House votes to permanently ban NPR from receiving federal money
130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28659249]if you call constantly being on the edge of financial failure "surviving"
npr provides excellent reportage and, in doing so, provides an invaluable service to this country. Plus the amount of money the government gives to NPR is chump change, the republicans wanting to de-fund it is nothing other than petulant, childish politics justified by nothing except that dumb stunt that O'Keefe pulled[/QUOTE]
If it is so great on information then it shouldn't have a problem getting the funding it needs. I hardly see how this "great station" will have a hard time getting 25 million form 50 states, unless that is because it does not have a decent size listening base.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28659772]If it is so great on information then it shouldn't have a problem getting the funding it needs.[/QUOTE]
ahahahaha this is the opposite of true
and it's totally beside the damn point. public media is incredibly important to a country because it provides news and discourse from a perspective other than the one aligned with those with the financial means to broadcast their message themselves (which exists in direct contrast to your 'money = right to be heard' sentiment), and cutting it's funding won't provide any significant reduction in the debt (not even a blip). those are the two simple facts
Honestly, why should a news station, or any non-government media station get funding? They don't provide any social services, disaster relief, or anything else other than news and entertainment. Just because they're a good station doesn't mean they should be sucking the teat of the government.
NPR is always saying how they only get 2% of their budget from the government, so I don't see this hurting them much. However, I don't support this, as NPR is the only radio station I listen to, and it has great programs.
Especially Car Talk. Goddamn do I love me some Car Talk.
[QUOTE=Bllasae;28659731]There's NO way that it costs 20-25 million to operate it.[/QUOTE]
uh do you know what NPR actually is?
it's 90 radio stations
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28659793]ahahahaha this is the opposite of true
and it's totally beside the damn point. public media is incredibly important to a country, cutting it's funding won't provide any significant reduction in the debt (not even a blip).[/QUOTE]
How? If it has half decent stuff and educated people listen then they can tell others where they heard their information from. larger base of people tuning in + ads = revenue, how is that hard to follow?
Cutting 20 million a year can be used in things like food stamps, investing in students to go to college, free up something for nasa (lol maybe); We have to start somewhere or we will never cut this deficit
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28659846]Honestly, why should a news station, or any non-government media station get funding? They don't provide any social services, disaster relief, or anything else other than news and entertainment. Just because they're a good station doesn't mean they should be sucking the teat of the government.[/QUOTE]
i already posted why read the thread before you post
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28659900]i already posted why read the thread before you post[/QUOTE]
I already read that, still doesn't justify NPR being on the government hand-out roster.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28659895]How? If it has half decent stuff and educated people listen then they can tell others where they heard their information from. larger base of people tuning in + ads = revenue, how is that hard to follow?
[/QUOTE]
because NPR can't run on ads. as a public media network their subsidiary stations only air ads for local businesses which provide a small amount of revenue. If NPR had to run on ads, then they are at the mercy of the advertisers. It totally defeats the point of 'public radio'
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28659927]I already read that, still doesn't justify NPR being on the government hand-out roster.[/QUOTE]
i beg to differ, I believe public media is just as important as public roads and public schools, neither of which I see you complaining about
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;28659927]Cutting 20 million a year can be used in things like food stamps, investing in students to go to college, free up something for nasa (lol maybe); We have to start somewhere or we will never cut this deficit [/QUOTE]
how about we cut the bloated military budget instead? that would provide all the cuts we need. or any of the other massive money sinks next to whom the money allocated to npr is absolutely nothing (also you can't honestly believe the republicans want to get rid of NPR because they're trying to cut spending, it's partisan politics) i stand firm in my claim that public media is equally important as other public services like education
and besides, if NPR does get defunded, you think the republicans are actually going to spend in on education? lol no
[QUOTE=Bllasae;28659731]There's NO way that it costs 20-25 million to operate it.[/QUOTE]
Yes but of course, operating costs, equipment, webspace, reporters, broadcasters, announcers, writers, legal team, and so much more across 50 states does not cost more than a handful of dollars. You underestimate the extensive reach of NPR and the costs of that.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28659772]If it is so great on information then it shouldn't have a problem getting the funding it needs. I hardly see how this "great station" will have a hard time getting 25 million form 50 states, unless that is because it does not have a decent size listening base.[/QUOTE]
The problem is people don't donate. They listen in and simply ignore the fact that the station they enjoy is funded by their money. Everyone loves something free, and simply not paying for it is what people do.
