Congress keeps public-broadcasting funding intact, rejecting despite notions that PBS and NPR are "too liberally biased" to maintain funding

There, fixed that for ya!

People who see liberal bias in PBS and NPR also find sin in the crotch of a tree.

engorged at this news

Oh, I forgot...

ZOMG IF WE FUNDZ ANYTHINGZ WIT TAXZ IT MEENZ WEER BEIN TAKEN OVR BY COMYOONISMZ!!

PBS is the Left's very own Terri Schaivo.

R5D4: On a car trip last summer I flipped back and forth between Rush and NPR on my car radio.

NPR was having a show about about fuel efficiency and had a guest on who was explaining the various ways the average commuter could save on gasoline. The topics included the proper way to operate your air conditioner and myths about having the windows rolled down while on the freeway. It was a rather bland, but informative program. Very "PBS-like".

The Rush show was nothing more than the host using the words "liberal", "democrat", "socialism", "media" and so forth over and over again. Rush was not able to talk for more than 30 seconds without using one of those words. The topic was pretty much a generic form of "liberals hate America" and "this is their secret agenda" sort of thing.

It was quite an experience comparing the supposed "liberally biased" NPR programming to Rush.


Only a tofu-eating liberal pussy would turn down his air conditioning

The_Sponge: If you want excellent educational programming, watch the Discovery Channel. Not only that, but it survives in the free market....what a shock!

You have to admit, the content of the Discovery Channel has been dumbed down a little over the past few years.

"It was quite an experience comparing the supposed "liberally biased" NPR programming to Rush."

In fairness to Rush, he's not a reporter and his show isn't news.

Arnold T Pants: Mr_Fabulous: Both PBS and NPR air quality programming that would not see (or hear?) the light of day otherwise. Not everything has to be about making money.

Bullshiat. NPR and PBS could easily survive without being subsidized. They're called commercials. And if they can't it means not enough people watch/listen to justify them continuing.

Bullshiat. The whole point behind NPR and PBS is the "educated, liberal elite" (as we like to be labeled) actually look VERY HARD to get news from an unbiased source. If you think a media outlet funded by corporate america is going to help remove any bias, you are sadly and horribly mistaken.

Oh, I just realized, you really don't care about media being unbiased...oh well, nevermind...Go back to Fox News and wave a flag. GO WAR!

iaazathot: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

This.

Somacandra: Hang On Voltaire: My hometown is going to be featured on PBS in Ken Burns new documentary The War

Really? Cool. I'm looking forward to it. I loved his baseball one, didn't like the jazz one so much, but will look forward to The War.

Baseball, The Civil War, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark and the one about the guy who first drove across the country all rocked.

Jazz and The West sucked.

I like PBS, even though it's usually about as dry as a popcorn fart.

Somacandra: I can positively demonstrate to you that Diane Rhem is obviously biased towards old women with shaky voices.

She had Robert Kennedy Jr. on her show once. Jesus that was painful.

chuck4455: Congress keeps public-broadcasting funding intact, rejecting despite notions that PBS and NPR are "too liberally biased" to maintain funding

There, fixed that for ya!

Setting things right.

Well, I for one am glad CPB is getting funded. It's important to me that there be high-quality children's programming on noncommercial stations so that our kids have some safe haven from advertising for junk food and overpriced toys. I was raised watching Sesame Street, and I still think the work of the Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) is perpetually excellent.

It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

heavymetal: It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

But when Fox News reports it it is biased.

Ochiba: No. This is why NPR and PBS rule. Make them support their programs with advertising, and you cut the very soul out of the endeavor.

Too bad. The same happened with MTV, and it sucks, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for MTV. Congress doesn't have the power to pay for programming. Not to mention that PBS already has short commercials at the end of a lot of their shows. There is no evidence at this has changed anything.

Somacandra: Evidently, it does, as the November 2006 elections demonstrated. The public already exercises its will on public appropriations through its election of public officials. The public elected people who were supportive of public broadcasting. That's what representative democracy is all about. It is interesting to watch your allergy to this concept develop over time.

Except that the funding is unconstitutional, so no, we didn't elect Congress to fund it...unless you don't give a shiat about the Constitution.

moulderx1: Then you'll be contacting your congressman to defund the FCC, right?

