General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRomney just said he'd get rid of PBS and NPR
1/10th of 1% of the budget
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)for him to do it.
If you listen to people here, it seems like everyone in the news bidness is selling out except maybe Rachel Maddow-- and she'll be on the chopping block, too if she gets out of line just once.
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #1)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
MADem
(135,425 posts)In time, they will be flushed.
I like Masterpiece Theater. I think that dog abusing asshole has the wrong idea.
renie408
(9,854 posts)I REALLY hate people who are always asking others to cite a link proving this or that they mention in a post, but do you know if there is a way to find out how accurate your 3:1 ratio is? I actually tend to agree with you that their coverage sometimes seems to lean right, but all of my conservative friends think it leans left, so that makes me wonder that maybe if you are unbiased, you piss off everybody.
Response to renie408 (Reply #17)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)I simply don't hear what you are hearing. They don't give twice as much time to the right as they do to the left. Remember they have hard breaks and hard segment times.
If NPR went away today that would be a huge tragedy.
Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #30)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)There are not Democratic Primaries. MSNBC spends considerable time on the Republican Primaries as well because that is what is happening in the news.
Dont' you remember 4 years ago when both parties had primaries? The Hillary and BO news nearly saturated the airwaves.
NPR isn't spinning anything to suit Republicans...they are talking abou their friggin' primaries. And frankly...when they talk a lot about the idiots running for the right's nominee...it actually hurts those candidates because the truth is not real helpful for any of them. They did that big piece a few weeks back about the flip flops Romney has done over the years. Who the fuck else (besides MSNBC) is going that on shows with millions of listeners.
Sorry Tesha...you obviously have some sort of strong emotions against NPR but it isn't backed up by reality.
Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #34)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)interview NPR had with him? Where else you gonna hear that?
And all those Republicans on Science Friday, World of Opera, and Masterpiece Theater.
There's a whole big world out there that does not revolve around American partisan politics and between NPR and PBS there are a hundred or so shows that can be quite informative. Some of them are even fun.
You remember fun, right?
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)...and in fact was inspired to sign up for the On Being newsletter because of that segment.
I'd recommend the Tutu interview to other DUers, and not just because of his progressive views.
http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2012/tutu-god-of-surprises/
Getting back to public broadcasting, it's also the place where we find Bill Moyers (Remember him?) and Garrison Keillor (Homegrown Democrat), and music forms (classical, jazz, bluegrass, Broadway) that the market doesn't see the point of showcasing.
I've also been pleasantly surprised by Need to Know, which had come in for some criticism from progressives before it finally aired.
Do conservatives appear on NPR and PBS. Yes, and they have for decades. Do the names Willliam F. Buckley and Louis Rukeyser ring a bell? And I remember Diane Rehm interviewing the odious Charles Murray on her show back in the '90s.
Folks, it's dictators, not progressives, who ban all points of view but their own.
I really can't see the U.S. doing without public broadcasting. Cable channels (with a few exceptions) are mostly underwhelming, crammed with commercials, edited-down reruns of films and TV shows, and the spectacles of underachievement and pandering so beloved by the media powers that be. A&E and Bravo were wrecked, but least TCM lives on, and of course AMC made some improvements.
But long live public broadcasting.
Response to CBHagman (Reply #27)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and I try to avoid anyone markedly left or right. Nothing in any media is perfect, though.
There are damn few socialists on NPR for the same reason there are damn few libertarians-- there's just no point to them and they have little to contribute.
And Occupy? They mentioned it, which is all it deserved. Should they have promoted it? Should they also spend more time on the Tea Party, which has been around longer and arguably had more effect?
Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #35)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)who routinely stabs us in the back, I'd rather they
simply die and put us out of their misery.
There's no us here, thank you very much, just differing opinions and manners and cases. And it's a very poor case indeed to conflate complaints about coverage of a single area and absence of a single group of people, American socialists (And I haven't personally checked to see if that's actually the case) with "routinely" stabbing us in the back. You're caught in the nothing-rather-than-something trap, arguing that all ought to be punished rather than work for improvements. No, thanks.
Response to CBHagman (Reply #36)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)1. That you speak for the American left.
2. That the entire American left shares your views about public broadcasting.
3. That you know where to classify me politically, based on a couple of comments.
But you provide no data for any of those things, and let a subject line suffice for analysis.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)I listen to NPR all day. Where are you getting your 3:1 ratio? And who exactly is hosting the "all Republican all the time" show? Either I have to conclude that I'm a complete idiot and have missed this entirely or something in your post is strongly incorrect.
I listen to NPR for neutral news. That is what I get. If I want my left bias I put on MSNBC.
