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.
The thread is in regard to public funding of NPR. NPR is publically funded, and Breitbart is 100% private. If NPR wasn't publically funded, then this would not be a discussion; if Breitbart was publically funded then we could talk about defunding it.
There is no "free speech" conflict. "Getting rid of" is only equivalent to defunding NPR of public money, as it should be.
I'm sad for you that this needs to be explained to you.
Golgi1, how much federal funding do you believe NPR receives?
I'd love to kill the entire State off altogether but if cancerous tentacles of the beast happen to be destroyed along the way I'll consider it a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hound 109
NPR is toast. (which is OK with me since I don't want even one cent of my tax dollars going to it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYBob
Help me out here. How does getting rid of NPR have anything to do with being Constitutionalists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Without National Propoganda Radio we will sadly have one less media outlet to tell us how neccesary the wars are, how great the economy is,how well Obamacare is working, the dangers of climate change, how low unemployment is, how debt is a positive...
But you're right, not ALL those on the right side of the aisle support destroying NPR, they simply want to cut off all federal funding for it...which leads me back to the question I've posed earlier...
How much of NPR's funding do you all believe comes from the federal government?
Oh, good grief. There is so much fail in this thread.
The people who object to NPR do so because it is supported by tax dollars. Privately owned media outlets are not. It's a lot like the difference between the government telling you what you can and cannot say, and some other entity (this forum, for example) telling you that your comments are out of bounds and deleting them.
Having said that, I like NPR, and do you realize that they also receive support from private individuals and foundations? Even if I didn't like their news, I would still listen sometimes, because I can hear music there that I can't anywhere else.
Golgi1, how much federal funding do you believe NPR receives?
My answer is irrelevant. I know what they receive and what it means to them.
What is relevant is this: any amount of public funding is too much given NPR's politics, and if the funding wasn't significant to NPR then there wouldn't be a constant political battle over it.
If the funding was not significant to NPR, they would reject such funding so as to eliminate the consistent criticism of this conflict of NPR's acceptance of this funding, its source, and their politics.
The conflict is bad for the public's perception of the government and of its fairness to all citizens, of the public's perception of liberals in this nation, and of the public's perception of "National Public Radio".
That they NPR does not reject the funding, in light of this ongoing publicity issue, tells me that the funding is significant enough; in spite of any non-accountant's dismissal of it over a number that they do not put in its proper context.
So, again, if it is an irrelevant number then NPR should and would reject the funding. If the number is significant to them that they won't or can't reject the funding, then they should be defunded given their long-standing political positioning.
Never OP...it's mostly publicly funded and I'm happy to have contributed to their kitty personally. Don't you think there are bigger fish to fry and and more important and relevant issues you can get involved with? Jeez!
not a single one of those examples indicates anyone having 'a problem with NPR exercising its right of free speech'.
disagreeing with content has nothing to due with NPR's free speech rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
But you're right, not ALL those on the right side of the aisle support destroying NPR, they simply want to cut off all federal funding for it...which leads me back to the question I've posed earlier...
How much of NPR's funding do you all believe comes from the federal government?
i'm sure you can look that up if you're interested. no one is here to do your homework.
when the number is zero there is no problem. it's not zero now.
if it's such a tiny amount as some allege, there should be no issue with getting off the tax tit completely. right?
My answer is irrelevant. I know what they receive and what it means to them.
What is relevant is this: any amount of public funding is too much given NPR's politics, and if the funding wasn't significant to NPR then there wouldn't be a constant political battle over it.
If the funding was not significant to NPR, they would reject such funding so as to eliminate the consistent criticism of this conflict of NPR's acceptance of this funding, its source, and their politics.
The conflict is bad for the public's perception of the government and of its fairness to all citizens, of the public's perception of liberals in this nation, and of the public's perception of "National Public Radio".
That they NPR does not reject the funding, in light of this ongoing publicity issue, tells me that the funding is significant enough; in spite of any non-accountant's dismissal of it over a number that they do not put in its proper context.
So, again, if it is an irrelevant number then NPR should and would reject the funding. If the number is significant to them that they won't or can't reject the funding, then they should be defunded given their long-standing political positioning.
The problem with claiming that NPR should be unfunded because of NPR's politics is that NPR doesn't lean left or right, despite what you or others might claim.
Its been recognized going back to the 1960's that it is in the national interest to maintain news information independent of corporate influence. If the federally funded 5% of NPR's budget is going to maintain their news reports, while the remaining budget goes towards their programming, then I say that's federal funds well spent.
I have just one question. If NPR was simply a political mouthpiece, as some have suggested, wouldn't it follow that it would swing to the left under a Democratic administration, and to the right under a Republican one? It seems pretty consistent to me, and I kind of feel like the people who think it's biased would say that about anything that isn't Fox.
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.
