Republicans, what is wrong with you?

[Chris P.]

Doug, I really fail to see why NPR can't sell advertising and be self sufficient. What is the government doing supporting a radio station? They have no business in public radio or tv. It's National Public Radio and should be funded by public means, not by the government.

If the Republicans were really interested in journalistic fairness, they would now engineer some form of legislation that would silence the Fox News(?) Network, too.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, are all left leaning news stations. Why do you have a problem with an opposing view? Your statement to silence could be construed as taking away freedom of speech. Is that what you want? I hope not. Right after that they start hauling people off to re-education camps. I listen to Chris Mathews and seriously wonder if anything is filtered through his brain before it exits his mouth, but I would never consider silencing him.

Well, first of all the government IS NOT in the business of radio. Second, it IS funded by public means because the funding comes from our tax money. Third, I can see why NPR should not procure funds the private, capitalist way. First off, they won't be a National PUBLIC Radio anymore, and second they will inherently become more biased towards the interests of their advertisers. That alone is an important reason why we SHOULD have a national public radio if you ask me. Notice it is NOT government radio. It is PUBLIC radio. Now you may feel that it is left leaning. Well, some of the talk shows may be left leaning (I don't know because I don't listen to those) but the news inarguably is not. Some WILL argue that the news is, but they are not looking at it neutrally and objectively. They are looking at it from a Fox News mentality. If anyone has been listening to the news lately on NPR they will get a fresh dose of news as it should be: the simple and clear exposition of facts as heard during the segments that mention the recent bill to halt public funding of NPR. There is absolutely no personal commentary attached to the news whatsoever. It's just facts laid our for you, and importantly, it's giving facts from all possible sides.

I'm afraid if we thrust NPR into the private sector and have it operate just like all the others, it will become more like the others. That's how capitalism works.

 

[Pat]

Perhaps some response is in order and I'd like to address some of your comments.

"First of all the government IS NOT in the business of radio."

Fact: 5.8% of National Public Radio funding is from the government (Source: NPR). So the government is in the business. And NPR has lobbyists. NPR has spent $304,000 lobbying Congress so far in 2010 according to filings available with the Senate Clerk’s office. According to the filings, signed by Michael R. Riksen, vice president of policy and representation, the money was spent in part to lobby for appropriations. I would invite you to spend some time to examine how the federal lobbying process works. It has been described as being like prostitution without the sex.

"Second, it IS funded by public means because the funding comes from our tax money."

Look up the word “Public”. The fact that the majority of NPRs funding comes from private donations from the public make them "publicly funded". Over 94% of NPRs funding is not from the government (more on that next).

"Third, I can see why NPR should not procure funds the private, capitalist way. First off, they won't be a National PUBLIC Radio anymore, and second they will inherently become more biased towards the interests of their advertisers. "

Fact: The second single biggest funding source (21.1%) for NPR is corporate donations. This is more than triple the government funding. (Foundations are another 9.6%) They are beholding to those donors who would have considerable more sway than sponsors whose drivers are ratings. As a public enterprise, they certainly are free to go to the marketplace to continue to get individual donations through memberships and individual contributions. Their performance will fairly arbitrate whether they have the appeal to be funded or not.

"If anyone has been listening to the news lately on NPR they will get a fresh dose of news, as it should be."

That is an opinion that is not universally shared. In fact, Kenneth Tomlinson, the chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), has raised the issue of bias at NPR. Tomlinson has also expressed specific concerns about NPR's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To address these and other issues, CPB, which funds over 10% of public broadcasting, has appointed two ombudsmen — one for the left and one for the right.

"It's just facts laid our for you, and importantly, it's giving facts from all possible sides.
I'm afraid if we thrust NPR into the private sector and have it operate just like all the others, it will become more like the others. That's how capitalism works."

(While you have the dictionary out, look up Capitalism) Capitalism would have them operate in the free market where subscribers (if they choose to do so) can freely invest or contribute and revenues are driven by marketplace acceptance not political patronage.

Our federal government has no business or constitutional authority to be in the broadcasting business. But then they shouldn’t be in the banking, auto manufacturing, electrical power generation, home lending, railway or medical care business either.
(Most of all they have no business the micromanagement of my life.)

 

[Doug S.]

You know, for the most part I don't have a dog in the race here. I listen to NPR only for the "acoustic music" presentation on the Houston radio station, have no interest in their political or news events. Same for PBS, I watch Antiques Roadshow, Motor Week, This Old House, and Ask This Old House. I surf right through their political and news offerings.

