-
When Terrorists Deny Each Other
May 7, 2013 | 166 comments
-
Barack Obama, Gun Enthusiast
February 4, 2013 | 130 comments
-
Principled Compromise
June 22, 2012 | 56 comments
-
Obamacare’s Preemptive Regulatory Strike
March 29, 2012 | 69 comments
-
Santorum’s College Lesson
February 29, 2012 | 102 comments
Breaking News
NPR’s Weak Case for Federal Funding
Attention listeners! The House today is to debate a bill that would strip federal taxpayer funding for National Public Radio.
The House of Representatives is set to debate today a bill that would strip federal taxpayer funding for National Public Radio. Critics of the GOP’s move to defund NPR say it is built on a false foundation: an apparently doctored video in which an NPR executive appeared to call Tea Party activists racist. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., has a ready rebuttal. He asks, “Should something continue to be funded that doesn’t need to be?”
Lamborn’s key word is “need.”
NPR has 34 million listeners. It raises the vast majority of its funding from private sources such as individual donors, corporate underwriters, and non-profit grant-makers. The Los Angeles Times has reported that if federal funding for NPR were eliminated, the average NPR affiliate station would lose 15 percent of its funding.
That undermines the liberal argument that eliminating the federal subsidies for NPR would destroy public radio. If the average NPR station gets 85 percent of its funding from other sources, it’s hard to see how ending the public subsidies would kill the network.
In a fundraising spot for the network, one of its stars, Ira Glass, recently tried to guilt listeners into donating by citing a statistic: only one in 10 NPR listeners gives money to support the network. He then called a famous Chicago hot dog maker and asked for 10 cases of hot dogs for the price of one. His point, he said, was that no other business could survive on NPR’s business model.
Glass portrayed the network and the hot dog maker as equivalent businesses, each trying to survive the competitive world of the free market. He never mentioned that NPR receives taxpayer subsidies – or that it receives them precisely because the left has always argued that NPR cannot survive by trying to compete in the free market.
His analogy raised a great point, but not the one he intended: Couldn’t NPR stop taking federal subsidies if it were just a little better at raising money from its listeners? In essence, taxpayers who might or might not listen to NPR are being compelled by their government to fund the network because 9/10ths of its listeners choose to be free riders.
And that raises another question: Wouldn’t more listeners give if they knew their local station really did “rely on listeners like you” instead of on the government?
In a telling shift, NPR’s defenders in Congress have begun downplaying the “you’ll kill NPR!” rhetoric and have begun arguing that if NPR loses its federal handouts, poor, rural stations will vanish. Perhaps without realizing it, they’ve conceded a major point: NPR and the majority of its member stations will survive without federal subsidies.
If the case for keeping the subsidies rests on propping up rural radio stations, then Republicans could reach an easy compromise: cut funding for all but the backwater stations that cannot support themselves. Of course, that would raise another uncomfortable question: Why does Washington need to fund them?
If public radio’s fans and underwriters were truly devoted to the mission of public radio, couldn’t they step forward and raise the money needed to keep the small, rural stations alive? Or are they not as devoted to the mission as they claim?
As only one in 10 NPR listeners gives money to keep his own public radio station alive, the last question answers itself. According to NPR’s own data, nine of 10 public radio listeners don’t find the content important enough to pay for it. If 90 percent of NPR listeners refuse to fund it, why should the rest of us?
If NPR “needs” federal funding, it’s not because its work is vital to the country or it fills a void in the market. It’s because its own customers don’t value it enough to pay for it. That’s an argument for finding more sponsors and underwriters, not for sending the bill to the taxpayers.
About the Author
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is @Drewhampshire.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (88) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew Cline
More Articles From Breaking News
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/17/nprs-weak-case-for-federal-fun
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Screwtape Protests
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 3.17.11 @ 6:35AM
A huge yawn, here. And as I drew my next breath, I found myself muttering, "OSHA, EPA, IRS, ATF, HUD, Dept. of ad nauseum..."
Clint| 3.17.11 @ 6:35AM
NPR is A Parasite Leech that The Big Federal Shake Down Artists prop up with more of the American Taxpayers' Money.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.11 @ 6:38AM
It would be prudent to point out that propaganda didn't work for the Communists or the Nazis.
