Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if that's part of it ... you know, the whole "science is bad" philosophy.
Or maybe the people who voted NPR funding #1 on the hit list are simply incapable of understanding NPR programs?
But when Republicans assume power in January, they are expected to go after NPR's federal funding with a vengeance.
And that will certainly help create jobs and stimulate the economy, eh? But, I guess Republicans have their priorities.
NPR says only 1 percent to 3 percent of its $166 million budget is funded by taxpayer dollars. But a new report by the Congressional Research Service found that taxpayers fund at least 4 percent of NPR's budget, while an analyst at the conservative American Thinker estimated it was closer to 25 percent.
That's a huge difference - between 1-4% and almost 25%. Of the three estimates, the only one that could be considered impartial is the CRS estimate, and that's 4%. And 4% of $166 million is ... $6.64 million. Such savings!
Not too much, eh? Guess you won't mind digging that "small change" out of your own pocket then. They do accept private donations.
You are so correct, I tend not to read screeds as carefully as I sometime should.
Soooo, how about pointing those ultra left wing programs on NPR...
Prairie Home Companion, Car Talk, SymphonyCast, The American Life, Science Friday, Jazz Profiles, Fresh Air with Terry Gross, The Chef's Table... I know... Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me.
You know these Prairie Chickens. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile!
Even the worst case scenario, 25% of the NPR budget coming from the feds, would result in a whopping 41.5 million dollar cut in the budget. That would really help to reduce the deficit, not!
41.5 million aint much since nancy's reign in office, which cost the tax payer 5 TRILLION. But you can always give that money to me. But I think we should pay that money to FOX NEWS. See how fair you liberals think it is then. Seriousy, why the hell should the government fund journalism? Let Soros dump some more money into them.
I listen to it often on my morning commute. The vitrol and hatred that the "journalists" on NPR spew against Republicans is shocking. If I was a Republican, I would want to take away their federal funding too.
I listen to it often on my morning commute. The vitrol and hatred that the "journalists" on NPR spew against Republicans is shocking. If I was a Republican, I would want to take away their federal funding too.
You have got to be kidding. In fact, I know you're kidding, because I also listen to NPR on my commute. If that's vitrio and hate then I can only imagine how you describe people like DeMint, rand paul et al. The only vitriol I heard on NPR yesterday was from a pompous, ex repub. senator.
This is unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. So the repubs want to cut funding to NPR and PBS? Do you even get how miniscule that amount is in the wake of the deficit that bush/dick C started? Do you know how much cutting funds to NPR and PBS will help? Nada. But that's about par for a pea brained repub............
Choke on a gnat trying to swallow an elephant.
This one thing makes me angrier than anything else, because it's NOT about the few million saved. It's about a "I'll get chou my little pretty."
Bring it on. I'm ready for a fight. I'll fight like a badger for NPR and PBS. It's the principle of the thing.
Choke on a gnat trying to swallow an elephant, yep....that's a great description for repubs.' actions.
I listen to it often on my morning commute. The vitrol and hatred that the "journalists" on NPR spew against Republicans is shocking. If I was a Republican, I would want to take away their federal funding too.
You are of course correct but just wait....Your going to wacked on by the CD elite! They will say that NPR is the paragon of peace and equality and responsible journalisim.....
One person's extremely biased media is another person's fair and balanced media.
Not sure if this includes PBS.
No one is telling them they have to change their programming. They have a choice to continue with donors or go commercial or go off the air.
However, if they go with advertising, they know they will have to change their programming because advertisers will expect them to increase their audience size so more people see/hear the product/service the advertisers are selling. Not sure about their ratings now or if they even bother with ratings because I think the purpose of ratings is for advertisers to determine the best place to put their money and for TV/radio execs to make programming decisions based on what shows are bringing in the ad dollars and which are not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
