Defunding NPR Is An Outrage

[Superhorn]

To dismiss NPR as merely an outlet for left-wing propaganda is to show total ignorance of what this network represents.
Its news coverage is in fact infinitely more fair and balanced than Fox news and other conservative radio programs.
NPR offers much more than political coverage and opinion. For example,classical music and the other arts, and news and
commentary on many subjects which have nothing to do with politics. Defunding NPR will save the U.S. government only a miniscule amount of money and will cause thousands of people to lose their jobs ,and ultimately deny the public balanced news and commentary ,and much more.
The Republicans are being totally disingenuous when they claim that they must dedund NPR,PBS and the National Endowment For The Arts to improve the U.S. economy. Their ultimate goal is to stifle free speech for those who do not share their right-wing views. For private citizens to complain about their hard-earned dollars going to support "left-wing propaganda" is just plain ludicrous. The government takes next to nothing from them to support NPR, PBS and the NEA.
If the NEA is abolished, as many Republicans want, it will jeopardize the livelihoods of the 5.7 million Americans who work in the arts in one capacity or another, and could cause America to lose one of its national treasures - the many world class symphony orchestras,opera and dance and drama companies which adorn this great nation.
Shame on the Republicans.

[Jeffreydan]

Want proof that NPR's news & commentary programming is overwhelmingly liberal?

Superhorn thinks it's balanced.

[Superhorn]

Even some conservatives who listen to it agree that it's fair and balanced.
Just because there are some liberals on it is absolutely no reason to defund it.

[Jeffreydan]

Even some conservatives who listen to it agree that it's fair and balanced.

Unless those conservatives do a thorough review of NPR's programming like the conservative Brent Bozell has, those conservatives are agreeing to something that isn't so.

BTW, who are Bill Moyers' and Nina Totenberg's conservative counterparts on NPR?

Just because there are some liberals on it is absolutely no reason to defund it.

"Some liberals" on NPR? Cute. Actually, the fact that the left's POV gets more representation than the right's isn't the main reason to defund it, which is to help balance the federal budget.
Thousands of things are paid for with tax money that we can't afford to spend, and they add up. NPR & PBS have programming that can certainly survive in the free market, so let the market decide.

[Superhorn]

Defunding NPR will save practically nothing for the government. NPR barely even get speanuts.There are lots of other things which cost the government billions more which could be eliminated.
And if former President Bush hadn't poured trillions down the drain in the futile and disastrous Iraq war, we'd have a lot more money than we do now. And there are plenty of other things Bush squandered money on.
NPR offers a lot of programming quality programing which has nothing to do with politics, so defunding it is just plain WRONG. Thouasands of jobs will be lost, and there will be a lot off ill effects from this move. It's just the tip of the iceberg in Washington Republicans plans to silence liberal voices in America. These irresponsible arrogant philistines must be stopped before they cause too much damage.

[Jeffreydan]

Defunding NPR will save practically nothing for the government. NPR barely even get speanuts.

Must've not read every sentence of my last post--here y'go: Thousands of things are paid for with tax money that we can't afford to spend, and they add up. What this means is thousands of things should be defunded.
Do you understand the phrase "add up"? If you don't, I suggest you never get a job that pays by the hour.

And if former President Bush hadn't poured trillions down the drain in the futile and disastrous Iraq war, we'd have a lot more money than we do now. And there are plenty of other things Bush squandered money on.

The discussion just wouldn't be complete without the liberal offering a completely irrelevant, unconstructive Bush-blame (excuse me while I set my watch). How very current-president of you.
Speaking of whomch, you might want to clarify your exact feelings about presidents' spending habits. BO's 1st couple of years has seen more squandered money than all 8 of President Bush's. You essentially compared a college student going out one extra time in a month to a 60-year-old mason blowing his life savings on a painting.

NPR offers a lot of programming quality programing which has nothing to do with politics, so defunding it is just plain WRONG.

Something else obviously missed by you in my last post--here y'go: Actually, the fact that the left's POV gets more representation than the right's isn't the main reason to defund it, which is to help balance the federal budget.