The fact that Washington, D.C. Inc. wants to fund nonsense like this shows you we are in for more trouble then at first perceived.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 10:31AM
If its not the party line being delivered by a bleached blond on Fox, it propaganda. Right, Bill?
Tim the Enchanter| 3.17.11 @ 12:16PM
If it's not the party line being delivered by a nasty, shrill, left-wing harpy on NPR, it's propaganda. Right, Mike?
See? I can do that too! It's easy! Plus, I was able to fix the grammar up a bit, to boot!
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.11 @ 1:20PM
The bleached blond on Fox is there courtesy of private sources, not government financed. I'm surprised anyone is silly enough to bring up an absurd comparison like that.
jstwndring| 3.18.11 @ 2:30AM
Fox's bills are payed for by the free market, not the taxpayer.
Pelligrino| 3.17.11 @ 6:53AM
What is to debate? NO funding ever again from unknowing, unappproving taxpayers. Particularly whenthere is a sizable political arm to NPR that leans.....leans....yes, we all know which direction rather decisively.
Media is to be in the free market. Just like ALL automobile makers.
If consumers want it, they will come.
Don't force me to pay for something I 1) don't want, 2) abhor, 3) that's foundationally corrupt.
And this the SAME [principle/argument even if this were the roaring 1990's all over again.
I see no place in the Constitution that requires the citizenry to be taxed for a "free?" press.
Brian Mc| 3.17.11 @ 7:18AM
Agree Pelligrino. If the left needs a channel that reinforces/reminds them that Darwin was right, let them go out and buy a book. To make me pay for Darwin's Global Warming Enforcement Channel sickens and infuriates almost as much as the pay we give to teachers to indoctrinate little minds when they should be teaching. There are a huge proportion of rocks to lift so that the sun might shine. NPR Hearings is the start to a huge amount of lifting that should begin yesterday.
The refudiator| 3.17.11 @ 11:39PM
Don't force me to pay for something I 1) don't want, 2) abhor, 3) that's foundationally corrupt.
I love this statement. We need to apply this to all foreign aid immediately.
Paul| 3.17.11 @ 7:40AM
The argument that a 10-15 percent reduction in funding would be insignificant is fallacious. This represents a decent profit margin for most businesses. In fact, it's not uncommon for politicians to talk about punishing businesses for engaging in predatory practices when they try to earn profits at or above this range.
ds80| 3.17.11 @ 8:54AM
Big woop-de-do.
10% or 15% or whatever amount: "If 90 percent of NPR listeners refuse to fund it, why should the rest of us?
Paul, how 'bout you fund my next vacation?
Tim the Enchanter| 3.17.11 @ 12:18PM
But... But... I thought Public Broadcasting was supposed to be Non-Profit???
C. S. P. Schofield| 3.17.11 @ 7:54AM
As I understand it, NPR and its twin PBS were founded on the idea that a network founded by the State would provide an unbiased source of News - and ideal so ludicrous that only a 20th Century Western Intellectual could entertain it without succumbing to hysterics.
What is really at stake here is the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive's delight in forcing people to pay for what the LIRPs think is good for them.
Hillel| 3.17.11 @ 7:58AM
I give my money to WMNR which is totally listener supported with only 4 beg-a-thons a year.
It plays classical music. NPR became all left wing opinion with no music. WJMJ church and listener support broadcasts the Metropolitan Opera and I might give them some money for that.Public Television is odious with continuous beg-a-thons plus hucksterism. It's time to break their rice-bowl
Harry the Horrible| 3.17.11 @ 8:34AM
Gee, its only 2% of their budget.
Or so they say.
In times like these, every other organization is cutting their budgets, why not NPR?
JimH| 3.17.11 @ 8:35AM
In Tampa the local NPR station got rid of the classical music. It was moved to a station with a weak signal. Other than for Car Talk, which I'm sure would be viable on commercial radio, I would not miss NPR. They can all go to Air America.
