Save NPR!

[Strike For The South]

Haha just kidding

If you want to donate limited rescources to this crap you're an idoit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What don't you like about it? I heard part of a very interesting interview with a military interrogator today.

[Strike For The South]

What don't you like about it? I heard part of a very interesting interview with a military interrogator today.

The part where my money goes to fund it

That part

High art and culture should be vanguarded, not politics

Its just a waste of money, granted its a mere pittance but ya know, the whole you gotta start somewhere thing

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It probably costs you a nickel a year.

[Strike For The South]

It probably costs you a nickel a year.

Correct, I would never postulate that NPR is crippiling our budget but in the same vein that nickel could be better spent elsewhere

Like education for instance

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe we could spend a nickel in education creating an educational radio program.

[Strike For The South]

Maybe we could spend a nickel in education creating an educational radio program.

Yea kids these days are glued to that radio....

PBS may actually be worth saving, NPR has some good shows and is certainily 100x better than the conservative chicken littles but it does not merit government funding

[Crazed Rabbit]

It probably costs you a nickel a year.

If NPR gets little money from the government, then it ought to be able to survive just fine without subsidies.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

-facepalm-

NPR isn't really that biased guys. All legitimate news sources: Al Jazeera, NPR, PBS are all smeared by conservative hosts as liberal/extremist media when in fact they are not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If NPR gets little money from the government, then it ought to be able to survive just fine without subsidies.

CR

Too risky, and the government ought to fund it anyway. It's a shame private donors have to.

[Strike For The South]

-facepalm-

NPR isn't really that biased guys. All legitimate news sources: Al Jazeera, NPR, PBS are all smeared by conservative hosts as liberal/extremist media when in fact they are not.

Its not about the biases sweetie

Too risky, and the government ought to fund it anyway. It's a shame private donors have to.

Why?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Its not about the biases sweetie

Too risky, and the government ought to fund it anyway. It's a shame private donors have to.

Why?

It's an important public service. Quality information is vital for any kind of democratic society.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Its not about the biases sweetie

Too risky, and the government ought to fund it anyway. It's a shame private donors have to.

Why?

I am quoting you right here: High art and culture should be vanguarded, not politics

What did you mean by that bold part if not complaining about a bias? The fact they are covering politics at all?

[Strike For The South]

It's an important public service. Quality information is vital for any kind of democratic society.


I am quoting you right here: High art and culture should be vanguarded, not politics

What did you mean by that bold part if not complaining about a bias? The fact they are covering politics at all?

That's the rub though, the people who listen to NPR are well informed and in a world without NPR they would still be well informed

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's an important public service. Quality information is vital for any kind of democratic society.

It's state-funded media. How could you trust them to report truthfully on the government?

Also, their main audience are above-average income people - hardly people who couldn't get news elsewhere.

Speaking of which, this is the age of the internet. There are innumerable sources of news and information available.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's state-funded media. How could you trust them to report truthfully on the government?

Also, their main audience are above-average income people - hardly people who couldn't get news elsewhere.

Speaking of which, this is the age of the internet. There are innumerable sources of news and information available.

CR

Why do you want to eliminate choice CR?

[Strike For The South]

because it's an archaic way of deceminating information that uses taxpayer money

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's state-funded media. How could you trust them to report truthfully on the government?

As opposed to primarily ad funded :dizzy2:

What the heck is going to happen, they report something the government doesn't like and then the government pulls their funding? Isn't that what you are supporting?

They do a good job.


Also, their main audience are above-average income people - hardly people who couldn't get news elsewhere.

Speaking of which, this is the age of the internet. There are innumerable sources of news and information available.

CR

The internet is largely a cesspool. The primary thing in our time is not that the information is available, but that we don't have time to sift through everything.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I want choice; the choice of what to do with my dollars; I don't want them taken under threat of force and given to a picked media organization.

If others want to donate to NPR I don't care.

CR

[Strike For The South]

So we can trust the gummint to sift for us?

I remain unmoved sir\

[Crazed Rabbit]

As opposed to primarily ad funded :dizzy2:

What the heck is going to happen, they report something the government doesn't like and then the government pulls their funding? Isn't that what you are supporting?

They do a good job.

My point is that they are less likely to report on something the government doesn't want them to.

If they do such a good job, they can survive without government funds.


The internet is largely a cesspool. The primary thing in our time is not that the information is available, but that we don't have time to sift through everything.

So we should trust people paid in part by the government to determine what to tell us?

There's a lot of crap on the internet, but it's not hard to find reputable news sites.

CR

[Fisherking]

NPR Is biased enough that you can readily see it is so.

Now if someone proposed funding Fox News Radio because they perform a public service, how do you think people should react?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So we can trust the gummint to sift for us?

I remain unmoved sir\

Except this is kind of disconnected from reality. Jim Lehrer isn't a government shill, yet PBS is funded by the government.


My point is that they are less likely to report on something the government doesn't want them to.

If they do such a good job, they can survive without government funds.



So we should trust people paid in part by the government to determine what to tell us?

There's a lot of crap on the internet, but it's not hard to find reputable news sites.

CR

If you are going to criticize the fact it "might' not report on government activities, you are on shaky ground. Since when did mainstream media at all report on government actions? Didn't we just just have a 15+ page thread about wikileaks? Oh hey guys, now that the Iraq War is unpopular, we will go ahead and report that all of the reports we have gotten show no WMD's.

