President Trump Signs Executive Order to Defund NPR and PBS

[rjs330]

They're news organizations. Some amount of political bias is inevitable.

Yup and they shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

They don't have access to it everywhere else, because there largely aren't comparable alternatives.

The other free (or rather, ad-sponsored) alternatives are the broadcast networks that produce content that's far less educational, more sensational, and more low-brow than PBS and far less news-oriented than NPR. Paid alternatives to both exist, but those require subscriptions.

See you can get them everywhere. I have found tons of educational stuff everywhere. Its waste of taxpayer money.

Who airs subscription-free educational children's programming other than PBS tv?

Who on earth is watching PBS with antennas anymore? Nobody is watching television with antennas or rabbit ears. Thats free subscription.

Who airs classical and other non-pop/rock music other than public radio?

Lots of places. We have one where I live.

Who regularly airs documentaries in prime time slots other than PBS tv?
What are the broadcast alternatives to Marketplace, Science Friday, or Sesame Street?

Once again no one is watching that stuff with antennas and rabbit ears. Everyone pays now for access.

And Sesame Street? Are you kidding? Thats a multi billion dollar industry. They of all things dont need taxpayer money.

 

[rambot]

Yup and they shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

Why not?
Why shouldn't their be a publically funded news source?

Frankly, I'd be MORE inclined to say that there should/could be two news sources; one that "skews" left and one that "skews" right (since getting in the middle is impossible). Especialyl since NPR doesn't work as a "Government mouthpiece" as the overly histrionic might suggest.

Fact is, a lot of people get put off by "centrist" news sources.
The problem CANNOT be bias because then you're just looking for your own echo chamber. When I look at the 3 first media ratings; two have them "left lean" and one has them as "centre" (though the "Centre" rating is not absolute but a small portion of the spectrum...ie...it's not PERFECTLY in the centre).

One has to look at the "Factuality" rating. And NPR is quite high with that.

Believing that the current corporate news structure in America does not have some pretty obvious "built in" problems is dangerous IMHO. Corporate interested (and "All News" channels) kinda killed impartial news.


https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink
Just as a funny side bar, I LOVE where they put Charlie Kirk

 

[rjs330]

Why not?
Why shouldn't their be a publically funded news source?

No, you have to provide a compelling reason to spend taxpayer money on it.

Why doea there NEED to be a PUBLIC funded news source. Why cant NPR get funded like every other news outlet?

We have enough left leaning g news sources without taxpayers money.

 

[iluvatar5150]

People who watch PBS and listen to NPR are vulnerable? Wow, victim mentality now being used for tv watchers and radio listeners.

No one else could produce it? I see documentaries all the time on cable, satellite, and all the streaming stations. PBS isnt the ONLY way to make documentaries. Taxpayer funds isnt needed.

Yup and they shouldn't be taxpayer funded.

See you can get them everywhere. I have found tons of educational stuff everywhere. Its waste of taxpayer money.

Who on earth is watching PBS with antennas anymore? Nobody is watching television with antennas or rabbit ears. Thats free subscription.

Lots of places. We have one where I live.


Once again no one is watching that stuff with antennas and rabbit ears. Everyone pays now for access.

And Sesame Street? Are you kidding? Thats a multi billion dollar industry. They of all things dont need taxpayer money.

lol, for all the propaganda about how it's we coastal elites who are the elitist, look at what you managed to bust out without an ounce of irony or sarcasm.

You know who still watches stuff on an antenna? People who can't afford these services and/or who can't get reliable service where they live. So, poor people. People who live in rural areas. My parents, for example, for whom both of those things apply. But I'm glad you can swing $100/mo for tv.

Cord cutters, too. Even if you have streaming services, local tv is still tough to get without either an antenna or a cable subscription. I would watch stuff on an antenna if the building across the street didn't block the reception.

Sesame Street may be a big business, but they do a lot of charity work, including internationally, which is where a lot of their money goes.

Why doea there NEED to be a PUBLIC funded news source. Why cant NPR get funded like every other news outlet?

Why does there NEED to be a public-funded military?
Why does there NEED to be a public-funded police force?
Why does there NEED to be public-funded roads?
Why does there NEED to be public-funded schools?
Why does there NEED to be public-funded medical research?

