NPR …. Good reasons to cut their funding

• Footwedge

  BoatShoes;705181 wrote:I don't know I'd rather have a news organization be supported by tax dollars providing some incentive to stay unbiased than get all of its funding from say, George Soros, and have only an incentive to promote his "anti-american, anti-white male, anti-christian socialist/marxist anti-nascar" worldview.
  
  But as a practical matter, NPR receives no direct funding from the Congress. See the link
  
  hubbub.wbur.org/2010/10/22/npr-funding

  He he. Hilarious.
• fan_from_texas

  Footwedge;705184 wrote:Fair enough. However I would question your choice of words in using "pretense". Sort of like the "pretense" that Rupert Murdoch's show is "fair and balanced"...no?

  I don't watch Fox News (I've seen about 10 mins of it in my life), so I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the "fair and balanced" aspect. I get virtually all of my (non-industry) news from The Economist, The Atlantic, CNN, and NPR.
  
  Re "pretense," my experience with NPR is that they often will bring on an expert representing each side, which gives them the appearance of being neutral. But much of being neutral is in how the question is framed--e.g., "Is our society doing enough to address racially disparate economic outcomes" vs "Despite that fact that blacks score worse on standardized tests, should society continue to give handouts to make them whole?" You can bring on experts to discuss both questions, but the way the question is framed reveals a clear bias.
  
  I don't think many NPR people are intentionally attempting to slant the news to the left--I don't think they're generally ill-intentioned. The problem, as I see it, is that their worldview clouds their judgment and makes it tough for them to realize when they're not being even-handed. That's part of human nature, and I don't think there's any easy fix to it.
  
  In my experience, even with NPR's left-leaning bias, I appreciate that they have more variety than most other news shows, so I continue to listen. I don't like the idea of using taxpayer money to fund any news organization, so I'm sympathetic to people who want to pull their funding. But I'd be much more sympathetic if there were better, "more neutral" options out there.
• Footwedge

  fan_from_texas;705206 wrote:I don't watch Fox News (I've seen about 10 mins of it in my life), so I don't think I'm qualified to comment on the "fair and balanced" aspect. I get virtually all of my (non-industry) news from The Economist, The Atlantic, CNN, and NPR.
  
  Re "pretense," my experience with NPR is that they often will bring on an expert representing each side, which gives them the appearance of being neutral. But much of being neutral is in how the question is framed--e.g., "Is our society doing enough to address racially disparate economic outcomes" vs "Despite that fact that blacks score worse on standardized tests, should society continue to give handouts to make them whole?" You can bring on experts to discuss both questions, but the way the question is framed reveals a clear bias.
  
  I don't think many NPR people are intentionally attempting to slant the news to the left--I don't think they're generally ill-intentioned. The problem, as I see it, is that their worldview clouds their judgment and makes it tough for them to realize when they're not being even-handed. That's part of human nature, and I don't think there's any easy fix to it.
  
  In my experience, even with NPR's left-leaning bias, I appreciate that they have more variety than most other news shows, so I continue to listen. I don't like the idea of using taxpayer money to fund any news organization, so I'm sympathetic to people who want to pull their funding. But I'd be much more sympathetic if there were better, "more neutral" options out there.

  
  You know....I did a little googling on this topic....and here....by a 2 to 1 margin, think tanks complained that NPR is too conservative versus the other way around.
  
  I listened to NPR quite a bit back between 2004 and 2008. My take was that they were conservative, but fair in at least presenting a dissenting view.
  
  Perception comes in many different flavors I guess.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Wedge, If you think that NPR is a little to the right, you must be to the left of Stalin
• BGFalcons82

  

  CenterBHSFan;705078 wrote:To me I don't care if the news is right or left - what business is it of our government to donate monies to it?

  
  This.
  
  Why is the gubmint involved in the first place? Is there a war going on that requires hourly government-speak? Is there a crisis that requires hourly updates? Is there a dearth of radio stations and our gubmint needs to fill up some bandwidth?
  
  Why indeed, Center...why indeed.
• fish82

  

  Footwedge;705239 wrote:You know....I did a little googling on this topic....and here....by a 2 to 1 margin, think tanks complained that NPR is too conservative versus the other way around.
  
  I listened to NPR quite a bit back between 2004 and 2008. My take was that they were conservative, but fair in at least presenting a dissenting view.
  
  Perception comes in many different flavors I guess.

  Every study done on news bias disagrees with you and the think tanks. I like NPR as much as the next guy, but don't pretend they don't lean significantly left...it's been pretty firmly proven.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  As far as political slants in the media:
  
  Hasn't there always been bias and slants in our news since before this country was officially ours (before we kicked Englands ass - my UK relatives would bristle at that hah!)?
  