That's a waste of my time, so no. But I support defunding it.

sockosmama: Well, I for one am glad CPB is getting funded. It's important to me that there be high-quality children's programming on noncommercial stations so that our kids have some safe haven from advertising for junk food and overpriced toys. I was raised watching Sesame Street, and I still think the work of the Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) is perpetually excellent.

Jeez. Go to Noggin. They have wonderful non-commercial shows.

NPR's virtually the last source of actual news in this country, I'm amazed but pleased that it's being maintained. Oh, and since science has been declared "liberal" at this point I suppose that means that reality has a liberal bias.

Look at that bunch of liberal hippies!

/BBC is half of all PBS programming.
//May as well just fork over the cash to BBC for old, commercial-free reruns and documentaries.
///Would probably improve the channel vastly.

zoidbergsghost: The_Sponge: If you want excellent educational programming, watch the Discovery Channel. Not only that, but it survives in the free market....what a shock!

You have to admit, the content of the Discovery Channel has been dumbed down a little over the past few years.

Thank God they moved their coolest shows to Discovery HD Theater.

1000 places to see
Planet Earth
Sunrise Earth
Risk Takers
Delta Company

sockosmama: Well, I for one am glad CPB is getting funded. It's important to me that there be high-quality children's programming on noncommercial stations so that our kids have some safe haven from advertising for junk food and overpriced toys. I was raised watching Sesame Street, and I still think the work of the Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) is perpetually excellent.

Truth

Hang On Voltaire: heavymetal: It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

But when Fox News reports it it is biased.

Wait, what?

"The same happened with MTV, and it sucks, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for MTV"

That's right, I remember when MTV had no commercials. They were a public service, back when. Nobody who invested in it ever wanted a return on their money, they were just glad we could all see videos.

Hang On Voltaire: sockosmama: Well, I for one am glad CPB is getting funded. It's important to me that there be high-quality children's programming on noncommercial stations so that our kids have some safe haven from advertising for junk food and overpriced toys. I was raised watching Sesame Street, and I still think the work of the Sesame Workshop (formerly Children's Television Workshop) is perpetually excellent.

Jeez. Go to Noggin. They have wonderful non-commercial shows.

We don't get Noggin on our cable.

Hang On Voltaire: heavymetal: It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

But when Fox News reports it it is biased.

You said it not me.

Too bad. The same happened with MTV, and it sucks, but that doesn't mean the government should pay for MTV. Congress doesn't have the power to pay for programming. Not to mention that PBS already has short commercials at the end of a lot of their shows. There is no evidence at this has changed anything.

1. Learn the difference between commercials and underwriting. It may seem small to you, but it is pretty big.

2. MTV has never been accused of enhancing society and enlightening anybody. Comparing the two in any way tells me all I need to know about your knowledge of NPR.

3. Except that the funding is unconstitutional, so no, we didn't elect Congress to fund it...unless you don't give a shiat about the Constitution.

Huh? Now you've crossed over into the realm I like to call "battsh*t crazy".

iaazathot: That would be covered under the part where we elect officials and they follow the will of the people in allocating funds. Suck it.

AKA: The Constitution doesn't exist anymore. The government can do whatever it wants.

Infinite Monkeys In Front Of A Computer: Bullshiat. The whole point behind NPR and PBS is the "educated, liberal elite" (as we like to be labeled) actually look VERY HARD to get news from an unbiased source. If you think a media outlet funded by corporate america is going to help remove any bias, you are sadly and horribly mistaken.

Whaaaaa! I can't find any news sources I like so I'm going to force the taxpayers to pay for one. I want it! I want it! I want it!

/you are proof that educated doesn't mean intelligent.

RussianPooper:
That's scary? I can see agreeing or not agreeing with it, even thinking it's a dumb idea, but it's hardly scary.

/Really, you can live your life very happily without owning a muscle car.

You've clearly never driven a muscle car.

dontforgettobringatowel: In which Article or Amendment does the Constitution give the federal government power to fund a network of radio/television stations?

My guess would be in the same place where it says they can fund any other form of publicly available infrastructure.

Arnold T Pants: Except that the funding is unconstitutional, so no, we didn't elect Congress to fund it...unless you don't give a shiat about the Constitution.

Except that someone quoted you the section of the Constitution that authorizes the funding.

dontforgettobringatowel: A Dark Evil Omen: Okay, anarcho-capitalist right-wing nutters, listen up, cause I'm only gonna say this once:


Nice preamble there, it has no legal relevance.
In which Article or Amendment does the Constitution give the federal government power to fund a network of radio/television stations?
BTW, if the government was empowered to provide health care to the people, why didn't this start in 1790?