For a while I did donate to PBS to support their program lineup. However, when they started running their "commercials" between programs, it seemed to me that they had transformed themselves into a product sponsored organization. Now I no longer contribute during their "membership drives", and I don't feel guilty about that at all.

However, I do feel that their "viewpoint" should be available, as long as we're talking about left vs right wing. There are PLENTY of right-wing news sources out there (the obviously most radical of which, IMHO, is Fox News(?) Network), and yet the current radical Republican Party agenda seems to be hell-bent on quashing all competition to their radical right-wing philosophy. I do watch a regularly presented TV news offering, specifically the NBC channel, but I have never really considered them to be either right-wing or left-wing, they seem to be pretty fair to both sides to me. Can't say that for the FN(?)N, though, nor could anyone else I know who has taken the opportunity to tune in to their vitriolic rhetoric.

IF the government has to become involved in stifling or totally shutting down a politically oriented source (which, IMHO, flies in the face of freedom of speech), then I think ALL should be treated equally.

As for NPR, I agree, if their source of government support is cut off, they'll attempt to remain viable by soliciting sponsors. They will either lose their journalistic impartiality or their sponsors when their message doesn't agree with the opinions of the sponsors, so as long as the Republicans AREN'T going to shut down the radical right-wing news sources, they should not be allowed to shut down the funding to the only "radical" left-wing news source (I'm referring to the characterizations from other forum members here, since I don't watch/listen to either PBS or NPR political/news offerings). If the only way a "balanced" viewpoint can be ensured is to fund it partially with tax money, then in my view that is adequate reason, as I believe that the full spectrum of views should be available.

Obviously, the Republicans don't.....

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Nick]

(While you have the dictionary out, look up Capitalism) Capitalism would have them operate in the free market where subscribers (if they choose to do so) can freely invest or contribute and revenues are driven by marketplace acceptance not political patronage.

Veek,

That may have been the case in the dim and distant past, now when they get themselves in trouble they go running to the political patrons to bail them out with revenues from those who have not chosen to invest in them freely.

Time for the dictionaries to change their entries?.

 

[craig]

Wow!!!! it looks like some folks here think capitalism is the problem....
man oh man how far we have fallen...:cry:

 

[Bill Musarra]

First I don't even listen to NPR, and I don't care if they are bias or not,but I have many friends that do listen and I don't question their political leanings. With the current discussion, I did a little searching on NPR bias, and this is what came up. Nothing to support conservative bias, but plenty on their attempt to be neutral. None of it complimentary. One from News Busters(can't wait for the repercussions on this one). This article was written on the 7th of March

National Public Radio chief Vivian Schiller issued a flat denial Monday when asked whether NPR consistently puts a liberal spin on the news.
NPR strains to offer "journalism that presents no particular bias," Schiller claimed in a speech at the National Press Club. And far from being the bastion of liberalism its critics insist, Schiller claimed that NPR gets "a tremendous amount of criticism for being too conservative."
To the former claim, one need only look through the NPR archive here at NewsBusters to find a litany of examples undermining Schiller's denial. She says that presented with the accusation of liberal bias, she always asks for examples, so here are just a few from the archives:

