• House votes to permanently ban NPR from receiving federal money
    130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28661237]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] We need to think seriously right now about how much we should cut, we just sent a good number of aircraft carriers to japan to help with the earthquake, to Lybia/mideast to make sure people who support democracy don't get wiped off some soldiers boot. While I think an army is only good for killing people and breaking things, the funds are helping people. We do need to cut the monstrosity of it, but we still need it to be enough to help out in the delicate time.
Republicans don't really give a fuck about the deficit, their only priority is to destroy anything that helps Democrats in order to preserve their own grasp on power.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661312]We need to think seriously right now about how much we should cut, we just sent a good number of aircraft carriers to japan to help with the earthquake, to Lybia/mideast to make sure people who support democracy don't get wiped off some soldiers boot. While I think an army is only good for killing people and breaking things, the funds are helping people. We do need to cut the monstrosity of it, but we still need it to be enough to help out in the delicate time.[/QUOTE] uh if your argument is 'we need a big military because they can help out in humanitarian situations', you should know that vast amounts of money are still spent on things that are entirely useless in any humanitarian context like submarines modified to be able to deploy troops via torpedo chambers and fighter jets whose stealth-skin peels off in inclement weather and costs thousands of dollars to replace (a single one of which costing more than quintuple the amount of funds allocated to NPR annually)
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661296]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[/QUOTE] Yes I understand that they now aren't getting a sack of cash and being told to do whatever they want with it, they now have to earn it, but that shouldn't change the information that this producing, only how they get funding. Oh no it now comes out of the pockets of people who want this(which it would anyways through taxation), and stops taxing the people who don't use the services NPR gives. Seriously one way or another the people are paying for it I guess you forgot about the taxation part.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661412]If it is still freely available to the public [/QUOTE] no, 'available to the public' isn't what 'public' means in this context. It means that since they are free of financial concerns (because they are publicly funded) then they are able to present stories not based on how well they'll sell but how effective and truthful they feel the journalism is. it's like that cliched tv show trope where a kid writing for the school paper or something is pressured to change is story to be more exciting so they move more papers. Since (being publicly funded) Public Radio does not have financial motivation behind their journalism, they are much more apt at providing quality reportage (with quality reporting of the news being as vital to a functioning society as roads and schools)
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661442]lol yeah advertising revenue is earned by quality reporting and not shallow populist crap, holographic election centers, and screaming talking heads[/QUOTE] Do local advertising and decentralize the business a little, make it be more local where commercials are handed by good honest working Americans stating a simple message. have surplus taken from the local sites to fund a Home Office of information. Also please see point #2
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;28657164]If NPR is so great how come it needs federal funding?[/QUOTE] because it's a public station with no advertising on it
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661412]If it is still freely available to the public how is it more wrong then taking money from the government. Yes I understand that they now aren't getting a sack of cash and being told to do whatever they want with it, they now have to earn it, but that shouldn't change the information that this producing, only how they get funding.[/QUOTE] no but 'earning money' is contrary to the point of reporting, see above (also quoted below) post [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661468]Do local advertising and decentralize the business a little, make it be more local where commercials are handed by good honest working Americans stating a simple message. have surplus taken from the local sites to fund a Home Office of information. Also please see point #2[/QUOTE] because "good honest working americans stating a simple message' isn't anything you can actually make rules based on. that's not a solid, easily defined descriptor read this post: [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661442]no, 'available to the public' isn't what 'public' means in this context. It means that since they are free of financial concerns (because they are publicly funded) then they are able to present stories not based on how well they'll sell but how effective and truthful they feel the journalism is. it's like that cliched tv show trope where a kid writing for the school paper or something is pressured to change is story to be more exciting so they move more papers. Since (being publicly funded) Public Radio does not have financial motivation behind their journalism, they are much more apt at providing quality reportage (with quality reporting of the news being as vital to a functioning society as roads and schools)[/QUOTE] being free from financial concerns means they are good at reporting in a way that the vast majority of private news organizations aren't. the issue isn't the advertisers manipulating them, the issue is the need to make money manipulating what they air and what they don't air. it is inevitable, which is why they must be public (not 'available to the public', but 'publicly owned')
