*Should NPR Be De-Funded?*

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry bout that,


1. I think we should take a honest look at it.
2. Jaun didn't deserve that.
3. What say you?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Absolutely no rational basis for defunding NPR because of this incident.

The absolute worst case scenario here, in legal terms, is that Williams was terminated wrongfully in breach of his contract.

The responsibility for that can only fall on an individual or individuals working at NPR who would possess the authority to terminate him. No one else in the organization can be held responsible, nor can the organization in its entirety be held responsible.

Suggesting that NPR should be defunded over this incident is laughably, or sadly, depending on how you want to look at it, a transparent attempt by rightwing interests to settle a long held score against public broadcasting on wildly false pretenses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can government funded press be free press?

How can advertiser dependent press be free press?

 

[NYcarbineer]

And no...it should not be de-funded.

It's quite probably the best spent money the government is directly and/or indirectly spending.

Why should conservatives be paying for an organization that is openly biased towards the left? Would you want to pay for Fox?

Can I not pay my share of the Iraq war?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, the federal government has no business subsidizing NPR.

 

[Trajan]

Absolutely no rational basis for defunding NPR because of this incident.

The absolute worst case scenario here, in legal terms, is that Williams was terminated wrongfully in breach of his contract.

The responsibility for that can only fall on an individual or individuals working at NPR who would possess the authority to terminate him. No one else in the organization can be held responsible, nor can the organization in its entirety be held responsible.

Hummmm......wow, I think you've changed my mind, you're right, I never believed in collection punishment (outside the military that is....)

Suggesting that NPR should be defunded over this incident is laughably, or sadly, depending on how you want to look at it, a transparent attempt by rightwing interests to settle a long held score against public broadcasting on wildly false pretenses.

you mean like the score settling transparent reason they canned Juan?

 

[Care4all]

don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread?

Funding

In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of CPB grants.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed]

NPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[asterism]

Sorry bout that,


1. I think we should take a honest look at it.
2. Jaun didn't deserve that.
3. What say you?


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Absolutely no rational basis for defunding NPR because of this incident.

I agree.

The absolute worst case scenario here, in legal terms, is that Williams was terminated wrongfully in breach of his contract.

I disagree.

The responsibility for that can only fall on an individual or individuals working at NPR who would possess the authority to terminate him. No one else in the organization can be held responsible, nor can the organization in its entirety be held responsible.

Partially true, except for that whole funding issue. Who is driving this train, donors or the government?

Suggesting that NPR should be defunded over this incident is laughably, or sadly, depending on how you want to look at it, a transparent attempt by rightwing interests to settle a long held score against public broadcasting on wildly false pretenses.

Or perhaps a "public entity" engaging in a battle of words with a private entity at the behest of an activist.

 

[asterism]

don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread?

Funding

In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of CPB grants.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed]

NPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was.

Somewhere between 10 and 28% of NPR's funding comes from the government. NPR was created by an act of federal law.

 

[asterism]

And no...it should not be de-funded.

It's quite probably the best spent money the government is directly and/or indirectly spending.

Why should conservatives be paying for an organization that is openly biased towards the left? Would you want to pay for Fox?

Can I not pay my share of the Iraq war?

A fair point.

Can you advocate to defund said war? Have you?

 

[Care4all]

don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread?

Funding

In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from local funding and 10% of their revenue from the federal funding in the form of CPB grants.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed]

NPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was.

Somewhere between 10 and 28% of NPR's funding comes from the government. NPR was created by an act of federal law.

the FEDERAL gvt? or different State gvts, which would be up to those particular states, no???

 

[RadiomanATL]

don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread?

NPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was.

Somewhere between 10 and 28% of NPR's funding comes from the government. NPR was created by an act of federal law.

the FEDERAL gvt? or different State gvts, which would be up to those particular states, no???

Yes, NPR was created by the Federal government.

 

[Care4all]

It was.