- NPR: If You're Just Joining Us, The Republicans Are Dangerously Extremist
- Totenberg's 'Very Afraid' of These [2010] Elections; Thomas Thinks They're 'A Joke...Political System's a Mess'
- FNC’s Liasson: Send off Pelosi ‘In a Blaze of Glory’ Like Churchill After ‘Historic’ Accomplishments
- NPR Reports On U.S. Liberal Bias -- Tilted to Theorist Who Laments Reporters Aren't Openly Liberal Enough
- NPR Cries Factual Foul on Paul Ryan for Saying 'Failed Stimulus' in SOTU Response
Again, these are just a few relatively recent examples of what can only be described as a trend of liberal bias at NPR.
Beyond the firing of Juan Williams - which Schiller acknowledged Monday was not handled correctly - perhaps the event that most clearly demonstrated NPR's bias was the January shooting in Tucson.
NPR immediately jumped on the "violent rhetoric" bandwagon. Scott Simon, interviewing far-left St. Petersburg Times columnist Eric Deggans, insisted that Tucson-style shootings "didn't happen when 63 million watched Walter Cronkite every night," apparently meaning that major American media were to blame, despite there being no evidence then or now to support that claim.
NPR also lent airtime to one Daisy Hernandez, a magazine editor who heaved a sigh of "brown relief" that Jared Lee Loughner was a white man. "It was only after I saw the shooter's gringo surname," Hernandez admitted, with amazing frankness about her racialist attitude towards the tragedy, "that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday and those who, like Rep. Giffords, were severely wounded."
But the bias at NPR extends even beyond the specific stories it broadcasts. The station even maintains official policies that necessarily slant the news to the left.
For instance, it is official NPR policy to refer to pro-life Americans as "abortion rights opponents." As I have written, that intrinsically shifts the debate to the left by (a) assuming that there is a "right" to abortion, which is by no means a settled political question, and (b) tacitly rejects the pro-life position that the life of the unborn child, not the preferences of its mother, are the issue at hand.
"Opponents of the rights of the unborn" would certainly not fly in an NPR newsroom, but there is no substantive difference beyond the political position to which it lends intrinsic weight. Neither do we hear NPR referring to gun control advocates, for instance, as "gun rights opponents."
In addition to official editorial policies enacted by NPR, the heavy leftist makeup of its board of directors also suggests a liberal bias. National Review's Matthew Shaffer reported last year:
The governance structure of NPR has Vivian Schiller, president and CEO, at the top, with the chairman of the NPR Foundation, Antoine van Agtmael, serving on the NPR board as her second-in-command. Ten managers of NPR’s member stations serve on the board in rotating three-year terms (as these are local journalists, not power players, I left them off this list). The rest of the seats on the 16-member NPR board are filled by “five prominent members of the public selected by the board and confirmed by NPR member stations” — who are supposed to represent the public, according to NPR. The NPR board “sets the policies and overall direction for NPR management, monitors NPR’s performance, and provides financial oversight,” also according to NPR.
Then, there’s the NPR Foundation. Its board consists 50 members plus a chairman — the members being big donors, fundraisers, and others. Anna Christopher, spokeswoman for NPR, says “the Foundation Board of Trustees has no role in programming, news, or the governance of NPR.” But the Foundation chairman has a seat on NPR board of governors, and the Foundation’s control of funds gives them indirect power at the very least. Requests to NPRfor basic information about how the NPR Foundation handles donations went unanswered.
Why would almost all these people be liberal Democrats? Anna Christopher says, “We don’t have a litmus test for our board members or for our Foundation trustees.” De jure, that’s surely true: Presumably, NPR doesn’t have an official policy that board members must be liberal. But de facto, they have sure done a good job making their boards members indistinguishable from that of an openly partisan organization.
In sum, there are numerous examples of NPR toeing the liberal line on major issues of the day. The station's firing of Juan Williams, despite NPR's post-facto apologetics, appeared a knee-jerk reaction to politically correct forces. NPR joined the media bandwagon explicitly or implicitly blaming political commentators - overwhelmingly conservative - for the Tucson massacre. NPR has editorial policies that inevitably shift coverage contentious political issues to the left. And the station's board of directors is almost uniformly liberal.
All of that seriously undercuts Schiller's flat denial.

Looks line Ron Shiller has been told to pack his bags and get the hell out of town. He was going to leave in May at any rate --- but he was shown the door March 9. Shiller describes himself as a victim .. a victim of that evil conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe. Remember him? He's the one that brought down ACORN. Seems he was caught wanting to take $5Mil from the Muslim Brotherhood and was telling them how they could hide the donation from the government.
In case you're not up to speed with this story ... here are some links to play with.
NPR executives caught on tape bashing conservatives and Tea Party, touting liberals
NPR officers compare deniers of climate change to birthers and flat earth believers
NPR Cans Ronald Schiller
NPR CEO: 'We Get a Tremendous Amount of Criticism for Being Too Conservative'
NPR's Schiller Denies Liberal Bias, But Station's Content, Policies, Board Say Otherwise
Brent Bozell Calls on Congress to Pull Plug on NPR's Propaganda Machine


I also have done some background(read behind the scenes) checking of the Wisconsin mess. More on that later. I think it will be an eye opener for some.
Everybody duck, for the slings and arrows will fly. No telling who will get hit.:stunned:

Bill

 

[Pat]

IF the government has to become involved in stifling or totally shutting down a politically oriented source (which, IMHO, flies in the face of freedom of speech), then I think ALL should be treated equally.

As for NPR, I agree, if their source of government support is cut off, they'll attempt to remain viable by soliciting sponsors.
Cheers from Doug!!

Then I guess you feel the government should subsidize Fox News if they fund NPR.

Um, NPR DOES solicit sponsors. I thought that was your point in the beginning of your post. NPR is constantly running commercials and the best programming is interrupted by incessant appeals for memberships and money. Personally I'd find a Pepsi commercial a lot more appealing. But then you could have a spring break wet tee shirt contest commercial and it couldn't make Bill Moyers' program any more interesting. Well, maybe it would. But after they way NPR markets, they would go to an olfdfolks home and have a wet shawl contest.