David W| 3.17.11 @ 8:51AM
Does it matter that NPR/PBS is liberal or conservative? Facist/Communist or Capitalist? Elitist or bitter clinger? No. We should not let this devolve into discussions of the content. It needs to be based upon "should the Government support any broadcasting?" What is the purpose of Government supporting it? What "goal" is achieved supporting NPR/PBS? I don't have cable, so I do not know if some of the content of NPR/PBS is also on a cable channel (though I'm pretty sure MTV and VH1 aren't carrying any of it). But surely most of what is on NPR/PBS is on cable (okay, I probably can't find their "Do-Wop" golden oldies show on cable, but why the heck would I want to (and I'm 52)).
Ask NPR/PBS supporters of fed funding if it would be okay to give Fox News fed funding? They are also fair and balanced, like NPR/PBS (snicker snicker). If the only thing they can say is Fox is for-profit then suggest if Fox wasn't for-profit would it be okay then? See what arguments they have then.
c. j. acworth| 3.17.11 @ 8:01PM
Finally! Thank you, Dave for your post. Now I don't have to make the point that Uncle Sam has no business being in broadcasting.
Ellis Wyatt| 3.17.11 @ 9:59AM
Good, defund NPR. The only problem is this bill will die in the Senate. Thanks for the symbolism Boehner. Perhaps they should have included this in a continuing resolutuion where it would have had a chance of actually happening. The GOP leadership is treading on thin ice with these symbolic votes instead of actaully making significant cuts.
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 6:54PM
I agree---this should ALSO go in a continuing resolution.
Mike| 3.17.11 @ 10:22AM
I think public funding for NPR should be eliminated. I understand completely that some people deeply resent $1.37 of their tax money being sent to NPR every year. I would deeply resent even a penny of my taxes going to Fox (motto: we make stuff up, you decide).
Ray| 3.17.11 @ 11:15AM
I resent ANY of my tax dollar being sent to subside a new network I nether listen to or support. If people want to listen to NPR, fine, then they can spend their own money to support it, just as you can. WHY should each and every tax payer spend money to support a radio network that most of us don't even access? It's equivalent to paying money to support a car wash service we never use.
Bob From District 9| 3.17.11 @ 8:50PM
I will agree with that when they stop spening my tax dollars on Bush' War for Oil in Iraq.
You pay for Iraq, I'll pay for NPR. In fact, you have inspired me to make a donation to another NPR station. One other than the local one I belong to, and the one I listen to on the internet.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.17.11 @ 12:21PM
Links, please. Otherwise, keep your unsubstantiated assertions to yourself. Troll.
Tim the Enchanter| 3.17.11 @ 12:23PM
BTW, this comment was for Mike, not Ray. I know, I know, we're not supposed to feed the trolls. Well, this one just keeps giving me the puppy dog eyes, and he looked a little hungry.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:50PM
Guess you didn't notice that we agree on this issue Tim.
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 6:46PM
Ahh, Tim, you're a good man.
I gave some money to our local public TV station last year because They had some Red Green signed books I wanted. On the other hand, my Liberal Nurse Practitioner, who is as wonderful and good as the day is long, hasn't sent a dime to NPR, which she religiously listens to.
I cut my donation off to Public TV this year, telling them that my taxes were going to be raised by The One, and that that was were I had to economize. I have all the Red Green episodes out on DVD, anyway.
But it amused me that my ARNP was freeloading.
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 6:54PM
Ow, that sentence was painful---correction: "That was where I had to economize." My humblest apologies.
Bob From District 9| 3.17.11 @ 8:48PM
You have a much larger disposable income than your Nurse Practioner, don't you?
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 12:42AM
Work harder. Much harder (I am on call, in any two week period, 144 hours, and on site at least 80 hours---for a total work availability of 224 hours every 2 weeks). But my NP makes 6 figures. She could afford it, if she wished. Or I'd be happy to give her the money, if she went through with it, because the reason she didn't was because she didn't go through with the paperwork.
Conservative View| 3.17.11 @ 1:15PM
Mike, was listening to the debate on defunding NPR. That's when one Democratic woman said, with an entirely straight face, "And NPR provides fair and ballanced news coverage. . ." I laughed so hard my coffee went flying. Fair and Ballanced? Where have I heard that before.
