Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

NPR and PBS and a host of public programming may go the way of the dodo!


12 replies to this topic

#1
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
NPR CEO Forced Out; Funding In Danger

Source: New American

Though National Public Radio’s CEO Vivian Schiller technically resigned from the leftist network after video recordings surfaced of another NPR executive calling Tea Party members racists, she did so under pressure from NPR’s board of directors. In other words, it was resign or be fired.

The Associated Press reports that the board of directors pushed Schiller out the door, and not just because her subordinate, Ron Schiller (no relation), NPR’s foundation president and vice president for development, vilified a major political movement. Vivian Schiller was still in hot water for cashiering liberal Juan Williams, who told Fox News talker Bill O’Reilly that Muslims on airplanes make him nervous.


I listen to NPR quite a bit. I love my PBS in four digital stations because there's always opportunity to see or learn something. Without NPR I would not get my balanced news and Car Talk or Garrison Keillor. They've been with me since childhood all my favorites like Sesame Street and Zoom Zoom and Mr. Rodgers. However, it looks like funding could go with Republicans. It's been said that there is money to help pay for programmiing in the public sector, but let me tell ya, even though people listen to Morning Edition and Diane Rehm, they are no Rush Limbaugh and his show is paid for by advertising.

So, what opinions do you guys have.

#2
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Moderators
  • 19,360 posts
I don't think the news portions should receive any government funding, but there is a place for public broadcasting of arts, entertainment, education, etc..

#3
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
I heard a valid point though yesterday. As people who live in big cities we have access to all manner of news and programing by phone, computer and radio. What about those that live in rural areas that don't have that access and are not close enough to get news events other than by newspaper? There are still parts of America that are dial-up only and they should be able to get news and information from their own state via the NPR station. I like to think that it's just a nice thing to do.

#4
Guest_Letsgo_7_7_*

Guest_Letsgo_7_7_*
  • Guests
Now let's not go crying about the sky falling just yet.

NPR receives a relatively small amount of their overall budget from CPB (which allocates the federal grants); I'm looking up the exact number now, but from what I recall, it's surprisingly small (like around 5%). Some local stations receive more money from CPB, but I think even the highest numbers are usually around 17-18%. NPR will still exist, even in a world in which Republicans are successful in cutting spending (which I don't even think they will be). Whether small local affiliates will is another question- it largely depends on how much they get from CPB and how critical that amount is.

#5
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
Although Tami might come in and say differently, NPR is a fraction of the cost of PBS because it costs more to produce programming for television. However, there are state reporters that work for specific radio stations to develop stories in some areas that this could affect.

I have heard other rebuttals to this such as government would need to cut out ten times what it costs to fund CPS just to make a dent in deficit. There are people claiming Republicans have an axe to grind against the Liberal CPS. heh. I've been listening to a lot of people who are railing against the bias of NPR as liberal and I think, "Really? You can't see the bias in other stations?" Why not cut hand out programs that are useless like welfare? That would make a far huger dent in the deficit. Not to mention the last time CPS was under fire to be cut was during the Clinton administration.

#6
Guest_Letsgo_7_7_*

Guest_Letsgo_7_7_*
  • Guests
I think I ultimately arrive at the same point Pong made.

There is definitely a place for some type of public broadcasting. However, what constitutes public broadcasting and a true public good is something that is up to debate, as it is a wide spectrum. On one end is the type of public services that I don't think anyone would be opposed to, such as the Emergency Broadcast System. This is "news" in the truest sense- as in, some bad sh-t is about to go down imminently. That sorta information is not generally subjective and I would consider critical to public safety and defense, so those services are in. Additionally, without a government effort, there would likely be no one to fund an Emergency Broadcast System, so I consider it a true public good- i.e. a good society requires but that the private sector likely wouldn't invest in. Then on the other end of the spectrum, we have public funding of the arts and such. Somwhere in between we have news/commentary services like NPR, PBS, the National Weather Service, and so on.

In ranking public services from "most" to "least" important, at first glance, I'd probably go the Emergency Broadcast System first, then other services that are related to national public safety next, such as the National Weather Service, the FAA, and what not. Next would come news/commentary (such as NPR) and finally, arts funding.