  From day one the rabble rousers, the propagandists, satirists, and the biased political heavyweights that founded our country were our founding fathers. They always used newspapers, pamphlets, articles and books to get the masses stirred up. They were the movers and the shakers that got people riled up and politically interested enough to separate themselves from the overbearing monarchy/parliament (sound familiar?). If our founding fathers didn't use the media, things would have (hey fab, I didn't use would of lol) ended up differently.
  
  I don't mind political leanings at all in media as long as it doesn't get stupid - read Keith Olbermann/Glenn Beck.
  I don't care that slants and biases exist. I don't care if politicians editorialize or interview.
  What I do mind is that our government donates money.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  ^^^ Oh, and they would be called "extreme" by many today, including some on this forum.
• gut

  Yup, cut the funding. It's not like people have any shortage of news sources. I can see the rationale behind funding something like this, same sort of argument one might make for PBS, but if the content is good enough it will be self-sustaining. $89M?!? I guarantee such unnecessary expenditures are rampant and buried within funding all over the place.
• stlouiedipalma

  Belly35;705189 wrote:OMG ..... We agree.............

  
  I know, Belly, this is a momentous occasion.
  
  I'd also like to take it one giant step further and shut down all military operations outside of the United States and put an end to any money being sent to foreign countries. Until we solve our problems at home, I say we should let everyone else fend for themselves.
• Belly35

  

  stlouiedipalma;705600 wrote:I know, Belly, this is a momentous occasion.
  
  I'd also like to take it one giant step further and shut down all military operations outside of the United States and put an end to any money being sent to foreign countries. Until we solve our problems at home, I say we should let everyone else fend for themselves.

  
  To far.... back to square one
  
  Military operation hold steady
  Foreign funds can be re-evaluated and cut back
  Home problem do need to be fixed .... I would like to see a change in the allocation of Small Business Federal Money… “Belly Business Idea Plan” BBIP
  would fix the job and future of America..
• I Wear Pants

  Can we keep the non news related programming of NPR? Because that's fantastic.
  
  Just spin off the news into a non-profit. Seems reasonable.
  
  And Belly, all your positions would seem to say that you wouldn't want any federal money in business at any level. Funny though that you're in support of federal money being used in a way that would be beneficial to you (I don't know how you'd like it allocated so if I assumed incorrectly there please correct my error).
• stlouiedipalma

  Belly35;705673 wrote:To far.... back to square one
  
  Military operation hold steady
  Foreign funds can be re-evaluated and cut back
  Home problem do need to be fixed .... I would like to see a change in the allocation of Small Business Federal Money… “Belly Business Idea Plan” BBIP
  would fix the job and future of America..

  Sorry, Belly. Not one f***ing dime to another country until we get things straightened out domestically. Shut down all bases and bring the troops home. Let one of the other superpowers play traffic cop for the world.
• cbus4life

  NPR will continue to exist, regardless of whether they have the small amount of funding they get through the CPB cut or not, so for all i care, Congress can go ahead. Though it will end up hurting folks who have nothing to do with NPR, didn't fire Juan Williams or call the tea party "racist," etc.
  
  I understand why people are "going after" NPR, but it is tremendous waste of time, IMO. Just another way for folks to score some political points. Common sense should tell people that their time should be spent going after wasteful things THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING.
• believer

  

  cbus4life;705964 wrote:NPR will continue to exist, regardless of whether they have the small amount of funding they get through the CPB cut or not, so for all i care, Congress can go ahead. Though it will end up hurting folks who have nothing to do with NPR, didn't fire Juan Williams or call the tea party "racist," etc.
  
  I understand why people are "going after" NPR, but it is tremendous waste of time, IMO. Just another way for folks to score some political points. Common sense should tell people that their time should be spent going after wasteful things THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING.

  I agree but EVERYTHING the Feds are blowing taxpayer dollars on these days should be open to scrutiny.
• Belly35

  

  I Wear Pants;705683 wrote:Can we keep the non news related programming of NPR? Because that's fantastic.
  
  Just spin off the news into a non-profit. Seems reasonable.
  

  And Belly, all your positions would seem to say that you wouldn't want any federal money in business at any level. Funny though that you're in support of federal money being used in a way that would be beneficial to you (I don't know how you'd like it allocated so if I assumed incorrectly there please correct my error).

  
  I want less government in business ( less the better) but there comes a point when the spending of our tax money is wasted, small business have gotten to a point desperation and support from the government is required to make America Small Business Viable.
  
  89 million give to NPR ..( free)
  I have spent of my personal money $200,000 for my new product r/d.
  To product this product molds and tooling is required …. (forget about the engineering/design and testing cost)
  Tooling and molds cost in America ($300,000) cost in China ($30,000)
  China government invests in China business sure their labor force works for less but that can be over come with America productivity.
  China now produces this product for my retail customer base.
  Note: This product I can re-program here in the states and sell to custom designer at a higher profit. Again this will take me investing in my company to do but it can be done at a high profit margin.
  Note: If the tooling and mold cost was subsidizes (free) then the manufacturing production would also be done in the states.
  I have taken about 20% of my present products and converted manufacturing back to the state. Those products are just as profitable as those manufactured in China.
  Why you ask I haven’t converted more …. Re-tooling and molds cost too much ….
  American manufacturing and labor can compete with the $7.00 day China labor.
  Note: In the future that cheap China labor will not be so cheap ….. will America be prepared???
  