It's a wrong state of mind to think this way but people do it anyway, and then when it's gone people will just complain about it for about 5 minutes and move on. Average society is very watered down.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28659939]i beg to differ, I believe public media is just as important as public roads and public schools, neither of which I see you complaining about[/QUOTE]
Public schools and infrastructure are controlled and owned by the government. NPR, an information service is not.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;28659962]
The problem is people don't donate. They listen in and simply ignore the fact that the station they enjoy is funded by their money. Everyone loves something free, and simply not paying for it is what people do.
It's a wrong state of mind to think this way but people do it anyway, and then when it's gone people will just complain about it for about 5 minutes and move on. Average society is very watered down.[/QUOTE]
I donate to a local organization to feed to homeless, and a cancer hospital. I don't enjoy the benefits directly of what I did, but I do it to help out.
So you care for something "strongly", but you won't put in any time/money for it? How can you justify its ability to be good?
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28659939]because NPR can't run on ads. as a public media network their subsidiary stations only air ads for local businesses which provide a small amount of revenue. If NPR had to run on ads, then they are at the mercy of the advertisers. It totally defeats the point of 'public radio'[/QUOTE]
Maybe they could take a stand to the corporations? Oh wait we wouldn't want to do that. with plan B why not just stream on the internet and make a phone app for like 1.99 to fund it, doing over the internet will provide a much cheaper cost, or go on XM/Sirus where you can pretty much say anything.
If that doesn't work I guess I will have to listen to the other 10 or so odd public radio/TV stations in my area...
[QUOTE=blacksam;28657075]Hell no. That is stupid. NPR is awesome! Radio Lab, This American Life, and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me are fantastic programs as opposed to stupid things like Glenn Beck or Shawn Hannity. Fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity aren't funded by the Government.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036]
If that doesn't work I guess I will have to listen to the other 10 or so odd public radio/TV stations in my area...[/QUOTE]
yeah uh those are all funded by NPR
in fact hardly any funding goes to NPR radio or PBS, most of it goes to the public stations in your area
[QUOTE=thisispain;28660108]yeah uh those are all funded by NPR
in fact hardly any funding goes to NPR radio or PBS, most of it goes to the public stations in your area[/QUOTE]
So I'll have to pick from, the internet, or msnbc, or abc news, or cbs, or cnn, or bbc, or.....
Whatever will I do!!!!!
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036]
Maybe they could take a stand to the corporations?[/QUOTE]
and run out of funding. game over
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036] Oh wait we wouldn't want to do that. with plan B why not just stream on the internet and make a phone app for like 1.99 to fund it,[/QUOTE]
they do stream their stuff and they do have apps. they already do these things. jesus
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036] doing over the internet will provide a much cheaper cost, or go on XM/Sirus where you can pretty much say anything.[/QUOTE]
they won't be able to reach as many people that way which sorta defies the public part
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036]If that doesn't work I guess I will have to listen to the other 10 or so odd public radio/TV stations in my area...[/QUOTE]
you do realize that, probably, many of those stations are npr subsidiaries right? NPR isn't a single station that's broadcast everywhere, it's a network
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660144]So I'll have to pick from, the internet, or msnbc, or abc news, or cbs, or cnn, or.....
Whatever will I do!!!!![/QUOTE]
public stations do a lot more than you think they do, they are invaluable to culture and events in your area
but no just say something sarcastic and add a couple of exclamation points that'll convince anyone!!!!!
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660144]So I'll have to pick from, the internet, or msnbc, or abc news, or cbs, or cnn, or bbc, or.....
