I think since NPR only draws 0.5% of all radio listeners the government should stop propping it up.
2007-11-19 01:29:14 · 13 answers · asked by Kingler 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
With the democrats talking about the fairness doctrine again, why should the tax payers pay to keep an extremely liberal show on the air? You can get your liberal views from the regular mainstream media.
2007-11-19 01:42:22 · update #1
John_in_dc said "PBS and NPR are far and away the most accurate and unbiased news sources available".......that may be the funniest thing I've ever read in my life!
2007-11-19 05:00:37 · update #2
NPR? You mean that radio station that spouts the Democratic line and says what a loser the United States is? That one that I am forced to support through my taxes? We should have stopped funding it a long time ago. But, I am glad to hear it does not have much of an audience.
2007-11-19 01:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Cable news has shown that profit motive hurts news programs. PBS and NPR are far and away the most accurate and unbiased news sources available (talking about All things Considered and Jim Lehrer).
No, the government should continue to fund.
2007-11-19 03:18:52 · answer #2 · answered by john_in_dc 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
YES! It is not governments job to fund 95% of the things it funds....
Goverments should stop roubing the people and buying stuff that most people don't use or even like. Give people all of there money and then they will do what is right.
2007-11-19 02:49:29 · answer #3 · answered by MadDog 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
5% is a fairly large audience share--check your figures. And is primarily funded by private, not public, sources.
Beyond that, if you're going to do that, stop subsidies in the form of tax exemptions for all these political radio shows that claim to be "religious broadcasts," stop Bush's "faith-based" giveaways to his pals in the evangelical cults, andso on. At least NPR is a more or less neutral ground where differing viewpoints get aired. Which is the real objection of the right-wing. They want freedom of speech for themselves--but not for anyone else.
2007-11-19 01:44:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Of course we should stop funding it. Why is the goverment in the business of supporting media. It's not like there isn't a choice out there.
2007-11-19 02:06:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I like NPR, but don't know if should remain publicly funded.
2007-11-19 01:38:35 · answer #6 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, they should stop funding it. let the Democrats whose agenda it pushes fund it. It is a left of center radio station.
2007-11-19 01:48:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, the BBC is considered (and is) the best news service in the world precisely because it is immune from advertising dollars, market influence, corporate greed, and public opinion.
The extent to which News shows need market share to survive is the extent to which they are corruptible.
--------------
“Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.”
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
Yeah, you would not want reality or the truth to influence your opinion in any way, huh?
2007-11-19 01:34:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I like the programming and do listen to it. I suspect your .5% is wrong since listener sweeps are done on a local market basis.
2007-11-19 01:34:12 · answer #9 · answered by LEE 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
I've spoken at length with your Democratic presidential candidates and they agree that all media outlets should be controlled by the government.
2007-11-19 01:42:16 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 6⤋