House votes to permanently ban NPR from receiving federal money
130 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28660663]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:
sounds like they need to look at their business structer and find out where all the wasted resources are going
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?
Yeah, and hopefully most of those will stop as very few people actually tune in[/QUOTE]
it's actually funny how fucking wrong you are.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
about everything. In almost all of your posts. Just abysmally wrong.
[QUOTE=HeadshotDCS;28663736]If the navy seals are so great, then why do they need federal funding?[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot if you think that. You have the default Justin Bieber avatar. Your posts are meaningless.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[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]
PBS is inherently biased on this matter because they also receive government funding.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28660412]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]
Ditto for NBC, but liberal.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28664093]You're an idiot if you think that. You have the default Justin Bieber avatar. Your posts are meaningless.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
PBS is inherently biased on this matter because they also receive government funding.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
Ditto for NBC, but liberal.[/QUOTE]
so even if they get a study done it's tainted? Fuck you. You are a fucking ass. You would NEVER hold the republican party to those standards.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28662294]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]
No news sources say any carriers off of Libya. In fact, no US warships of any kind. Hell, the British sent 3 destroyers to rescue their people in Libya, and the US chartered a freaking boat.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28664093]Ditto for NBC, but liberal.[/QUOTE]
uh okay I don't know what that has to do with npr
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28664130]so even if they get a study done it's tainted? Fuck you. You are a fucking ass. You would NEVER hold the republican party to those standards.[/QUOTE]
I've said on many occasions I dislike the Republican Party. But PBS is under the same harsh light as NPR right now, and it is in their best interests to say that people like the government funding them.
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28664151]uh okay I don't know what that has to do with npr[/QUOTE]
You brought up Fox.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28664093]PBS is inherently biased on this matter because they also receive government funding.[/QUOTE]
Sesame Street is so darn biased I just can't stand it ungh unfh
[editline]17th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;28664155]You brought up Fox.[/QUOTE]
Nah that was Boba Fett
[QUOTE=Habsburg;28664171]Nah that was Boba Fett[/QUOTE]
My bad, then.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;28658619]As he often does, Anthony Weiner says it best:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy7jcvsLrHg[/media][/QUOTE]Holy shit, I just spent over an hour watching videos of this guy.
Weiner for King of Everything 2012
[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]
I have to go back to this, your argument here is that NPR should be funded federally because the great part about it is that it's funded federally?
What...
[QUOTE=s0beit;28666513]I have to go back to this, your argument here is that NPR should be funded federally because the great part about it is that it's funded federally?
What...[/QUOTE]
no, by reading and using yr. thought muscles on what you've read you'd see that my argument is that NPR should be federally funded because public media is damn important to our country and w/out it the state of discourse in this country would be much worse off
c'mon bro!
Cut.
Military.
Spending.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28664093]PBS is inherently biased on this matter because they also receive government funding.
[/QUOTE]
How is them getting a study done by a 3rd party biased?
I think the reason they themselves didn't do the survey is to avoid accusations of bias.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;28668567]How is them getting a study done by a 3rd party biased?
I think the reason they themselves didn't do the survey is to avoid accusations of bias.[/QUOTE]
"But it's in their best interest to get the study done!" :downs:
NPR deserves funding. Other than the bbc, there is no reliable source of news about anything happening outside my state available to me. Local news is somewhat reliable, since it is watching during the wake up hour and focuses on weather, traffic, and accidents.
There are other, far better things that could be targeted to reduce spending in a much more effective manner.
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;28663439]oh good so that 70% can fund it[/QUOTE]
You ignored this last time I posted it so I'm going to post it again.
If Congress voted to defund local police departments, and they had to run on donations, they would never in a million years receive enough donations to function. By your reasoning that means we shouldn't have police. Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed.
NPR is the only thing that I listen to on the radio. :ohdear:
[editline]18th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;28670017]You ignored this last time I posted it so I'm going to post it again.
