House Votes to Cut Funding to NPR

[Clyde]

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.

 

So the Speaker is 3rd in line. Are we sure the Secret Service is going to let the Speaker fly commercial? Seems like a security risk. Isn't he only going to fly commercial on trips back home? How many can that be?

[marvel]

So the Speaker is 3rd in line. Are we sure the Secret Service is going to let the Speaker fly commercial? Seems like a security risk. Isn't he only going to fly commercial on trips back home? How many can that be?

 

From my understanding he flies commercial on most trips. J. Dennis Hastert did the same exact thing before the 9/11 attacks.

 

My whole point is every little bit helps. I don't care how small. It all adds up.

[Clyde]

From my understanding he flies commercial on most trips. J. Dennis Hastert did the same exact thing before the 9/11 attacks.

 

My whole point is every little bit helps. I don't care how small. It all adds up.

 

We agree that it adds up. However, I'm looking for our reps to make a big impact one way or the other and have it be the priority.

[All Tell]

If NPR is so popular shouldn't they be able to make up what they call a minor portion of their budget from other sources?

[Zoot Soup]

If NPR is so popular shouldn't they be able to make up what they call a minor portion of their budget from other sources?

 

Can I have 2% of your gross income?

[marvel]

Can I have 2% of your gross income?

 

So let me get this straight. Its not okay to take 60 million away from NPR which is tax money but it is okay to raise taxes 3% on the rich and get more of their money?

[coldweatherfan]

Can I have 2% of your gross income?

 

IMO it's not income it's a gift.

[leatherneck]

I regularly listen to NPR, so I obviously think there is some value in their broadcasts. But they should get zero tax dollars. Zero. And if anyone thinks their broadcasts have no political slants or biases, that person is wrong. Every one of us has our own biases and beliefs. Producers and announcers are no different. Professionals will try to keep their beliefs and biases out of the broadcasts, but at some level those biases and beliefs come through. There are so many ways that the producer's biases or the broadcaster's biases affect each and every story or issue discussed. When they select someone's comments on an issue, ask yourself: how many other comments did they also get; were all the comments exactly the same; how and where did they receive those comments; and why did they select the comments they did? When they select an expert to provide his/her insights on an issue, ask yourself: why did they select that expert to use (sometimes but not always they try to get experts on both sides of the issue, but even when they get experts on both sides, did the producer select a stronger expert on the issue to support a position the producer agreed with)? Who made those decisions and did the decision-maker's biases and political beliefs have an impact on the decision? Do not simply accept what is said on any broadcast on any news station as gospel. Use it as a starting point to dig into an issue and learn more. Be a doubting Thomas on everything you here on every news broadcast. If you don't have time to do that on an issue (who does?) just caution yourself that what you heard was selected by the producer whose own beliefs and biases may have caused that expert/that comment to have been selected.

 

I mentioned earlier that I thought I received value from listening to NPR. That value is not that I'm going to get a neutral, fair and unbiased position on the news reported. Rather, the value I receive from listening to NPR is that I'm going to get a cognizant, well thought out argument from a more liberal slant on the issues discussed. I like getting both sides of the "story" before I develop an opinion on an issue and NPR helps me get the liberal position. Is it blatantly liberal like Limbaugh is blatantly conservative? No, but it is liberal nonetheless.

[coldweatherfan]

If these guys want to keep their salaries they'll find a way to increase revenue. If they can't find a way maybe they don't deserve their salaries.

 

The public-broadcasting-insider newspaper Current passed along a survey from The Chronicle of Philanthropy on executive compensation at large nonprofits in 2008. The salaries can be higher than the current presidential salary of $400,000 (and the current congressional salary of $174,000). The list includes national executives and leaders at large stations like WNET (New York), WETA (Washington), WTTW (Chicago), and KCET (Los Angeles.)

 

Former NPR C.E.O. Kenneth Stern, who departed in 2008, is atop the pubcasting list, receiving $1,319,541 as part of his four-year contract. Another former exec, PBS C.O.O. Wayne Godwin, who served from 2000 to 2008, was paid $398,063. Current PBS C.E.O. Paula Kerger, $534,500, up from $424,209 at end of fiscal 2007.

 

Rounding out the list, in descending order: Laura Walker, CEO of WNYC Radio, $474,808; Al Jerome, KCET president, $426,688; Jeff Clarke, CEO, Northern California Public Broadcasting, $406,501; Neal Shapiro, WNET president, $400,570; Sharon Percy Rockefeller, WETA president, $391,904; Thomas Conway, WNET v.p., $374,321; Daniel Schmidt, WTTW president, $347,491.

