Reply With Quote
I'd rather it not go to either. We do not need a government funded radio network.
...The US Government is sending "bags of cash" to Hamid Karzai
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/...as_afghan_iran"This is transparent. This is something that I've even discussed while I was at Camp David with President Bush," he said, referring to meetings he had with former President George W. Bush at the U.S. presidential retreat outside Washington
"It is not hidden," he said. "We are grateful for the Iranians' help in this regard. The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices."
Asked whether the U.S. actually gives bags full of cash to the presidential office, Karzai responded: "Yes, it does give bags of money."
Dunno about you, but id rather my taxes go to something i at least get some benefit out of vs. Some corrupt politician from some wasteland of a nation ill never visit.
I'd rather it not go to either. We do not need a government funded radio network.
KUT won't go broke without the funding, that's for sure.
I'm fine with dropping the funding.
Do you want to do away with VOA also, CC?
The big bad government provides, somewhat indirectly, about 2% of the funding.
I am quite sure that corporate gimmies and subsidies to other radio networks easily cons ute similar percentages, if not more.
In the vast ocean of things our government does, this is a tempest in a teacup.
I would rather our Congress worry about a few more important matters. I have little problem with big bad gubmint funding the arts.
While i can agree somewhat. I think its a pretty insignificant issue when so many other things are going on.
Im pretty sure NPR can do just fine without public funding...but if my tax dollars are going somewhere, id much rather them go to NPR vs. Hamid Karzai.
Just sayin...
Farm subsidies, anyone?
I dunno...how relevant do you think VOA is now? Except in the most backwards areas I would think the internet has replaced radio as the primary information source.
I do know that the strong supporters of NPR public funding would change their minds in a heartbeat if it was run by conservatives.
NPR is one of the more studiously neutral news outlets out there, for precisely that reason.
Some of the choices as to what to cover and when can be somewhat left-leaning, but hardly smacks of the Fox "news" type partisan stench.
Also on the same token, the people who want to cut the funding the most would only really be happy if it were that far leaning towards their political views.
I don't necessarily agree that NPR is neutral but the fact is, if there was no federal funding it wouldn't matter whether they were left/right/center.
Repugs have regressed to hating ANYTHING that isn't extreme right wing, nothing and nobody is even legitimate if they aren't tea party extremist bat crazy, so even a Repug or anybody who is centrist and NOT biased like Fox Repug propaganda network is to be purged, eliminated.
NPR is not hard core leftist or progressive, and it's certainly not Repug propaganda, so Repugs want to eliminate NPR.
I consider myself republican and I don't hate everything that isn't extreme right wing........I'm just sayin'
Relax. boutons lives in a world without nuance or context.
You are, I think, an express minority.
I can probably make a fairly good case for the fact that the right-wing political orthodoxy I talk about exists, and that mindset consciously or unconsciously has a "with us or against us" mentality that defines "neutral" as not being right-wing enough.
I would start to build that case by combing through the public statements of many hard-core ideologues, as well as the editorial directives from Mr. Murdoch and company to their subordinates.
Revolutions tend to eat their children, and you might not agree with my and boutons position on this, but do you doubt that political litmus tests have gotten a lot more stringent with the emergence of the tea party movement on the right?
No, I think conservatives such as johnsmith and I are a majority. We just don't get air time. Assigning attributes of the hardcore, which in any movement tend to be a minority, to the rest of the population is fallacious, at best.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 10-25-2010 at 04:13 PM.
I don't understand why the Juan Williams controversy has reinvigorated the "defund NPR" crowd. Isn't this just an example of NPR doing what it can (whether you think they went too far or not) to have impartial, objective news analysts?
What is the basis for the argument that they should be defunded? That by firing an analyst for appearing on conservative opinion programming they are necessarily a partisan liberal en y?
No, I don't really think so. Might depend upon your definition of "political litmus test" tho.
if the federal funding comes with strings attached, like needing federal approval to hire and fire employees, then I say cut the funding. If it doesn't, then I think it's election year grandstanding aimed at the tea party crowd.
there wouldn't be a tea party crowd if he were white.
"We'll only approve funding public radio if management allows its analysts to appear on cable news shows." Doesn't make sense. Why do you care?
I think if you bothered to research it a bit, you'd find the Tea Party origins rooted in tax issues almost exclusively.
You eligible to be eliminated.
The entire Repug leadership and ALL Repug Congress have gone to the extreme right. They know Repug voters are so stupid they vote Repug 100% of the time.
I'm tired and stupid today, baker of clams. 'splain yourself.
No.
Oh, and I'll go ahead and beat the board liberals to it.
"Lol, Krauthammer"
So they abide by an archaic journalistic code that says correspondents do not have to be as objective as analysts. This is grounds to defund them? Again, why do you care? It's a staffing decision.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
