Christieends Soviet style broadcasting

[Andy A]

Idlewind, they still don't get what you're saying, do they? I would think maybe there are some really dense people on SoWal if I didn't know better. Maybe pig headed and stuborn would be a more suitable description for some. I read what you are saying quite clearly, or at least I think I do. See if you agree with my assessment. NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM FOR A MEDIA OUTLET THAT COMPETES WITH PRIVATE MEDIA OUTLETS, REGARDLESS OF PROGRAMMING. Is that correct?

 

[idlewind]

Idlewind, they still don't get what you're saying, do they? I would think maybe there are some really dense people on SoWal if I didn't know better. Maybe pig headed and stuborn would be a more suitable description for some. I read what you are saying quite clearly, or at least I think I do. See if you agree with my assessment. NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM FOR A MEDIA OUTLET THAT COMPETES WITH PRIVATE MEDIA OUTLETS, REGARDLESS OF PROGRAMMING. Is that correct?

Bingo!

 

[poppy]

Idlewind, they still don't get what you're saying, do they? I would think maybe there are some really dense people on SoWal if I didn't know better. Maybe pig headed and stuborn would be a more suitable description for some. I read what you are saying quite clearly, or at least I think I do. See if you agree with my assessment. NO FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM FOR A MEDIA OUTLET THAT COMPETES WITH PRIVATE MEDIA OUTLETS, REGARDLESS OF PROGRAMMING. Is that correct?

Maybe you're the dense , pigheaded, stubborn one. We get it, we just don't agree. Now is that clear enough for you.

 

[idlewind]

Maybe you're the dense , pigheaded, stubborn one. We get it, we just don't agree. Now is that clear enough for you.

Maybe you would be so good as to share WHY you think the government should be involved in a business enterprise in competition with taxpaying entities? Because all the resident liberals have talked about so far is the quality of the programing ITHO. So, without commenting on the programing can you answer the question? Or do you just want to take my tax dollars and give it to them because you like them? So I guess you won't mind if we vote to take your tax dollars and give them to Rush and co?

 

[idlewind]

I completely agree with being vigilant about govt sponsored media. I will continue to listen to NPR consistently and report back to you when I hear propaganda. In the 35 years I've been listening to it, it hasn't happened yet, but who knows.

Ya'll be sure that all the multi-national profit-motivated news organization don't stoop to propaganda, won't ya?

It is perfectly ok if MSNBC wishes to spout liberal propaganda. After all they are prvately owned and can do whatever they want with their property so long as they do not violate the libel and slander laws.

 

[LuciferSam]

It is perfectly ok if MSNBC wishes to spout liberal propaganda. After all they are prvately owned and can do whatever they want with their property so long as they do not violate the libel and slander laws.

Your point is well taken about you not wanting the government to fund media. Where I really disagree is that I think government funded media is less likely to contain propaganda. The reason is that sensationalism, propaganda, and angry rhetoric sell. It attracts viewers and sponsorship. Objective, rational news reporting doesn't bring in the viewers or listeners. Without the pressure to be flashy, you get a better product. This may violate tenets of Libertarianism, but frankly I don't give a damn. Never drank their wild-eyed koolaid, and never will.

 

[Lake View Too]

Maybe you would be so good as to share WHY you think the government should be involved in a business enterprise in competition with taxpaying entities? Because all the resident liberals have talked about so far is the quality of the programing ITHO. So, without commenting on the programing can you answer the question? Or do you just want to take my tax dollars and give it to them because you like them? So I guess you won't mind if we vote to take your tax dollars and give them to Rush and co?

I think the core issue in this is that you think that news-gathering and education should be a business enterprise, and I believe that it should be a viable function of a government. Without quality education and a press that is free from the propaganda that will naturally occur when news-gathering is left to the forces of the marketplace, then every bit of information/power will be controlled by the filthy rich. When the news becomes a commodity that is bought and sold, we certainly won't have a free press anymore, will we? In fact, we will have a press that is ever more sensational, confrontational, and so darn entertaining, it's almost like a circus. Except on PBS and NPR. Yes, you're correct, tax-payers money should not be used to subsidize an organization that is competing against other organizations in the marketplace. That's just it, PBS and NPR are not competing against anybody.

And if you are so against government subsidies for a program that helps all citizens of this country, why aren't you against farm subsidies and oil subsidies that are purely helping one faction of the economy at the expense of many other private enterprises.

 

[LuciferSam]

Why isn't IW against public schools? Maybe he is.

 

[Zebraspots]

You are confused - you need to listen to more NPR

The government does not provide the majority of the funding for NPR. The biggest contributors are individuals and businesses.

The reason for some government funding is not to provide competition for other channels or spread propaganda, but to help small/rural stations buy programming. The government does not control which programs are purchased or what their content is.

Yes, I understand your argument that you don't want your tax dollars going to NPR or PBS because you think it competes with a private business.

Rarely does it compete, because the reason why they get government funding (via grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) is so they can bring radio and television programs to people in poor, remote, or rural areas. These grants are for stations in Middle of Nowhere, Wyoming, and Tiny Town Texas to buy programming.

The private companies do not serve these areas because there is not enough profit in it for them. No elimination of competition, just many hard working Americans getting some value from their tax dollars.

Cutting NPR funding won't save a dime, the grants will just go elsewhere. And a year's grants to NPR costs far less than a fighter jet.

You want to fix the budget, you need to go after the big items, not fret about the distraction of the day.

 

[Rita]

It is perfectly ok if MSNBC wishes to spout liberal propaganda. After all they are prvately owned and can do whatever they want with their property so long as they do not violate the libel and slander laws.

This is why so many people prefer to watch/listen to PBS and NPR. I have no doubt that listeners would step up to cover the 3% or less funding that comes from government in most markets; but as was pointed out by Zebraspots, the poorer markets would be the ones that suffer. I don't have a problem with a couple of my tax dollars helping out there. This is the most fair and unbiased programming - devoid of propaganda - that I have found anywhere and I'd like to keep it that way.