At the request of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has produced a short report on how much NPR and PBS together receive from the taxpayer via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The answer for the current fiscal year (2011) is $430 million.
Federal funds make up about 13.7 percent of the revenue from public broadcasting. By comparison, about 24.4 percent comes from “viewers/listeners like you,” with the remainder coming from business and foundation grants.
In the news release announcing this report, DeMint hardly hides his contempt for NPR’s recent decision to fire Juan Williams. But it is much more difficult to argue with the notion that government-funded journalism is an expensive anachronism:
“We can’t keep borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars from China each year to fund public radio and public TV when there are so many choices already in the market for news and entertainment. If CPB is defunded, taxpayers will save billions. This is just one of the many cuts Congress should make next year.
Read more
Federal funds make up about 13.7 percent of the revenue from public broadcasting. By comparison, about 24.4 percent comes from “viewers/listeners like you,” with the remainder coming from business and foundation grants.
In the news release announcing this report, DeMint hardly hides his contempt for NPR’s recent decision to fire Juan Williams. But it is much more difficult to argue with the notion that government-funded journalism is an expensive anachronism:
“We can’t keep borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars from China each year to fund public radio and public TV when there are so many choices already in the market for news and entertainment. If CPB is defunded, taxpayers will save billions. This is just one of the many cuts Congress should make next year.
Read more
12 comments:
The motivation for stripping this funding is strictly poltitical grandstanding. These politicians spouting "fiscal conservatism" really only want to go after things that will look good when they go on t.v. but they are scared to go after the hard issues.
You know, it's sad when conservatives are the only ones backing Juan Williams. I thought that Democrats/liberals were the standard-bearers when it came to advocating free speech. I think that the Democrats only advocate for free speech when it works in their favor.
On the topic, I would say that Republicans aren't going to be afraid to take on the difficult issues this time. I think that for the first time that the Dems and Repubs are actually listening to the people. The Tea Party has made sure of that. I really think that if the Republicans do get control, they are going after things with a machete, then do a few surgical strikes.
Kim, heard it all before.
And while I admire citizens stepping up and letting their voices be heard, we already see that the Tea Partiers are easily placated and/or riled up (depending on the moment) with the same old slogans, political attacks, and stunts. The "base" from both sides is easily satisfied when this political red meat is thrown at them. There aren't enough people demanding that our elected officials actually take the time to study the issues and make their decisions based off of hard analysis of the facts. So unfortunately the Tea Partiers will deride any bill given the "socialist" tag by the pols., cheer on anything with the word "patriot" included, while the hard lefties will decry the "Bush baby killer hitler war monger" policies and cheer on gov. welfare programs even when they are deemed ineffective. And the beat goes on...
NPR, PBS, PAC14...they're all the same. They should be able to run any programing they want. If I don't like it, I can tune in another station. But they should get all their funding from listeners and private grants they should not be receiving any government funding. That's just wrong, whether their programming is leftist, centrist, or rightist, taxpayers should not have to pay for it, none of it, zilch, nada.
Thats all this is about --- public funding of a media source...how loudly would the liberals be screaming if Fox News got $430 MILLION dollars?? A jet engine would be quiet compared to THAT whining....One thing everyone agrees on and that is NPR is a LIBERAL media source....and that they get MILLIONS of taxpayer money to broadcast their viewpoint. Broadcast whatever you like (freedom of the press!!), but don't ask taxpayers to support you. If your message is revelant, you won't need taxpayer money...
But it's OK to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars from China each year to pay for weapons systems that the military itself doesn't even want?
Give me a break.
1:38, I've listened to NPR atleast atleast 3 times a week in the morning for the last 10 years. They are not liberal; they neither bash Rep. or Dem. It's you clowns who only want news reports that bash Obama who call them liberal. Just like you talk about "liberal MSM". Guess what buddy, the press did very little factchecking or indepth reporting that was negative towards Bush or the Rep. congress until years into his administration. The same will probably ring true for the current admin.
So if they stop funding it, our taxes will go down right?
Right.
2:48...NPR NOT liberal??? LOL!! Commentators calling the "rapture" a bunch of crap? Or saying that if 4 million Christians "disappeared it would be a good thing?" Thats just a couple of the things from NPR. It was COMMENTARY, not news analysis, but pretty inflammatory, nonetheless. Doesn't sound like a CONSERVATIVE, does it?...Some of the NEWS may be news, but everyone in the media knows NPR is liberally biased. If they weren't how could they let those statements about Christians go unchecked but fire Williams for HIS statements MADE ON ANOTHER SHOW?? NPR IS liberally slanted. The truth is the truth, no matter how much it may hurt. Have any liberal minded journalists lost their job for anything they've said? None that come to mind. Would it be that the "liberal media" is the LARGE shareholder of our media sources? I'll give that idea some play....
Imclain you should be pushing for objective media, not conservative media. So if your definition of liberal media is any outlet that doesn't cheerlead Rep. and bash Dem. then yeah, I guess everyone outside of Murdoch's grasp is liberal.
Hey! I am a taxpayer at a fairly high level. I want my tax dollars to pay for public broadcasting and the arts and science. I don't interfere with your investment in an imperialistic military backing the USA's corporate worldwide capture of oil and other commodities. Let my pittance alone. I'm even going to give many of you a pass on the nonsense you put out as facts about the whole subject.
lol!! I want the medai to bash ALL politicians...as far as I'm concerned, they are ALL liars and thieves, Republicans AND Democrats...And I don't have a problem with taxpayer supported entities that produce news only...but if there is commentary and so-called "analysis", then present BOTH sides...I'd be good with that. I just don't see that happening. An NPR commentator DID say that it would a good thing if 4 millions Christians disappeared. Thats NOT nonsense "put out as facts". It IS a fact. And bash corporations, too....they rape and pillage worse than the Vikings...the main reason I hammer the liberals and the liberal media is because of their plain and undeniably whack ideas, like letting illegal immigrants vote, or tasking NASA to make Muslims "feel good about themselves", or allowing hispanics to have 5 votes in a munincipal election, soa as to "balance" the overwhelming white majority voting block. The list is endless....
Post a Comment