Cuts need to be made somewhere.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020347-503544.html

....they started in the 60's, there were only 3 channels, maybe a need for that. now w/cable & similar private  programming like discover, history channel, etc....they need to be privatized, if they survive (i hope) fine, if not...others will fill the void. same w/NPR.

also agree, no fed. funding to the arts, I enjoy them, museums, etc,  but no pets (projects) allowed!

but NPR can not expect to operate with public funding and basically axe someone for not being liberal enough.

I also think a wrongful termnination suit should be in the works.

If NPR ever started having a conservative bias.

Of course the lefties don't see it as bias as it echoes "their" views. Just like they don't see the MSM as biased either.

To a lesser extent righties are the same way, many right wingers truly believe that Fox News is truly "fair and balanced".

So to make matters worse, they consider him a traitor simply because he's black.

Oh the party of inclusiveness, and openmindedness, unless of course you disagree with them, then their facade of openmindedness goes right out the window. Libs can be vicious little fucker when "betrayed" by one of their own.

Btw, Tim, even tho good bet GOP will take over house, lot can happen in 12 days-----Mr "man tan" shouldn't be "measuring the drapes" yet---------

-- Modified on 10/21/2010 3:36:57 PM

...artist, musician, farmer, mercenary, etc.

You remind me a lot of "Old Archimedes Frisby."

and there is no movement in Congress to provide federal funding, your question is kind of moot.

    Nor does NPR receive on any regular basis funds from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - they have to apply for specific grants to get any part of that money and the grants they have received lately are de minimus.

    NPR is essentially member and endowment funded  and Huckabee's call to end federal funding that doesn't actually exist makes so glad he's a talk show host there days.

NPR CEO said today that they get 3% of their total funding from the taxpayers. That's 3% too much. Sink or swim on their own merits, not my tax dollars.

It all adds up to frivolous spending. 0 should be de minimus amount NPR should obtain from the CPB,especially so when NPR doesn't allow equal opportunity, religion bashing. If you listen to NPR, you have heard them bashing Christians.Why the hypocrisy?
Straight from the horses mouth.
http://blogs.ajc.com/radio-tv-talk/2010/10/21/first-interview-with-nprs-vivian-schiller-on-juan-williams-firing/

So many libs think there is no way a black man could possibly have conservative views, and then they have the gall to call conservatives racist.

"Dual truths" would be a huge improvement on what we have now, which is no truth at all.

When was the last time you can recall reason and rationality where it comes to desseminating the news?

"Just the facts Maam" went out with Joe Friday.

I see nowhere in Article 1, Section 8 where Congress has authority to tax me in order to pay for a bunch of elitist leftist pinkos to pretend they are objective and/or superior.

If they are worth having, they will survive in the free market or through donations alone.

Give 'em the ax.

Take an ax to the national endowment for the arts.

Hey -- I'm an artist. I'm a musician. And I can make music just fine without being subsidized by government.

Besides, government subsidizes a lot of art that ... well ... seems like crap. Again, if it is any good, it will survive in a free market.

At one time NPR provided a unique service, offering drama, nature, history, arts, etc that was not on the commercial networks.

With cable, it is no longer needed.

Also, the problem with government media is the government selects which political views it will promote, which is a terrible thing.  

I like some NPR programs, but I don't understand why they don't have a balance of views. Hell, my taxes paid for some of it.

For those of you who think that the feds should get into this business, how would you like it if the GOP wins and given Fox a contract and subsidy to run NPR?
Or I guess, it is okay for the government to be biased, as long as it is your bias.

Everybody else gets federal funds.

If it is good TV/radio stations and art will survive on there own, if not why are we paying for it?

The average American spends 5 hours a day in front of the tube or 1800 hours a year. Ever since childhood I have invested that time in developing skills and knowledge instead!

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million

''Between 1% and 3% of its $160-million budget comes from competitive grants awarded by publicly funded entities such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts. Since 2009, NPR has received $8 million in competitive grants from the CPB for technology development and journalism initiatives. It also received a one-time grant of $78 million between 2007 and 2009 to upgrade satellite technology.