They might be doing a good job because the government funds allow them to keep on essential journalists and staff for all you know.

Your argument isn't really an argument. "We should keep this one source of news around." "Nah, kill it's funding, why should I trust them?" It's not about trust, it's about maintaining sources of information. The fact that that they are government funded makes them inherently leaning towards impartial because no one wants to do a slop job of bashing one side or the other and having congressional repercussions on their funding. Saying, well they won't tell us about the government is the same as complaining that Fox News won't tell us about Murdoc's sex life. It is a given, in the meantime, coverage on every other topic besides government scandals are superb from both PBS and NPR.

You already admitted you can find stuff on the internet, go find your government scandals there.


EDIT: I guess the rule of free market economics is maintain choice except when you don't agree with how the other choices are operated.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So we can trust the gummint to sift for us?

I remain unmoved sir\

The government is doing zero sifting.


My point is that they are less likely to report on something the government doesn't want them to.

No they aren't. Is your only argument that the government funds them in part?


If they do such a good job, they can survive without government funds.

But they shouldn't need to, they should get more funds. There is absolutely no reason to want our news shows success to be determined by how well they sell themselves. Advertising agencies pulling funds and viewers changing the channel to something more sensationalist are both much bigger influences than congress potentially holding a publicly debated vote to remove a small part of npr's funding.




So we should trust people paid in part by the government to determine what to tell us?

There's a lot of crap on the internet, but it's not hard to find reputable news sites.

CR

You are in conspiracy theory territory here CR with this "paid in part by government" stuff. This is america not north korea.

[Strike For The South]

.
EDIT: I guess the rule of free market economics is maintain choice except when you don't agree with how the other choices are operated.

wut?

My money is going to fund it...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except this is kind of disconnected from reality. Jim Lehrer isn't a government shill, yet PBS is funded by the government.


PBS in reality:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkDtKNw2PAY

PBS in CR land:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs

[a completely inoffensive name]

wut?

My money is going to fund it...

A majority of their money come from private donors.

[Shaka_Khan]

I love NPR's
The Thistle and Shamrock -> http://www.thistleradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=572&Itemid=109
and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me -> http://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pull the funding. I love my local station, WNYC. They actually pay NPR, BBC, Marketplace, etc for the shows. Public radio can simply raise their rates to supplement the loss in grant money and local stations can do a longer money drive. NPR I find to be rather biased and I don't tend to enjoy their programs. I prefer the local NY commentary by Lehrer (amazing) and Lopate (very interesting). Marketplace is fantastic along with BBC world, of course. I love Al Jazeera and I hate Fox News, BTW.

[HoreTore]

I only eve listen to the government-funded radio stations, P1, P2 and P3.

I will never switch over to the private crap, none of that ad-funded nonsense for me!

[ICantSpellDawg]

WNYC is publicly funded. NPR is a fee based news service, don't let them fool you. They charge small stations to carry their programs. Maybe they don't have "profits", but that doesn't mean they arn't money hungry and that they don't compromise themselves.

Listen to everything as long as it doesn't sound overtly biased (ie; russia today, Fox news, MSNBC). MSNBC seems to be coming out of its insanity by producing Lawrence O'Donnell, supporting shows like "Morning Joe" and firing scumbags like Olberman. Read blogs, listen to local radio, watch real-ish tv news, go to newsites. When you rely on one source of information you will be brainwashed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

WNYC is publicly funded. NPR is a fee based news service, don't let them fool you. They charge small stations to carry their programs. Maybe they don't have "profits", but that doesn't mean they arn't money hungry and that they don't compromise themselves.

Listen to everything as long as it doesn't sound overtly biased (ie; russia today, Fox news, MSNBC). MSNBC seems to be coming out of its insanity by producing Lawrence O'Donnell, supporting shows like "Morning Joe" and firing scumbags like Olberman. Read blogs, listen to local radio, watch real-ish tv news, go to newsites. When you rely on one source of information you will be brainwashed.

What is bold isn't really a substantiated argument by any means and as such doesn't really justify pulling the funding away. From your ranting about MSNBC and Olbermann, it seems you are with the crowd that wants to pull public funding because you don't "agree" with it most of the time (although you try hard to not give this impression by going out of the way to say you love Al Jazeera and hate Fox News).

Again, I find it funny that people asking for funding to be pulled always talk about going out there and finding other sources on the internet and not letting yourself being brainwashed by one source of information, but why exactly does this justify attempting to reduce the overall numbers of sources to choose from?

[Husar]

How can anyone think a US radio station that is financed through ads is a good thing???

"IF YOU WANT THE BEST HARDWOOD FLOOR YOU CAN GET, CALL 0800-HARD-FLOOR, 0800-HARD-FLOOR, IF YOU CALL WITHIN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES YOU GET A BUMPER STICKER FOR FREE!!!"

I've listened to some 1.FM Smooth Jazz over the web lately and while the music quality can be discussed the ads are some of the most annoying things I've ever heard, at least in GTA IV they're funny...

[Beskar]

BBC is very good, it is one of the best stations I know of in the world, possibly is the best.

From great news reporting, to drama, documentaries, etc.

[miotas]

Yea kids these days are glued to that radio....

Actually, if you aren't too picky about what constitutes "radio", then that comment is quite accurate. The portability of the devices that play radio broadcasts in comparision to what you need to play television, and the fact that you can have it playing in the background of anything you are doing, means that everyone I know listens to far more radio than TV.