A "huge error in reasoning" is exemplified in your response to me. No where in my short post do I justify any kind of abuse. Also, what's up with calling public funding for NPR/PBS abuse? You might not like it, but it's definitely not abuse.
A "huge error in reasoning" is exemplified in your response to me. No where in my short post do I justify any kind of abuse. Also, what's up with calling public funding for NPR/PBS abuse? You might not like it, but it's definitely not abuse.
NPR is pretty much the only thing I listen to on the radio, but I can't think of a compelling reason the government needs to fund it. Actually it looks like between direct funding and the CPB, only about 16% of the budget comes from federal money, compared to 32% from listener contributions.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
Local stations might be a different story.
I want the government to send a maid over to clean my house and cook my dinner. And then ...
Under what constitutional authority does the Federal government fund public radio and television? The Commerce Clause?
Read the act yourself:
People, we don't have the money.
We live in a very fragmented media world now. That means there are many, many outlets to get content.
Anything that is currently on PBS or NPR that there is demand for will find a home somewhere else. If enough people like Sesame Street, it will find a place to be aired. If not, then it deserves to go off air.
If you think we should keep shows on PBS or NPR that wouldn't naturally find a commercial home, you are really saying that you want other people to fund programs you like.
big bird and snuffy wrote:
Read the act yourself:
http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/act/text.html
Doesn't really address my question. I guess there is one reference to the general welfare, maybe that is it. Lots of references to "public interest" being the reason but that is not a constitutional justification.
U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8 reads "Congress shall have power To . . . provide for the general welfare"
Mojo Jerkin wrote:
If you think we should keep shows on PBS or NPR that wouldn't naturally find a commercial home, you are really saying that you want other people to fund programs you like.
Does it make one a flaming socialist to be a little more comfortable with Big Bird rather than Ronald McDonald educating our nation's toddlers?
YES. Most media exits solely to sell itself. Look at MSNBC and Fox News; they know there are a lot of lunatics and they market themselves to tell people what they want to here. It is worth the paltry price we pay (We pay SO LITTLE) to have a news outlet dedicated to telling the truth regardless of whether or not anyone wants to here it. (I'm not saying they do it perfectly, but at least it is an actual goal).
With Big Bird, everyone is forced to pay whether or not you approve of Big Birds teaching methods.
With Ronald McDoanld, if you don't want Ronald teaching your children...you can individually stop funding the corporation.
It doesn't really answer your question, but it provides a primary source for the creation of public broadcasting. From there you can find other sources that detail the debate that led to CPB (and PBS and NPR).
The argument of "where is the constitutional validity" is a very tired one. You make it seem like no one at the time of Johnson signing the act even knew the constitution existed.
Why do you assume that PBS or NPR remain unbiased and tells you the truth?
Curious Person wrote:
YES. Most media exits solely to sell itself. Look at MSNBC and Fox News; they know there are a lot of lunatics and they market themselves to tell people what they want to here. It is worth the paltry price we pay (We pay SO LITTLE) to have a news outlet dedicated to telling the truth regardless of whether or not anyone wants to here it. (I'm not saying they do it perfectly, but at least it is an actual goal).
I do not believe this is a goal. Media sell themselves to their constituencies. Public broadcasters are no different in this regard. They sell themselves to legislators (along with donors and foundations which make up the bulk of their funding).
Most NPR stations (that I am familiar with) play a heavy dose of classical and/or jazz music during the day--the times when they are not broadcasting news or talk. Why should we subsidize classical music and jazz rather than rock and rap?
I am a moderate and can't see why the government has to fund a radio network, esp at a time of deficits.
I feel different about hte nat endowment arts - that seems worthy of a wealthy nation. Not sure if that is a contradiction
big bird and snuffy wrote:
It doesn't really answer your question, but it provides a primary source for the creation of public broadcasting. From there you can find other sources that detail the debate that led to CPB (and PBS and NPR).
The argument of "where is the constitutional validity" is a very tired one. You make it seem like no one at the time of Johnson signing the act even knew the constitution existed.
I've never read a coherent argument for why these entities are constitutional. I can find that FDR said that a lot of legislators had valid misgivings about the constitutionality of the enterprise but he urged them to pass it anyway, stating" Things had changed by 1935, when President Roosevelt wrote to Congress, "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." I don't think it is a tired argument.
Here is the way it is wrote:
Liberal: Yes
Conservative: No
EOT
Once again, the first response was the best.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I've never read a coherent argument for why these entities are constitutional.
I just gave you one, the plain language of Article I empowers Congress to spend money for the General Welfare of the Country, the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to effectuate its powers. Congress decided it would benefit the General Welfare to have radio stations that have Car Talk, play jazz, etc., so they spent money to create a nonprofit corporation that was necessary to establish a radio station. What part does not add up?
agip wrote:
I am a moderate and can't see why the government has to fund a radio network, esp at a time of deficits.
I feel different about hte nat endowment arts - that seems worthy of a wealthy nation. Not sure if that is a contradiction
Almost all wealthy nations fund public media. Why should we be different?
No.
100% of the airwaves should be owned by private interests and none by the people