former NPR chief on the tea party

[therealUT]

Care to comment on what the idiot at NPR said in the video? I thought not.

He does not need to. His statement stands for itself. Regardless of what was said by the fundraising exec, I find NPR to provide decent, non-sensational news. Is there a slant? Yes. I will not argue that NPR does not have a tendency to show a bias toward the left. However, that bias is much slighter than any bias one will find on MSNBC, CBS, FoxNews, CNN, etc., etc.

 

[VOLatile]

I've seen 15% but that's splitting hairs. I would think that losing that 15% would probably just make those that give to NPR and/or PBS give more. It's not going to cause them to go off the air.

PBS is much higher since it costs more to run a television station. PBS losing it's federal funding would do a lot more damage than NPR. I'm not worried about NPR, but am about PBS. PBS's programming is more educational than anything else on television and serves a very good purpose.

 

[tri_vol]

The rare occasions that I've watched/listened to the political segments on PBS/NPR, it is fine when they have a right viewpoint and a left viewpoint but I've seen plenty of shows that give only the left side of the argument.

I think what was said in the video is simply part of the usual water cooler talk in the PBS/NPR offices.

Just to be clear PBS & NPR have no affiliation. NPR's two biggest news programs All Things Considered & Morning Edition almost always have both sides presented. Sometimes they have them both at the same time. If the issue is complex they break them into segments. If you miss one of the segments, then it would look like they were slanted one side or the other.

Talk of the Nation and Diane Rhem also try to have both sides but Diane leans left. Terri Gross of Fresh Air is liberal interviews people involved with movies, music and authors involved with current events not traditional news.

All of that programming takes up about 7 hours a day. Your local NPR affiliated station buys those programs from NPR. It is up to the station manager to decide how to fill the other 17 hours. They might play classical/jazz music, produce programs locally or buy other programs from other stations. Those programs may have a left lean but are not affiliated with NPR. That decision is strictly with the local manager.

For example, the local NPR station here refused to carry a program called Democracy Now. It is liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Some stations have chosen to carry it. This station refused because it strives to keep a politically neutral stand. So your local station might lean left but NPR itself has no control over that.

You are right about the water cooler talk but their reporters do a good job of reporting the facts and leaving the spin out of it.

 

[Tenacious D]

He does not need to. His statement stands for itself. Regardless of what was said by the fundraising exec, I find NPR to provide decent, non-sensational news. Is there a slant? Yes. I will not argue that NPR does not have a tendency to show a bias toward the left. However, that bias is much slighter than any bias one will find on MSNBC, CBS, FoxNews, CNN, etc., etc.

The American taxpayer doesn't subsidize the others.

Thats the difference.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

NPR serves a useful purpose in that it often goes much deeper into the facts and policy-making aspects of an issue or story than its counteparts' superficial commentary, misleading labels, and sound bite spin.

Ergo, it is understandably the enemy of the far right and they hate it.

Yeah, that's the problem in this country - too little sources of information, deep or otherwise.

I know that when I want to really explore an issue, the first thing I head for is the radio - while stepping around my television, Android, PS3, to get to it.

Also, sometimes my family and I gather around the Wurlitzer and sing hymns, or to engage others beyond our cloistered sect, we'll crank up the CB and listen to the magical tales of truckers as they recount their visits with strange and wondrous women, likely, the same you know all too well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Yeah, that's the problem in this country - too little sources of information, deep or otherwise.

I know that when I want to really explore an issue, the first thing I head for is the radio - while stepping around my television, Android, PS3, to get to it.

Also, sometimes my family and I gather around the Wurlitzer and sing hymns, or to engage others beyond our cloistered sect, we'll crank up the CB and listen to the magical tales of truckers as they recount their visits with strange and wondrous women, likely, the same you know all too well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

For people who commute to work and actually use their work computers for work, NPR provides plenty of good information that they are not going to get elsewhere.

I agree, it should not be subsidized. However, to discredit the information on NPR and say it has no place in society (which is what you have basically done) is simply ignorant.

 

[tri_vol]

The American taxpayer doesn't subsidize the others.

Thats the difference.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The subsidy is rather small.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The subsidy is rather small.

Does the size matter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Does the size matter?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

When you discuss this as a "budget issue" then yes.

 

[BigPapaVol]

When you discuss this as a "budget issue" then yes.

This silly sentiment is how we end up with 35% of national W2 style income accounted for by entitlements.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tri_vol]

This silly sentiment is how we end up with 35% of national W2 style income accounted for by entitlements.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I would agree with you. The idea that NPR needs government aid is a joke. They could get by without it. However to single them out for taking free money is a bit unfair. All government agencies take more money than they need.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I would agree with you. The idea that NPR needs government aid is a joke. They could get by without it. However to single them out for taking free money is a bit unfair. All government agencies take more money than they need.

I'm not singling them out. I want to stop pissing away money on the needless and frivolous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tri_vol]

I'm not singling them out. I want to stop pissing away money on the needless and frivolous.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I agree. The answers are easy but no one has the political will or backbone to do it. The whole system is corrupt.

 

[VOLatile]

This silly sentiment is how we end up with 35% of national W2 style income accounted for by entitlements.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This is not how my comment was meant to be viewed. We have bigger issues than NPR, though.

I would agree with you. The idea that NPR needs government aid is a joke. They could get by without it. However to single them out for taking free money is a bit unfair. All government agencies take more money than they need.

This is how I feel about NPR.

 

[volinbham]

My 2 cents on NPR. What they cover they cover well. I don't find them to hard left. What they do though is take the "speak truth to power" role a bit further than I would prefer. The perspective is generally sympathetic to the "powerless".

As for govt. support - simply not needed. Maybe it made sense in an era of 3 networks and no Internet.

Bottomline, if the content has value it will find funding.