1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

NPR and PBS-- do they deserve public funding

Discussion in 'Government Offices and Programs' started by moddem38, Mar 9, 2012.

?

Should NPR and PBS receive federal funding

  1. Yes--they are a national treasure

    17 vote(s)
    70.8%
  2. No--they are leftist propaganda

    3 vote(s)
    12.5%
  3. No--I like them but they can survive on private donations

    4 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. Don't care, they're not partisan enough for me--I only watch Fox or MSNBC

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. moddem38

    moddem38 Council Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    7
    Should NPR and PBS continue to receive federal funding?
     
  2. JuliefromOhio

    JuliefromOhio Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    40,058
    Likes Received:
    4,658
    yes, and so say 170 million of our fellow citizens.

    that funding is needed to provide PBS to rural America.
     
  3. fairsheet

    fairsheet Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    23,036
    Likes Received:
    3,610
    EVERYtime the Fox/GOP reshits NPR/PBS-hate, the polling comes out the same. 90%+ of Americans wish for the funding to continue.
     
  4. gabriel

    gabriel Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,244
    Likes Received:
    32
    that doesnt mean they deserve it, just that americans want it. and so they shud have it
     
  5. NightSwimmer

    NightSwimmer Senator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    24,451
    Likes Received:
    2,729
    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.
     
  6. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,550
    Likes Received:
    4,472
    No, they are propaganda and fundraising machines for the Democrat Party.
     
  7. middleview

    middleview President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    73,816
    Likes Received:
    5,568
    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.
     
  8. moddem38

    moddem38 Council Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    7
  9. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,550
    Likes Received:
    4,472

    Horseshit
     
  10. Doc

    Doc Guest

    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....
     
  11. moddem38

    moddem38 Council Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
  12. moddem38

    moddem38 Council Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    7
  13. Doc

    Doc Guest

    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.)
     
  14. Craig

    Craig Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2012
    Messages:
    36,619
    Likes Received:
    3,979
    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...."


    http://www.npr.org/yourturn/ombudsman/2003/030808.html
     
  15. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,550
    Likes Received:
    4,472
    NPR (The Red Spot on your dial) I wouldn't give the commie bastards the sweat off my balls.
     
  16. degsme

    degsme Council Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    19,820
    Likes Received:
    72

    You do reallize JD that even Conservatives when polled considered NPR to be the most neutral of all news sources...
     
  17. moddem38

    moddem38 Council Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    7
    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).
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Council Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    12
    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). pub_radio_rev.
     
  19. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,550
    Likes Received:
    4,472
    I doubt that. You probably made that up.
     
  20. JackDallas

    JackDallas Senator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,550
    Likes Received:
    4,472
    Hannity is not paid with taxpayer money.
     

Share This Page