If Congress voted to defund local police departments, and they had to run on donations, they would never in a million years receive enough donations to function. By your reasoning that means we shouldn't have police. Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed.[/QUOTE]
He's an idiot, don't mind him.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28667932]no, by reading and using yr. thought muscles on what you've read you'd see that my argument is that NPR should be federally funded because public media is damn important to our country and w/out it the state of discourse in this country would be much worse off
c'mon bro![/QUOTE]
You still didn't really make any points.
[QUOTE=TH89;28670017]You ignored this last time I posted it so I'm going to post it again.
If Congress voted to defund local police departments, and they had to run on donations, they would never in a million years receive enough donations to function. By your reasoning that means we shouldn't have police. Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to point this out, but radio stations aren't anything like police departments and your reasoning is flawed because by your reasoning we should fund everything with government money.
Republicans fuck up. It's the republicans fault
Democrats fuck up. It's the republicans fault
Both sides fuck up. It's those god damn republicans again.
Prismatex the point is it's not always the republicans fault. In this particular subject the blame does belong to the republican party however :v:
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671332]Sorry to point this out, but radio stations aren't anything like police departments and your reasoning is flawed because by your reasoning we should fund everything with government money.[/QUOTE]
No, but they are a public service, just like police departments.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;28671383]No, but they are a public service, just like police departments.[/QUOTE]
Except according to most people police departments can't be (or wouldn't be) funded by third parties, so the government pays for it. Police departments also benefit everyone in the community. NPR isn't in that position.
I'm not arguing that you couldn't cut funding in more effective places, you could.
I'm not arguing NPR is biased, i don't know enough about them to make that claim.
I'm arguing that since NPR is a media outlet it should have to compete with others, but not just NPR (which is why i find this particular legislation stupid anyway, it's an all-or-nothing issue, either have public media or don't, there really isn't any reason to pick on NPR in particular)
Fact is people pay for this, tax payers, who obviously don't utilize it or just hate it. If you like it so much then support it, if it can't stand on it's own then there isn't enough people benefiting to make your argument valid.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671332]Sorry to point this out, but radio stations aren't anything like police departments and your reasoning is flawed because by your reasoning we should fund everything with government money.[/QUOTE]
I'm not making a claim regarding NPR one way or another. I'm pointing out that his argument is fallacious.
[QUOTE=TH89;28671546]I'm not making a claim regarding NPR one way or another. I'm pointing out that his argument is fallacious.[/QUOTE]
Well a false dichotomy backed by faulty logic probably isn't the best way to go about that.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671564]Well a false dichotomy backed by faulty logic probably isn't the best way to go about that.[/QUOTE]
What is faulty about the logic? All I did was point out that "if something can't run on voluntary donations it shouldn't be funded by the government" doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
[QUOTE=TH89;28670017]If Congress voted to defund local police departments, and they had to run on donations, they would never in a million years receive enough donations to function. By your reasoning that means we shouldn't have police. Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed.[/QUOTE]
1. Police departments aren't funded in whole by congress
2. You have no way of knowing that they couldn't function on donations, although a fair assumption
3. "By your reasoning that means we shouldn't have police", how is this not faulty logic exactly? He never said that and the police serve a specific function in society which is to protect our rights from people who would take them away (criminals). NPR just does what [i]a lot of other places do[/i], actually [b]could[/b] function on a donation or non-profit model outside of the scope of government (if people find them valuable, anyway), only assist those that actually listen to NPR and the comparison between the two is downright ridiculous, i could point out the flaws for miles.
4. False dichotomy
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671722]2. You have no way of knowing that they couldn't function on donations, although a fair assumption[/QUOTE]
I know it the same way I know that America would win a war with Kenya: common sense and a modicum of knowledge about real life.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671722]NPR just does what [i]a lot of other places do[/i], actually [b]could[/b] function on a donation or non-profit model outside of the scope of government[/QUOTE]
No, it couldn't. If you had any familiarity at all with radio you would know this.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671722](if people find them valuable, anyway)[/QUOTE]
You're making the same fallacious argument he is. Not receiving donations does not make something inherently worthless (I used the police as an example, but it could have been public schools or libraries or roads or pretty much any government function you care to name. All of them are crucial parts of this nation and none of them could subsist on donations).
