Haha just kidding
If you want to donate limited rescources to this crap you're an idoit
Printable View
Haha just kidding
If you want to donate limited rescources to this crap you're an idoit
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 itQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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
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 elsewhereQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Like education for instance
Maybe we could spend a nickel in education creating an educational radio program.
Yea kids these days are glued to that radio....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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
If NPR gets little money from the government, then it ought to be able to survive just fine without subsidies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
CR
-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.
Too risky, and the government ought to fund it anyway. It's a shame private donors have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Its not about the biases sweetieQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I am quoting you right here: High art and culture should be vanguarded, not politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
What did you mean by that bold part if not complaining about a bias? The fact they are covering politics at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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 informedQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It's state-funded media. How could you trust them to report truthfully on the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
because it's an archaic way of deceminating information that uses taxpayer money
As opposed to primarily ad funded :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
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.Quote:
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
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
So we can trust the gummint to sift for us?
I remain unmoved sir\
My point is that they are less likely to report on something the government doesn't want them to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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?Quote:
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.
There's a lot of crap on the internet, but it's not hard to find reputable news sites.
CR
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?
Except this is kind of disconnected from reality. Jim Lehrer isn't a government shill, yet PBS is funded by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.
The government is doing zero sifting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No they aren't. Is your only argument that the government funds them in part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
If they do such a good job, they can survive without government funds.
You are in conspiracy theory territory here CR with this "paid in part by government" stuff. This is america not north korea.Quote:
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
wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
My money is going to fund it...
PBS in reality:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkDtKNw2PAY
PBS in CR land:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs
A majority of their money come from private donors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I love NPR's
The Thistle and Shamrock -> http://www.thistleradio.com/index.ph...572&Itemid=109
and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me -> http://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/
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.
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!
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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?
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South