If they are that valuable, then people ought to be willing voluntarily pay for it in the free market. Let people versus government toads decide.

 

[domtoni]

This is interesting. The US State Department will give the BBC money.

BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US state department | Media | The Guardian

 

[Chris P.]

Veek - step down off your high horse.

All because some of our taxes are filtered through the government into NPR does NOT put the government in the radio business. The White House doesn't run the radio stations or write the radio shows.

I am fully aware that the most of their funding does NOT come from the government. Where did I say otherwise? Your assumptions of me and your personally appointed intellectual highness are not only annoying but obstructing to the discussion.

Now, on the issue funding. Apparently it is YOU who needs to crack open a book read about what it means to be publicly funded and privately funded. The private donations from corporations are the "privately funded" portion that you mention. The money coming from the public through the government from our taxes is the "publicly funded" portion. And, oh my gosh, they lobbied? They lobbied for more funding? Oh the criminals! :laugh:

In fact, Kenneth Tomlinson, the chair of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), has raised the issue of bias at NPR. Tomlinson has also expressed specific concerns about NPR's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To address these and other issues, CPB, which funds over 10% of public broadcasting, has appointed two ombudsmen — one for the left and one for the right.

Wow, imagine that, public broadcasting regulating itself with a little checks and balances. Won't find that in the private sector will you? Certainly not at Fox, CNN, or MSNBC.

(While you have the dictionary out, look up Capitalism) Capitalism would have them operate in the free market where subscribers (if they choose to do so) can freely invest or contribute and revenues are driven by marketplace acceptance not political patronage.

Thank you oh holy one. If you would get off that high horse you wouldn't assume I don't know what capitalism means. BUT, because I DO know what it means, I know that when revenues are driven by marketplace acceptance the content becomes driven by the what the markeplace wants, not by what it needs. This is precisely why music radio stations play the same sh*t over and over and over and over........ By the way, what the marketplace drives these kinds of things to is what you find on FOX, CNN, MSNBC.......

Now, about the liberal bias stuff. Sure... if you go to a conservative website dedicated to routing out liberal bias in the media, you are bound to find an article on every news outlet that IS NOT far right conservative.:laugh: Most of what they are talking about are not news programs which is what I focused on (if you bothered to read my reply.) If you listen to NPR news, you will WILL NOT hear any left OR right bias - just news. Try it. For once.

Hey - you want to know something, I just looked at things a little deeper (which you should do to) and found out that NPR is NOT directly funded by the federal government anyway! :laugh: That 5.8% statistic you threw out there is for public radio stations!

I'll come back to this later - gotta get back to work...

 

[Tom P]

There seem to be a problem with the definition of public funding. Tax dollars while from the public is not generally referred to as public funding, it is a goverment grant, while donations from listeners are more commonly known a public funding.

From Wikipedia
Public broadcasting includes radio, television and other electronic media outlets that receive some or all of their funding from the public. Public broadcasters may receive their funding from individuals through voluntary donations, a specific charge such as a television license fee, or as direct funding by the state.
The extent to which public broadcasters can be considered "non-commercial" varies from country to country. In the United States most public radio and television stations are licensed as non-commercial broadcasters, yet many stations transmit underwriting spots (resembling advertisements on commercial broadcasting but with some content limitations) in exchange for corporate contributions. In some other countries public broadcasters are permitted to transmit commercials.

 

[Doug S.]

For instance, it is official NPR policy to refer to pro-life Americans as "abortion rights opponents." As I have written, that intrinsically shifts the debate to the left by (a) assuming that there is a "right" to abortion, which is by no means a settled political question...
Bill

Really, Bill? I assume you're takiing the position that as long as there is ONE right-to-life advocate whose heart is still beating, that it isn't settled. However, as far as I understand, every legal attack on Roe v. Wade has resulted in rulings that there IS a right for a pregnant woman to choose an abortion (despite the rather despicable requirements that Republican dominated legislatures are attempting to attach to that choice...including the state of TX :thumbsdown:, I'm sad to say).

From Wikipedia:

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),<SUP id=cite_ref-Roe_0-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP> was a landmark, controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Saying that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.<SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference>[2]</SUP> The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3]</SUP>

Have I missed something, Bill? Has the Supreme Court (which, BTW, has a long-standing history of being dominated by conservative jurists) managed to sneak a reversal of Roe v. Wade past us? The executive arm of "The Government" may be able to function in "secret" (they call it "covert"), as we well know, but AFAIK the Supreme Court's decisions are all public record, with both the majority and the minority being able to explain the rationale for voting the way they did.

