[video=youtube;dy7jcvsLrHg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy7jcvsLrHg&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Some of you miss the point of the freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. PBS isn't free press, and can never be if funded by the govt. It flies in the face of the 1st to have even the perception of bias or a government propaganda outlet. The press is supposed to be like a fourth branch of government with all the checks and balances that go with it.
The decision to go to war is made by the President and Congress--and is based on a multitude of factors: our national interests, the interests of our allies, the particulars in the country where we attack, the perceived threat, and so on. You may not like the final decision, but you still have the ability to vote against that president and that Congress in the next election. National Public Radio, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. They're not subject to elections, and have been given a free rein to push a liberal agenda for their entire existence. Money from all tax-paying citizens should not be used to promote the interests of just one party, year after year after year.
Why are conservatives going after NPR with such fervor? Does it warrant an "emergency session"? What news source is more "fair and balanced" than NPR?
The effect of such a draconian step would be a steady brain-drain of young Americans emmigrating to other countries to live and work. Why would anyone stay in a country that gives you nothing at all for your labor? We already lag far behind most industrialized countries in rewarding our workers and caring for our elderly. The average American earns about 1/3 what his father did for the same effort after accounting for inflation, stagnant wages and loss of benefits. As for medicare, eventually unavoidable socialization of the health care system will bring costs in line with worldwide levels, and there won't be a problem. Social Security, when refunded with interest for the illegal robbing of the trust fund by previous administrations, will be fully solvent for at least the next 80 years. How about stopping this war BS, slashing the military and it's bases and equipment to 10% of it's current levels? Sell off the 90% to the countries where we have bases and GTFO. Budget balanced, just like that. Or end all business tax credits, exemptions, loopholes and subsidies. How about stopping government aid to colleges? Let grownups pay for their own education. Why should people who paid attention in K-12 have to pay for the slow-witted to get do-overs? Budget balanced, just like that. No need to pick on the less fortunate and elderly. Our taxes mostly subsidize the rich and powerful. That's where the true savings are to be made.
I question your ability to discern "a liberal agenda". NPR is the closest thing there is to an objective and unbiased news source in the entire world. It is the most trusted institution in America.
Still waiting for an answer from someone. What news source is more "fair and balanced" than NPR? (Christian Science Monitor, BBC and The Economist are all pretty good too)
Provides right-wing "flavored" news and commentary on the quite narrow topic of politics, and nothing else. It is not a major source for news, nor is it fair and balanced. wiki: Despite its stated commitment to providing politically balanced programming, C-SPAN and its shows such as Washington Journal, Booknotes, Q & A, and Afterwords have been accused of having a conservative bias.[17] C-SPAN's CEO Brian Lamb was a volunteer for Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election, and later worked as press secretary to Senator Peter H. Dominick (R-CO).[18] The liberal media criticism organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) released a study of C-SPAN's morning call-in show Washington Journal, showing that Republicans were favored as guests over Democrats by a two-to-one margin during a six-month period in 2005, and that people of color are underrepresented.[19] FAIR and critics including guests[20] have also charged that the shows Booknotes and Afterwords highlight more conservative authors than liberals,[21] and that guests are paired unequally. When Washington Post ombudsman Geneva Overholser appeared as a guest, she asked, "Do you typically have a conservative and then somebody who is just a journalist? Is that the typical match-up?”[22] In 2005, the left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters for America objected that C-SPAN2 booked L. Brent Bozell, head of the right-leaning Media Research Center, to interview former CBS producer Mary Mapes on After Words about the Killian documents controversy during the United States presidential election, 2004.[23] In 2004, C-SPAN intended to broadcast a speech by Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt adjacent to a speech by Holocaust denier David Irving, who had unsuccessfully sued Lipstadt for libel in the United Kingdom four years earlier. Critics including the Anti-Defamation League decried C-SPAN's use of the word "balance" to describe its plan to cover both.[24] C-SPAN claimed the adjacent broadcasts would pair arguments of both plaintiff and defendant. However, once Lipstadt closed media access to her speech, C-SPAN canceled the broadcasts of both.[25]
That is a good answer, actually. I don't have cable but I like the coverage I do see from time to time. NPR has the advantage of being more widely available though.
C-SPAN is available on cable, satellite, etc. They show events from start to finish, often before the events start and after the events finish, so you can see the crowd and see the speaker or speakers interact with the crowd afterwards. They show congress gavel to gavel above any other programming, though they don't get their cameras into the smoke filled rooms behind the scenes. People of both stripes complain about Washington Journal being biased one way or the other. Right wingers constantly complain that the show features articles from the NY Times and Washington Post far more prominently than, say, Washington Times. The claims of NPR's bias are widespread. I again ask what interest the govt. has in operating a news outlet, because it is a clear conflict of interest with the 1st amendment freedom of the press.
I don't see the conflict of interest. There are numerous news outlets sponsored by the government: VOA, Stars and Stripes, For the Consumer, etc... Why isn't anyone calling their bias into question?
Not sure the US Government really is "operating" PBS, considering the small amount of $$ that PBS receives from the Government, in relation to their overall budget.
The threat of de-funding them is enough to make them either appease those who want to cut off the funding, or aggressively investigate them. And since the govt. pays such a small amount of their operating $$, it sure seems like they don't need the money.
This is still a distraction from the substantive issues associated with the budget. How much money does this save, as opposed to the time spent on the issue and taken away from real issues? If I have $5,000 remaining on my car loan and I send a dollar to TD Bank, have I accomplished anything that I should be putting on my resume?