 

William Kling, Minnesota Public Radio/American Public Media president, $347,217; Jonathan Abbott, WGBH president, $337,870; Jon McTaggart, MPR/APR CEO, $313,967; Joseph Bruns, WETA executive v.p., $303,108; Linda O'Bryon, Northern California Public Broadcasting chief content officer, $282,360; Paula Apsell, senior exec producer at WGBH, $278,209; Dean Cappello, chief creative officer, WNYC Radio, $272,072; Deborah Hinton, KCET exec v.p., $251,446; Dennis Haarsager, NPR interim CEO, $219,369; and Reese Marcusson, WTTW CFO, $214,397.

 

This comes after we learned from The Washington Post a few weeks back that NPR weekend anchor Scott Simon brings home more than $300,000 a year. It's always worth remembering these numbers at pledge-drive time. How far will your donation go?

[woodsrider]

Can I have 2% of your gross income?

 

So let me get this straight. Its not okay to take 60 million away from NPR which is tax money but it is okay to raise taxes 3% on the rich and get more of their money?

:sssh:

[Habib]

I regularly listen to NPR, so I obviously think there is some value in their broadcasts. But they should get zero tax dollars. Zero. And if anyone thinks their broadcasts have no political slants or biases, that person is wrong. Every one of us has our own biases and beliefs. Producers and announcers are no different. Professionals will try to keep their beliefs and biases out of the broadcasts, but at some level those biases and beliefs come through. There are so many ways that the producer's biases or the broadcaster's biases affect each and every story or issue discussed. When they select someone's comments on an issue, ask yourself: how many other comments did they also get; were all the comments exactly the same; how and where did they receive those comments; and why did they select the comments they did? When they select an expert to provide his/her insights on an issue, ask yourself: why did they select that expert to use (sometimes but not always they try to get experts on both sides of the issue, but even when they get experts on both sides, did the producer select a stronger expert on the issue to support a position the producer agreed with)? Who made those decisions and did the decision-maker's biases and political beliefs have an impact on the decision? Do not simply accept what is said on any broadcast on any news station as gospel. Use it as a starting point to dig into an issue and learn more. Be a doubting Thomas on everything you here on every news broadcast. If you don't have time to do that on an issue (who does?) just caution yourself that what you heard was selected by the producer whose own beliefs and biases may have caused that expert/that comment to have been selected.

 

I completely agree with this. It's excellent advice for anything.

 

I don't think anyone has held up NPR as the gospel, but it's often pilloried as an extremely liberal organization or the Rush Limbaugh of the left and I don't think many people who listen to it find that to be a plausible description. It's been my experience that NPR is more "not conservative" than it is "liberal" and those two things are often conflated.

[HT721]

I completely agree with this. It's excellent advice for anything.

 

I don't think anyone has held up NPR as the gospel, but it's often pilloried as an extremely liberal organization or the Rush Limbaugh of the left and I don't think many people who listen to it find that to be a plausible description. It's been my experience that NPR is more "not conservative" than it is "liberal" and those two things are often conflated.

 

You could say the same thing for Fox News actual news program, but liberals don't seem to care about that.

[Habib]

You could say the same thing for Fox News actual news program, but liberals don't seem to care about that.

 

I don't know what liberals care about, Fox News is a debate for another thread. Though, I personally prefer Shepard Smith's show to the alternatives if I have to watch cable news.

[Clyde]

What was the original intent when it was decided to fund NPR?

[leatherneck]

I completely agree with this. It's excellent advice for anything.

 

I don't think anyone has held up NPR as the gospel, but it's often pilloried as an extremely liberal organization or the Rush Limbaugh of the left and I don't think many people who listen to it find that to be a plausible description. It's been my experience that NPR is more "not conservative" than it is "liberal" and those two things are often conflated.

 

It's no where near as liberal as Rush is conservative. I'll give you that. Then again, Rush isn't a news reporter or even a commentator claiming to be some pure and unbiased source of news and information (a position I think NPR tries to assert it is). I philosophically have a bigger problem with NPR than I do Rush. Rush is an unabashed, admitted far right blow hard. He doesn't try to mask or hide such. NPR, to me anyway, tries to portray itself as some great bastion of being totally fair and unbiased in it's reporting/commenting on news and issues. In my opinion, it is not. Again, I listen to it primarily to get the thoughts and opinions of intelligent people on "the other side" of my position on most issues. Which makes it valuable to me. But I take what I hear on there with a huge grain of salt. I do think it has a liberal slant though.