Time to revisit the issue of funding NPR...

[EllieTalbot]

Of course not. Taxpayers funding right-wing propaganda is just your cuppa.

But does that cost the taxpayers anything? Limbaugh's show is a privately funded one. AFN just picks stuff to broadcast that's popular with its listeners; it doesn't produce it.

Regardless of funding or whether it actually creates the content itself, however, the AFN shouldn't be carrying Limbaugh, or any other polemicists. IMO, government media/information networks, including NPR, should be modeled on the example of CSPAN (which, ironically, is privately funded and non-profit), and recognize that editorializing content is an abuse of power.

Listening in Lubbock,
Ellie

 

[koalabear]

No, I typically use insults to draw attention to your lack of character.

I mostly pity your ignorance, and I'm amused at the fact that you actually consider yourself somewhat intelligent.

Honestly, did you even graduate high school?

Lack of character, no personal responsibility, looking in the mirror again aren't you.

 

[LongPenStroke]

IMO, government media/information networks, including NPR, should be modeled on the example of CSPAN (which, ironically, is privately funded and non-profit), and recognize that editorializing content is an abuse of power.

Listening in Lubbock,
Ellie

C-Span is not privately funded, it, like NPR is a quasi-government sponsored network. Cable companies, in exchange for using existing infrastructure, are required to carry C-Span programming. 6 cents of every cable bill goes towards funding C-Span by federal law.

Unfortunately, you can't do this with NPR, unless you put it strictly on satellite radio providers.

 

[Peregrinator]

You mean like NPR?

THe show football too. That's for the troops and has nothing to do with our funding of the liberal news because Limbaugh ain't the news; he's commentary...

I'm guessing you love you some NPR.

Oh holy shit.

 

[Peregrinator]

But does that cost the taxpayers anything? Limbaugh's show is a privately funded one. AFN just picks stuff to broadcast that's popular with its listeners; it doesn't produce it.

Regardless of funding or whether it actually creates the content itself, however, the AFN shouldn't be carrying Limbaugh, or any other polemicists. IMO, government media/information networks, including NPR, should be modeled on the example of CSPAN (which, ironically, is privately funded and non-profit), and recognize that editorializing content is an abuse of power.

Listening in Lubbock,
Ellie

The question, to me, isn't "Do the taxpayers pay for the broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's crazy bloviations?" The question, to me, is "Does the fact that we feed our troops such obvious horseshit without the opposing view being presented cost anything?"

 

[LongPenStroke]

The question, to me, isn't "Do the taxpayers pay for the broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's crazy bloviations?" The question, to me, is "Does the fact that we feed our troops such obvious horseshit without the opposing view being presented cost anything?"

Yes, the AFN costs the government tax payer more money than NPR and PBS combined. AFN is fully funded by the government. But defunding AFN would be seen as not supporting our troops and Republicans would throw a hissy fit over it.

 

[Peregrinator]

Yes, the AFN costs the government tax payer more money than NPR and PBS combined. AFN is fully funded by the government. But defunding AFN would be seen as not supporting our troops and Republicans would throw a hissy fit over it.

You might have missed what I meant. Everyone knows that AFN costs taxpayers money, and I doubt anyone in their right mind would oppose that. The question was "Does Rush charge extra?" If he does, then fuck that. That's an extra fee for rw propaganda, not to mention that the hateful crap he spews possibly has an effect on foreign policy and morale.

 

[mercury14]

Some shows on AFN "donate" themselves to the military (ie WWE wrestling pay per views) and Limbaugh could be one of them. I'm not sure though, perhaps AFN pays Clear Channel. I can't find anything via Google search that says anything either way.

Being one who just watched five years of overseas AFN in a row with no alternative I can tell you what it's like. AFN radio is VERY conservative. Limbagh, Hannity, Beck, Ingram, The Five, and Fox & Friends are on nonstop. And they're on during the morning and evening commutes. You could get NPR but you had to get cable radio which nobody ever did. Literally nobody I ever met did. On Sunday evenings Alan Combs came on.

AFN TV was a little more balanced because Jon Stewart and Colbert made up an hour of programming from like 6-7 pm. But the rest of the shows were right wing. Maddow and Matthews were on, hidden away during the workday hours when nobody is home to see them except maybe spouses.

 

[CHNOPS]

A total of 6% of NPR's funding comes from governmet sources of any kind. State and local sources account for 4 of that 6%. The fed's assistance comes to a whopping 2%.

Please explain how this makes NPR a government-sp

 

[CHNOPS]

C-Span is not privately funded, it, like NPR is a quasi-government sponsored network. Cable companies, in exchange for using existing infrastructure, are required to carry C-Span programming. 6 cents of every cable bill goes towards funding C-Span by federal law.

Unfortunately, you can't do this with NPR, unless you put it strictly on satellite radio providers.

A total of 6% of NPR's funding comes from government sources of any kind. State and local sources account for 4 of that 6%. The fed's assistance comes to a whopping 2%.

The rest of their funding--94 %--comes from listener contributions and private endowments and grants.

Please explain how this makes NPR a government-sponsored anything, "quasi" or otherwise?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

A total of 6% of NPR's funding comes from government sources of any kind. State and local sources account for 4 of that 6%. The fed's assistance comes to a whopping 2%.

The rest of their funding--94 %--comes from listener contributions and private endowments and grants.