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661528]no but 'earning money' is contrary to the point of reporting, see above post[/QUOTE] Earning money while staying non profit, all earning should go directly to things that help get news. I mean they are non profit right? Besides the money would just come out of taxes. Now it is just taken from those actually using the service, so they still end up paying for the services, and now all the tax money can go to more useful things like health care. I don't see how it would be expensive over nominal fees of under 10 bux, which you would get taxed for anyways.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661592]Earning money while staying non profit, all earning should go directly to things that help get news. I mean they are non profit right?[/QUOTE] it's the need to earn money that causes the problems. fox news needs to earn money so they don't air stories about poor rural farmers being oppressed by old zoning laws, or about some piece or corporate regulation being considered in the house, or stories about the political climate in somalia because stories about poor rural farmers or dry legislation or somalia don't attract viewers (and therefore ad revenue), no matter how important said story may be. since NPR is publicly funded they get to worry about the stories that matter rather than the stories that sell i can't state it any clearer than this
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661528] because "good honest working americans stating a simple message' isn't anything you can actually make rules based on. that's not a solid, easily defined descriptor[/QUOTE] Make it by region but a max number of regions a business can advertise. Not hard, completely legal. [quote]read this post: being free from financial concerns means they are good at reporting in a way that the vast majority of private news organizations aren't. the issue isn't the advertisers manipulating them, the issue is the need to make money manipulating what they air and what they don't air. it is inevitable, which is why they must be public (not 'available to the public', but 'publicly owned')[/quote] " in a way that the vast majority of private news organizations aren't" So you are stating that there are private businesses that do an decent job at? So why would this automatically fall in the majority and not look to what the minority is doing to stay as good reporters? Greedy people do that not money, "[B]Money[/B] is any object or record, that is generally accepted as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment"]payment[/URL] for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services"]goods and services" [/URL] If the people are greedy/corrupt in the agency you have more to worry about then where you will get funds from [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661667]it's the need to earn money that causes the problems. fox news needs to earn money so they don't air stories about poor rural farmers being oppressed by old zoning laws, or about some piece or corporate regulation being considered in the house, or stories about the political climate in somalia because stories about poor rural farmers or dry legislation or somalia don't attract viewers (and therefore ad revenue), no matter how important said story may be. since NPR is publicly funded they get to worry about the stories that matter rather than the stories that sell i can't state it any clearer than this[/QUOTE] But if they are a necessity to the USA, then why would they have to worry? Shouldn't nominal fees be enough? Shouldn't they be able to get donations by telethons or the way sites like Wikileaks, Wikipedia does? people get information from them and donate, and somehow wikipedia raises an absurd amount of money every year, why can't NPR do the same? If people aren't willing to fund it why should we tell them they have to via taxation?
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661688]Make it by region but a max number of regions a business can advertise. Not hard, completely legal.[/QUOTE] you're missing the point [QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28661688]" in a way that the vast majority of private news organizations aren't" So you are stating that there are private businesses that do an decent job at? So why would this automatically fall in the majority and not look to what the minority is doing to stay as good reporters? [/QUOTE] none of the major news outlets provide quality reporting. small ones are able to get by because they have small audiences and low costs. The only reason something as big as NPR has remained as good as it is is because it is publicly funded i've done all i can. if you still think that, in order to save a minuscule amount of money (one that will have no impact on the deficit whatsoever), we should destroy (yes, destroy, I've given you all the reasoning to show you that removing public funding would destroy them) the best source of quality journalism in the united states, then there's no hope. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] i mean if you don't think good journalism is something that, like roads and schools, we should invest in, then i dunno what to say to you
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28661799]you're missing the point none of the major news outlets provide quality reporting. small ones are able to get by because they have small audiences and low costs. The only reason something as big as NPR has remained as good as it is is because it is publicly funded i've done all i can. if you still think that, in order to save a minuscule amount of money (one that will have no impact on the deficit whatsoever), we should destroy (yes, destroy, I've given you all the reasoning to show you that removing public funding would destroy them) the best source of quality journalism in the united states, then there's no hope. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] i mean if you don't think good journalism is something that, like roads and schools, we should invest in, then i dunno what to say to you[/QUOTE] So you don't trust the integrity of NPR to be privatized and do good reporting, good community efforts, and so on? Seems pretty shallow. And no you can't prove it will destroy it those are only your opinions, who knows you might be right, I might be right, but I honestly don't see why if can't collect nominal fees from consumers of the agency to fund it in a non profit manner and still maintain a good focus.