Response to titaniumsalute (Reply #29)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)to Morning Edition. I do pay attention to sourcing and quotes. But as a heavy listener I don't find it to weigh heavily one way or another. If you have logged 5 -10 days of shows and the exact amount of quotes said versus paraphrased quotes in addition to the sources that might sway me.
Look I'm the first person to pick up on bias and bullshit. I worked in talk radio for years and had to deal with all of the right wing jerkoffs I had to deal with. Besides NPR or other public radio there isn't a commercial show I can even listen to anymore.
But wishing for the government to pull the plug on NPR would be hurting millions who do listen and trust them as I do.
Steve Inskeep has an odd delivery sometimes but "sneering" is certainly an opinon of yours and not a reason to terminate NPR News.
_ed_
(1,734 posts)NPR / PBS has some good aspects, but at their core, they are government news sources. No government news source or corporate news source can be trusted.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)HE is the one that wil be GONE
greatauntoftriplets
(175,729 posts)Is he insane?
What would I watch on television and listen to on the radio?
monmouth
(21,078 posts)sammytko
(2,480 posts)What an idiot!
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)PBS and NPR both have the most professional programming in media today. Downton Abbey on Masterpiece Theater is a fabulous historical drama that we would never see anywhere else but PBS. I'm not surprised that the inartistic dullard would try to eliminate them.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)Seriously....
sammytko
(2,480 posts)klook
(12,152 posts)baseball, national parks, craft beers, public education, public libraries, organic foods, affirmative action, tofu, employment of women outside the home, hot sauce, and anything else the Republican base loathes.
aquart
(69,014 posts)michreject
(4,378 posts)Is he going to tell us how to spend our money?
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)...and federal expenditure is quite limited. Here's one article on the subject:
Funding public media: How the U.S. compares to the rest of the world
http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/03/funding-public-media-how-the-us-compares-to-the-rest-of-the-world/
Though cutting public broadcasting appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would essentially limit the public nature of our system by cutting out the government, its important to remember that most public radio stations receive only about 10 percent of their money from CPB. For many public radio stations, though, if it comes to it, the loss of this federal money may make it all the harder to sustain local programming and local newsgathering if it cannot be found elsewhere.
I'd note too that nowadays for-profit media are making cuts in reporting staff and trashing radio formats even when said formats make money. The fantasy, which Romney seems to believe, is that whaterver makes money will survive and thrive, and deserves to. But the truth is of course more complicated than that.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)When and if he actually buys the nomination, he'll have to start to back off all the nutty shit he had to say to impress the lunatic fringe. If he doesn't he'll wind up with 25% of the popular vote.
But if he does, the nut cases are going to jump right in his poo poo. They don't trust the silly sumbitch anyway and I believe they halfway know he's lying through his teeth when he spouts all this right wing jive. They'll either sit out the election or find a third party candidate and Rmoney will STILL wind up with 25% of the vote.
He has sold his soul to get this nomination and he'll wind up as the Meg Whitman of presidential elections. Bazillions of dollars spent just to get his ass kicked.
Happyhippychick
(8,379 posts)spanone
(135,795 posts)lpbk2713
(42,740 posts)... and all that other librul
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Romney must be a fan of urine crucifixes.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)but they do have some great programming that you can't get anywhere else and their support of other broadcasts is important. I don't think a lot people here are even aware of what is involved in their programming.
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)Sic im Seamus
CBHagman
(16,982 posts)I didn't know until fairly recently that this dates back at least to the Nixon administration, though I shouldn't be surprised. But I remember that after the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 they got the long knives out for public broadcasting, with various right-wing media think tanks and organizations (AIM, MRC) egging them on.
I'll never forget Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) reading aloud the daytime programming schedule from commercial television -- sleaze and scandal galore -- and then reading the PBS schedule: Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, Bill Nye the Science Guy, etc.
I think I still have a purple "Save Barney from Newt" button around somewhere, and of course the late, lamented political cartoonist Herblock depicted Sesame Street characters cowering in an alleyway as a member of the GOP (I think it was Gingrich, again) came after them with a rifle.
The thing is, public broadcasting still fills a need that the market, so worshiped by the GOP, does not, and even some Republican representatives will admit that their constituents, especially in rural areas, need and want public stations. But the official GOP line is that the market will do it all, and that's how they approach damn near everything -- education, health care, housing, etc.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)sold WNYC, the city-owned NPR station. It had been around since the 20s, and was used by LaGuardia to read the comics during the great newspaper strike, and later was the first station to report the attack on Pearl Harbor. It's a very popular NYC institution, and the decision to dump it was not so popular.
Public broadcasting has a rich history, but has always been hated by some politicians when they couldn't control it. Even LaGuardia wanted to get rid of it at first, but was talked out of it.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)in the history books.