Local NPR stations receive $90 million in annual appropriations from the CPB that amount to about 10% of their revenue, on average.

Rehm said it was inappropriate for politicians to interject the issue of federal funding into an editorial decision, adding that she hoped the controversy would not affect financial support for public radio. “Stations are in fund-raising season,  so it is unfortunate that this occurred at this time,” she said.''
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-juan-williams-20101022,0,4294425.story



-- Modified on 10/21/2010 6:42:23 PM

the public should be informed on the prevalent issues in society from all viewpoints. Unfortunately, Fox, CNN, NBC et al, have become dominated by their juvenile instincts. Where I fault NPR, is that they do have a tendency to devote a predominate amount of time to homosexual, anti-Christian, anti-military viewpoints. They are not immune to criticisms of biased reporting. They are elitists and like to talk to the latte drinking Volvo driving crowd.

I do not know Frontline is an NPR program or not but their reporting on the Global War on Terror has been biased.

Right now only Fox News is accurately reporting the circumstances on the Ft. Hood shootings. Frankly, I am dissappointed in the coverage given to the Muslim Terrorism that has been perpratrated. We have American soldiers that were killed on an American Army Base on American soil and there is scant reporting. Whereas NPR will report any little detail if American soldiers make a mistake in the field of battle.  That's a problem.

Appoint two head of NPR. One liberal and one conservative.  Each has control over 50% of the broadcasting.

The country is pretty evenly split, so this is a fair way to share a public asset.

That may seem superficially sensible, but it is a Solomon's solution and the baby being cleaved is the singularity of truth. We simply cannot allow the public discourse to devolve to the point of dual truths, one liberal, one conservative, and throw away the whole notion of objective journalistic integrity. What's next? Shitcan reason and rationality?

The school of "advocacy journalism" has long since abolished even the pretense of objectivity in journalism.

It's a crying shame.

You say we can't allow public discourse to devolve into a point of dual truths.

The problem is that the current situation is only half the truth, without allowing the other side at all.

THey have already thrown away "the whole notion of objective journalistic integrity."

Since that is shot, the answer is how do you let the other side have a say?

That was in the day of the robber baron

To say that the press is afraid of the rich now is just too silly.  Every major corporation today is subject to negative press.

I am not saying they may not deserve it at times. I am just saying that it happens and they don't control the press.  
Look at BP, Exxon, any of the investment banking companies.  

To say an honest opinion is suppressed is silly. Look at the editorial page of the NY Times (or any other paper.) Were they afraid to write a negative story about any president in the last 60 years?   Any company?

The days of Hearst closing out "Citizen Kane" are long gone.

Stop livning in the past.

Public Broadcasting, a private nonprofit corporation, not the federal government. Any person or entity can apply for such grants; any public radio station or TV can apply.

     If NPR has violated CPB standards by the Williams incident, then you would expect CPB to deny their next grant application. If you feel federal funds should be provided to CPB, then your quarrel is with that federal funding, not with NPR.

Our press is far from free and independent.

For one thing, consolidation is such that most media -- ranging from textbook publishing to newspapers to digital TV channels -- is controlled by no more than 5-6 entities. Sure, there are blogs and bit players; but most media of influence is closely held by a small group of entities. That fact, in and of itself, should scare the crap out of you.

It used to be that there were rules about media ownership of radio stations and the like that prevented such consolidation, but no more.

Even before that consolidation, most media got its news from just a handful of sources.

Look, I actually get paid to write and I'll tell you right now that what someone picks up in a book store is a result of both severe self-censoring and my publisher's acceptance or willingness to promulgate certain views.

I will tell you that my best and most honest work never sees the light of day.

...Op's..... if it fails, it fails, if it succeeds, it succeeds. eOm

Obviously, it is not the government that controls the media, as seen from the years of 2000-2008, where the government was attacked by many, many, many major news sources.  All TV stations with one exception, most major newspapers, late night comedy, TV shows and movies all had frequent anti-government messages.

So it isn't the government./

Big business. Namely who?  The vast majority of sources I mentioned above attack business right and left.  

There has never been a time in history when so many groups had access to so much of the public.  

Name one point of view that is censored.