Whatever will I do!!!!![/QUOTE]
none of which are public (except for the bbc which is based in a different country)
i don't see how hard this is to get
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
the point of NPR, what makes NPR so vital is the whole PUBLIC deal. privatizing it, turning it into a commercial venture by forcing it to run on ad revenue and iphone apps means it will cease to be a PUBLIC radio network.
I've said it before, but seriously, worst congress ever. It's just pointless little bills related to pushing Republicans' agenda. Wake the fuck up, America.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;28660077]Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity aren't funded by the Government.[/QUOTE]
I understand, but NPR which isn't privatized comes out a lot more flawless than the stuff Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity say in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;28660077]Glenn Beck and Shawn Hannity aren't funded by the Government.[/QUOTE]
They are funded by a giant media corporation known for reinforcing a conservative point of view in whatever media they touch.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
So your point is?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28660159]and run out of funding. game over[/QUOTE]
or find someone who will do just simple commercials from small businesses in the community, and support the community, oh wait all business are evil :mad:
[quote]they do stream their stuff and they do have apps. they already do these things. jesus[/quote]sounds like they need to look at their business structer and find out where all the wasted resources are going
[quote]they won't be able to reach as many people that way which sorta defies the public part[/quote]Seriously, public library's will gain you access to tune into a stream, yeah the XM does defete some of the purpose but who can't afford a xm radio?
[quote]you do realize that, probably, many of those stations are npr subsidiaries right? NPR isn't a single station that's broadcast everywhere, it's a network[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and hopefully most of those will stop as very few people actually tune in
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660036]I donate to a local organization to feed to homeless, and a cancer hospital. I don't enjoy the benefits directly of what I did, but I do it to help out.
So you care for something "strongly", but you won't put in any time/money for it? How can you justify its ability to be good?[/QUOTE]
I know. My family contributes to NPR, but I'm saying a vast majority don't because they don't see a reason why they specifically should donate. It's them saying, well it's free for me someone else will donate.
It's completely the wrong mindset, but people don't learn to change overnight.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28660176]none of which are public (except for the bbc which is based in a different country)
i don't see how hard this is to get
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
the point of NPR, what makes NPR so vital is the whole PUBLIC deal. privatizing it, turning it into a commercial venture by forcing it to run on ad revenue and iphone apps means it will cease to be a PUBLIC radio network.[/QUOTE]
Who doesn't have public access to the internet, you can go to a [B]public library[/B] and access information taken directly from those in the new zones.
And you can access alot of those on the radio/newspaper(hell day old paper is free in some places)/or library which includes newspaper and internet.
And if it is "an asset worth having publicly" how come people won't donate their time and money into it willingly? How can you justify it?
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660730]And if it is "an asset worth having publicly" how come people won't donate their time and money into it willingly? How can you justify it?[/QUOTE]
You can use this argument against pretty much any government institution. If the police suddenly had to run off donations, they wouldn't get enough to function.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28660174]public stations do a lot more than you think they do, they are invaluable to culture and events in your area
but no just say something sarcastic and add a couple of exclamation points that'll convince anyone!!!!![/QUOTE]
Couldn't they get funding from these "invaluable" cultures and events?
Let's break it down, into dollars
Assume they need 25million to survive(or recover from the government fund absence), there are 50 states.
Assuming each state needs to donate 500,000 to break even 500,000 x 50 = 25million
Let's say each state has 100(this is probably a low number) branches that take NPR funding $500,000/100 = 5,000 is needed from each branch a year, to recover from the deficit.
[B]5,000 /365 = ~14 dollars a day[/B]
and as long as they are "non profit" they will be fine, I don't see how they can't do this on their own, seriously if they hold one "invaluable event" a week and raise 100 dollars they will have a surplus(+2 dollars)!
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;28660854]You can use this argument against pretty much any government institution. If the police suddenly had to run off donations, they wouldn't get enough to function.[/QUOTE]
They could jack up fines, tickets, and repo property, but most of all how can they enforce laws without direct consent from the legislative and judicial branches? They would become a lot of guys with guns and not government power, they would need to be government employees, NPR doesn't need authoritative power from the government.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660663] oh wait all business are evil :mad:[/QUOTE]
don't post dumb crap like this. no one in this thread has said anything like this and you're adding nothing to the discussion
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660663] sounds like they need to look at their business structer and find out where all the wasted resources are going[/QUOTE]
maybe they're not wasting it? maybe iphone apps aren't able to financially support a national news agency?