Please let me know if I "missed" a decision that amounted to an out and out reversal of Roe v. Wade.........not just some minor (or even significant) inconvenience for the woman who seeks an abortion before viability of the fetus has been established, but a true reversal of the basic right of choice established by the original decision in Roe v. Wade.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Chris P.]

There seem to be a problem with the definition of public funding. Tax dollars while from the public is not generally referred to as public funding, it is a goverment grant, while donations from listeners are more commonly known a public funding.

From Wikipedia
Public broadcasting includes radio, television and other electronic media outlets that receive some or all of their funding from the public. Public broadcasters may receive their funding from individuals through voluntary donations, a specific charge such as a television license fee, or as direct funding by the state.
The extent to which public broadcasters can be considered "non-commercial" varies from country to country. In the United States most public radio and television stations are licensed as non-commercial broadcasters, yet many stations transmit underwriting spots (resembling advertisements on commercial broadcasting but with some content limitations) in exchange for corporate contributions. In some other countries public broadcasters are permitted to transmit commercials.

There really isn't a problem with the definition, there seems to be a problem with people's perception of what public funding is. If you look at our government's websites and other financially related sites that offer some form of authority on the matter, such as provided by a university site, anyone can plainly see that "public" funding is funding through the government, from the "public" through their tax dollars. In other words, everyone contributes - hence the term "public." Private funding is when an individual makes the choice to offer monetary support - a private donation.

First definition for the word public:
pub·lic

/ˈpʌb

lɪk/ Show Spelled[puhb-lik]
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.

 

[Chris P.]

Bill - that Ron Schiller "sting" was brought to light already by no friend of the liberals - Glenn Beck of all people. That's how straight that whole episode was. Besides, from what I've read his only job was to go find funding, not report news.

Also - how can you be so apathetic towards NPR news? It is a major news source in this country. I certainly do care if FOX and MSNBC are too far to one side even though I don't listen to them. Why? Because lots of the voting public do listen to them.

This whole thing about NPR and it's liberal bias is getting blown out of proportion anyway. NPR is no where near as far from center as FOX is, for instance, especially when it comes to non-news related programs. NPR is run by human beings, not indifferent slabs of silicon, so yes, it's not perfectly centrist, objective, and non-partisan 100% of the time. The difference is, when they do stray from center, and even if it does get heated, it does not get nearly as bad as what you can find on FOX.

How about an investigation into the running of NPR, since it does get some federal money, instead of an all out banning of that money? We all know what happens to news outlets when their money comes from commercial advertising... (cue sound of toilet flushing)<cue sound="" of="" toilet="" flushing=""></cue>

 

[David Briggs]

Interesting thread, I listen to NPR and I feel that they are very much a Liberal Organization but I am capable of sorting thru it all and they do some reporting very well.
As for Fox News, you can say what you want about them being a pack of Rabid Dogs but the bottom line is that more of the American People listen to and trust Fox than any other News source.
I think that their coverage is very balanced and where as the rest of the news groups are pretty much interchangeable (occasionally CNN will rise to the occasion).
IMHO
Dave

 

[Graham]

As for Fox News, you can say what you want about them being a pack of Rabid Dogs but the bottom line is that more of the American People listen to and trust Fox than any other News source.
Dave

Dave, I don't have a horse in this race mate, but that statement, whilst being true is largely irrelevant.

More people bought the new Take That album than bought the new Radiohead album, but it doesn't make them better, or comparable. More people bought VHS than Betamax back in the day, but again, it wasn't as good.... You get my point.

Just because more people watch it, it doesn't change it from being shit...

 

[Tom P]

Dave, I don't have a horse in this race mate, but that statement, whilst being true is largely irrelevant.

More people bought the new Take That album than bought the new Radiohead album, but it doesn't make them better, or comparable. More people bought VHS than Betamax back in the day, but again, it wasn't as good.... You get my point.

Just because more people watch it, it doesn't change it from being shit...

You should clarify that statement, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions!

 

[Graham]

You should clarify that statement, that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions!

Yes, every arsehole's got one, but Tom, I would refute that statement....

My arsehole has a very different opinion to my head if I have eaten a curry the night before :laugh:

 

[Jim Craik]

Graham..............+1

 

[Tom P]

Yes, every arsehole's got one, but Tom, I would refute that statement....

My arsehole has a very different opinion to my head if I have eaten a curry the night before :laugh:

Just wondering, do you get Fox News in the UK?

 

[Graham]

Just wondering, do you get Fox News in the UK?

Nope - I've seen it many times during visits to the US though. It wasn't my point anyway Tom.

My point is that it doesn't matter how many people watch something, it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it the de facto standard for independant broadcasting.