Somewhere between 10 and 28% of NPR's funding comes from the government. NPR was created by an act of federal law.

the FEDERAL gvt? or different State gvts, which would be up to those particular states, no???

Yes, NPR was created by the Federal government.

yes, i realize such, but A LOT has changed since they were created by the federal gvt on funding....

i was just wondering if the figures given on ''gvt funding'' of NPR were all federal or State or a combination of both?

 

[RadiomanATL]

the FEDERAL gvt? or different State gvts, which would be up to those particular states, no???

Yes, NPR was created by the Federal government.

yes, i realize such, but A LOT has changed since they were created by the federal gvt on funding....

i was just wondering if the figures given on ''gvt funding'' of NPR were all federal or State or a combination of both?

I think a combination.

And while I am a conservative, I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than the $15M or so they get each year.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, NPR was created by the Federal government.

yes, i realize such, but A LOT has changed since they were created by the federal gvt on funding....

i was just wondering if the figures given on ''gvt funding'' of NPR were all federal or State or a combination of both?

I think a combination.

And while I am a conservative, I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than the $15M or so they get each year.

and while i am a liberal, I think that if the table were turned, i wouldn't like the fed gvt funding it, one iota.

 

[RadiomanATL]

yes, i realize such, but A LOT has changed since they were created by the federal gvt on funding....

i was just wondering if the figures given on ''gvt funding'' of NPR were all federal or State or a combination of both?

I think a combination.

And while I am a conservative, I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than the $15M or so they get each year.

and while i am a liberal, I think that if the table were turned, i wouldn't like the fed gvt funding it, one iota.

Except that I see the longer view about what they bring to the table (non-politically), that they would not be able to do in a commercial setting.

*shrug*

I'm torn on NPR. But I'm taking the view of lets start with the larger money wasting fish rather than the minnows.

 

[Care4all]

I think a combination.

And while I am a conservative, I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than the $15M or so they get each year.

and while i am a liberal, I think that if the table were turned, i wouldn't like the fed gvt funding it, one iota.

Except that I see the longer view about what they bring to the table (non-politically), that they would not be able to do in a commercial setting.

*shrug*

I'm torn on NPR. But I'm taking the view of lets start with the larger money wasting fish rather than the minnows.

well, that i agree with....we need to reduce the big gun departments, with all we got....first, before we worry about the minnows.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Be ok with me if NPR gets defunded. The only thing on the whole darned network worth listening to is Garrison Keiler. The rest of it really, really sucks.

 

[asterism]

don't know if this was covered earlier in the thread?

NPR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was.

Somewhere between 10 and 28% of NPR's funding comes from the government. NPR was created by an act of federal law.

the FEDERAL gvt? or different State gvts, which would be up to those particular states, no???

Here's the chart.

Why can't you just go look for yourself?

 

[Flopper]

In my opinion, the federal government has no business subsidizing NPR.

My concern is that the more sponsorship NPR get's from private foundations and corporations, the more likely it is that they will be influenced by those entities. With government grants and funding, there is little chance that program content will be influenced.

As far as being biased to the left, most of the program content is not political. The exception is during election session where politics dominated the news. There are bound to be issues that some conservative will take issue with. The evangelicals will claim bias on any program dealing with evolution or creation. The right in general will take issue with most presentations dealing with global climate change.

 

[asterism]

I think a combination.

And while I am a conservative, I think that there are bigger battles to be fought than the $15M or so they get each year.

and while i am a liberal, I think that if the table were turned, i wouldn't like the fed gvt funding it, one iota.

Except that I see the longer view about what they bring to the table (non-politically), that they would not be able to do in a commercial setting.

*shrug*

I'm torn on NPR. But I'm taking the view of lets start with the larger money wasting fish rather than the minnows.

A valid perspective, but I differ. The problem is that all these "little things" all have a common perspective and adding up the money is most of what our government spends.

NPR isn't just "$15 Million," it's a perspective that $15 Million is a "minnow" when someone like me who isn't worth a tenth of that is expected to pay for it.