Please explain how this makes NPR a government-sponsored anything, "quasi" or otherwise?

Because the squawkers and the derpers say so.

And it's more fun to listen to hyperbole-enabling squawk and derp than the boring truth and dull verity.

 

[garbage can]

The question was "Does Rush charge extra?" If he does, then fuck that. That's an extra fee for rw propaganda, not to mention that the hateful crap he spews possibly has an effect on foreign policy and morale.

Pergy, I don't expect you to remember a particular incident of "hateful crap" that Rush spews, But could you remind yourself to post the next hateful crap that he spews?

 

[Peregrinator]

A total of 6% of NPR's funding comes from governmet sources of any kind. State and local sources account for 4 of that 6%. The fed's assistance comes to a whopping 2%.

Please explain how this makes NPR a government-sp

To my mind, the best argument for removing government funding from NPR was that it would also remove the ability of dipshits to complain about what "they do with taxpayer money!"

 

[unregistered]

 

[CHNOPS]

Because the squawkers and the derpers say so.

And it's more fun to listen to hyperbole-enabling squawk and derp than the boring truth and dull verity.

There's more. That 2% isn't exactly a budget line item, either. It's their share of a CPB grant that is partially backed by the Ed. Dept.

There are Libertarian presidential candidates enjoying more taxpayer-supported benefits than NPR does. Given the tax breaks media corporate-parents enjoy, it's likely to be the LEAST-government-assisted source in the entire marketplace. Yet it's a "GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTITY AND A WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND IT'S ABOUT TIME WE DEFUNDED IT!!"

 

[Peregrinator]

Pergy, I don't expect you to remember a particular incident of "hateful crap" that Rush spews, But could you remind yourself to post the next hateful crap that he spews?

Sure thing, Garby, though I don't expect you to remember this conversation now that more than fifteen minutes have gone by.

 

[LongPenStroke]

A total of 6% of NPR's funding comes from government sources of any kind. State and local sources account for 4 of that 6%. The fed's assistance comes to a whopping 2%.

The rest of their funding--94 %--comes from listener contributions and private endowments and grants.

Please explain how this makes NPR a government-sponsored anything, "quasi" or otherwise?

It's quasi from the simple fact that local areas are required to carry it, and they do get government funding. Even if it is a lousy 2 percent, it's still more than any other broadcast station gets.

Your local area is not required to carry CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, or FOX, but they are required to carry PBS.

Interestingly enough, PBS is going to go to commercial broadcasting in the near future. It will be interesting to see if they keep this model, or if it has an impact on what little federal funding they get.

 

[CHNOPS]

It's quasi from the simple fact that local areas are required to carry it, and they do get government funding. Even if it is a lousy 2 percent, it's still more than any other broadcast station gets.

Your local area is not required to carry CBS, NBC, ABC, CW, or FOX, but they are required to carry PBS.

Interestingly enough, PBS is going to go to commercial broadcasting in the near future. It will be interesting to see if they keep this model, or if it has an impact on what little federal funding they get.

You do not seem to realize that NPR and PBS are two different things.

I find that kinda funny.

You have also invented the statute you are quoting.

I find that one a little sad.

 

[run_silent]

There is a lot of conversation about which government funding is OK. Again I ask with all the media outlets why should the government support any of them. Well, unless the government likes what they promote. Is there any reason a government to have a publicly paid for mouthpiece.

 

[garbage can]

Sure thing, Garby, though I don't expect you to remember this conversation now that more than fifteen minutes have gone by.

Uhmm, Pergy, it's 3:30 EDT

 

[LongPenStroke]

You do not seem to realize that NPR and PBS are two different things.

I find that kinda funny.

You have also invented the statute you are quoting.

I find that one a little sad.

They are two different things, but their funding comes from the same source, the corporation for public broadcasting.

I am not sure what statute you are talking about, i never quoted one.

 

[CHNOPS]

They are two different things, but their funding comes from the same source, the corporation for public broadcasting.

I am not sure what statute you are talking about, i never quoted one.

You are not helping yourself.

 

[LongPenStroke]

You are not helping yourself.

Do you even know how this funding works?

If not, I will give you a quick breakdown.

The CPB was created by Congress 1967 and tasked with the job of handing out funding for public broadcasting entities. These entities include, but are not limited to, NPR, PBS and PRI.

So when people talk about defunding NPR, that also includes PBS, PRI and several smaller public broadcast organizations.

In larger markets, this won't be that much of an issue, but in smaller markets this will be a huge problem. NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, Miami, and cities like them will have no problem finding replacement funding, but PBS and NPR stations will disappear from smaller markets.

 

[run_silent]

Do you even know how this funding works?

If not, I will give you a quick breakdown.

The CPB was created by Congress 1967 and tasked with the job of handing out funding for public broadcasting entities. These entities include, but are not limited to, NPR, PBS and PRI.

So when people talk about defunding NPR, that also includes PBS, PRI and several smaller public broadcast organizations.

In larger markets, this won't be that much of an issue, but in smaller markets this will be a huge problem. NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, Miami, and cities like them will have no problem finding replacement funding, but PBS and NPR stations will disappear from smaller markets.

Sounds like you are saying they is no listener support for a product they are not interested in.

 

[phrodeau]

Rush Limbaugh gets to spout crap about the C-in-C and his wife directly to the troops. That is obscene.