So, I have a suggestion to solve this question. Let's NOT defund NPR. Let's instead spend Federal dollars to fund Fox News Radio. That way both sides could claim to be fair and ballanced.
Mike, your logic has flaws. You suggest that NPR is the fountain of ethical news when you suggest that Fox makes stuff up. I find that when it comes to making stuff up, NPR holds the crown. It all depends on which side of the fence you are standing on. If you understand why conservatives resent spending $1.37 of their tax money on NPR, then perhaps you understand why you would so deeply resent a penny of your tax dollars going to Fox.
You can't have it both ways. The consept that your side deserves, and the other side is undeserving is bad logic, and poor ethics. But, having listened to that NPR jerk assert that NPR is National Palestinian Radio, and that NPR shouldn't be federally funded, I'm willing to take him at his word. If you assert that NPR is honest, then by their own admission, it needs no Federal monies. If you assert that NPR is not honest, then it doesn't deserve a dime in tax funds.
Conservative View| 3.17.11 @ 1:18PM
Mike; I am assuming your comments were ment to be sarcastic. If I am wrong in that assurtion I deeply apologise.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:51PM
Apology accepted.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 6:21PM
If I understand...
I think I made the argument in my earlier post, CV.
I think what galls people about NPR is that they interview people with real expertise. These people often have differing points of view which is fair and balanced. However, the problem is these people have expertise. What is in vogue on the right is "common sense." Joe the Plumber is just as credible on government finance as Tim Geithner. Your neighbor knows as much about public health as the Surgeon General of the U.S.
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 6:50PM
In my field, psychiatry, I know damn well that NPR interviews morons. Fuller Torrey is the guy to interview on schizophrenia, Kay Jamison or Fred Goodwin on Bipolar disorder, Lee Cohen on mood disorders in pregnancy, etc. I KNOW the experts in my field---in the case of psychosocial rehab of schizophrenics and financial abuse of demented elderly, I went to residency with the top experts in those fields. They don't interview them; it's nauseating to listen to.
I can extrapolate from my field of expertise on. NPR's worthless.
Conservative View| 3.17.11 @ 7:44PM
Occam's Tool: Thank you sir for confirming what I have always suspected. All too often their comments of the "experts" were at odds with common sense.
Conservative View| 3.17.11 @ 7:44PM
Occam's Tool: Thank you sir for confirming what I have always suspected. All too often their comments of the "experts" were at odds with common sense.
Bob From District 9| 3.17.11 @ 8:47PM
Considering that the typical psychiatrist today is a pill pusher, not a therapist, why would they not chose someone else to interview?
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 12:45AM
I am a trained psychoanalytic psychotherapist, in addition to my skill in psychopharmacology. Psychiatrists are also the authorities on diagnosis. You should also inform yourself on the incredible work of Dr. Torrey.
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 10:38PM
Occam,
At the risk of asking you to breach professional courtesy, I would like you to name the "morons" who were interviewed instead of the professionals you named. I will respect your right not to do this, however, I will also discount what you have posted if you don't.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 12:44AM
Any lawyer from the ACLU interviewed on psychiatric issues. I will leave it to RCV, a Constitutional Lawyer, to note that Riese V. St. Mary's is idiotic.
GavInTucson| 3.17.11 @ 1:22PM
Wow, Mike, we agree on something. It's not the amount, it's the principle of the thing.
Anthony| 3.17.11 @ 10:54AM
This vote today to defund NPR, especially in light of Boehner's hissy fit last night against us " ultra right wingers", will indeed be symbolic.
Gumby Boehner and his band of ungrateful hacks, who made it to Washington because of us, has bought himself another three weeks. Then what, genius?
Gumby's efforts at bluffing Reid and Obozo were so clumsy, amateurish and hackneyed, that Reid was laughing as he approached the podium to defend cowboy poetry, and Obozo could go off to Rio, without any fear Gumby would suck the O2 out of Washington. Cowboy poetry!!! and Gumby could do nothing with that to make his case to the American people.
If this is how you play poker Gumby, stick to games like Candyland. I was right about you, you are a janitor who simply mops the floors at the Capitol.