it doesn't matter. NPR provides an invaluable service to this country, just as positive as public schools and transportation, and you'd risk fucking it up over a tiny, trivial amount of money. it doesn't matter that they might, if the stars align, be able to survive privately. What matters is, out of all of the things the government could spend money on, making sure the citizens have access to quality journalism is near the top of the list. there are a million bigger wastes of money you could be complaining about but you've chosen this for god knows why
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28662045]it doesn't matter. NPR provides an invaluable service to this country, just as positive as public schools and transportation, and you'd risk fucking it up over a tiny, trivial amount of money. it doesn't matter that they might, if the stars align, be able to survive privately. What matters is, out of all of the things the government could spend money on, making sure the citizens have access to quality journalism is near the top of the list. there are a million bigger wastes of money you could be complaining about but you've chosen this for god knows why[/QUOTE] Why not make news stories and sell them to cnn/msnbc/ect . 20 million/yr can go to help needy people out of work in these tough times, help funding for medicare. News you can get from anywhere on the internet food to feed the hungry is another matter. I doubt this is just as positive as public roads or schools, (which 99% of people in the us use), NPR well not everyone uses it. I am sure the democrats will repeal this once they regain majority anyways. "you've chosen this for god knows why" I get like 200/wk taken out of my check for stuff like this, that is why I think my takes should go to something to better than something private corporations are doing just fine.
No matter what you say, NPR is still biased a great amount and shouldn't receive public funding.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28662099]I get like 200/wk taken out of my check for stuff like this, that is why I think my takes should go to something to better than something private corporations are doing just fine.[/QUOTE] If you want to complain about something that doesn't help you in any way shape or form why don't you complain about the massive defense budget? [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ca5bah;28662189]No matter what you say, NPR is still biased a great amount and shouldn't receive public funding.[/QUOTE] No it isn't.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28662219]If you want to complain about something that doesn't help you in any way shape or form why don't you complain about the massive defense budget? [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] No it isn't.[/QUOTE] [quote][QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28661237]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] We need to think seriously right now about how much we should cut, we just sent a good number of aircraft carriers to japan to help with the earthquake, to Lybia/mideast to make sure people who support democracy don't get wiped off some soldiers boot. While I think an army is only good for killing people and breaking things, the funds are helping people. We do need to cut the monstrosity of it, but we still need it to be enough to help out in the delicate time.[/quote] I did, thanks for reading
I believe that sort of stuff is foreign aid, not part of the defense budget.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28662278]I believe that sort of stuff is foreign aid, not part of the defense budget.[/QUOTE] Really I believe our aircraft carriers are off lyba's coast, but we do use the aircraft carriers and such as a way to transport aid.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660864]Couldn't they get funding from these "invaluable" cultures and events? [/QUOTE] uh how
[QUOTE=thisispain;28662577]uh how[/QUOTE] Donation bin
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28662749]Donation bin[/QUOTE] i'm not quite sure how an announcement about a local band playing a show can translate into revenue
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28662749]Donation bin[/QUOTE] Tons of people don't donate to charity what the hell makes you think they're going to donate to NPR which they probably don't even listen to?
[QUOTE=RBM11;28662990]Tons of people don't donate to charity what the hell makes you think they're going to donate to NPR which they probably don't even listen to?[/QUOTE] then why fund it, if no one listens
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28663150]then why fund it, if no one listens[/QUOTE] Except people do listen. In a recent poll commissioned by PBS but done by a 3rd party, 70% of respondents said they didn't support defunding the CPB.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;28663369]Except people do listen. In a recent poll commissioned by PBS but done by a 3rd party, 70% of respondents said they didn't support defunding the CPB.[/QUOTE] oh good so that 70% can fund it
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28663439]oh good so that 70% can fund it[/QUOTE] That's a horrible argument. Would you say that only the 50% of people who support the war in Iraq should fund it?
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;28657164]If NPR is so great how come it needs federal funding?[/QUOTE] If the navy seals are so great, then why do they need federal funding?
[quote=johnedwards;28663150]then why fund it, if no one listens[/quote] circular logic
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.