Defund public radio?

[William Wallace]

The Republicans are pushing to eliminate federal funding for the CPB, and I think they've made a compelling case. Obviously I think it's a little off sides for the government to be subsidizing media. But beyond that, I would be willing to pay for the content NPR offers for the same reason I subscribe to my local paper: the coverage is pretty good and I enjoy perspectives different from my own. There are probably many people who listen to NPR or watch PBS who would be willing to fork over a monthly subscription fee and/or subject themselves to advertising to maintain access to the content.

But having said that, there are only two possibilities. We are either paying for a service that could survive on its own merit or a service that could not. I find both unappealing. Furthermore, the arguments put forth for continued funding are unconvincing. What do you all think?

[Nigerius Rex]

Are there actually any reasons to subsidize radio or other media aside from the people and listeners no longer being able to operate?

[lordxizor]

The one thing I really like about PBS is it's kids programming. I don't have to worry about my son watching it and being bombarded with advertisements. If PBS went away or started ads, we'd go to just watching DVDs, which is fine I guess.

In a broader sense, I'm OK with stopping the funding. I really wish that the government would focus on cutting costs in places that it would make the most impact, like defense, but any little bit in the right direction while not cutting vital services is fine with me.

[GuineaPig]

I'm somewhat curious on what the U.S.'s opinion on PBS/NPR or other publicly subsidized media.  Because I get the sense in Canada and the UK that the CBC and BBC are very important to national identity in the way that has no equivalent in the States.

[lordxizor]

I'm somewhat curious on what the U.S.'s opinion on PBS/NPR or other publicly subsidized media.  Because I get the sense in Canada and the UK that the CBC and BBC are very important to national identity in the way that has no equivalent in the States.

I think there's a small percentage of Americans who love PBS and NPR and would be really sad to see it go. I would guess that the majority of Americans wouldn't even notice if they went away.

[rumborak]

NPR is one of the last bastions of good reporting. Seeing it go would be an implicit capitulation to bad reporting. IMHO.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Nova and Frontline would do fine on a commercial network (although I have no idea which one would pick them up).  I don't care at all for the idea of Sesame Street being sponsored by Nabisco and Mattel.  Adults can process commercial advertisements just fine.  Bombarding kids with endless ads for garbage doesn't sit well with me. 

[MetalMike06]

I agree with the OP. I listen to NPR on a daily basis but wouldn't necessarily mind 'letting it go'.

While the reporting is good much of the time, I still think they are noticeably one-sided - and the fact that that kind of thing is subsidized really bothers me - not necessarily the opinions themselves.

[rumborak]

I'm not opposed to privatizing all media either, in my opinion those public stations are an outcome of the 1930-50s where the government needed an ensured way of addressing and informing the public (for better or for worse). My only concern is that IMHO NPR is, when compared to the likes of FOX, CNN or NBC, one of the highest-quality stations out there, and losing it would set the American news market even further.

rumborak

[Ben_Jamin]

If they use advertising, then they're getting you to help the economy by buying things your kids will want because Elmo was playing with one.

[Cool Chris]

I don't care at all for the idea of Sesame Street being sponsored by Nabisco and Mattel.  Adults can process commercial advertisements just fine.  Bombarding kids with endless ads for garbage doesn't sit well with me. 

So the government should fund television shows for America’s youth?

Who are you, and what have you done to El Barto?!?!

I'm not opposed to privatizing all media either…

Just to clarify, you mean all media, TV/radio/print?

[rumborak]

Sure. Ideally you want no connection between the government and the media.

rumborak

[Cool Chris]

Sorry rumborak, I read 'privatize' as the opposite of what it actually means (ie. that you meant the government should control all media), which sounded a bit extreme. I will blame it on it being Friday and me being mentally checked out and ready for the weekend.

[El Barto]

I don't care at all for the idea of Sesame Street being sponsored by Nabisco and Mattel.  Adults can process commercial advertisements just fine.  Bombarding kids with endless ads for garbage doesn't sit well with me. 

So the government should fund television shows for America’s youth?

Who are you, and what have you done to El Barto?!?!

To be clear, I don't think it's a great system, but we're talking about subsidizing, not funding.  Grants and donations cover the majority with the states kicking in another 25-29%.  When it comes to children's programming, I think this is a better to fund it this way than through marketing.  Hell, look at nickelodeon. 

[William Wallace]

Why do people think lack of funding means that public media, or whatever it would be called, would disappear? If the reporting really is good why wouldn't people be willing to pay for it?

[rumborak]

The problem is that they would become part of the advertising circus, and in order to lure ads that would cover their expenses they would have to lure large number of customers, which currently are served by FOX and CNN. Meaning, they have to essentially become more like FOX and CNN to compete. And there goes your quality.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The problem is that they would become part of the advertising circus, and in order to lure ads that would cover their expenses they would have to lure large number of customers, which currently are served by FOX and CNN. Meaning, they have to essentially become more like FOX and CNN to compete. And there goes your quality.

rumborak

But NPR's programming is already quite popular. In theory they wouldn't have to change much at all, as long as their are listeners to advertise to.

[carl320]

How many people listen to the stations but never send in a dime?  I like that I don't have to hear ads, and it's worth sending money annually to keep it that way.  But when I listen to them ask for money at pledge time, they always ask that people become contributor-members.

