House Votes To Defund NPR

[Burgold]

http://www.c-span.org/Events/House-To-Vote-To-Defund-NPR/10737420260/?gclid=CJLWqtG41qcCFYxd5Qodpi739w

The House of Representatives voted 228 - 192 to strip federal funding from National Public Radio (NPR). The bill, introduced by Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), passed mostly along party lines with seven Republicans voting against it and one voting present.

The measure is not implemented until the Senate passes it and the president signs it.

Conservatives charge NPR as having a liberal bias. The latest uproar came when a secret edited video surfaced of NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller criticizing the Tea Party during a lunch with actors pretending to be Muslim donors.

Schiller immediately resigned and NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (unrelated to Ron Schiller) also resigned her post.

The public radio network became a focus of conservatives after commentator Juan Williams was fired for remarks about Muslims made on Fox News in the fall of 2010.

Last month, as part of its FY 2011 budget, the House passed a measure that strips money from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the government entity that allocates money to NPR and other public media.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 04:35 PM ----------

Well, now it's no longer just talk. Sad. Even sadder that this is such a transparent partisan ploy. Luckily, I don't think the Senate will follow suit which is something I bet even the House Republicans bank on. This way they get to have their cake, eat it too, and even get to keep their whipping boy to beat on again.

[Burgold]

double post

[kramdizzle]

doesnt mean squat unless its passed, which it wont

[JimboDaMan]

Well, now it's no longer just talk. Sad. Even sadder that this is such a transparent partisan ploy. Luckily, I don't think the Senate will follow suit which is something I bet even the House Republicans bank on. This way they get to have their cake, eat it too, and even get to keep their whipping boy to beat on again.

I expect you're right, NPR can be a valuable boogeyman in the fine tradition of the ACLU and other hideous monsters.

[Ellis]

doesnt mean squat unless its passed, which it wont

My fingers are crossed hoping you are right.

I love NPR. I listen every day.

Of course, I would be a liar if I said it didn't have a liberal bias, however slight. I don't know what other NPR stations around the country have though. A lot of the programming on the NPR I listen to has much to do with local issues and this is a very Democratic area. Thus, I expect it to have a slight bias to that side of the aisle. I have access to 2 stations. One from Towson and one from AMU.

[thebluefood]

While I don't think it will make it past the Senate, this is still a very discouraging sign. NPR is the least of the nation's worries right now as far as spending is concerned. It seems, though, that it's a convenient straw man. It would be sad to see NPR go and people, like Burgold, potentially lose their jobs.

[ixcuincle]

NPR is a good station

Not because of their talk radio but their support for the classical music and arts

[jnhay]

While I don't think it will make it past the Senate, this is still a very discouraging sign. NPR is the least of the nation's worries right now as far as spending is concerned. It seems, though, that it's a convenient straw man. It would be sad to see NPR go and people, like Burgold, potentially lose their jobs.

Yeah right. Once we stop funding NPR, I'm sure the nation's budget will be balanced.

[Thiebear]

NPR says it doesn't get funding and the Chief Fundraising Officer said they don't need it.

It'll be just fine. There are .004% earners that believe it needs to be here also, they won't let it go.

if it couldn't stay afloat 85% would get scooped up by other networks.

[Burgold]

NPR says it doesn't get funding and the Chief Fundraising Officer said they don't need it.

It'll be just fine. There are .004% earners that believe it needs to be here also, they won't let it go.

if it couldn't stay afloat 85% would get scooped up by other networks.

I think it's true that NPR will survive without government funding, but that doesn't mean that the extra doesn't matter. The thing that is missing in news these days are feet on the streets and reporters doing first hand reporting. Newsrooms are shrinking and there's an overdependence on recycling news from the AP or the wires. Too often, news broadcasters will rely on experts and analysts, rather than sending someone in to really dig, meet all the players, and get the best answer possible. Clearly, a reduction in money means a reduction in what you can do. So does federal funding matter even if it is only a tiny percentage? Of course it does if you care about truth or quality.

Equally importantly, trusting a fundraiser is like trusting a used car salesman. They will tell the person in front of them what they want to hear as long as they think it is moving them towards getting that gift, that big donation.

[fullnelson9999]

Will never pass, but the fact it's even being considered sickens me.

[chipwhich]

Without this being a politically inflammatory thread. Can someone give me a good reason to keep funding NPR?

I am really ignorant on the topic. Not talking liberals vs conservatives. Ignorant as to the reasoning it should be funded at all by our government.

I would think with all of today's media outlets available, the continuing funding is probably past it's necessity.