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671722]only assist those that actually listen to NPR[/QUOTE]
Just like public schools only assist those who go to public schools, and unemployment benefits only assist the unemployed. Sorry the United States isn't the Randian utopia you want it to be.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671722]4. False dichotomy[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/media]
[QUOTE=s0beit;28671448]I'm arguing that since NPR is a media outlet it should have to compete with others, but not just NPR (which is why i find this particular legislation stupid anyway, it's an all-or-nothing issue, either have public media or don't, there really isn't any reason to pick on NPR in particular)[/QUOTE]
The issue is that it would undermine their credibility if they had to appease their advertisers or face not being able to afford to stay on air.
A private network needs to attract listeners, and can't risk offending their current audience or sponsors. Stories can ( and may ) be reworded, ignored, or slanted to their perceived audience - look at Fox for an example of what we don't need.
The reason I prefer listening to NPR compared to other stations is the lack of extremely annoying advertisements coupled with ACTUAL NEWS. While all the local stations are busy talking about Charlie Sheen and other pointless bullshit and treating it like news, NPR has actual news!
[url=http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3]Today's Morning Edition[/url], while it does have some trivial/non-news in it, has a much higher news to shit ratio than any other local station.
It already is competing with other outlets - better reporting, less blatant bias, less product placement, less advertisement. Its model is how a media outlet SHOULD be if it really wants to keep an audience.
This defunding isn't really about the budget - the amount saved by removing the funding is trivial at best when other horribly expensive programs that offer far less to the citizens could be down sized or cut entirely.
Is anyone surprised the house is interested in shooting down a non-right media outlet? This is entirely political.
[QUOTE=TH89;28671845]I know it the same way I know that America would win a war with Kenya: common sense and a modicum of knowledge about real life.[/quote]
K.
[QUOTE=TH89;28671845]
No, it couldn't. If you had any familiarity at all with radio you would know this.
[/quote]
How do other radio stations even exist then? Non-profit doesn't mean they couldn't run advertisements, just that they couldn't use the proceeds [b]for profit[/b]. As for donations, great organizations run on donations all across America. People do actually donate to things they find beneficial to society, i know that doesn't fit into your post-college angsty capitalist-hate fuck of a world view but it's true.
[QUOTE=TH89;28671845]
You're making the same fallacious argument he is. Not receiving donations does not make something inherently worthless (I used the police as an example, but it could have been public schools or libraries or roads or pretty much any government function you care to name. All of them are crucial parts of this nation and none of them could subsist on donations).[/quote]
Well first, there is no real motivation to donate to those public services since the government already pays for them, in effect, we're all already forced to donate. NPR and public radio is far from crucial and something people could definately survive without so your comparison is blazingly stupid. There's a multitude of things people enjoy which survive privately, maybe there should be public computers, video games, movies (that aren't PSAs, anyway) and other mediums as well? What exactly [b]shouldn't[/b] be public? Is there any limits for you at all?
[QUOTE=TH89;28671845]
Just like public schools only assist those who go to public schools, and unemployment benefits only assist the unemployed. Sorry the United States isn't the Randian utopia you want it to be.
[/quote]
Once again your comparisons are faulty. Try to find some better ones, will you?
[QUOTE=TH89;28671845]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/media][/QUOTE]
"Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed." is a false dichotomy in the deepest sense of the word.
[editline]e[/editline]
Point is almost everyone here are just contradictory. They don't like corporate welfare because corporations are "too big to fail" but LOVE NPR funding, why? It's because they enjoy it.
It has nothing to do with principles, limits on government interference in the market or just in general, it's because they agree with this particular instance of public funding for something that should otherwise have to compete in the market.
Just because you [i]like[/i] something funded publicly in this fashion doesn't make it any less morally bankrupt.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28672021]How do other radio stations even exist then?[/QUOTE]
By running 2 minute chunks of advertising every few minutes, kowtowing to sponsors, and having their hosts name-drop products in regular conversation. Have you [i]listened[/i] to commercial radio? It's awful.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28672021]Well first, there is no real motivation to donate to those public services since the government already pays for them, in effect, we're all already forced to donate. NPR and public radio is far from crucial and something people couldn't survive without so your argument is blazingly fallacious.[/QUOTE]
That's what you might think, but other people disagree. That's why we have this thread, remember?