I'm sorry, I don't wish to make you cry, now go vote and pat yourself on the back for a job well done....then go have a good cry.
Dave | 3.17.11 @ 11:25AM
Last night after my head hit the pillow, I had one of those retro dreams. Or at least a dream that looked kind of retro. In it I saw 3 small brothers sitting around the family breakfast table when one of the older kids decides to listen the radio while munching their morning breakfast flakes. The older brother says - "Hey, let's listen to that NPR station and see what it sounds like." Not yet eager to sign-on, the other brother says - "IIII'm not gonna listen to it. Yoouuu listen to it." Then, the older kid reluctantly says - "Nooo, IIII'm not gonna listen to it. Youuuu listen to it." Just then, both of 'em glance over at their 4 year old, kid brother and say - "I know, let's turn it on and let Mikey listen ... first."
After clicking on their Barryville, NPR affiliate, Mikey listens for a minute; eyes focused on the dial, then responds with an approving ear to ear grin." With that, one of the brothers howls - "Hey look! MIKEY LIKES IT!! "
And that's how NPR builds an approving audience. But then it's not all that hard when your core demographic has the IQ of ... Mikey.
George S| 3.17.11 @ 11:57AM
"Should something continue to be funded that doesn't need to be?"
Not for nothing but NPR would be way down on the list of what needs to be funded. Unlike ethanol or the United Nations, at least NPR provides a product that people find useful every once in a while.
JF| 3.17.11 @ 12:44PM
Very few people, however. The point is, if "people" find NPR useful, then let them pay for it. Why inflict the bill for your entertainment on the rest of us? This would be like my charging your credit card for my Amazon.com purchases. Theft is theft, regardless of the "nobility" of the outcome.
Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 12:00PM
So only 1 in 10 listeners to NPR actually supports NPR with contributions, huh?
Figures. Your typical Liberal is at heart, and despite all of his rhetoric, a cheap, free-loading SOB. They want, they want, they want...and they want OTHERS to pay for it.
If you Libs love NPR so much, put-up with your wallets or shut-up with your over-sized mouths.
DieFledermaus| 3.17.11 @ 6:26PM
Exactly Doctor Right. The same, in my opinion, applies to public libraries. Why should I subsidize some cheap liberal's book reading?
If NPR needs that 10-15% to operate then they should do what all radio stations do - sell ads.
The same also goes for PBS. I thought liberals hated corporate welfare but whine like the children they still are if "Big Bird" loses a dime. Of course, no one ever mentions that Big Bird and his cronies area a multi-million dollar enterprise. Why are taxpayers funding the riches of the Henson production company?
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 6:51PM
Dr Right, I think you have seen the studies which show that Libs donate much less to charity than Conservatives.
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 12:01PM
Time to defund National Psychotic Radio.
Bob From District 9| 3.17.11 @ 8:43PM
"Time to defund National Psychotic Radio."
Sorry, Limbaugh and Beck et al have a constitutional right to be nutso.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 12:56AM
I noted Daniel Carlat, who is bright.
Against that fellow, contrast Charles Barber, who is pure nonsense, pontificating on psychopharm when not an MD. Dr. Tom Laughren, whose decisions helped kill many adolescents. Eric Balaban, ACLU attorney.
Occam's Tool| 3.18.11 @ 12:57AM
Yes, but Limbaugh and Beck do not take taxpayer's dollars.
Doctor Right| 3.17.11 @ 12:02PM
If NPR REALLY wanted to increase their listener-ship, they should carry Rush Limbaugh's live-feed every day from 12pm-3pm.
Now THAT would be the free-market in action!
V8| 3.17.11 @ 12:56PM
NPR and Rush Limbaugh. Not exactly the words I would ever expect to see in one sentence. Are you trying to give the NPR Exec's a stroke?
Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:52PM
Actually, Limbaugh is the more likely candidate for a stroke. But he does have his opinions on good nutrition.
V8| 3.17.11 @ 3:03PM
Maybe at one time Mike but from the tone of some or your post and the tone of some of NPR Exec's I would bet there are many whose rabid anger has lead to high blood pressure.
The Bruce| 3.18.11 @ 1:00AM
Picture Fat Bastard from Austin Powers looking at you with a naughty smirk saying, "Maybe?"
