"...to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans."

To eliminate federal funding would have A PROFOUND IMPACT ON THEIR PAYCHECKS."

FIFY

NPR is the only broadcastor that provides indepth discussion on issues. Everywhere else its all about getting 15 second sound bites and having on guests that constantly argue back and forth without listening to each other. So I agree, it would be detrimental to all americans to lose this.

NPR is still broadcasting??

Be the best thing that ever happened. Who needs NPR when there are more sane people discussing the issues. From what I have heard when I radio surf is how the Republicans are a bunch of Nazis or what have you. Even the classical music that they broadcast is very obscure.

Yeah, it's easy to have "indepth discussions" without arguing whenever you only invite on people who agree with you and then ask them questions that they can use as launching boards to defend their own position. I have no respect for NPR whatsoever. I wish they would fall in a hole.

From what I have heard when I radio surf is how the Republicans are a bunch of Nazis or what have you.

That could not have been NPR you were listening to. They never use retoric like that on NPR.

That's funny - all of the pro-NPR folks were telling me that NPR doesn't get much Federal money - 3% or so. From the NPR and CPB budgets, it looked more like 25%+. Guess who had their numbers wrong...

Tina, when Bill O'Reilly went on "Fresh Air" to talk about one of his books, Terry Gross started quoting his critics and asked him to respond to them. After a few, O'Reilly asked her if she had any anything from a supporter of his or about his book. She said no. Then he asked if she'd ever interviewed an author prepared only with detractors and their comments. She said no again. So he walked out.

Terry Gross is still on the air.

I listen to NPR on weekends -- Weekend Edition Sunday, Wait! Wait!, Car Talk, and occasionally other stuff. ("On The Media" is usually good for some laughs.) But I under no circumstances consider them "fair."

J.

"NPR is the only broadcastor that provides indepth discussion on issues."

Yeah! Every left-wing point is thoroughly discussed and agreed upon. Any other point of view, not so much.

"Independent broadcast media?"

Welfare recipients independent from reality. Air America 2

Netroot's Propaganda Radio

Who cares if they are independent or not (they clearly are not)the country is going broke we can't afford them, toss the funding along with the National Endowment for the Arts and all the other non sense. If you lost your job today would you upgrade your cable channels tomorrow or would you cancel cable all together? I keep hearing this stuff is insigificant but how do you get anywhere if you're not willing to cut the extra stuff that's non essential?

I've never watched Fresh Air or every show on NPR. I hate shows like Keith Oberman, Rachel Maddow & Ed Schultz. I dislike them for the same reasons I dislike most of the talk radio hosts. I can't listen to them for 2 minutes without them misrepresenting what someone did or said in an attempt to spin the facts. Even though there may be some bias on NPR, there is far less wild distortion/spinning going on.

I'm sure George Soros would be more than happy to make up the difference.

If their "in-depth discussion on the issues" is so great, then let them survive on their own without my tax dollars and compete in the arena of ideas like everyone else does. If their stuff is so great, they'll thrive. If their stuff stinks, then they'll go the way of Dead-Air America.

Tina if you like NPR donate to them, I don't so I don't want my tax dollars going to them. No one makes you pay for Fox News or MSMBC but they make you contibute to NPR. No thanks, I never listen to them why should I contribute to them by force of law?

"Funding cut would be detrimental to all Americans"

I for one don't feel that it would be "detrimental" to me. Guess they can scrub that "ALL".

"We got both kinds - country AND western!"
-- The Blues Brothers

What I like most about PBS is the quality of their guests. For instance, if NPR is talking about the economy they will have a real economist as a guest. If they are talking about the law, they will have a real lawyer professor as a guest.

Too often, on talk shows, all you get are guests that are trained in the talking points on a subject and their knowledge of the subject typically does not seem to be much deeper than their talking points.

Tina

Would be better if that in depth discussion you are talking about would be unbiased in depth discussion. If it were I would join you.

Since it is not and since NPR has stated (notice it was before the election and when dems were in charge of the House) that public funding is a miniscule part of their budget then I gladly say DEFUND THEM. Along with ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and every other organization which dontates ANY MONEY to ANY POLTICAL FIGURE OR CAUSE.

NPR = Not Preferable to Republicans.

Retired Military, I won't argue that you should be required to fund NPR. There are legitimate arguments to defund them but have but I have not thought about it enought to form an opinion on that. I'm just pointing out what I like about NPR, and why I personally, would hate to see them go.

Just a few weeks ago the idiot who heads NPR was saying that Federal funding wasn't a big part of her budget. Now that there is a serious risk of losing those dollars it is a matter of survival.

I place the hypocrisy on this issue right along side the standards they have for journalism. They are a bunch of left wing cranks that believe they are entitled to tax payer money because they are providing a service trying to enlighten the rest of us ludites. How dare the unwashed, ignorant masses threaten their paychecks.

If, as Tina S believes, NPR provides a needed and appreciated service then they will have no difficulty what-so-ever in replacing the finding. If they can't then obviously they were over valued to begin with.

A modest proposal: have NPR run - and its editorial slant determined - by whichever party is out of power.

"What I like most about PBS is the quality of their guests. For instance, if NPR is talking about the economy they will have a real economist as a guest. If they are talking about the law, they will have a real lawyer professor as a guest."

And you're saying they are actually unique in this regard? And you are genuinely serious, Lisa?

There are legitimate arguments to defund them but have but I have not thought about it enought to form an opinion on that.

This is backwards. We shouldn't be paying for anything without legitimate arguments to fund them. Without a damned good reason to continue paying for something, we should stop paying for it.

That could not have been NPR you were listening to. They never use retoric like that on NPR.

Yeah, that's Pacifica Radio, where those who can't hack it on NPR go to die.

YOu can claim any sense of being balanced while Nina Totenberg still draws a paycheck there? How, Tina?

I have worked at two NPR stations as a news reporter and anchor. In both places, I was the lone conservative in the newsroom. The liberal ideology of NPR people constantly slants how the news is covered, whether it's through the writing, the story angles, or the story selection. I was working election night in 1994 when the Republicans won Congress. Now, this was a huge news story mainly because a lot of people in 1994, including my news colleagues, didn't see the Republican wave coming. The newsroom reactions in 1994 were not those of objective journalists. My newsroom was like a morgue. I'd never seen these people so depressed. Objective journalists would have said, "Wow. What caused this? There are some great stories we can do here! This is a historic win for the Republicans." Instead, the reactions from my news colleagues were those of partisans:
"This is so depressing."
"What the *&%$# is happening?"
"We're doomed."
Trust me. Their reactions were quite a bit more jovial two years earlier when Clinton took office. There were broad smiles and a few fist pumps.
But let's put the liberal slant of NPR aside. If public broadcasting is truly serving the "public," won't the public support it with their donations? How about this: Let these stations compete in the marketplace like everyone else. Let's find out how much of a public demand there really is for their programming.

I like the commission's recommendation RE NPR funding.

Simply put, if NPR can't survive on voluntary contributions from scum like George Soros or ads thinly disguised as "thanks for support" then it deserves to die.

The same would be true for the NEA.

.

I can see the NY Times headline now: "NPR Funding Cut, Aging Baby-Boomers And Rage-Against-My-Allowance Hipsters Hardest Hit."