However, a wrinkle emerges, because news/commentary is inevitably subjective. People always talk about the "golden age of journalism," which is curious, since that's never existed. Yellow journalism has been around since the advent of the printing press. So the question arises whether the government should be funding something that would inevitably result in subjective viewpoints; i.e. it states that government is taking a position, even if unintentionally, on issues. This is in contrast to, as mentioned, the Emergency Broadcast System, which really isn't subjective, and is a true public good. But is news a public good? 30 years ago before the advent of cable news networks, I'd be more inclined to say yes. But in this day and age, and especially with the internet, your basic news and commentary services are provided, and amply so, by the private sector. We then get to certain arts funding, which perhaps somewhat oddly, do not bother me as much, because I see them more as public goods that wouldn't necessarily be funded without grants. I generally agree with the late and great Nelson Rockefeller here (and one of the greatest Republicans of all time, imo), who generously and vigorously funded projects like the Museum of Modern Art, etc.

So ultimately, I fall sorta into the same place as Pong. Funding for arts doesn't bother me so much; news more so. Now I have nothing against NPR per se. It is liberal biased, but a lot of the programming is of high quality too. I don't listen to it often, but that's more because I receive my daily news from the Wall Street Journal and CNBC; especially since I follow market news closely. I like to stay away from receiving "news" from other cable networks, but I do watch them for entertainment... whether it be O'Reilly cutting off people with his ridiculous points, or Maddow preaching to the choir- sorta like last night when she had Michael Moore on, who went on a 15 min rant about class war (lol). As a side note, it's funny how much criticism Fox gets from the left.. when it's a funny propoganda machine sure, but the true mouthpiece of the 1% isn't Fox, it's CNBC, which is vastly more influential.

#7
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
I am one of those wacky liberal conservatives and think that NPR in my area will survive as we have enough hip people that front up money during drives. I just think of all those poor North Dakotans who can't get anything more than dial up and rabbit ears. They're so out of the loop. So one way or another my public free teevee will survive. I just think that it's wrong to take this tact.

Also, credability has been lost now because of recent flack. We know with Rush or Coulter or O'Reilly that we'll get rhetoric, but the break down of the Schillers has been bad for Public Broadcasting.

#8
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 7,302 posts
I don't think NPR or PBS will go away. They may end up having budget issues if the federal government stops funding them, true, but you have to remember a lot of the funding they get is also from corporate sponsors and donors.

I like to watch PBS (mostly for documentaries), and listen to NPR once in a blue moon, but being objective about it, there is a lot of crap that is on both NPR and PBS that 99% of the population could care less about, which would never see the light of day but for federal government funding.

I don't know that it is the federal government's responsibility to ensure PBS or NPR are funded, and if they were to simply open up air time for advertisements\commercials, they may just be able to make do without federal funding.

I don't think the news portions should receive any government funding, but there is a place for public broadcasting of arts, entertainment, education, etc..


I agree with you on news portions, but I like Frontline and similar documentaries. I also agree on fine arts, humanities, and education, less so on the pure entertainment side.

Edited by El Chalupacabra, 17 March 2011 - 10:59 AM.


#9
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
And it's official. NO government money can be used to purchase programing for radio stations and television stations. They must support themselves. I see commercials in the future for PBS. Nothing but Mexican Radio on the border and white noise in the plains states. I am sad. This really is a sucky year for voters. So, we will keep subsidizing welfare and to hell with being smarter than the average tea party person. (I am not rationally thinking this through but I am mad right now.) I have never thought of NPR as liberal.

#10
The Chairman

The Chairman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,318 posts

And it's official. NO government money can be used to purchase programing for radio stations and television stations.

It has not passed the Senate, nor is it likely to. Furthermore, the Obama administration opposes the bill, so even if it squeaks through the Senate, a veto is probable. NPR is safe for now.

#11
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
Thank you so much, chairman! I needed to go back down to the ground. I just feel really strongly about this topic. I've lived out in west texas and parts of southern arizona and there is NOTHING to listen to on the radio out in those areas.

#12
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Moderators
  • 19,360 posts
NPR is going off the air tomorrow, Spam.

#13
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Members
  • 16,285 posts
I should kick you in your softspots for saying that PONG!



Reply to this topic