Save NPR!

[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.

[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

[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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

As opposed to primarily ad funded

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.

[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

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

[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.

[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...

[a completely inoffensive name]

wut?

My money is going to fund it...

A majority of their money come from private donors.

[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

[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.

[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?