News-Record.com

While my kids enjoy watching Clifford on PBS in the morning, I still don't understand why taxpayers have to subsidize PBS or NPR for that matter. And I would hardly call Bill Moyers impartial.

Although I must admit I enjoy the lack of commercials, I still would prefer that PBS & NPR do what every other TV and radio station do, make a living in the marketplace without taxpayer subsidies.

Several years ago, I wrote an LTE criticizing NPR's liberal bias, only because I have to pay taxes for it. I have no problem with Air America for example as I don't have to pay for it. (Even though Air America is going down the tubes, heh heh).

One of the top NPR dogs emailed me and stated that only 10% of NPR was funded by taxpayer money. My response was if it's only 10% why couldn't they make up the difference with limited advertising or step up their fund drives? No answer.

I agree Dan. Limited commercial time would be the answer. I am sure the USPS would advertise on either of these stations and no one would object since it is less than someone screaming for your money like Billy Mays and Orange Clean,(OUCH WHAT A HEADACHE), or Joes Used Car Lot.

Dan,

I agree with you about the 'impartial news information' comment. They are hardly impartial. I do think they do a better job of going a little bit deeper on issues than the mainstream media, however.

I enjoy PBS for the documentaries and news. I also enjoy watching the BBC news for a worldly perspective (I'm thinking that comes on PBS instead of another channel at night?)

My kids love the children's programming.

However, I too question the use of taxpayer money to support these stations. I will admit I'm ignorant on this subject and what percentage comes from public donation/ tax money/ commercial venues.

But I really can't see the necessity for additional advertisement. Their children's programming is really nothing more than an advertisement in itself. I've been to the toy stores, book stores, etc and I've seen the Clifford merchandising, the Sesame Street merchandise, the Barney merchandise, etc etc.

I have a hard time giving my money or tax money to help fund these toy companies' profits.

If PBS and NPR are valuable to their viewers, then the withdrawal of government financing shouldn't matter. I refuse to listen to them because of their pleads for funding, which is obnoxious. They try to make listeners feel guilty for listening and benefiting from the programming, but not being willing to pay for it.

Regardless of their politics, liberal or conservative, such media need to operate on their own and not as a functionary of government. If their programming is valuable, people will pay for it, either through personal contributions or commercial support. For those of us who don't watch or listen to them, we don't need to be paying for it. But, this seems to always be the liberal way, use OPM to fund your beliefs.

I really have to disagree that Clifford is creative and entertaining. He's big and red, but that's about it. Once the kids are onto the trick, they'll move on better fare. Dragon Tales and Barney are even worse. Insipid characterization, banal plotting, predictable moralizing. They're like liberal politics generally. In characterizing these shows as "appropriate," I assume the writers means that they regularly drone on about the need to recycle.

Capitalist product SpongeBob SquarePants, on the other hand, is creative and entertaining, as are many other shows on Nick and Cartoon Network.

Broadcasting is just one more activity that the government should not be involved with (I say get them out of the gambling & alcohol businesses, too). I chuckle when I read the comments about incorporating "limited advertising" on a public TV or radio station. Have you tuned in lately? "The following progam made possible in part by a grant from......." followed by 10 to 15 seconds about the company! THAT'S ADVERTISING!! When the local public radio station does it, it is direct competition with local private business. North Carolina Public TV's fundraising has got to be the best example of "tune-out factor" that I have ever turned off. I call it the amatuer begging week (and they save the most popular shows for that week, too). If you really think public broadcasting couldn't compete, think of how may "Tickle Me Elmo" dolls have beens sold, with all profits going to the producers, and none to Public Broadcasting. Fair?

Exactly, Nic. And not only is the begging just annoying but it is also unethical. Someone I know purchased a series at a way overinflated price (fair market value around $30, telethon price $350.) He then found out that only about $10 went to PBS.

I do not disagree with the principle's ya'll have expressed (get the gov't out of public broadcasting), but the practicality troubles me.

Laugh at Air America going under - I've never heard it so I can't say .. but think about the sponsor-paid programs that DO survive:

Start with Rush and Hannity, throw in G. Gordon and Laura ... that about sums up AM radio and to call THAT unbiased, fair, informative ... wait .. you keep telling me it's "entertainment". In fact it's nasty partisan BS, but if you wanna support the sponsors, go for it.

From where else do we learn what's going on? The "lame-stream"? Dan rather is a good example, and Katie Coric (sp) .. yea, that's news in depth.

OK - there's FOX vs. CNN. A little better than lame lane, but a clear lefty and a righty slugging it out - each grinding a biased axe.

What remains? Nothing I can think of, can you? Hell let's just all be ignorant.

Ya'll can poke fun at PBS and NPR, but there is no better hour on TV than Jim Lehrer, and the depth of coverage on that show as well as All Thing considered is unmatched - I dare say unmatchable. Studies have been shown both to be effectively centrist.

MY POINT - If it takes public money to keep in depth and relatively centrist coverage of the world at large - it's a damm fine investment of public monies.

As for ORR's comment about The Liberals always wanting to use OPM ...

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

Enjoy, Running Man

I think that public money spent to help public radio and television is a wonderful investment.

As for NPR being biased, the only show I can think of is Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me. Now they are funny and make cracks about Bush and Congress and all politicians. They don't pretend to do anything but entertain, and they do it well.

My favorite is Diane Rehm. A very classy lady who is the best interviewer I have ever heard. She has lots of folks I don't agree with, but I like to hear what they say. She asks tough questions and usually gets an answer.

It seems that liberal has come to mean that you don't agree with all things Republican.

Many people who are criticized just seem to be telling it like it is, no sugar coating. No spin. Listen to Diane from 10 to 12 weekdays. If you listen with an open mind, you will learn a lot...maybe some things you don't want to hear.

I agree with JDR and Carol. I feel like my tax dollars would be well spent on public radio. I'd like to know how some of you who are bellyaching about tax supported radio but support tax breaks and tax incentives for private businesses rationalize this contradiction?

Yvonne, businesses that receive tax breaks give a return on the investment. PBS offers nothing which could be considered a return on investment.

If you are to be taken literally, MRP, I disagree.

SOME - perhaps many but certainly not all - business provide an ROI, but in general, any tax dollars supporting that business (in terms of grants or credits) are returned directly to the shareholders, and only indirectly through payroll taxes should the business actually hire more folks, which is perhaps a plan but never a gaurantee.

There are also many many cost that business tends to dump back on the people - environmental cleanup being a big one, the gift of Our natural resources (exploited at our expense for shareholder gain), and the costs of "monitoring" corporations (SEC, IRS, OSHA, EPA) are also Corporate burdens on the Tax Payer. Unfortunately big Business has a long bad history of crapping on the America, so these expenses are needed to attempt to minimize the abuse.

==

PBS can - clearly doesn't all the time - offer in depth information that is used by investors and voters to make decisions. That in itself is of value. One could fairly argue the printed press does the same thing, but PBS is relatively free compared to a subscription to the WSJ.

Consider Bankruptcy.

Big Business wants Government to step in - spending taxpayer money - to help Big Business collect on a bad loan - a foolish loan made by Big Business.

Consider Immigration.

Big Business wants Government to facilitate it so they can drive labor costs down, rather than pay American worker on a real Supply and Demand basis.

JDR,
Once again, you shame the right and they have no idea you have done it.
Bravo!

Bingo, JDR. While shareholders may or may not benefit from big business, ALL taxpayers who indirectly support big business do not. So you are correct that the tax paying public does not receive a ROI.