Thouasands of jobs will be lost, and there will be a lot off ill effects from this move.

Wow, either you didn't read my last post at all, or you simply don't see conservative messages any better than you do liberal messengers. Here y'go: NPR & PBS have programming that can certainly survive in the free market, so let the market decide.
Incidentally, no typical conservative is for instant defunding, just like no typical liberal is for having the funds before creating thousands of bureaucratic gov't jobs. Implementing a defunding must involve gradual phasing down.

It's just the tip of the iceberg in Washington Republicans plans to silence liberal voices in America.

While this statement doesn't deserve a response, I still hope you'll clarify your exact feelings about the silencing of voices. If you are against it, I suggest you clear your schedule for the list of examples I'll provide of liberals (BO being one of the stars) trying to silence conservative voices. If you are only against it if affects liberals, you're as hateful as those imaginary conservatives you've been griping about, and I'd suggest years of therapy.

[JDC]

I am far more conservative than liberal (actually, I am a Radical Moderate) and I enjoy MANY programs on NPR and PBS. This doesn't mean that I support the idea of taxpayers being forced to support those institutions, but it does mean that I faithfully pledge a certain amount each year. Voluntarily.

There is probably a very good reason why this won't work--and I'm sure that I will be informed what that reason is--but here is a modest proposal:

Remember the recent "Energy Improvements" tax credit?
How about the government defunds NPB/CPB/PBS but gives those who wish to donate to them a direct, 100% tax credit for the donation instead of having to lump it in with the rest of your itemized deductions?

[Cap'n Billy]

How about the government defunds NPB/CPB/PBS but gives those who wish to donate to them a direct, 100% tax credit for the donation instead of having to lump it in with the rest of your itemized deductions?

I would not go that far. I would simply keep the tax deductions for individuals and corporations who donate. I don't really think public broadcasting deserves a more privileged status than, say, United Way, American Cancer Society and other such organizations.

I was a supporter of PBS for well over 30 years. There was a time when I divided my time between St. Louis and San Diego and I donated to PBS in both locations. However, they finally got too blatantly left-wing to merit any more of my support. A couple of incidents on Prairie Home Companion, which I listened to from the time it went national in about 1976 until about 2006, are cases in point. One was when Keillor announced the death of Ronald Reagan to whoops of joy from his far-left audience, another was the execrable Calvin Trillin's recitation of his poem, "Nanny Dick" at an Independence Day show to great acclaim from that audience. It's overly generous of me to even approve of their tax-deductible status, but I suppose other left and right-wing organizations have that status. If they're going to present such "entertainment" they will do so without my consensual support, and I will support any and all attempts to remove all government funding from them.

...And BTW, it tells us all we need to know about the "values" of the OP that he considers the prospect of unwilling citizens no longer being forced to subsidize a "news" and "entertainment" outlet with their own earnings to be an "outrage."

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

That NPR considers David Brooks to be a Conservative tells you all you need to know about just how far to the Left NPR is.

[CarlsCavern]

Defunding NPR is NOT an outrage. Outrage is an over used word. However, NPR should not be paid for with taxpayer money. Ray Kroc's widow (Mrs. McDonalds?) left NPR $200 MILLION dollars. NPR should never need any outside finding again. Especially not from a US taxpayer.

DEFUND NPR. It is the American thing to do.

[Dan Foley]

What jeffreydan said. (Really well.)

[ARJ127]

NPR isn't a typical network because that it doesn't have to live and die by ratings. Public funding is justified if it provides an educational source for its viewers. Some people here think that this source is a biased liberal propaganda organ. Maybe not. Disagreeing with the biases or prejudices of conservatives does't necessarily make it a liberal medium.

I have no idea how much tax money is sent to NPR. I doubt that it's really significant. To paraphrase Timothy Leary "Turn on, tune in, get smarter"

[flyphish56]

Some people here think that this source is a biased liberal propaganda organ. Maybe not. Disagreeing with the biases or prejudices of conservatives does't necessarily make it a liberal medium.

Perhaps you could discuss the issue with Juan Williams.