Because most of society - yourself included - can't afford to pay for these things completely on their own. People who can't afford subscriptions can benefit from high quality news, too. Just the same as every other service the government provides.

Additionally, the market doesn't solve every problem or provide every need. For most news outlets, the traditional funding model has meant that they either turn to low-quality sensational "news" and opinion, or just go under. It's only a handful of the biggest newspapers that have been able to survive and thrive - the rest have been eviscerated. The broadcast networks tends to keep their news on a relatively even keel, but none of them do a lot of news. The cable outlets that do a lot of news chase sensationalism as much as anybody. NPR doesn't have many peers in the US who do a lot of news without devolving into constant hysterics. None of them are available for free.

 

[rjs330]

You know who still watches stuff on an antenna? People who can't afford these services and/or who can't get reliable service where they live. So, poor people. People who live in rural areas. My parents, for example, for whom both of those things apply. But I'm glad you can swing $100/mo for tv.

So hardly anyone. I dont pay 100 mo for tv. Thats too expensive. I didnt watch enough to pay for that. You can get a Roku for cheap and get local channels etc.

We dont need PBS to be rhe responsibility of taxpayers.

Sesame Street may be a big business, but they do a lot of charity work, including internationally, which is where a lot of their money goes.

Good for them.taxpayers dont need to pay for it.

Why does there NEED to be a public-funded military?

To protect all of us.

Why does there NEED to be a public-funded police force?

To enforce the laws that rhe people.wanted and help bring criminals to justice for the detection of ALL.OF US.

Why does there NEED to be public-funded roads?

Because we ALL use them for commerce which benefits ALL.of us bringing ALL.of us food and the things we all.need to live and have an economy.

I could go on. But none of us need PBS. It could go away and we would all continue our lives as if nothing happened. No one is going to die or starve or suffer becauae they cant fet medicine etc. We dont need taxpayer money to be spent just to give someone a documentary on farmers in the 60s.

Because most of society - yourself included - can't afford to pay for these things completely on their own. People who can't afford subscriptions can benefit from high quality news, too.

Then use an antenna and watch CBS. Get a radio, watch you tube etc.

Taxpayer's dont need to pay. You haven't provided any need to do so. Just a bunch of whining because we aren't going to fund some special.interest again that is not needed.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So hardly anyone. I dont pay 100 mo for tv. Thats too expensive. I didnt watch enough to pay for that. You can get a Roku for cheap and get local channels etc.

We dont need PBS to be rhe responsibility of taxpayers.

Good for them.taxpayers dont need to pay for it.

To protect all of us.

To enforce the laws that rhe people.wanted and help bring criminals to justice for the detection of ALL.OF US.

Because we ALL use them for commerce which benefits ALL.of us bringing ALL.of us food and the things we all.need to live and have an economy.

I could go on. But none of us need PBS. It could go away and we would all continue our lives as if nothing happened. No one is going to die or starve or suffer becauae they cant fet medicine etc. We dont need taxpayer money to be spent just to give someone a documentary on farmers in the 60s.

How do you feel about public libraries?

Then use an antenna and watch CBS. Get a radio, watch you tube etc.

Taxpayer's dont need to pay. You haven't provided any need to do so. Just a bunch of whining because we aren't going to fund some special.interest again that is not needed.

Of the two of us, I don't think I'm the one doing the whining.

 

[rjs330]

How do you feel about public libraries?

Im all for local communities deciding what they want in their community. I wouldn't have a problem at all if a community wanted to fund their own form of PBS. Local communities can have whatever they want to pay for. Its local control.

 

[rjs330]

Of the two of us, I don't think I'm the one doing the whining.

Nope, cause I'm happy we aren't paying for it. You're whining because we aren't.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Im all for local communities deciding what they want in their community. I wouldn't have a problem at all if a community wanted to fund their own form of PBS. Local communities can have whatever they want to pay for. Its local control.

So your problem isn’t public funding, it’s the level of government at which something is being funded?

 

[BPPLEE]

How do you feel about public libraries?



Of the two of us, I don't think I'm the one doing the whining.

Pretty much obsolete when you have the internet and Kindle

 

[BPPLEE]

So your problem isn’t public funding, it’s the level of government at which something is being funded?

Maybe it's funding something that leans heavily towards the left.
Seems unfair

 

[iluvatar5150]

Pretty much obsolete when you have the internet and Kindle

Sounds like you haven’t been in one in a while.