[sacase]

I don't see why we need to fund it. We need to make some budget cuts and pretty much every cut is going to called partisan, be it a democrat or republican idea. We really need to focus on what we NEED to pay for vs what we would like to pay for, the what we would like to pay for needs to fall to the side for a while until we balance our budget better and get into a much better fiscal situation. I don't care if it was a liberal or conservative program, start cutting stuff.

[Burgold]

Without this being a politically inflammatory thread. Can someone give me a good reason to keep funding NPR?

I am really ignorant on the topic. Not talking liberals vs conservatives. Ignorant as to the reasoning it should be funded at all by our government.

I would think with all of today's media outlets available, the continuing funding is probably past it's necessity.

There are a ton of reasons. Most of them are tied into the concept of why a not for profit news agency is beneficial. The not for profit news model allows greater depth, an archive of important historical and cultural events, and is not beholden to the pressure that sponsors and advertisers put on for profit entities. Because NPR or PBS relies on donations and government funding, they don't have to play the ratings game and don't have to be as salacious or controversy driven, thus you get generally higher quality, greater objectivity, and quite a few stories that the other media don't touch because they are not sexy or controversial enough.

I think the most basic example is that of the cigarette company funding tobacco health research. Sponsors can exert and inordinate amount of pressure on what story gets told and often how it gets told. Public radio escapes much of that pressure although certainly not all.

More, worldwide, the BBC is considered one of the best and purest news agencies around and it is a government entity, but it's not just news. Sesame Street, Masterpiece Theater, American Masters, and a whole bevy of shows on NPR and PBS all perform a public service and enrich us through education, knowledge, and serves to preserve some of the great performers of our time. Where else do you see Ella Fitzgerald singing followed by seven day documentaries on baseball or the Civil War? The funding of these documentaries, shows, and specials is what sets PBS and NPR apart... and for less than the cost to make a single major motion picture, you get tens of thousands stories and 365 days of programming.

It's really a very good deal and one of the few deals that the government invests in that gives back more than it costs. Think how many children have benefited from the educational programming alone on PBS.

[Thiebear]

I think it's true that NPR will survive without government funding, but that doesn't mean that the extra doesn't matter. The thing that is missing in news these days are feet on the streets and reporters doing first hand reporting. Newsrooms are shrinking and there's an overdependence on recycling news from the AP or the wires. Too often, news broadcasters will rely on experts and analysts, rather than sending someone in to really dig, meet all the players, and get the best answer possible. Clearly, a reduction in money means a reduction in what you can do. So does federal funding matter even if it is only a tiny percentage? Of course it does if you care about truth or quality.

Equally importantly, trusting a fundraiser is like trusting a used car salesman. They will tell the person in front of them what they want to hear as long as they think it is moving them towards getting that gift, that big donation.

So NPR is the only venue that does the real work? I see reporters in Japan radiated taking iodine and getting their asses kicked in Egypt.

I'm pretty sure they would disagree.

I said the same thing about him. But he is the Chief Fundraiser and he said they 'didn't' need the money.

I disregard the tape and anything in it as junk at this point, he could be reinstated tomorrow.

[deejaydana]

I'll preface this by saying that NPR is my default station of choice in my car, and has been for years. With that said, taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding anything that promotes a political stance of any kind. Hope the budget axe does fall on them, their top brass already admitted that they don't need these funds to function anyway....

[chipwhich]

It's really a very good deal and one of the few deals that the government invests in that gives back more than it costs. Think how many children have benefited from the educational programming alone on PBS.

Thanks for the input Burgold.

[Burgold]

So NPR is the only venue that does the real work? I see reporters in Japan and getting their asses kicked in Egypt.

I'm pretty sure they would disagree.

For major stories, they still trot people out, but by and large newspapers and broadcasters do little field reporting. Really study FOX, CNN, and News Radio and listen to how much is done in the field. They're much more likely to ask someone to come to them or go to a news conference. Real investigative reporting is becoming rarer and rarer. Of course, NPR is not the only guy who sends people out, but they do it more than many. Seriously, try to concentrate on it, it's not always easy to tell, but for those of us in the biz it's discouraging how many stories aren't covered or get short shrift because they don't have a big enough newsroom or budget to send people out.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 08:12 PM ----------

I'll preface this by saying that NPR is my default station of choice in my car, and has been for years. With that said, taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding anything that promotes a political stance of any kind. Hope the budget axe does fall on them, their top brass already admitted that they don't need these funds to function anyway....

