No. Some A-0 thinks you were a problem and wants to outrage the simpletons into thinking that you really are. The real problem is in those stupid tax cuts.
Rotthead, the federal funds support public radio stations in rural & little served areas of these United States. N.P.R. is viable, but w/out the federal funds, Dakotans, Montanans, &al. would have no objective, intelligent, source for news, if they received any news at all.
troutma, I’m sure you meant “The Orwell Channel.” Nobody is allowed to say “Hitler” these days. It makes conservatives cry.
And Brian, you are 100 percent right – the network can get along without federal funding, but only because the people who really matter to lawmakers live in (suburban) NY, LA and DC. As for people in the country, they don’t really need to know what’s going on in the world, or to be kept up to date during local natural disasters. That’s why Congress did away with all those pesky rules about using the public airwaves to serve the public that forced commercial stations to do more than regurgitate satellite playlists.
Oh, is that the rule now? We don’t have to pay taxes on the stuff we don’t like? Cool. You can have your dollar back from NPR if I can get back about $50,000 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The programming & audience for the other 2 were built by PBS. I like how they broadcast international news so you don’t just get the corporate voices that bought the commercials that got the politicans elected. They’re biased too, but no one knows it all. Getting views from other angles improves perception. A small piece of my paycheck goes for this. Otherwise a bigger piece would have to go to satellite or cable to pay for a hundred channels I don’t want.
WarBush over 13 years ago
No. Some A-0 thinks you were a problem and wants to outrage the simpletons into thinking that you really are. The real problem is in those stupid tax cuts.
parrotthead2009 over 13 years ago
If NPR was viable, they wouldn’t need Federal funds in the first place!
BrianCrook over 13 years ago
Rotthead, the federal funds support public radio stations in rural & little served areas of these United States. N.P.R. is viable, but w/out the federal funds, Dakotans, Montanans, &al. would have no objective, intelligent, source for news, if they received any news at all.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Cute, “The HItler Channel” dressed up like Abe!
Michael Peterson Premium Member over 13 years ago
troutma, I’m sure you meant “The Orwell Channel.” Nobody is allowed to say “Hitler” these days. It makes conservatives cry.
And Brian, you are 100 percent right – the network can get along without federal funding, but only because the people who really matter to lawmakers live in (suburban) NY, LA and DC. As for people in the country, they don’t really need to know what’s going on in the world, or to be kept up to date during local natural disasters. That’s why Congress did away with all those pesky rules about using the public airwaves to serve the public that forced commercial stations to do more than regurgitate satellite playlists.
khranicky over 13 years ago
no, maybe they just hate. Ignorance’s bedfellow - hate.
ianrey over 13 years ago
Oh, is that the rule now? We don’t have to pay taxes on the stuff we don’t like? Cool. You can have your dollar back from NPR if I can get back about $50,000 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
ChukLitl Premium Member over 13 years ago
The programming & audience for the other 2 were built by PBS. I like how they broadcast international news so you don’t just get the corporate voices that bought the commercials that got the politicans elected. They’re biased too, but no one knows it all. Getting views from other angles improves perception. A small piece of my paycheck goes for this. Otherwise a bigger piece would have to go to satellite or cable to pay for a hundred channels I don’t want.