 

[BPPLEE]

Sounds like you haven’t been in one in a while.

I have my own library . I donated most of my actual books though and now use Kindle.
Lower income people mostly use libraries for internet access, book borrowing was something mostly middle and upper income people did
Nice flame btw

 

[iluvatar5150]

I have my own library . I donated most of my actual books though and now use Kindle.
Lower income people mostly use libraries for internet access, book borrowing was something mostly middle and upper income people did
Nice flame btw

I didn't mean it as a flame about your literacy. I hadn't been in a library for 20+ years before meeting my wife, who's a voracious reader. She clears north of 130 books/yr, and buying them all would.... pose a number of challenges. She's got cards at at least three libraries, and is at one of them multiple times a week. Now that I go, too, I appreciate them for what they are. Books, sure, but movies and games, too, and loads of events, including a bunch of stuff for little kids. Ours does a bunch of giveaways, too - we go to the aquarium twice a year (as well as a couple other places) and never pay for it.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope, cause I'm happy we aren't paying for it. You're whining because we aren't.

I'm not whining, I'm just laughing.

 

[rjs330]

So your problem isn’t public funding, it’s the level of government at which something is being funded?

We all complain about various things that our tax dollars are spent on. But with more local control over local things each community can decide what they value and want. At the federal level we don't. I have little to no control of how my tax dollars are spent. When we got a big upgrade to our local library the voters had to approve it because their local taxes had to go up.

You can't be surprised that I disagree on how a lot of our federal dollars are spent. With local control there are far greater controls on the money. Most towns and cities are limited on their resources and have to go to their citizens ask for more and get the votes. Not so with the feds. They can over spend like mad with no consequence.

I want better controls on our spending. Dont spend money on stuff that isnt needed. Like PBS. PBS can exist without federal money. They just have to change their way of doing things.

 

[Belk]

We all complain about various things that our tax dollars are spent on. But with more local control over local things each community can decide what they value and want. At the federal level we don't. I have little to no control of how my tax dollars are spent. When we got a big upgrade to our local library the voters had to approve it because their local taxes had to go up.

You can't be surprised that I disagree on how a lot of our federal dollars are spent. With local control there are far greater controls on the money. Most towns and cities are limited on their resources and have to go to their citizens ask for more and get the votes. Not so with the feds. They can over spend like mad with no consequence.

I want better controls on our spending. Dont spend money on stuff that isnt needed. Like PBS. PBS can exist without federal money. They just have to change their way of doing things.

The flip side of the coin, though, is that if the taxes are decentralized you do not get the economy of scale.

 

[iluvatar5150]

We all complain about various things that our tax dollars are spent on. But with more local control over local things each community can decide what they value and want. At the federal level we don't. I have little to no control of how my tax dollars are spent. When we got a big upgrade to our local library the voters had to approve it because their local taxes had to go up.

You can't be surprised that I disagree on how a lot of our federal dollars are spent. With local control there are far greater controls on the money. Most towns and cities are limited on their resources and have to go to their citizens ask for more and get the votes. Not so with the feds. They can over spend like mad with no consequence.

None of this is true. You can petition your federal representatives the same as you can your city councilperson. Sure, at the federal level, there are more people and more competing interests, but that doesn't mean you have no control or no voice. Given that your party controls all three branches at the moments, I think it's a bit rich to say that you have no control. You voted in the people who are doing whatever the heck they want, right now.

Actually, I take that back - one thing in there is true: the federal government does have a lot more leeway to incur debt than state and local governments to.

 

[rjs330]

Sure, at the federal level, there are more people and more competing interests, but that doesn't mean you have no control or no voice.

Im correct when I said little to no. I didnt say NONE. We are FINALLY getting some things do e rhat we have been wanting for YEARS and YEARS.

Apparently our voice was finally heard and PBS was defunded. Yeah! So I guess you are correct somewhat. PBS doesn't need funding and after YEARS of saying something we were finally heard.

Thats part of the issue with federal funding if these things. Locally it can take maybe a year to get something done. Federally, MANY years.

So there's that. We can have a says but with HOW many competing interests there are, rhe odds decrease significantly. Even when the majority of Americans support something or dont.

Federal government should focus on things that are necessary and needed to keep America economically strong and secure. Not spending money on free tv for some people. Thats the last thing we need.