998/the-friday-podcast-economists-on-federal-funding-for-npr
I would like for the Government to give them SOME money, but, less than what they have now.
At least until they can get up on their feet, via advertising.
If anything, allow both to advertise a little bit, in order to offset costs, and apply whatever savings towards the dficit.
We do need both of them, but not like we did when both were created. Radio has changed much. Television is completely different, now....
There is no reason that both NPR and, PBS can not advertise a little....
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.
Sorry, I meant PBS not NPR in this paragraph.
OK, then why did they fire two employees for participating in an OWS rally?
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.)
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"...
From the NPR Ombudsman:
...In commercial broadcasting, they are known as ads. In public broadcasting, they are known as "sponsorship" or "underwriting." NPR accepts money from various foundations and corporations to support NPR programming. In return, NPR airs messages from these organizations. Each message runs between 12 to 15 seconds. The language and phrasing of every message is required by the Federal Communications Commission to be restrained as befits a non-commercial enterprise such as NPR. More significantly, there must not be what the FCC describes as a call to action."
A "call to action" means that the message cannot implore or encourage the listeners to do anything such as run right out and buy the product. In short, it can't sound like an ad. At least, it is not supposed to...."
NPR (The Red Spot on your dial) I wouldn't give the commie bastards the sweat off my balls.
You do reallize JD that even Conservatives when polled considered NPR to be the most neutral of all news sources...
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).
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).
I doubt that. You probably made that up.
Hannity is not paid with taxpayer money.
Separate names with a comma.