BadgerHound| 3.17.11 @ 12:08PM
What would be really instructive when not for profits start whining about federal funding cuts is a calculation of the amount of income, sales, and property taxes a not for profit DOESN'T PAY as a result of its not for profit status. Cutting direct federal subsidies doesn't reduce or impact that very real economic advantage that not for profits enjoy, not to mention the foregone tax revenue when charitable donations are deductible.
Who Knows?| 3.17.11 @ 12:40PM
NPR and PBS are going to be with us for a long time, come hell or low water.
We should use the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE as follows---
Get the Democrats to agree, or at least not be able to deny, that they are leftwing organizations, and have been for decades.
Therefore, propose two new entities, NPR(Republican) and PBS (Republican) that get as much money as the leftwing behemoths.
Fair is fair!
Bob From District 9| 3.17.11 @ 8:41PM
"Therefore, propose two new entities, NPR(Republican) and PBS (Republican) that get as much money as the leftwing behemoths."
I do believe I could talk the democrats into accepting that proposal, with one condition.
Fund each branch with twice the money going into NPR and NPR stations now.
I wonder if you are bright enough to figure out why I propose this.
Leo W| 3.17.11 @ 12:54PM
It isn't enough to stop giving dollars to NPR. They should also be required to pay the same bandwidth licensing fees to the FCC that other commercial radio stations have to pay.
The Big E| 3.17.11 @ 4:10PM
I suspect the reason small, rural NPR stations would "suffer" is the fact that residents of small, rural areas have no interest in supporting stations that spend the bulk of their time insulting their intelligence, their religion, their culture, their heritage, etc.
Some businesses may indeed believe the prospective consumers of their products are idiots, but NPR's the only "business" I know which comes right out says they are.
DG in GA| 3.19.11 @ 12:25PM
The "rural station" argument is specious at best. I seldom drive through a rural or mountain area where one could get NPR on the radio - or the TV if you don't have cable. I defy those legislators using this argument to 1) tell me which rural areas of the country have public broadcasting and ONLY public broadcasting available to the people of that area and 2) find me more than 10% of the people in those areas who actually watch/listen to public broadcasting on a regular basis. It won't happen because it isn't true. I really don't know how these legislators say most of this stuff with a straight face.
DieFledermaus| 3.17.11 @ 6:28PM
To also say that NPR and PBS are not biased is a lie. During the Bush administration Congress but a conservative on the PBS board and the left blew a gasket.
The Bruce| 3.18.11 @ 1:12AM
And consider the irony that NPR has a show called All Things Considered.
The Bruce| 3.18.11 @ 1:13AM
Remember, to many liberals, charity is the job of "someone else."
The refudiator| 3.18.11 @ 12:00AM
At risk of serious flaming, I'll put this out there. I listen to NPR every day. I enjoy the in-depth reporting. I don't see what is so liberal about it. Yes I contribute to the station. Cut federal funding, sure, whatever, you've just saved 0.00001 % of today's spending. Is this really a priority? When are we going to start cutting Medicare, Medicaid, foodstamps, defense spending, foreign aid & all the other stuff that costs real money? When is that bill going to get introduced?
The Bruce| 3.18.11 @ 1:36AM
Refuniator, if you'd listened to their coverage of the 2000 election, as I had, there would be no doubt. I still listen to them occasionally, and they continually reconfirm my thoughts on the matter. No worries, I have no problem with other people's opinions, and I try to be as open minded as possible.
However, what I didn't realize, until a few weeks ago, is that they receive subsidies from the taxpayer. I take issue with this. NPR is an arm of the Press and, as such, needs to be independent of the government. It's not the amount of money, it's the principle. I'd feel the same way if taxpayer dollars were being spent on News Corp. With literally hundreds of newspaper, internet, television, and radio outlets out there for news, NPR needs to compete in the marketplace like everyone else. I'm glad you support NPR, since you like them. Please don't demand that I do as well.
And you're absolutely right that the government needs to address the big spending issues like entitlements, defense, and foreign aid (around 75% of our budget). I look forward to seeing those bills introduced as well.
