DescentBB

It would seem that a certain national art organisation is "endowed" very well indeed. What I don't understand is how Bush can give the National Endowment for the Arts a 5 million dollar increase in their budget. Now I can understand when we are flush with money and the deficit been trimmed way back, but now?
What is particularly irksome is something like NPR radio gets a piece of the pie and the question is why? Can't they hack it on their own? What I don't understand is twica a year each local affiliate has a fund drive, out of which a percentage goes to the national name proggies like the all too liberal Diane Ream et al.
The local station I listen to raises something like 10 or 15 million per event. Multiply this over god knows how many affiliates nationwide and I think a pretty good chunk of change is amassed.
so the question is...why do we the taxpayer have to help subsidise something like NPR? Isn't this akin to unions using dues money to back a particular politicol without any approval from the rank and file?
Anyways I thought I"d let it all hang out

I don't understand how Bush can run as a republican. Decrease taxes, ok fine. Increase debt? increase government spending? I get the feeling that even some of the democrats running would be more conservative with spending then the current president.

Bush's fuzzy math seems to allow spending more and making less I suppose. But I believe that all he really cares about is placing his mark in our history books, whatever the cost to the citizens may be.

I like how you emphasize NPR getting money, vs Bush giving NPR money.

NPR should not be government subsidized. Period. We live in a free marketplace. Sink or swim on your own merits. I don't care whose agenda NPR promotes, left or right, the government shouldn't be in the domestic news/opinion business. NPR should look at what happened to the BBC recently and learn. There are no sacred cows and crying *I'm being oppressed!* doesn't forgive shoddy journalism.

NPR shouldn't be government subsidized for the simple fact that it's a media organization. I have no problem with the Fed subsidizing Amtrak (National Rail Passenger Corporation), power companies, or other public-benefit corporations. That is, until news of the accounting fraud gets out.

Ya know, as I think about it our local affiliate of NPR advertises by mentioning certain local business (half of which are gay btw). Now whether these spotlighted group "gave" a big pledge drive contribution or it is something else, what remains is these recipients of public largess can and do collect money on their own and do not need to be on the public dole. While NPR may emote the guise of a non-commercial entity, in truth they collect monies and advertise for a certain few. I say "Let them eat meat and potatoes" like everyone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
NPR should not be government subsidized. Period. We live in a free marketplace. Sink or swim on your own merits. I don't care whose agenda NPR promotes, left or right, the government shouldn't be in the domestic news/opinion business. NPR should look at what happened to the BBC recently and learn. There are no sacred cows and crying *I'm being oppressed!* doesn't forgive shoddy journalism.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

bash is right on.

i have enjoyed NPR for years.... particularly "fresh air" with Terry Gross. she has a definite spin on things. yet, she does give good interview. http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml;js ... ayDate=arc hive

imho.
if my tax dollars paid for her interviews with the actors, musicians, and politicians she has interviewed. it's worth while.

i understand bash masters point of view. but it isn't a total waste. listen to the archives... it's a broad range of folks... not bad. lacking ayn rand, for sure.

to the topic... i don't want to pay for peoples babies, or their art... (no one pays for my whining with a takamine... nor do i expect them to).

the governments purpose is to build and maintain roads, and pay for an army to protect the roads. the rest you should be thankful for... at a base level.

since that isn't reality... and NPR exists. i'd say it is a good investment... if they balance their spin, a lot.

the whole problem with media now-a-days is the mis-understanding of the term "editorial". there is nothing wrong with an "editorial" if it is stated. but FOX news, NPR, and everyone else are guilty of passing random commentary AS "fact" when it is indeed an "editorial" and that's just bullknockers.

i know i made no sense and i don't really care... suck my average sized hairy caulk.

Aren't public broadcasting stations (i.e. PBS, the people who air Sesame Street, Nova, etc) government subsidized?

But those aren't news shows.

On the other hand, guess whose logo sits at the bottom of the PBS website...

Heh...kinda a regular little cabal they have going.

It doesn't matter if it's news; it's information all the same.

And indeed, I don't think the government should be in the media business or provide subsidies for any television group other than the obvious non-partisan (and boring except when British Parliament is on ) CSpan.

America has a govt. radio outlet and it is called Voice of America.
All other support for any news dissemination organ should be terminated.