/Enjoys much of the programming on NPR/PBS, doesn't think taxpayers should fund it.


So it is your contention that the preamble of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, which are frequently referred to in Supreme Court decisions, have no legal relevance? That Mr. Hamilton's "enlarged plans of public good" had to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Or was he just making shiat up?

Again, you're just wrong. Learn to read and understand the basis of your government.

pixistick: Thank God they moved their coolest shows to Discovery HD Theater.

1000 places to see
Planet Earth
Sunrise Earth
Risk Takers
Delta Company

Aren't most of those produced by other (public) stations, and just picked up by Discovery?

It's obvious that the only people who have a problem with NPR, believing it's "too liberal" have never tuned into it.

Tell you what neo-coonts - You keep your hands off my taxes for your farked up war and pay for it yourselves, and I'll pay my taxes into NPR. Then it'll be win/lose - I win because I'm left with unbiased news and cultural information, and you lose because your left with Faux news hate propaganda, and death.

Fek olf clowns

stryker4526: Hang On Voltaire: heavymetal: It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

But when Fox News reports it it is biased.

Wait, what?

When we complain of liberal bias on NPR smartasses respond by saying that truth has a liberal bias so I wanted to know if the same held true when some complain that Fox has a conservative bias

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: That's right, I remember when MTV had no commercials. They were a public service, back when. Nobody who invested in it ever wanted a return on their money, they were just glad we could all see videos.

Congratulations. You are too stupid to understand the point.

Bresin: It's obvious that the only people who have a problem with NPR, believing it's "too liberal" have never tuned into it.



I said I listen to it every morning

Wonderful morans out here.

The funny thing about people like Kathleen Fox & Ken Tomlinson is that they come from the same camp as fireclown, bomberpilot, IAmTheLaw, tiggis & xen0blue, except they could back up their own similarly slanted assessment with a politically granted position on the board. They waltzed in, followed GOP administration orders, slit Diane Rehm's throat while firebombing Daniel Schorr's email inbox & tried to fark with the ONE source of newsmedia in this country unaffected by advertising dollars. The beauty of NPR/PBS/CPB is the sheer numbers of people paying attention to what's happening with them; millions of people listen & watch public broadcasting every day. Politicians line up for the chance to speak to an NPR/PBS rep. The exposure of NPR/PBS is undeniable. Even the slightest alteration to any part of their output/status is noticed. It's protected by public interest. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

tiggis in particular: just for people like you, there's an NPR ombudsman that fields your complaints of slant & monitors the entire output of the organization. He reports frequently to the presidentially-nominated head of the CPB board. He guarantees that for every left lean, there is an equal & opposite right lean. Studies that show equal perspective exposure(although per the studies typically more right-leaning material makes it to the air) are released frequently to get people like you to shut up.

Conservative idealism has a place, even in public radio, and tends to be represented more in areas where such things as govt. spending are the topic. However, I understand that hearing a balance of facts & educated viewpoints regarding news issues leaves you uneasy. Hence, an entire farking country's worth of corporate monitored news media is at your disposal, with Hannity's, Limbaugh's, and Coulter's available for comment as far as the eye can see. Enjoy - they're your source of opinion, no doubt. However, I'll say it again: NPR's not going anywhere. That voting record stands as a wonderful slap in the face to those like you, I'm sure. Savor the sting - hell, I'll savor it for you.

How the hell could CarTalk have a liberal bias anyway?

Hang On Voltaire: stryker4526: Hang On Voltaire: heavymetal: It is well known that the truth has a liberal bias.

But when Fox News reports it it is biased.

Wait, what?

When we complain of liberal bias on NPR smartasses respond by saying that truth has a liberal bias so I wanted to know if the same held true when some complain that Fox has a conservative bias

Yeah, but that would only work if FNC actually reported the truth.

Arnold T Pants: Ochiba: Except that the funding is unconstitutional, so no, we didn't elect Congress to fund it...unless you don't give a shiat about the Constitution.

Um, how is that? Isn't that fact that Congress, who writes the budget, puts it in the budget make it Constitutional?
This is a new arguement to me, do you explain it?

They are both hideously liberal, but that doesn't mean that they don't have some decent and worthy programming.