I know we try desperately hard not to. Every story goes through several layers of review to make sure that bias is filtered out as completely as possible. Now, if you are looking for 0%, NPR fails, but we try as hard as humans can try.

Thanks for the input Burgold.

Thanks. Those are some of the reasons I love NPR and PBS. The breadth of stories they cover and how they choose to cover them (without instilling controversy or screaming) is something dear to me.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 08:12 PM ----------

[Thiebear]

I thought there was nothing better than "The Greatest American Hero" but it got canceled also..

[Stillers6SB]

For major stories, they still trot people out, but by and large newspapers and broadcasters do little field reporting. Really study FOX, CNN, and News Radio and listen to how much is done in the field. They're much more likely to ask someone to come to them or go to a news conference. Real investigative reporting is becoming rarer and rarer. Of course, NPR is not the only guy who sends people out, but they do it more than many. Seriously, try to concentrate on it, it's not always easy to tell, but for those of us in the biz it's discouraging how many stories aren't covered or get short shrift because they don't have a big enough newsroom or budget to send people out.

...

Thanks. Those are some of the reasons I love NPR and PBS. The breadth of stories they cover and how they choose to cover them (without instilling controversy or screaming) is something dear to me.

Agree with your points about the quality of NPR and PBS, but I see absolutely no reason for government funding for them.

Government spending has to be reduced. There will be plenty of tough decisions to make in order to reduce the deficit, but even though arts funding is a drop in the bucket, it should be an easy decision to cut it.

[Burgold]

I thought there was nothing better than "The Greatest American Hero" but it got canceled also..

I recently bought the first season on DVD. It was in a discount bin for 5 bucks. I couldn't resist. (Now that was a liberal show!!! Still funny, but I forgot or didn't realize because of how young I was how political that sucker was.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 08:40 PM ----------

Agree with your points about the quality of NPR and PBS, but I see absolutely no reason for government funding for them.

Do you agree with funding the Kennedy Center? The Smithsonian? It is important to document, record, and make accessible America's culture and significant moments of history.

You may ultimately be right that we have to cut here, but honestly, cutting NPR funding is a diversion. It's a red meat thing. Not only does it not solve the problem, but it will actually make it worse because the way NPR covers government policy in a serious way tends to put greater pressure on our politicos. FOX, CNN, MSNBC generally devote between 30 seconds to 90 seconds on a story. A three minute story is huge. The truth is you can't cover a story in any depth in that amount of time. NPR allows for six, eight, ten minute stories and even with that you can't cover the whole story, but you certainly can take on a heckuva lot more.

Edit: Anyone else getting a bunch of weird double posts?

[sacase]

I recently bought the first season on DVD. It was in a discount bin for 5 bucks. I couldn't resist. (Now that was a liberal show!!! Still funny, but I forgot or didn't realize because of how young I was how political that sucker was.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 08:40 PM ----------

Do you agree with funding the Kennedy Center? The Smithsonian? It is important to document, record, and make accessible America's culture and significant moments of history.

You may ultimately be right that we have to cut here, but honestly, cutting NPR funding is a diversion. It's a red meat thing. Not only does it not solve the problem, but it will actually make it worse because the way NPR covers government policy in a serious way tends to put greater pressure on our politicos. FOX, CNN, MSNBC generally devote between 30 seconds to 90 seconds on a story. A three minute story is huge. The truth is you can't cover a story in any depth in that amount of time. NPR allows for six, eight, ten minute stories and even with that you can't cover the whole story, but you certainly can take on a heckuva lot more.

Edit: Anyone else getting a bunch of weird double posts?

I understand what you are saying...NPR is a good thing, I tink you make a solid point on that. But even though NPR funding is a drop in the bucket, we need to cut it for now. The rational being that almost everything the government funds can be called a good idea that provides some benifit to society. In the end we will end up cutting nothing, drops in the bucket can add up to a full pale....

[TimmySmith]

Government does not fund NPR, so I am not sure what this thread is about.

But nonetheless the President won't sign this.

[chipwhich]

Government does not fund NPR, so I am not sure what this thread is about.

But nonetheless the President won't sign this.

Sometimes people make me scratch my head.

I know what you think you think you know, but unfortunately you are a little confused

[The 12th Commandment]

I'd rather they find a way to tackle the biggies that leaves the little ones alone. Fixing all the little ones (if that's your idea of what's being done) would still not solve our long term problems and wouldn't even matter that much short term. The sooner to get to talking about SS the Medicals and the military, the sooner they'll leave stuff that actually is doing the country some good alone.