Ideally this news attention will cause more people (and organizations) to help support NPR/PBS more strongly.

[rumborak]

The problem is really that of market forces. A high quality station will not be watched by many, and thus ad revenue won't support the station unless the quality is lowered. Which is fine when it comes to luxury cars,but in the case of news it removes a vital element of a democracy.
rumborak

[William Wallace]

The problem is really that of market forces. A high quality station will not be watched by many, and thus ad revenue won't support the station unless the quality is lowered. Which is fine when it comes to luxury cars,but in the case of news it removes a vital element of a democracy.
rumborak

They already have a large audience.

[El Barto]

After reading about Vivian Schiller's resignation, I think it might be better for them to stop taking government money.  Hypersensitivity to the merest hint of bias doesn't help anybody.  I don't see why an executive can't have an opinion on politics if it has no bearing on their programming.  Personally, I agree with what he said, and if it's not influencing their reporting, I don't see how it's relevant.  This whole deal was pretty silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/

[William Wallace]

After reading about Vivian Schiller's resignation, I think it might be better for them to stop taking government money.  Hypersensitivity to the merest hint of bias doesn't help anybody.  I don't see why an executive can't have an opinion on politics if it has no bearing on their programming.  Personally, I agree with what he said, and if it's not influencing their reporting, I don't see how it's relevant.  This whole deal was pretty silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/

Yeah, that couldn't have come at a worse time for them. But I'm inclined to agree that the "sting" confirms what most conservatives think about NPR. Reading NPR's updates on this whole thing is rather entertaining.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/09/134388981/npr-ceo-vivian-schiller-resigns?ft=1&f=1001

[7thHanyou]

After reading about Vivian Schiller's resignation, I think it might be better for them to stop taking government money.  Hypersensitivity to the merest hint of bias doesn't help anybody.  I don't see why an executive can't have an opinion on politics if it has no bearing on their programming.  Personally, I agree with what he said, and if it's not influencing their reporting, I don't see how it's relevant.  This whole deal was pretty silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/

I disagree with both Vivian and Ron Schiller, but I don't find their comments particularly shocking.  I actually think it's kind of unfortunate that he was forced to resign over what I view as pretty harmless comments, regardless of whether I agree or not.

However, they are taking taxpayer dollars, so showcasing any degree of bias against a whole group of Americans(as they have) is absolutely wrong.  I would have been satisfied had this simply resulted in NPR's defunding.

[William Wallace]

The House defunds NPR

The House of Representatives just voted 228-192 to bar NPR from receiving any more federal funds. It was a partisan vote, with Republicans voting "aye" and Democrats voting "nay."

As NPR's Audie Cornish reported earlier:

"Two percent of NPR's revenue comes through competitive grants from federal agencies — in the commerce and education departments, for example. But [NPR] member station fees make up another 40 percent of revenue. And the House Bill would bar stations from using any federal funds for NPR.

"Republicans on the House Rules Committee said the move to defund the organization this week was sparked by the controversial and edited videos of NPR executives speaking disparagingly of conservatives, and saying NPR did not need federal funding."

As for what happens next, The National Journal says that "Republican efforts to cut off federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR are unlikely to advance past the House, as both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the White House are weighing in with their opposition."

Politico does some play-by-play of the lively debate on the House floor.

[El Barto]

The funny thing is that I really wouldn't care too much if they defunded it, but the rationale behind it is just more partisan bullshit that makes me despise our government and everybody who participates.  Honestly, I don't think the GOP really cares about it other than as a trophy which the democrats desperately want to deny them.

I really think that if a bill were to be proposed officially naming the color of the sky, those assholes and 80% of the country would spend the next 5 years bickering about whether it's azure or cyan, instead of just listening to the sane 20% of us yelling IT'S FUCKING BLUE, ASSHOLE!

[William Wallace]

Awesome.

https://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/anthony-weiner-sarcastically-mocks-gop-npr-defunding-bill-video.php?ref=fpb

Anthony Weiner Sarcastically Mocks GOP NPR Defunding Bill (VIDEO)


Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) thinks the House bill to defund NPR is completely ridiculous. And he thinks the Republicans who rushed it to the floor Thursday are wasting everyone's time.

The way he expressed his feelings to the nation? A sarcastic, mocking rant on the House floor.

"What a relief. I'm glad we got the economy back going. I'm so glad we secured our nuclear power plants. So glad Americans are going back to work," he said. "We discovered a target we can all agree on...it's Click And Clack."

[rumborak]

If NPR was more FOX-like in its opinions, the Republicans would be crying foul at the thought of defunding, simple as that (on the basis of "the Democrats trying to dismantle an institution the nation .... blahblah ... Found Father .... values ... gay marriage ... something").

rumborak

[William Wallace]

If NPR was more FOX-like in its opinions, the Republicans would be crying foul at the thought of defunding, simple as that (on the basis of "the Democrats trying to dismantle an institution the nation .... blahblah ... Found Father .... values ... gay marriage ... something").

rumborak

You're right; they're total hypocrites. But in this case, their double standard may mean a reduction, however slight, in the federal budget, and that's works for me. Useful idiots, I guess. 

[MetalMike06]

 

GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and† millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years.