1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Public Broadcasting Needed Anymore?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Flying Headbutt, Mar 9, 2011.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    People are so eager to cut spending that they don't feel benefits them. Not so much when it hits home.
     
  2. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member


    Panel 4 of the Jefferson Memorial:

    "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

    I think Jefferson was a Founding Father, wasn't he? Sounds to me he realized the role of government would have to be fluid, not static, to remain viable.

    The Founding Fathers didn't intend for those who didn't own land, for women, or for blacks and Native Americans to vote; for citizenship of those who at the time were enslaved; or for the direct election of senators, to name a few things. That's why the Constitution can be amended, and why there are three branches of government to enable balanced change.

    The role of government, in a democratic republic, is to do whatever the people want it to. Remember, of the people, by the people, for the people?
     
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Cutting the subsidy is best for our govt AND for NPR.

    Lets say that NPR announced that it would be phasing out its request for federal funding over the next five years. Each year would decrease by 20% until it reaches zero. Taxpayers win because it is one less item we are on the hook for in the budget.

    But NPR also wins in that it can be cut from government oversight and operate like any other non-profit. It can seek more advertising dollars and the people who use it and appreciate it are more likely to donate, knowing that their contribution truly keeps it alive. And they don't have to bow to Congressional Republicans just to keep their funding every time GOPers accuse it of being biased. Cutting the government funding is not a death knell for NPR. It's letting it off a leash that it outgrew long ago.
     
  4. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Let's face it. White trash don't listen to NPR. They might listen to Limbaugh and Hannity complain about the liberal media.

    I don't see the white trash demographic shrinking.
     
  5. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    No, they are adding weight and mustard stains on their t-shirts.
     
  6. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Would you guys be ok if the government came into your town and started subsidizing your competitor? Giving money to pay for salaries and operations and things like that?
     
  7. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Maybe they'd be less in debt if they weren't sending so much money to the federal purse to bankroll the primarily red states that routinely take more from the hated federales than they give.
     
  8. Johnny Dangerously

    Johnny Dangerously Well-Known Member

    That's silly. Bleacher Report already has plenty of investment capital.
     
  9. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    How is NPR or PBS competing with local media? I have yet to come across any programming on either that any local stations would ever air.
     
  10. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Government already subsidizes newspapers. So if you're a new entrant to a market, your competitor gets government help.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Sesame Street would be picked up in syndication or cable in a heart beat to name just one show.

    But, I'm not sure your point, if true, even matters. It still competes for viewers/listeners, even if it offers alternative programming. It still draws viewers/listeners away.

    Yes, some would just listen to less radio or watch less TV, but some many would turn to commercial programming.
     
  12. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    As I said posts and posts ago, the only stations that aired our Gubernatorial and Senatorial debates were NPR and the local PBS. The state election commission offered them free of charge to commercial stations - not one took them up on it. And that was despite the fact the local anchors for the CBS, NBC and ABC affiliates served as questioners on one debate.

    So, hell yes, public broadcasting is still needed.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page