This should have been done along time ago. NPR will self support.

 

To me, government support of NPR had become more of do good feeling than it was necessary support. If they can't streamline 2% or increase revenues 2% then they aren't very good at the business end.

I listen fairly often and have never noticed a slant.

 

Never? I listen almost exclusively to public radio, but I would have to say that they certainly do have a slant...however I think more often than not, their slant is in what they choose to cover and not cover. They do their best to run stories that shed good light on liberalism and the bad light on conservatism, and then they do what they can to avoid stories that illustrate liberal failures or conservative successes.

Repbulicans are doing nothing but riding the wave of anti-NPR sentiment among their constituents. Not that I blame them. I would probably do the same in the same situation. But what this does is go towards crippling one of the best, most informative media outlets we have going in this country. People complain all the time that the nightly news is too depressing. They should try getting their news from NPR. Great mix of stuff there, and you feel more intelligent for having listened.

 

I agree it slants to the left but it's still the most unbiased of any news outlet out there.

 

Still, I don't know that 2% is going to make much difference to them.

I thought I remembered from a thread on here sometime ago that NPR actually got very little from federal funding. I thought maybe I was missing something when I read the bolded part.

Never? I listen almost exclusively to public radio, but I would have to say that they certainly do have a slant...however I think more often than not, their slant is in what they choose to cover and not cover. They do their best to run stories that shed good light on liberalism and the bad light on conservatism, and then they do what they can to avoid stories that illustrate liberal failures or conservative successes.

 

Either I don't listen enough or I just don't think too hard about what stories they cover.

Either I don't listen enough or I just don't think too hard about what stories they cover.

 

I agree. In fact, I thought their coverage of the controversy surrounding the O'Keefe video was quite evenhanded. Most of the stuff I listen to on there are interviews with musicians and authors, which aren't things especially primed for bias anyway.

I Most of the stuff I listen to on there are interviews with musicians and authors, which aren't things especially primed for bias anyway.

 

Me, too.

I think he just saw the sting operation and believes that all their programming does is rage against conservatives. It's like trying to take Fox News off the air because Glen Beck said something stupid. Except this guy did it on hidden camera and not his national television show.

 

 

Only difference is, Fox News doesn't get public funding....and if they did and Glen Beck talked about the stuff he did. You would demand that funding stops. Its only 2% anyway. Shouldn't hurt them. I think the Gov't needs the money more than they do.

Only difference is, Fox News doesn't get public funding....and if they did and Glen Beck talked about the stuff he did. You would demand that funding stops. Its only 2% anyway. Shouldn't hurt them. I think the Gov't needs the money more than they do.

 

So NPR has a Glenn Beck?

So NPR has a Glenn Beck?

 

Didn't say that. But NPR executive obviously has a slant with his recent remarks about the tea party. Heck, he even said that NPR would be better without public funding. We are always talking about cuts in our budget on this website and then I see people on here defending NPR's funding and they are the same people that complain that our legislators don't ever cut. We are always talking about everyone needs to cut back. The moment people decide to cut somewhere, the other side complains. It is simply annoying.

Didn't say that. But NPR executive obviously has a slant with his recent remarks about the tea party..

 

I would caution anyone from using the video as support for any leaning. It's been shown to have been edited.

I would caution anyone from using the video as support for any leaning. It's been shown to have been edited.

 

Why did he resign? It may have been edited but I'm sure it stays relevant.

Why did he resign? It may have been edited but I'm sure it stays relevant.

 

It's completely relevant to your charge. I'll have to google it but I think it went down like this.

 

NPR guy quoted as saying (condensed) "TPers are racist."

 

Real quote from NPR guy was "I was talking to a Republican and he said TPers are racist."

 

Quite the difference.

It's completely relevant to your charge. I'll have to google it but I think it went down like this.

 

NPR guy quoted as saying (condensed) "TPers are racist."

 

Real quote from NPR guy was "I was talking to a Republican and he said TPers are racist."

 

Quite the difference.

 

Classic editing.

 

Regardless this is not the point I was trying to make. Before we touch education, military, welfare programs, infrastructure...I think we should look at the programs like this.

Classic editing.

 

Regardless this is not the point I was trying to make. Before we touch education, military, welfare programs, infrastructure...I think we should look at the programs like this.

 

I think it's more symbolic than effective. It's a way for some to say "see, we're looking out for you." Do real work for us and not symbolic work.

I think it's more symbolic than effective. It's a way for some to say "see, we're looking out for you." Do real work for us and not symbolic work.

 

The same can be said about the Speaker of the House flying commercially rather than in his private jet. 60 million is 60 million. If we took 60 million out of the education budget, I don't think you would be singing the same "symbolic" tune.