The Bruce| 3.18.11 @ 1:37AM
Sorry, meant Refudiator. :^)
Dee See| 3.18.11 @ 1:25AM
Rockefeller Foundaiton funded and founded
NPR sludges on.
BTW ---DO take quality notice of our cross-spectrum, such as it is, cover-up of the unfolding
Japanese catastrophe.
HUAC meets NUREMBERG.
Retroactive IMPEACHMENT of our past 4 administrations.
MASSIVE INQUEST into the century long 'agenda' and its operations
IMMEDIATE opening, auditing and dismantling
of the TAX FREE 'charitable' (i.e. EUGENICS)
Foundations ASAP.
AUDIT and end the criminal, unconstitutional
Federal Reserve.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY
jstwndring| 3.18.11 @ 2:37AM
When are they going to axe the National Endowment for the Arts? Talk about an absolute waste of taxpayer money! And while they're at it, how about doing away with most of those three and four-lettered acronym governing agencies as well. The EPA comes to mind.
mike| 3.18.11 @ 9:18AM
Excellent article. NPR should be defunded, let the people who want to watch it pay for it, not the taxpayer.
Pelligrino| 3.18.11 @ 11:03AM
One of the reasons that W. Europe is going to the dogs is publicly (taxpayer) funded media. Try to find a private radio or TV station in these nations.
Particularly in radio, there are precious few. With TV, I'd say conservatively maybe 24% is private.
So...can you really trust the nightly news? Why would a station like the massive ZDF in Germany, ORF in Austria, or France2,3,4 in France, why would they ever heartily criticize the government when they know that the government controls their purse strings and salaries?
You never want media and government in cozy relationships. Even if it is just "entertainment."
I don't care who you are. You can be a website. Or a tiny 55,000 watt college radio station. You can fund your media through shoe leather, sweat, and the sponsorships from the local automobile dealers, the bakery, the local law firms, the private hospital, garages, restaurants, etc.
They know that advertising works. You have what they want; they have what you want (bucks!). It's a beautiful thing.
Slowcooker| 3.18.11 @ 4:55PM
While they don't know it yet, NPR will be much happier without federal funding, and for those who think of it as a pinko bastion, you ain't seen nothing yet. I expect to see NPR raise private money to replace what Congress would take away, and also to take the brakes off its editorial policies which have often been shaped by their fear of losing fed funds. If you think they are hard on Conservatives now, just wait.
Congrats, Congresscritters; you have just expanded MSNBC and equipped it with a radio station in almost every city.
Allen Johnson | 3.19.11 @ 7:51PM
The National Federation of Community Broadcasters is an association of nonprofit radio stations that in many cases receive public funds. http://www.nfcb.org/
I live in a very low population area in the east, where several networked stations in three rural counties in Virginia and West Virginia serve their sparse populations. These stations are primarily locally supported but rely upon public funds as well. Our remote location is not served by larger markets as for news and local culture, and our market for underwriting is limited due to population density issues. On the other hand, the local radio stations are very much involved with local weather issues, road advisories, emergencies such as flooding, and general local news and culture.
I should say that I would be glad to accept some of my federal tax money to help our radio station, but should pass on my taxpayer money going to the military-industrial complex. I am quite sure that Osama Bin Laden does not have his sights set on our remote, isolated region.
weddingdress | 7.1.11 @ 12:44AM
It isn't enough to stop giving dollars to NPR. They should also be required to pay the same bandwidth licensing fees to the FCC that other commercial radio stations have to pay.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:51PM
is good
Politics Matters | 9.24.11 @ 2:44PM
On the subject of federal funding for NPR, Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, recently said: “There are lots of funding sources for an organization as well-respected as National Public Radio. It’s unfortunate that it has become sort of a political football. Eventually that football will get kicked entirely into private funding. It’s a wedge issue that one party has sort of taken advantage of to talk about biases and yet most people find it a very informative source. It doesn’t need a lot of public funding. There are stations that do, however, need public funding to survive. So after public radio is defunded, which I think will happen within years, then we will see probably a smaller number of National Public Radio outlets, but more on the Internet.” (Gibson appeared on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism http://bit.ly/pm-gibson)