[QUOTE=s0beit;28672021]Once again your comparisons are faulty. Try to find some better ones, will you?[/QUOTE]
My comparisons are perfectly adequate for their purpose, which is to show how stupid it is to suggest that anything that can't subsist on donations must be useless. Because that is really stupid.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28672021]"Either you think we shouldn't have police, or your reasoning is flawed." is a false dichotomy in the deepest sense of the word.[/QUOTE]
His own crummy reasoning created that dichotomy, I just pointed it out.
[editline]18th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=s0beit;28672021]Point is almost everyone here are just contradictory. They don't like corporate welfare because corporations are "too big to fail" but LOVE NPR funding, why? It's because they enjoy it.[/QUOTE]
You're making a lot of assumptions here buddy! I support corporate welfare and don't listen to NPR.
[QUOTE=TH89;28672198]By running 2 minute chunks of advertising every few minutes, kowtowing to sponsors, and having their hosts name-drop products in regular conversation. Have you [i]listened[/i] to commercial radio? It's awful.[/quote]
I don't see how that would ruin it's content. There's also the option of web-radio broadcasts so you wouldn't even really need those extra radio stations. They could streamline non-profit radio so easily.
[QUOTE=TH89;28672198]
That's what you might think, but other people disagree. That's why we have this thread, remember?
[/quote]
Yes but that's just their opinion. Humanity would live on for a long time after NPR stopped being publicly funded, nobody would die a horrible death and people wouldn't be any stupider because of it.
[QUOTE=TH89;28672198]
My comparisons are perfectly adequate for their purpose, which is to show how stupid it is to suggest that anything that can't subsist on donations must be useless. Because that is really stupid.
[/quote]
Want to respond to my question of what limits you would put on public funding? I'm interested to hear it.
[QUOTE=TH89;28672198]
His own crummy reasoning created that dichotomy, I just pointed it out.
[/quote]
Alright.
[QUOTE=TH89;28672198]
You're making a lot of assumptions here buddy! I support corporate welfare and don't listen to NPR.[/QUOTE]
Well i don't find either of them particularly favorable.
[editline]e[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;28671915]The issue is that it would undermine their credibility if they had to appease their advertisers or face not being able to afford to stay on air.
A private network needs to attract listeners, and can't risk offending their current audience or sponsors. Stories can ( and may ) be reworded, ignored, or slanted to their perceived audience - look at Fox for an example of what we don't need.
[/quote]
So everyone that isn't publicly funded turns into FOX?... what?
I don't understand how it would undermine their credibility at all.
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;28671915]
The reason I prefer listening to NPR compared to other stations is the lack of extremely annoying advertisements coupled with ACTUAL NEWS. While all the local stations are busy talking about Charlie Sheen and other pointless bullshit and treating it like news, NPR has actual news!
[url=http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3]Today's Morning Edition[/url], while it does have some trivial/non-news in it, has a much higher news to shit ratio than any other local station.
[/quote]
This is a superficial benefit which only applies to you and the people who listen to NPR.
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;28671915]
It already is competing with other outlets - better reporting, less blatant bias, less product placement, less advertisement. Its model is how a media outlet SHOULD be if it really wants to keep an audience.
[/quote]
Sounds like a good station that would attract a fair amount of listeners with or without public funding.
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;28671915]
This defunding isn't really about the budget - the amount saved by removing the funding is trivial at best when other horribly expensive programs that offer far less to the citizens could be down sized or cut entirely.
[/quote]
So it's about being unfair to people who actually have the burden of competition?
[QUOTE=Kogitsune;28671915]
Is anyone surprised the house is interested in shooting down a non-right media outlet? This is entirely political.[/QUOTE]
For once i agree. I don't want them funded either, fuck em.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.