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660663]Seriously, public library's will gain you access to tune into a stream, yeah the XM does defete some of the purpose but who can't afford a xm radio?[/QUOTE]
uhh people who have to get by on a budget of just a few hundred a month
you know, all those poor people (who aren't genuinely represented anywhere except in public radio)
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660663]Yeah, and hopefully most of those will stop as very few people actually tune in[/QUOTE]
don't say 'yeah' because you obviously didn't know that
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660864]
They could jack up fines, tickets, and repo property, but most of all how can they enforce laws without direct consent from the legislative and judicial branches? They would become a lot of guys with guns and not government power, they would need to be government employees, NPR doesn't need authoritative power from the government.[/QUOTE]
uhh you clearly still don't have any clue what 'public' means. being public means they have to be held to certain standards of fairness and accuracy, you made this silly post:
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660144]So I'll have to pick from, the internet, or msnbc, or abc news, or cbs, or cnn, or bbc, or.....
Whatever will I do!!!!![/QUOTE]
but you apparently failed to realized that (with the exception of the BBC [also public]) all of the networks you listed are godawful because, like fox news, they are under no obligation to be truthful
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660864]Couldn't they get funding from these "invaluable" cultures and events?
Let's break it down, into dollars
Assume they need 25million to survive(or recover from the government fund absence), there are 50 states.
Assuming each state needs to donate 500,000 to break even 500,000 x 50 = 25million
Let's say each state has 100(this is probably a low number) branches that take NPR funding $500,000/100 = 5,000 is needed from each branch a year, to recover from the deficit.
[B]5,000 /365 = ~14 dollars a day[/B][/QUOTE]
oh well if the number is small when it's highly extrapolated then that means that the sum of money is nothing at all!
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661067]don't post dumb crap like this. no one in this thread has said anything like this and you're adding nothing to the discussion[/quote]
yeah and don't address my first point... you are saying that the businesses would make the producers advocate what they want, what if they did local advertising to people in the community who are just happy to get cheap ads? You make it sound like anyone who will fund them will forcefully make them advocate their likes and views.
[quote]maybe they're not wasting it? maybe iphone apps aren't able to financially support a national news agency?[/quote]
It won't but it is a start
[quote]uhh people who have to get by on a budget of just a few hundred a month
you know, all those poor people (who aren't genuinely represented anywhere except in public radio)[/quote]
[B]public library[/B] you can stream it from there, the ads on the bottom of your screen will pay for it.
ADs on the edge of the road, craigslist, the trading post( 35c a day), Classified newpaper ads, should I continue?
[quote]don't say 'yeah' because you obviously didn't know that[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let's assume something because you didn't address the point in a formal manner, you don't know anything. Hooray goodwin's law!
And my opinion stays the same on all these hypocritical "libertarian" tea party faggots who claim to want to fix the economy and actually balance the budget but end up just doing the same thing the republicans have been doing for years, shitting on everything the democratic party is involved with while keeping the government nice and corrupt and in debt. Not that I disagree with funding cuts to NPR, they just need to be dealing with more important shit like I don't know, cutting military spending?
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661186]yeah and don't address my first point... you are saying that the businesses would make the producers advocate what they want, what if they did local advertising to people in the community who are just happy to get cheap ads? You make it sound like anyone who will fund them will forcefully make them advocate their likes and views. [/QUOTE]
because it's still not public if it's a commercial venture good lord. regardless of who it's advertisers are, it being a commercial venture comes with financial implications about what programming it chooses to air. if it is a commercial venture then certain programs are going to be more financially sound than others (wholly apart from their actual content), and when that happens it stops being truly representative of the people and their interests and more representative of what is perceived to be marketable
like seriously my head is shaking all jacobs ladder style at how you continue to ignore the 'public' part of the equation it's freaking me out man
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.