The mediocrity police

[B_Stronzo]

... are at it again trying to make us all into baby George Dubyas.

The effort is to remove funding for PBS and NPR. It failed last year but the Repugs are at it again.

If interested in saving quality programming and radio please click here and sign the petition:

http://www.freepress.net/publicbroadcasting/

 

[OralCumpulsion]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Stronzo.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Its an election year. Every time they get in trouble in the polls the GOP trots out the usual villains to bash. Looks like its NPR's turn again.

 

[madame_zora]

Sent to my local politicians:

Free people everywhere deserve a place where communication can continue unhindered by governments and their respective issues. Those of us who object to wire-tapping our phone conversations are no less incensed that our online conversations may come under the watchful eye of whatever government is in control, for whatever their reasons.
Surely our government has enough issues to face without invading the privacy of it's citizens. I urgently implore you to vote to keep the internet free, and keep "The Land Of The Free" as it's supposed to be, instead of turning it into a bad internet joke.
Our forefathers are rolling in their graves.




Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We might be an online dick group, but if we actually talk to each other, perhaps we can get a few things done.
Like so many have said before, I love my country, but I fear my government. If they get their way, we might not be able to talk to each other at all. Please keep supporting any efforts to keep the internet free of government interferance. Our very site depends on it.

 

[Shelby]

PBS and NPR are partially funded by tax dollars. That means you and I are forced to pay for it (in part) whether we like it or not.

Just thought I'd point out another way of looking at it.

 

[Matthew]

PBS and NPR are partially funded by tax dollars. That means you and I are forced to pay for it (in part) whether we like it or not.

Kind of like the war in Iraq.

 

[Lex]

Kind of like the war in Iraq.

Or the billions of dollars of other programs that are funded while we chip away at the education budget.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

If NPR is truly a national treasure, why not put it up for sale and remove it from the government tax rolls?

True, while anyone can turn on NPR and listen in, their true $demographic$ is middle-aged, white, and somewhat wealthy. Is that a slice of our country that needs subsidies from Washington?

 

[dong20]

PBS and NPR are partially funded by tax dollars. That means you and I are forced to pay for it (in part) whether we like it or not.

Just thought I'd point out another way of looking at it.

While you are technically correct, at about $1.15 per citizen per year for PBS as opposed to the £131 per year it costs here just to use a colour TV (£44 for B/W) even if you don't watch BBC; I would count your lucky stars and bite your tongue.:tongue:

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

True, while anyone can turn on NPR and listen in, their true $demographic$ is middle-aged, white, and somewhat wealthy. Is that a slice of our country that needs subsidies from Washington?

Sure is. Tried to tell you them niggers have a one-track mind, buddy. Heed my motherfucking words.

Good to see you posting again, Brainzz.

 

[Deno]

I have to let you know somethign about pbs, I pay my 1.15 like most of us do if we bother to pay our taxes. And I was watching hdtv broadcast of PBS on a local station that was piggie backing the signal on a second digital channel when all the sudden the broadcast stopped. It took a month to get a reply from the local station but I was told in an email from WITF in harrigburg that PBS required Witf to pay 30,000 dollars to continue broadcasting the signal. This from a station funded by our tax dollars and now I can't see it. How can a public station funded by the government cause this to happen restrict local onair broadcast for more mon ey when there suppose to be non profit to begin with. I want my 1.15 back, lol.

 

[dong20]

. I want my 1.15 back, lol.

We'll pass round a hat...here's my 2c..:tongue:

 

[JustAsking]

If NPR is truly a national treasure, why not put it up for sale and remove it from the government tax rolls?

True, while anyone can turn on NPR and listen in, their true $demographic$ is middle-aged, white, and somewhat wealthy. Is that a slice of our country that needs subsidies from Washington?

There are some things that should remain non-commercial in the national interest. A high quality broadcast journalism outlet that is does not have to please advertisers and does not have to compete head to head for marketshare is one of those things. The journalism on pbs is outstanding since they feel they have the time to devote to subjects in the depth they deserve. If they had to become commercial, they would end up with 7 second sound-bite news and stupid shock jocks like the rest of them.

Now that noone reads newspapers anymore, someone has to devote more than 7 seconds to complex technological, political, and economic issues.

 

[JustAsking]

While you are technically correct, at about $1.15 per citizen per year for PBS as opposed to the £131 per year it costs here just to use a colour TV (£44 for B/W) even if you don't watch BBC; I would count your lucky stars and bite your tongue.:tongue:

Yes, but the BBC new service is one of the best in the world. It is known for its in depth and unbiased reporting. I recommend any Americans listen to BBC world news every so often and hear what the rest of the world is saying about world events.

I am no recommending that we don't have commercial broadcasting, I am just making a point about quality journalism. This is important because quality journalism is a necessity for a democracy.

"Were I to have the choice between a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I'd choose the latter." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[B_Stronzo]

PBS and NPR are partially funded by tax dollars. That means you and I are forced to pay for it (in part) whether we like it or not.

Just thought I'd point out another way of looking at it.

I knew you'd weigh in with that Shelby.

So then you find pubilc dollars funding an elevated level of non-advertising television somehow a misuse of your tax dollars?

THINK IRAQ.

True, while anyone can turn on NPR and listen in, their true $demographic$ is middle-aged, white, and somewhat wealthy. Is that a slice of our country that needs subsidies from Washington?

You must be watching a different PBS than I.

And do you have something against middle-aged white people?:33: Christ .. many of their PRIVATE dollars goes to its funding.

 

[dong20]

Yes, but the BBC new service is one of the best in the world. It is known for its in depth and unbiased reporting. I recommend any Americans listen to BBC world news every so often and hear what the rest of the world is saying about world events.

Thank you for your faith in the BBC, I agree, it wasn't a gripe I think it's worth the money. But if most Americans listened to the BBC they may realise that 95% of the world isn't America....imagine the consequences..:tongue:

I am no recommending that we don't have commercial broadcasting, I am just making a point about quality journalism. This is important because quality journalism is a necessity for a democracy.

"Were I to have the choice between a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I'd choose the latter." - Thomas Jefferson

Commerical broadcasting has it's place, I may be a snob but I can't say I'd miss 95% of it should it suddenly vanish one day. Starting with Big Brother and those awful castaway/suvival shows, should just ship them off to their island and leave them there...for ever..:biggrin1:

I agree with you about Journalism but much of the modern press is hardly guilty of practicing journalism...

 

[SpeedoGuy]

If NPR is truly a national treasure, why not put it up for sale and remove it from the government tax rolls?

Hundreds of billions of dollars and how many thousands of lives squandered for the Boy King's distraction in Iraq and the Republicans want us to be upset about miniscule subsidies for public broadcasting.

 

[headbang8]

There's ALREADY too much advertising on NPR/PBS. Station acknowlegements from foundations that bear the names of their robber-baron founders.

The public broadcasting phenomenon in the USA is nothing short of a miracle. In public radio, for instance, I understand that over half of all funds come from listeners. (I'm one of them) It's so valuable, people actually pay for it, directly and voluntarily. If some small shred of the funds come from the government that's right and proper--and in proportion.

Besides, the commercial media are funded by a tax, and we have no control over how it's spent. That tax is called PROFIT.

That the wealthy and well-educated listen more often is irrelevant. It performs a necessary service for everyone.

 

[headbang8]

There's ALREADY too much advertising on NPR/PBS. Station acknowlegements from foundations that bear the names of their robber-baron founders.

The public broadcasting phenomenon in the USA is nothing short of a miracle. In public radio, for instance, I understand that over half of all funds come from listeners. (I'm one of them) It's so valuable, people actually pay for it, directly and voluntarily. If some small shred of the funds come from the government that's right and proper--and in proportion.

Besides, the commercial media are funded by a tax, and we have no control over how it's spent. That tax is called PROFIT.

That the wealthy and well-educated listen more often is irrelevant. It performs a necessary service for everyone.

By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, I actually work in the commercial media.

 

[brainzz_n_dong]

Dr. D - Thanks bro. I'm back from my seasonal exile. Now I'm just another mosquito at this summer picnic

Just Asking - I can see where you come from in the desire for wanting more than 'sneeze and you missed it' journalism we seem to have today. It's all I've known growing up. Like or hate the content at times, NPR does devote time to what they do AND they don't scream each other down.

I guess that forms the core of why I'd still say that they can make it w/o gov't help. Because they are so different as compared to their competition, I would think that the rest of network "journalism" has so differentiated itself that they've helped an outlet like NPR create a niche that only it populates. The conservative in me sees what more they could become if they did "go public", not what they might lose if they changed.

Stronzo - You missed the point of my words all together. NPR's listening audience is approx 22 million people. As with all free radio, anyone is welcome to tune in. But the demographics tell the tale that rich, white, middle-aged people are the audience that is its lifeblood. If they want to keep it alive with their own money (or ad $$$ if they did "go public" so to speak) I have no problem with that. Still, why do we need to in-part subsidize the listening habits of rich, white, middle-aged people? I'm not knocking anyone, just asking a question. I guess I'm riding the little short bus in my thinking that NPR could become even stronger if cut loose.

And it's not the point of the money - $115 or so million in a budget of $2.5 Trillion isn't a huge piece of the pie. As a society, we can't rail against run-away spending if everything is off-limits to cut.