Public Radio Public Funds

Hiya laglen, In this Country there was quite a substantial amount of Public Debt with the Television Channels. One of them is being forced to go private or put more Adverts on. Really they have not got much choice because the Government has stopped funding Debts like this as they were getting out of hand it seems. They have a certain amount they will give them to bail themselves out but only if it can be justified. So that´s what they do here. It came about to stop the abuse of spending Public Funds on their private Campaigns of I don´t know what and other things too. So most of the Channels are just full to overflowing with Adverts more than before and the quality of the Programs quite bad. But there you go that´s life.

I would defund NPR/PBS and I might look at other radio/TV/media we fund with taxpayer dollars to see if we're getting measurable bang for the buck. I know a lot of people listen to NPR and watch PBS...I'm just not one of them, except if I'm riding in the truck and Car Talk just happens to be on. I like Car Talk, but I think this show and others might be picked up by private companies and succeed. If people really want NPR/PBS, then I guess they can start year-long fund raisers. It seems like that's all, or at least when I tune in, they're ever doing, raising money...

I agree that there is no longer any need for these small stations in rural areas to be funded by the government. But the funding doesn't only go to the small outlets. When PBS encourages viewers to donate during pledge drives, they tell us that publicly-funded means the viewers, not the government. I think that's the way it should be. Now, the FCC is working tirelessly to bring the internet to the most rural boonies, the internet being so necessary that everyone must have it and the FCC must regulate it for content. I agree, if they are going to control everyone, they need access to everyone.

Well yeah, they shouldn't continue to fund things we don't need, especially if they're cutting funding to important things like schools, libraries, and jobs (important ones, not overpaid ones!). I am not sure if I ever do listen to public broadcast radio.. and even if I do, we are debating getting satelite radio anyways, so who cares. We've recently gotten our cable back. I did enjoy having PBS as it showed educational cartoons in the mornings and afternoons.. but then we got Netflix which streams directly to our PS3 and the kids mostly watched TV shows and movies on there. So those without cable etc may have to make a few adjustments if we no longer have public broadcasting stations.. or they just have to deal without. No big deal in my opinion, not when there are other areas of society hurting so bad.

I agree let it go. But we may have a toddler revolt on our hands if they stop funding pbs..gotta have that elmo you know. LOL

Before looking on whether or not to withdraw the funding, do the following: 1 Identify the objective of the NPR and PBS stations (educate, provide a way to encourage good values). 2 Is it meeting its objective? (are the right viewers watching - back to number 1 to determine) 3 If 1 and 2 are met then there is still reason to fund them. Otherwise, stop the funding immediately. Looking further if 1 and 2 are met, are there more efficient way to meet the same objective? Web may not be the best solution since those going there may be likely be distracted or won't know where to go.

Let the NPR go. I really hope it sees the light of day. The government doesn't need to be in the business of the news.

If what media presented was only the facts without any agenda seeping through or any one-sided nonsense (some of the latest being the transformation of Al Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood into champions of the people ), then I think having the government fund some aspects of it would be okay. But everyone has seen exactly what type of an organization NPR is. Information with ANY bias should have to openly compete instead of being subsidized. It is simply ridiculous to make taxpayers fund something they do not agree with. With just pure information, there's nothing to agree or disagree with. You might not like the information, but the pure and unadulterated truth would be like the time and temperature. There are a lot of folks in media now who went into media to effect change. They sought a platform. Well, that's fine with me. But they shouldn't be receiving our tax dollars as compensation to push a point of view. Go run for office or something. Was it Rather who was b1tching about media needing government bailouts a while back? Compete! If your model isn't working, change your model. If your model is outdated, update it. But when you keep on giving folks money, there's no reason for them to change. And this is something we find with EVERY subsidized person, place or thing in America - when they keep receiving money for nothing, basically, there's no real reason to do anything but collect the money. We pay for a lot of useless junk in America, and some people want us to pay even more for even more. I can only answer that with: F off, morons! If you folks want to do this or do that or pay for this or that, POOL YOUR MONEY AND DO IT! Pull Planned Parenthood's funding too! I'm pro choice, but I don't want my tax dollars going to that unethical and enabling outfit.