NPR & IPTV

[superdorf]

I guess if you are so adamant about it then you should get involved. Also, I'm not sure, but I wonder what percentage of the operating budget comes from public funds?

 

[jbhtexas]

I love Chef...now there's a guy who can deliver a Grade A meltdown...

Here's a link to a good example on YouTube...

Hmmm...user has disabled embedding so you have to go to YouTube to watch it...

link: YouTube - Chef! - England Expects

 

[HILLCYD]

The Red Green Show is a hoot! And don't forget Austin City Limits.



PS....Valium helps

 

[bandit]

I guess if you are so adamant about it then you should get involved. Also, I'm not sure, but I wonder what percentage of the operating budget comes from public funds?

As I understand it, Iowa Public Radio and Iowa Public TV are non-profits and have the same tax exemption as any other nonprofit-churches, hospitals, etc. I don't think much if any of their funding comes from the government. That's why they always have their fund drives-they depend mainly on donations from listeners and corporate underwriting.

 

[cyismydog]

The Red Green Show is a hoot! And don't forget Austin City Limits.



PS....Valium helps

What does duct tape and the force have in common?
They both have a light side and a dark side and hold the world together.:biglaugh:

 

[Cutlass]

I watch PBS as much as any channel. Clifford, Curious George, nature shows, Nova. But then again, I don't have cable or satalite so my viewing choices are puroposely limited.

This American Life on NPR is great radio.

 

[frontrangeclone]

what about whattya' know? great show on NPR....

DaddyMac said it best regarding objectiveness.... there is bias everywhere in all media outlets, from what I've observed, some people don't like because NPR and shows like Frontline on PTV because they dig into issues that take longer to tell than the average American's attention span that is used to the 30 second soundbyte on Fox or CNN. Maybe there are still some folks out there who enjoy something educational like Nova or The War as opposed to 90% of the crap on the other channels these days. From what I can gather, many posters in this thread and on CF in general are right-leaning conservatives who hate big government spending... what % of NPR and PTV operational costs come from the government? I'm guessing most of you don't listen to NPR enough to know they have quarterly fund raising drives, the listeners support the stations. And if it really bothers you that a penny or two of your tax dollar supports public radio/tv, I'm guessing you have no problem with the billions in tax subsidies that go to oil companies?

 

[cyismydog]

The War is pretty good, and so are some Nova's. The only thing I listen to on NPR besides wait wait don't tell me, is sometimes KCCK jazz. That's a pretty good station, even though Jazz isn't my favorite.

 

[alaskaguy]

I guess if you are so adamant about it then you should get involved. Also, I'm not sure, but I wonder what percentage of the operating budget comes from public funds?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 Congress allocated $386.8 million to the corporation's general fund.

The amount that the CPB invests in NPR and PBS is not a significant portion of their operating budgets. However, indirectly the CPB provides very substantial funding to both PBS and NPR, as public radio and television stations feed a significant portion of their budgets back to PBS and NPR through their purchase of network programming.

I don't believe that the government should be funding NPR or PBS. Both NPR and PBS were originally created and funded by the government to provide diversity in programing. With the advent of satellite and cable I consider that justification to be outdated.

I don't dispute that their are programs of value on NPR and PBS. If the government funding was pulled, either NPR and PBS would "adjust" or the programs of value would be picked up by other broadcasting services.

Link:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cy Heavy]

Even if they were impartial why do I have to pay some of the bill?

With all the radio and television stations and the government deficit, why should the taxpayers be footing any of the cost?

I could spend half a day listing the receipients of federal tax dollars I don't agree with

 

[Phaedrus]

Excellent points! Cable and satellite channels do a much better job of providing "diversity of programming" and the PBS shows that are really worth it will be picked up by them, were PBS to permanently go away.

But like most other government hand-outs and entitlements, they only grow and become more numerous.

 

[frontrangeclone]

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 Congress allocated $386.8 million to the corporation's general fund.

The amount that the CPB invests in NPR and PBS is not a significant portion of their operating budgets. However, indirectly the CPB provides very substantial funding to both PBS and NPR, as public radio and television stations feed a significant portion of their budgets back to PBS and NPR through their purchase of network programming.

I don't believe that the government should be funding NPR or PBS. Both NPR and PBS were originally created and funded by the government to provide diversity in programing. With the advent of satellite and cable I consider that justification to be outdated.

I don't dispute that their are programs of value on NPR and PBS. If the government funding was pulled, either NPR and PBS would "adjust" or the programs of value would be picked up by other broadcasting services.

Link:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

 

[alaskaguy]

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

Perhaps the US postal service understands your point since they contract with both FedEx and UPS to carry the mail on their airplanes. Somehow, private companies can offer similar service at a lower cost and even provide better pay to their employees.

 

[ISUCyclones]

Well... I don't want to pay for it. So give me your best shot. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of why I should pay for this propaganda. Take your time, I don't want you to spill your cosmopolitan.

 

[mclatch]

The US postal service has screwed up a few of my mail deliveries in the past, so maybe we can axe them also now that FedEx and UPS are delivery giants in the private sector....

Don't you get a little ticked when you see and hear the USPS commercials? I mean, they use your earnings to try and sell a service to you. That doesn't sound like a helpful government. They served a purpose back in the day but now it's time to give it back to the private sector rather than competing with it. Take the savings and apply it to telecommunication infrastructure so that high speed internet can be affordably supplied to rural areas. Or give it back to the people as a tax cut.

 

[mclatch]

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 Congress allocated $386.8 million to the corporation's general fund.

The amount that the CPB invests in NPR and PBS is not a significant portion of their operating budgets. However, indirectly the CPB provides very substantial funding to both PBS and NPR, as public radio and television stations feed a significant portion of their budgets back to PBS and NPR through their purchase of network programming.

I don't believe that the government should be funding NPR or PBS. Both NPR and PBS were originally created and funded by the government to provide diversity in programing. With the advent of satellite and cable I consider that justification to be outdated.

I don't dispute that their are programs of value on NPR and PBS. If the government funding was pulled, either NPR and PBS would "adjust" or the programs of value would be picked up by other broadcasting services.

Link:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When has the government ever given up control/funding of a function it has been involved in? I'm sure it's happened but I'm struggling to come up with something.

 

[Wesley]

U can probably include HBO in the bias discussioon also.

I thought it was interesting PBS ran a show about the Mormons just as Romney was dropping out of the race.

 

[cygrads]

I don't think much if any of their funding comes from the government.

Wrong on that - I know someone who worked for IPTV in the accounting area and much of their budget is government funds.

And as far as all the shows on public TV and radio if they are good they would survive if not on public TV and radio but on another channel - that is the way capitalism works.

 

[Cutlass]

Well... I don't want to pay for it. So give me your best shot. I've yet to see a reasonable explanation of why I should pay for this propaganda. Take your time, I don't want you to spill your cosmopolitan.

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll pick up your tax bill for public broacasting, if you'll pick up my tax bill for the Iraq War.

 

[abcguyks]

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll pick up your tax bill for public broacasting, if you'll pick up my tax bill for the Iraq War.

I might just take you up on that offer if you could tell me exactly how much in taxes you are personally paying for the Iraq war.

I may be wrong here, but I have a sneaking suspicion that your tax bill is much less than many others on this board. It seems that those who pay the least in taxes are most often the ones that are most vocal about government expenditures. Those same people are usually the same ones squawking about how someone else should pay for what they either can't afford or choose not to pay for (ie health care).