  In the long run giving free subsidizes to manufacturing and product driven companies will come full circle with more people working, product being purchased and revenue produced via taxes on products sold. Local, Sate and Feds all win ..
  
  Giving money to individuals does not stimulate the economy ..it just pays for what they spent they did have…
  
  Free money to those organizations that produce nothing but lip service… spews waste

• wkfan

  cbus4life;705964 wrote:NPR will continue to exist, regardless of whether they have the small amount of funding they get through the CPB cut or not, so for all i care, Congress can go ahead. Though it will end up hurting folks who have nothing to do with NPR, didn't fire Juan Williams or call the tea party "racist," etc.
  
  I understand why people are "going after" NPR, but it is tremendous waste of time, IMO. Just another way for folks to score some political points. Common sense should tell people that their time should be spent going after wasteful things THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING.

  
  $89,000,000 here.....$100,000,000 there......
  
  Pretty soon it adds up to real money.
  
  I have to agree with believer.....EVERYTHING we spend governmental dollars on should be under scrutiny.
• stlouiedipalma

  I'll agree to that, but it must be everything, not just a few pet social issues. let's start with the military, SS, Medicare & Medicaid. That would show everyone that we're serious about getting things under control.
• Gblock

  while ill agree the govt doesnt need to fund them...doesnt mean his comments were incorrect
  
  During the secretly recorded meeting, Schiller lamented how the Republican Party had been "hijacked" by the Tea Party.
  
  "The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people's personal lives," he said.
  
  Schiller described that movement as "white, middle America, gun-toting," and added: "They're seriously racist people."
• Fab4Runner

  

  Gblock;706112 wrote:while ill agree the govt doesnt need to fund them...doesnt mean his comments were incorrect
  
  During the secretly recorded meeting, Schiller lamented how the Republican Party had been "hijacked" by the Tea Party.
  
  "The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved with people's personal lives," he said.
  
  Schiller described that movement as "white, middle America, gun-toting," and added: "They're seriously racist people."

  So unless I am misunderstanding you...you actually believe this?
• Gblock

  Fab4Runner;706116 wrote:So unless I am misunderstanding you...you actually believe this?

  nah jus stirring the pot
• j_crazy

  

  this tea party bitch fest brought to you by the truth:
  
  The truth, been hurting since 1776.
• gut

  stlouiedipalma;706111 wrote:I'll agree to that, but it must be everything, not just a few pet social issues. let's start with the military, SS, Medicare & Medicaid. That would show everyone that we're serious about getting things under control.

  
  I just think this is the wrong perspective. Let them go trim a few thousand NPR type deals - real money, a few hundred billion - before they start raising my taxes, indirectly or otherwise. Prove that they can manage the budget before we give them easy, short-term solutions that don't fix the underlying cause.
  
  The bottom line is years of pet projects and pandering have created this mess, not SS. We'll probably have to cut SS benefits ultimately, but it's pointless to do that until you fix the waste that has been killing us for decades. What people don't seem to understand is it's pointless and irresponsible to cut SS just so that money can go be wasted elsewhere. The fat has to be cut FIRST - all of it - and that is the only way to approach a solution.
• Footwedge

  stlouiedipalma;705600 wrote:I'd also like to take it one giant step further and shut down all military operations outside of the United States and put an end to any money being sent to foreign countries. Until we solve our problems at home, I say we should let everyone else fend for themselves.

  What? Are you fuckin nuts? Why would we do that? Don't you know that our 700 military bases around the globe protect us from Italy, Japan, Korea, Germany and many other countries from overrunning our borders and taking us over. Oh...did I mention Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and even Spain? They're wolves in sheeps clothing too.
  
  200 billion dollars pissed away per year for these bases are worth it. Just ask Madelaine Albright. She knows everything.
• tk421

  

  stlouiedipalma;706111 wrote:I'll agree to that, but it must be everything, not just a few pet social issues. let's start with the military, SS, Medicare & Medicaid. That would show everyone that we're serious about getting things under control.

  
  Sorry, looks like you're out of luck. According to the Obama administration, SS is not a problem and will not be looked at to fix the budget. According to the director of the OMB, there is currently a surplus that will be good until 2037, even though Congress has spent all the money and no such surplus exists. More of the same, SS is the easiest problem to fix and the politicians don't have the balls to do it. SS is an unfunded liability, one that will need higher taxes to pay if not fixed now. Looks like we have that to look forward to.
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-02-22-editorial22_ST1_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip