Government Spending

Is Government-Funded Media a Good Idea? Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Others Weigh in. Plus, a True Tale of "Monkey Bras"

|

On Friday, Reason's Matt Welch wrote about why NPR, PBS, and CPB should not receive taxpayer subsidies:

Though it's frequently dressed up in (bogus) economics, the obscene practice of handing out tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to finance state-of-the-art professional sporting venues is at heart a cultural question, too. Some of us (raises hand) love to spend our leisure time at nice ballparks, some of our wives (hi, honey!) believe that live professional baseball is "the death of the soul." Why should she be forced to pay one dime to the Washington Nationals?

This week's brouhaha has underlined the single biggest problem with public broadcasting from the fan's point of view: namely, that with taxpayer financing, no matter how small, inevitably comes political considerations and even outright interference.

And because Welch is what he is, he included a gratuitous Sting lyric (no, not the one about how Russians love their state-supported media too, thank God):

What did Sting teach us? If you love someone, set them free. Should NPR lose its federal funding tomorrow, we would see the mother of all pledge drives, and I would be first in line to contribute. As a friend told me this week, "I would actually start giving them money if they'd stop taking it from me." NPR has one the best media brands in the country; you don't think George Soros would be willing to up his annual contribution to cover the shortfall?

Whole Matt Welch thing here

Last October, after Sen. Jim "You can't be fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative" DeMint (R-S.C.) called for the ending of taxpayer support of NPR, PBS, and CPB, I appeared on the great show On the Media (yes, funded by taxpayers like YOU) to discuss the issue. Because of the recent fooferaw stemming from the current NPR flap, that show has been rebroadcast. Here's the new writeup:

Take the Public Out of Public Broadcasting

March 11, 2011 In October 2010, Republican incumbent Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina wrote an op-ed in the Washington Examiner titled, "Let NPR fend for itself on the market." Well, let's discuss. In a time of reckless deficit spending, should government money for public broadcasting, however small, get the ax? Reason.com editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie says yes. Public media was created to serve "the public interest," says Gillespie. And what exactly does that mean?

Is it just me, or does Betsy Liley look like she's playing Princess Leia in a home-made Star Wars vid in that screen cap?

Here's a final note on the subject (besides the command that you read all of Reason's coverage on public broadcasting):

If the O'Keefe videos are ultimately debunked as super-heavily-edited frauds (not having listened to the full versions out there, I've got no idea; my opposition to public funding of media is not predicated upon official malfeasance or unseemly behavior) remember who did that spade-work: It was Glenn Beck's The Blaze, a new-fangled media org by a guy regularly written off as being crazy for Cocoa Puffs and worse.

Put simply, you won't find a better breakdown of possible weirdness in the editing of the videos that have been released than in the story "Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics?" And when Slate and other establishment-style sources start taking credit for sniffing around the edges of this story, just remember the real work was done by a truly freakazoid new media site that was also running a story called "Woman Appears in Va. Court Donning 'Monkey Bra.'"

Update: As Kolohe notes below in the comments, state-sponsored Russian media does love Reason, it seems.

NEXT: Are You Ready for Some Football (Lockout, That Is)? Reason.tv Breaks Down the NFL Labor Lockdown Mess

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A woman turned a few heads when she walked into a rural Virginia courthouse with a tiny monkey clad in a pink-and-white dress tucked in her bra.

    “Monkey bra”, indeed. That was awful. Plus, I thought it was going to be the gorilla.

  2. (no, not the one about how Russians love their state-supported media too, thank God):

    I don’t see why not – others like Russian stated-supported media.

    (note: not a slam, just an awkward segue)

    1. But it should be a slam.

  3. But if the government doesn’t do it, it cannot happen.

    Ever.

    Like teh ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAADZ

  4. My argument for public media is that it provides something, by definition, that the markets are not going to provide, that is a non-market source of information. Our polity rightly has values other than economic efficiency (one reason why we don’t have child labor for example). All of our institutions should not be market dominated institutions.

    Combine this with the idea that information is critical for a constitutional democracy and that the more forms of information out there the better and you get my support for public media.

    1. So I guess you’ve never heard the phrase, markets in everything. You can try to avoid markets all you want, but since a market is nothing more than people making decisions, you’ll fail. You might as well say you want to avoid computers or nitrogen in the air.

      You seem to say that your support for public media is only available through coercive means. That’s not much of an endorsement of their mission or quality.

      1. Here’s that blinky thing again.

        If markets are in everything and you support that then why complain when folks like me push for non-market institutions? I mean, according to you they will be riddled with markets anyway.

        1. BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING FORCING US TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT.

          BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING FORCING US TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT.

          BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING FORCING US TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT.

          BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING FORCING US TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT.

          1. I would’ve gone with the slightly subtler “But who decides which media sources to fund? There aren’t many Nazi, Monarchist, or 9/11 conspiracy voices out in the media for the general public to hear, and your only qualification was ‘quantity.'” But, your approach works just as well.

          2. BECAUSE I DON’T PAY FOR MY OWN FUCKING SHIT.
            BECAUSE I DON’T PAY FOR MY OWN FUCKING SHIT.
            BECAUSE I DON’T PAY FOR MY OWN FUCKING SHIT.
            BECAUSE I DON’T PAY FOR MY OWN FUCKING SHIT.
            Federal grant or mommy?

            1. Hi pickle-cunt! Neither, I have a job. Now fuck off you dumb bitch.

              1. Oops you caught me! I guess I’m not that hard to catch, considering I’m rather retarded!

                1. helle, come back to my blog! I won’t be mean to you anymore-OK, I lied. I’ll kick your ass there too.

                  1. helle, baby. I’m sorry-I’m compensating. I can’t whip butter. I’m so sorry 🙁

                    1. Bitch, I told you not to use my handle. Do you really want me to ask them to print your IP from your new imaginary job?

                    2. That’s alot of posts for someone who has you incifed. Keep talking to no one, bitch.

                    3. Waaaaaaaaaaaambluance and give yourself a RandyAyndy Award.

                    4. You’re boring me Rectal. Don’t you have anything remotely interesting to say?

                    5. LOL, I love you ‘call a’

                    6. here try one of my pickles helle.

                    7. For the love of fuck! Must you two take a fucking dump on every fucking thread?

                    8. yes

                    9. Yes, it’s my fault rectal commented on my post. I ruined this thread with her. Give me a break.

                    10. Rectal’s lifeblood is attention. Starve the wretched cuntbag.

                    11. I owe a hand job to whoever made the H&R INCIF script.

                    12. honey, wouldn’t it be easier for you just to download incif?

                    13. That would be Eric the .5B, who doesn’t come by much anymore. However he might return if he hears about your offer…

        2. You advocate not doing away with the market, but perverting it with government dollars. IF public programming is valuable, then it will be supported by consumers and sponsors. If it isn’t, it won’t. You seem to think that it’s not valuable enough to earn what it currently takes. So then it isn’t valuable enough to justify the diversion of tax dollars. Either way you slice it, there is no valid reason to advocate state-supported media.

      2. If it’s providing a service that the markets don’t who the hell is buying, oh sorry, free riding.

        Child labor isn’t economically efficient in the long run. Then again neither are the stupid restrictions on teen labor outside of farming. You ever notice those farm guys grow up to be pretty productive? Might have something to do with a strong work ethic. Maybe.

        1. But we don’t have child labor because it is prohibited by law, not because it is economically inefficient (after all, those tiny hands are perfect for some jobs, as Schindler noted). And that is my point, at times society rightly takes some decisions out of the hands of markets. Not everything should be determined by markets.

          1. That’s right. Were it not for child labor laws children in the US would be working in sweat shops and plowing fields across the midwest against the wishes of their parents.

          2. But we don’t have child labor because it is prohibited by law, not because it is economically inefficient (after all, those tiny hands are perfect for some jobs, as Schindler noted).

            Labor laws prohibit a practice that was on the decline anyway. Friedman and Schwartz demonstrated this decades ago. “Tiny hands” may have had an advantage at a time before a more productive alternative had been devised, but its not hard to fathom why a child is less productive than an adult.

            And that is my point, at times society rightly takes some decisions out of the hands of markets.

            You haven’t demonstrated why it is “rightly” so, just that it has.

            Not everything should be determined by markets.

            So the largest system that mimics a democracy is less capable of determining social values than an oligarchy? Very ironic take from your position.

    2. MNG|3.12.11 @ 11:24AM|#
      “My argument for public media is that it provides something, by definition, that the markets are not going to provide, that is a non-market source of information.”

      Your “argument” is simply a statement of existing conditions; ‘it is, therefore it must be’. Ever hear the term ‘circular argument’?

      1. My argument is like this:

        1. Having more of a variety of sources of information is a good thing.
        2. Public funded media contributes to having a variety of sources of information around.
        3. Therefore public media is a good thing.

        I realize you might not find the argument sound, but it’s valid and not circular.

        1. 1. Having more of a variety of sources of information is a good thing.

          So I take it you are now a huge fan of Fox news.

          1. I think they add to the conversation, yes.

        2. 1) Having access to inexpensive goods to alleviate poverty is a good thing.

          2) Slavery allows us access to labor to drepress the price of goods

          3) Therefore slavery is a good thing.

        3. 1. It’s good to have money.

          2. Other people have money that can be stolen.

          3. Therefore it is good to steal money.

          1. The two people above certainly don’t seem to grasp the difference between a sound and valid argument and so they think they are being cute here…Sure, you may disagree with my premises, and I may disagree with yours in your cute examples, but an argument’s validity does not rest on the accuracy of the premises and I was responding to a challenge that my argument was circular in this instance.

            1. Actually what you claim I didn’t grasp was entirely my point. Your argument is valid but the premises are bullshit. I don’t care what accusation you were replying to, I’m directly criticizing your argument.

        4. 4. Great. Pay for it yourself.

          Also, we (I mean libertarians) need to find another word than “market.” Not that there’s anything wrong with markets, but we tend to include all voluntary behavior as “market” behavior. To non-libertarians, this is confusing. To them, a donation to a charity you like is not part of the “market.”

          1. 4. Great. Pay for it yourself.

            But that would controvert my second premise:

            Public funded media contributes to having a variety of sources of information around.

            1. A voluntarily funded information organization couldn’t be different than mass media? Huh? I suspect an entirely voluntarily funded PBS would look like… PBS as it exists today.

              There are very few libertarian sources of information around. One of the largest, the Reason Foundation, cannot entirely support itself through ad sales, so it asks for voluntary donations. It is a very different source of information than MSNBC, CBS or Fox.

            2. To my point, I coughed up $100 last year for the Reason Foundation, which I could ill-afford. But they are the information organization that most closely matches my views, so I supported them.

        5. 1) yes it is
          2) Unless you are going to argue opinions being different or editorial public media provides nothing that isn’t already in the market.
          3) Therefore public media isn’t needed.

          /palmforehead

          Lets add the slippery slope of government manipulated information, you know like having your senior execs talking political trash to contributors while still taking my fucking money. How about they don’t take my money and espouse all the views they want?

          1. 2) Unless you are going to argue opinions being different or editorial public media provides nothing that isn’t already in the market.

            But that is actually the crux of what I’ve been arguing throughout this thread. I realize you disagree, but simply repeating that you do is certainly not going to convince me.

        6. Voluntary associations are not a bad thing. It is when you introduce government funding through coercive taxation. Let “individuals” decide, not the government.

          Go door to door and collect donations for public media. Nobody is stopping you. You can even keep 30% (IIRC) for yourself.

          1. Let “individuals” decide

            We do, in periodic elections individuals choose reps who then make the decision to fund public media.

            Again, not all decisions that involve individuals making choices are market decisions, nor should they be. I realize it is very hard for a market fundamentalist to realize this, just as it is very hard for a theological fundamentalist to see why God should not be consulted before every decision.

            1. Yes, and they choose reps who do not want to fund public media. The government only represents part of the public part of the time, which is why government will never be able to make decisions for people. The government giveth, and the government taketh away. Right now, they want to taketh away. Which is why government should not be allowed to make these decisions like this.

              1. Right now, the majority of Reps don’t want to fund public broadcasting, so you must take it in the ass like a good little slave. Or, you can work to set up a system that is not reliant on government funding. And maybe, just maybe, you can convince other people that it is in their own best interests to support it, rather than have it forced on them. Otherwise, you are only forcing your will on others through government coercion.

                The problem is, you think you know what is “best” for people, and you will force it on them whether they want it, or not. Fuck you. You do not know what is best for me, and neither does a “majority” of Americans.

            2. I realize it is very hard for a market fundamentalist to realize this, just as it is very hard for a theological fundamentalist to see why God should not be consulted before every decision.

              There you go with the intellectual dishonesty, again. Your attempt to insult me, is feeble, at best. Religion requires a leap of faith. Markets do not. You really are a sick bastard, or just very stupid. You are the one that worships the governemnt the way a Christian worships the Bible. The markets are purely voluntary, or should be, without any government coercion or manipulation. People dshould be free to make decisions on their own. Who the fuck are you to tell people what they should want, and then force it on them if they choose against it.

            3. Again, not all decisions that involve individuals making choices are market decisions, nor should they be.

              You and Tony make this claim constantly, but can NEVER successfully argue why this is true. Why would ALL individuals who have a vested interest in an action NOT be the most appropriate decision makers? You undercut your very argument for democratic elections above by this argument. How can you argue that people themselves shouldn’t decide certain actions, yet they are perfectly capable of making the decision to elect the best person to make it for them.

              It hurts the brain to fathom this contradiction.

        7. My argument is like this:

          1. Having more of a variety of sources of information is a good thing.
          2. Public funded media contributes to having a variety of sources of information around.
          3. Therefore public media is a good thing.

          I realize you might not find the argument sound, but it’s valid and not circular.

          Your argument is logical, but it violates libertarian principle of non-aggression, which is why we can’t accept it. Undoubtedly, many think your proposal to be sound, but as yonemoto and heller demonstrate, it falls apart.

    3. There is already a major non-market source of information: the government.

      In fact, child labor is not efficient.

      No one has made the claim that all institutions should be market dominated; therefore, its denial is irrelevant.

      It is not obviously the case that constitutional democracy benefits from more forms of information. Insofar as that is a factual claim, it lacks sufficient evidence. Insofar as it is a normative claim, it lacks sufficient justification.

      Except for those points, your argument is unobjectionable.

      1. Aww shit, son. DAR in the house – kickin’ it old school.

      2. In fact, child labor is not efficient.

        I disagree. I was a “victim” of child labor, to a degree. I was working on construction sites at the age of 13 for only $10/day (in 1979, which was well below the “minimum wage”) during Summer break, working for my semi-retired Grandfather. Guess what? When I graduated high school, I had a marketable skill. My friends were flipping burgers for $3.35/hr, while I was making $10/hr. At the age of 39, I started my own business.

        Yes, “child labor” worked for me.

    4. My argument for public media is that it provides something, by definition, that the markets are not going to provide, that is a non-market source of information.

      Propaganda?

      You’re right, markets don’t produce that.

  5. I’ve always been curious as to why NPR and PBS seem to be targeted more than Voice of America or for that matter Armed Forces Network.

    I guess it is similar to certain people loudly and frequently decrying public employee compensation, except for military, veteran and law enforcement (as if they are’nt government employees).

    1. I am not certain people and would fund all of the above with bake sales.

    2. Voice of America is an out and out propeganda organization. If you have a problem with the US government propegandizing to foreigners, fine. But that is different than it propegandizing domesticlly.

      AFN is a service so soldiers can watch their ESPN and American idol. It is again to commissaries. In other words, in no way analogous to NPR.

      1. “It is again to commissaries.”

        ???

        “in no way analogous to NPR”

        It’s not supported with taxpayer dollars?

        1. It is supported because it provides a needed service to troops serving overseas. If you are too stupid or dishonest to understand the diference between that and funding NPR, you really are just wasting everyone’s time on here, which is what you usually do.

          1. You are obsessed, obsessed with the idea that people that disagree with you are being “dishonest.” It’s some victim-feigning thing you conservatives have learned, like working the ref (academe, the ‘MSM, etc). I’ve seen you get all bitch whiny and accuse the entire Reason staff, the Independent Institute, Epi, fluffy and others of being biased liberals. Jesus Christ lay down your cross.

            As to the substance of your comment I see AFN similar to NPR in that both are publicly funded media (are they not?). You say one “provides a needed service” but of course supporters of the other say the exact same thing about it!

            1. No. I am not obsessed with people who disagree with me od being dishonest. I violently disagree with Fluffy and Episiarch and Tony on here all the time. I don’t accuse them of dishonesty. I only accuse you of dishonesty because you are so guilty of it. You refuse to admit even obvious points or change your position an inch even when it is obvious to everyone on here you are wrong, at least about some small point. That is what makes you dishonest.

              1. “I don’t accuse them of dishonesty.”

                BS. Let’s make this interesting, if I find an example of you doing that to any or all of those three will you post here as John the Giant Taint for a month?

              2. “when it is obvious to everyone on here you are wrong”

                This is so illustrative of the childish worldview of the conservative.

                You’re lying, you’re lying, why won’t you admit it, everyone here knows you are lying, they all say you are lying!

                Do you fall on the floor and kick when you write this stuff?

                Again, what am I “lying” about on this thread John?

                Am I “lying” when I compare AFN to NPR because both are publicly funded media?

                Am I “lying” when I say it’s important to have a non-market media outlet?

                Am I “lying” when I say it’s common for media outlets to cover entities that pay them (as donors or advertisers)?

                Stop with the whiny victim-feigning, follow you’re movement’s male role model when she says “Man Up” and actually debate.

                1. AFN, outside of a bunch of public service anouncements, doens’t produce its own content. It just rebroadcasts content from the states so soldiers can watcht their American Idol and ESPN. That is completely different than NPR that acts a producer of news coverage and makes its own content.

                  The fact that you still maitain the two are analagous shows either that you are profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest.

                    1. Yes it is publicly funded, but so are about a million other things. That doesn’t make it analogous to NPR.

                      This is why I stopped responding to your posts. You can’t make an honest argument or admit anything about someone else’s point can be valid. You are just tedious.

                    2. BITCH FIGHT!

                    3. MNG: red flag for faulty analogous counterexample.

                      Point and match to John.

                    4. They’re post coital now and cuddling.

                    5. Both NPR and AFN are publicly funded media. The analogy is spot on because John and other’s objection to NPR is not that it “produces its own content” but that it is publicly funded. Well, so is AFN.

                      Nice try though.

                    6. Perhaps the AFN should carry NPR material. Oh wait, they do. The AFN is more like a satellite or cable TV provider.

                  1. John,

                    Does the Pentagon Channel not count as AFN-produced material?

        2. It is *akin* to commissaries. *akin*.

          1. Can you explain that akin?

      2. But that is different than it propegandizing domesticlly.

        Let me be clear.

        My Administration is committed to an unprecedented level of openness in Government.

  6. it provides something, by definition, that the markets are not going to provide, that is a non-market source of information.

    Translation: “It provides me with a product I want, but do not wish to pay full market price for. Thanks, suckers!”

    1. It’s amazing how when you talk about something not beholden to market values market fundamentalists get all blinky.

      What? But then it wouldn’t be governed by full market price!

      Well, yeah.

      1. The local art museum is not beholden to the market and no one cares about that. It is beholden to its donors. It is when you start demanding the forcible confiscation of other people’s money that it becomes a problem.

        If NPR is so damned important, why can’t liberals fund it themselves? It is not like $450 million spead over 30 oe 40 percent of the country that likes it is that much money.

        1. A crapload of museums get a crapload of government funding dude…

          1. So what? A crap load of them don’t. That is the point.

            1. The point is, MNG, museums shouldn’t be getting our money, either.

              1. I understand that you want institutions to be either 1. charitable or 2. market driven. I’ve offered my view of why I think it is good in some limited areas to have a third option, I’m not going to keep tediously mentioning it.

                1. I’m not going to keep tediously mentioning it.

                  Promise? With cherries on top?

                2. I know it is hard for utilitarian retards to understand this, but just because one outcome of an action is good doesn’t mean that the action itself is good. Stealing from people to pay for NPR is wrong, no matter how great NPR is. But again, I know its hard for utilitarian retards to care about stealing, killing, etc. when things they like come out of the process. Boy aren’t you a selfish little bitch.

                  1. I know its hard for deontological retards to understand this, but condeming actions on some abstract principle without reference to their actual consequences to real human beings is monstorously inhumane. Stealing is not some magic wrong that trumps all other negative consequences that may occur in some cases if it is not done.

                    BTW-taxation is not stealing, it’s a funny type of stealing where you the victims are consulted prior and can outweigh the stealers on whether it should be done. But hey, keep the meme alive, it’s fun.

                    1. It’s a funny type of stealing where two guys who want to steal from a third guy and all three get to vote on the matter.

                    2. Well your first point contradicts the entire idea of property. If stealing is not inherently wrong, how could people possibly have ownership over things?

                      Your second point is equally ridiculous. Just because you and the muggers had a vote doesn’t make the mugging any less of a mugging.

                3. I’ve offered my view of why I think it is good in some limited areas to have a third option, theft

          2. You mind answering John’s second point? Why don’t you guys just chip in $20 a head for NPR and leave us alone?

            1. Because I answered this a dozen times my autistic friend.

              I think its good to have varied media sources. Market institutions have their slant, charitable ones their slant and public funded ones have their slant. More slants the better. Why not go door to door? Because then NPR is just another charitable outlet beholden to its donors.

              You may want to look into PBS’s many shows that help people read, usually on during the day, so that you can catch that before I say it a dozen times next time.

      2. MNG|3.12.11 @ 11:34AM|#
        “…get all blinky….”

        Translation:
        ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about, so I’ll toss out a clever term’

        1. The irony here which you are swimming in is that by calling them blinky I’m referencing their lack of knowing what I’m talking about.

          Non-market? Scratch’s head….Whaddaya mean?

          1. “Non-market? Scratch’s head….Whaddaya mean?”

            Straw men go so well with the non-argument you’re making. You’re on a roll!

          2. Of course we know what you mean. The question is do YOU know what that means? Because you seem to be ignorant or at least avoiding what “non-market” means. It means the use of force to fund things.

  7. We have plenty of non-market institutions. They seem to be most popular when we want something important to be equally available to a wide group of people regardless of ability to pay (police, military). I think information can fit there.

    And since one of the things we debate about is what should and should not be beholden to purely market forces a non-market source of information, among many market based sources, strikes me as a good idea.

    1. Who’s “we”, Kimosabe? Almost everybody considers the military and the police as important enough to subsidize through taxation.

      NPR, not so much. That’s merely one segment of the population forcing another segment to subsidize their preferences.

      1. Since you like your argument ad populum here you go: Right now a majority of representatives chosen by a majority of citizens agrees with me that NPR is worth funding too.

        1. OK good, now you guys can pay for it, and stop forcing us to pay for it.

          1. This is a useless meme here heller, for all the warmth it may bring you, because it applies to any government funded program that is not based on user-fees. So unless you are a complete anarchist, which brings its own issues, it strikes me as a red herring.

            But it does fit nicely on a bumper sticker!

            1. So unless you are a complete anarchist, which brings its own issues, it strikes me as a red herring.

              I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but there are many “anarchists” who comment here.

              ROOOOOOOOOOOADZ

            2. Exactly, you’ve hit it on the nose. It applies to all coercive actions.

        2. I don’t apply here.

        3. Right now a majority of representatives chosen by a majority of citizens agrees with me that NPR is worth funding too.

          That hasn’t been determined, yet, has it? If the majority of Congresscritters, who were elected by the majority of citizens, vote to defund it, are you OK with that? Or are you only OK with them voting to continue funding it?

          You are so fucking dishonest, it is amazing.

    2. …(police, military). I think information can fit there.

      Yes, that’s right. We have a failed War on Drugs, and two never ending wars in the Middle East to “support” those institutions. That’s what happens when the governemnt uses other people’s money to fund organizations.

  8. What about clown cars?

    I believe the market has failed to provide me with the opportunity to see people driving around in clown cars. Therefor, the government must step in and fulfill this vital (but bafflingly unrecognized) need.

    1. What about the Volkswagon Cabiolet? I think the thousands of single women with Lilith Fair bumber stickers and gay men who bought those have filled that niche quite nicely.

    2. If you think clown cars and single women with Lilith fair stickers are as critical to the well being of our constitutional democracy then I guess you might want to push for public funding for them.

      1. I guess you might want to push for public funding for them.

        *shocked face* You mean you aren’t? Quick, we must organize a telethon!

      2. If you think clown cars and single women with Lilith fair stickers are as critical to the well being of our constitutional democracy then I guess you might want to push for public funding for them.

        And if you think publicly-funded radio and TV are critical to the well-being of our constitutional democracy then I guess you might want to check yourself into a mental institution.

      3. Without Car Talk there would be anarchy! And no roads! And SOMALIAAAA!

  9. And since one of the things we debate about is what should and should not be beholden to purely market forces a non-market source of information, among many market based sources, strikes me as a good idea.

    1) What do you mean WE, White Man?

    2) I ask again: “Who will speak truth to power in the absence of government funded media?”

    3) “What a stupid question! OF COURSE there are angels.”

    1. Beholden to evil market forces = bad

      Beholden to government power and pursestrings = pure as driven snow.

      Yeah, that makes sense.

      1. “Beholden to evil market forces = bad”

        No, just not “good for everything.”

        I realize being a conservative you live in an incredibly simplistic world of bad guys and good guys, Gods and Devils John, but some people find the world a bit more complex than that. For most institutions it is a good thing for them to be market driven, but not for all of them. That’s why I’m not a fundamentalist.

        1. Again, lots of things are not market driven. People give money to all kinds of things that couldn’t survive without the good will of donors. All over America there are things like Art Museums and symphonies that are not market but donor driven.

          You being a liberal and thus simple minded don’t seem to understand there is a healthy civil society for these things outside of government.

          1. No, I realize there is a charity sector, but then as you note below a source of information that is a charity is beholden to its donors and now its coverage may be compromised. Government funded media allows for a unique outlet of information, one not beholden to market forces or the whims of givers.

            1. Again you seem to think that government money doesn’t come with strings. There is a reason I have generally stopped responding to your posts. It is because you lie so much.

              You can’t believe that government money comes without strings. You are seeing it now. When you take government money you by definition have to answer to the tax payers and politicians who give it to you. Jim DeMint gets to bitch about NPR because his constituents pay for part of it. Right here and now you are seeing the dangers of government funding. Once the entity alienates enough of the voters, the voters kill off the funding. That is much worse than being beholden to the market. In the market it doesn’t matter if you offend the majority as long as a large enough minority is willing to fund you. In politics and government funding the majority rules.

              If NPR were slanted as far right as it is left, you would have no problem cutting off funing. At the end of the day, you just want to take other people’s money to support something you like. And as usual are too dishonest to admit it.

              1. John

                Like many conservatives you are all too often a simplistic, sloppy thinking, tired, victim-feigning, whiny bitch.

                Where have I “lied” about not thinking government money comes with strings? As you always do you are assuming I think that, and assuming badly as usual.

                Not only do I not think that, I COUNT on it having strings! Part of what I think makes NPR/PBS superior as a source of information is that they are very nervous about how conservatives via the GOP will see their product. And so they make sure to put that AEI guy on the panel of let William F. Buckley have a show or whatever. If they were private their consumers or donors would have a fit and that would disappear.

                1. Apparently they haven’t been nervous enough because conservatives hate their guts and want to defund them. Your whole post just proves my point. Even by your own admittedly bizzare view of NPR, they have had to intentially change their coverage to appease certain sectors of the country rather than telling what they feel to be the objective truth.

                  And this is somehow superior to being driven by the market? You don’t even understand the ramifications of your own arguments.

                  Just admit it, you want the rest of us to fund something you like.

                  1. Conservatives hate anything that is to the left of Hannity. Like I’ve said I’ve seen you throw tantrums where you accuse the Reason staff of being cosmo-sipping liberals.

                    But having to respond to those nuts makes NPR the unique source of information it is. I find it superior, but that’s my taste, I don’t think I can argue it is superior in some cosmic sense. I do argue that it is a different source of information and it’s important to have different sources in our ‘national conversation.’

                    1. “But having to respond to those nuts makes NPR the unique source of information it is”

                      So it is superior because it is more conservative than the rest of the media? Just what is so unique about it? Doesn’t MSNBC and CNN have to “respond to those nuts” to? Don’t they all have to throw conservatives a bone by having the odd conservative on once in a while to explain to them how horrible they are?

                      Just exactly what does NPR do that makes it so special? Is it because it is so conservative? Are you saying it is worse than Fox News?

                    2. My goodness John are you so immersed in Brietbart/Hannity type information sources that you can’t grasp the value of sources that are not so extremly partisan leaning?

                      I don’t want NPR to become MSNBC anymore than I would want them to become Fox. That does seem to be the way the market is pushing many media outlets though, which bolsters my argument for the importance of non-market media now doesn’t it?

                    3. Even if NPR were the only objective news source in America, it doesn’t matter. They still have alienated a large percentage of voters and are going to have to slant their coverage even further right to have any hope of keeping their funding.

                      Wouldn’t it be better to just have enightened wonderful people like you fund the damn network yourself?

                    4. John, I answered this point above.

                      “I don’t want NPR to become MSNBC anymore than I would want them to become Fox.”

                      “as you note below a source of information that is a charity is beholden to its donors and now its coverage may be compromised. Government funded media allows for a unique outlet of information, one not beholden to market forces or the whims of givers.”

                      Did you not read that, not understand it, or are you just being “dishonest?”

                    5. “I don’t want NPR to become MSNBC anymore than I would want them to become Fox.”

                      Pony up.

                    6. “Government funded media allows for a unique outlet of information, one not beholden to market forces or the whims of givers.”

                      No it is beholden to the whims of voters and political fortune, which is even worse. And you are seeing that now. Either NPR will slant itself right to appease the rightwing or it will lose funding.

                      You never answered any of my points. You just talk around them and pretend they don’t exist.

                    7. All media is going to be beholden to someone. Market outlets are beholden to customers/advertisers. Charitable ones to donors. Government funded to government. My point is the conversation is made better by the addition of types, not the subtraction.

                      You keep running around saying “look it will be biased too!” I’ve agreed with you on that long ago. My point has been that it is unique compared to the other two options. My secondary point is that its broader ‘customer’ base makes for a more objective source, but as everybody rightly notes that comes with disadvantages as well.

                    8. “Government funded to government”

                      I fail to see how being beholden to the government brings anything to the table. It just means whatever party is in power can use it as a tool for their own ends.

                    9. Rarely is “one party in power” and even then not too long. That makes NPR/PBS quite frequently looking over their shoulder and giving Tucker Carlson or Milton Friedman shows…

                    10. I don’t care if they give me a show. I am tired of paying for it. If they are so great and unique, they can find their own funding.

                    11. I’m tired of paying for the police. I’m a big guy, I have a gun. I really don’t think I need it.

                      What I’m getting at is that government institutions will of course be paid for by everyone. Maybe that is wrong, OM and others certainly think so. We can debate that sometime else. This debate is about whether the government institution of public media is something like the police, something good enough to warrant compelled support (because without compelled support it loses the very thing we supporters are alleging makes it good).

                      I’ve said my piece on this, so I’m off to enjoy the rest of the day.

                    12. MNG,

                      You are reduced to arguing that we need government funded media. The richest and most dynamic civilization in history needs government funded media.

                      That is so self evidently rediculous as to be pathetic.

                    13. Market outlets are beholden to customers/advertisers. Charitable ones to donors. Government funded to government. My point is the conversation is made better by the addition of types, not the subtraction.

                      A couple of things: Market outlets are beholden to their market, as are charitably-funded outlets. The government-funded ones only need the patronage of a few people, so that whole “market” analogy is rubbish. The producers at NPR and CPB are more concerned with the opinions of their benefactors as opposed to their viewers/listeners. Denying this just shows how dishonest your arguments are.

                      Also, if the conversation is made better by addition, would you support the publicly-funded “Police Network,” “Alabama state-media” or “Texas Legislature state-run news organization” giving their slanted views? How about the publicly-funded publishing of every book that the publishing houses turn down? After all, the conversation is made better by addition, right?

                      My secondary point is that its broader ‘customer’ base makes for a more objective source, but as everybody rightly notes that comes with disadvantages as well.

                      Well then, your second point is complete bullshit as well. You disingenuously paint the “broader customer base” as the American populous, when in reality it is the very small customer base of those controlling it’s purse-strings.

                    14. I heard Gov Walker wants to start a media network. Maybe Wisconsin voters should fund that in the cause of diversity.

                    15. The Texas, Alabama, etc., state governments are thought of by the local public outlets when they do their programming. I do think that is a good thing btw.

  10. How does the editing of the tapes make any difference? Isn’t the mere fact that NPR was willing to meet with and apparently game to accept millions of dollars from the Muslim Brotherhood damning enough?

    Forget the politics of it for a moment. NPR covers the Muslim Brotherhood. They are part of the story. How can you claim to be an objective “news organization” while taking millions from the people you are covering? What if they were taking a grant from the Israeli government? Would liberals think that was ok? This is no different.

    1. John
      Did you get all worked up about another highly edited selectively presented right-wing blog-o-job? Now you have to pedal and pedal…Should we fire Shirley Sherrod or arrest those snow-plowers to satisfy you?

      1. Again, why is a news organization interested in taking millions of dollars from an entity it covers? That is the question. You just scream and cry and change the subject because you don’t like the answer.

        1. Yeah, I’m changing the subject, not the guy who started out this discussion as follows:

          “How does the editing of the tapes make any difference? Isn’t the mere fact that NPR was willing to meet with and apparently game to accept millions of dollars from the Muslim Brotherhood damning enough?”

          Shorter: I fell for another conservative blog-o-sphere selectively edited job so rather than talk about how selectively presented this stuff was let’s talk about how bad it was for them even to meet with the group!

          1. This

            “Shorter: I fell for another conservative blog-o-sphere selectively edited job so rather than talk about how selectively presented this stuff was let’s talk about how bad it was for them even to meet with the group!”

            In no way answers this

            “why is a news organization interested in taking millions of dollars from an entity it covers?”

            Yes, the mere fact that NPR met with them and wanted to take money from them is more damning than anything they said about Fox News or the Tea Party.

            1. And shifting the conversation from the editing to the meeting itself is an example of what John?

              1. Making a point that the editing is of trivial importance. “So what” is a perfectly acceptable response to a question.

                Indeed, the MSM entraps and selectively edits people all the time. And they mostly do it to average people. NBC set up fake dinner parties and tried to bait ordinary people into dissing on gays in the military or people in Arizona to say something racist about Mexicans. And they selectively edited as well. And these were not officials at a company but just ordinary people in their private lives.

                I never heard you complain about that.

                1. Huh. How’d they bait just plain folks into dinner parties? Did they pretend they were to promote time shares or something? Or did they go under cover and befriend these people for months? Or worse, did they bait their real friends?

              2. I can tell you one thing slightly OT. Minge will benefit greatly from an NFL lockout because he will be able to get goalpost-movers at fifty cents on the dollar.

                Based on this thread, he’s gonna need to replace the one he’s using pretty soon. He’s about to blow the engine.

            2. Just as Fox and CNN cover the companies that buy ad time on their networks, PBS/NPR covers all kinds of major companies that give it money. Of course it may affect their coverage, this is my point about the problem with charitable sources of information.

              Ironically it is an argument for increased public funding!

              1. Fox and CNN don’t take money from political entities they cover. What if the DNC or RNC went to a major network and offered them millions of dollars? You don’t think there would be anything wrong with that? The Muslim Brotherhood is the same thing.

                And indeed, aren’t you telling us above how the media shouldn’t be a slave to the market? Well, taking money from people you cover is one of the parts of being in the market and one of the things government funding is supposed to prevent.

                1. “Fox and CNN don’t take money from political entities they cover.”

                  No, Fox gives money to political entities they cover.

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..84462.html

                  And they do take money from political groups and candidates who buy ad time, just like they take money from companies and other entities who do.

                  “And indeed, aren’t you telling us above how the media shouldn’t be a slave to the market? Well, taking money from people you cover is one of the parts of being in the market and one of the things government funding is supposed to prevent.”

                  Again, I ANSWERED this above.

                  “Of course it may affect their coverage, this is my point about the problem with charitable sources of information.

                  Ironically it is an argument for increased public funding!”

                  How did you miss that? Are you still being dishonest?

                  1. See my post above. NPR, because it takes public funding, exists at the whims of Congress. Congress changed and now they are going to have get on their knees and beg Bohner and the Republicans not to kill their funding. They just canned their CEO over what you consider to be a hoax. They did that because they don’t want to lose funding.

                    Yet, somehow you think this is different or better than being beholden to charitable donors. You just putting out nonsense MNG and you know it.

                    If people like you were willing to pay your own way and fund NPR with your own dollars, they would never have to answer to a Republican Congress again.

              2. Edited or not, the PBS guy said what he said. No amount of editing changes WHAT he said.

                1. I agree, his comments showed not only bias, but a stupid bias (the Tea Party is one of the least ‘Taliban’ parts of the conservative movement). He was rightly canned.

                2. Actually it does, since the editing was made explicitly to dishonestly portray opinions as his own that he was attributing to others, namely Republicans who think their party has gone full retard.

                  1. You actually think those weren’t his opinions?

                    1. Maybe. Who cares. Fundraisers for NPR are allowed to have opinions.

                    2. Fundraisers for NPR are allowed to have opinions.

                      Not if they take public money they are not. Would you be okay with an employee of say the FBI or the Military talking about how they hate Liberals?

                    3. If the conversation was seemingly private, yes.

              3. Ironically it is an argument for increased public funding!

                The Daljit Daliwal had no problem finding employment after WorldFocus went kaput.

  11. why complain when folks like me push for non-market institutions?

    You’ve run rings around us, logically. Again.

    Yes, there is, in fact, a “market” for government coercion and wealth redistribution.

  12. Don’t forget, boys and girls, not all market exchanges are transacted in CASH.

    1. We’re working to correct that.

  13. Government funded media allows for a unique outlet of information, one not beholden to market forces or the whims of givers.

    ANGELS!!11

  14. Not bad what you suggest there, but I still say we should demand back the forty years of start up capital ‘invested’ in NPR before we let them off the hook. Anything else is nowhere near being a wash.

    1. I still say we should demand back the forty years of start up capital ‘invested’ in NPR before we let them off the hook.

      But…but, that would be regressive! Progressives in favor of regressive policies? Such twaddle! Don’t make me laugh.

    2. It would be funny to see NPR out of institutional survival instinct go as far right as it is left now. Watching liberals argue for killing it would be made for TV entertainment.

      1. Off Topic, but I see my buddy John there. In other news, it looks like the Unions are feeling their wild oats again and are back in the business of extortion. I had no doubt they would take the positive MSM coverage as a public mandate for all that they do including violence:

        http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/c…..tml?blog=y

        1. I hope they publish a list of everyone they are boycotting so I can buy something from every one of them.

      2. Before any doofus progressive object, carefully read who is on the list of the undersign before you object to my description of this as being an initiation of force.

        1. “Before any doofus progressive object, carefully read who is on the list of the undersign before you object to my description of this as being an initiation of force.”

          Well, self-described as other than a “doofus progressive”, I don’t see “initiation of force” anywhere.

          1. Let me give you an example to clarify what is not really a controversial ethical framework that police officers live under. You read in your newspaper that your local police chief Joe Schmoe is leading a boycott drive concerning a local businessman who supports the governor for whom you voted. He lives within walking distance of you so you march over to his house with your fist clinched. You see him bending over to reach for his newspaper with a mug of coffee in one hand wearing only his boxers and tee shirt. Sunday morning, not on duty, so you take advantage of the opportunity and once he is prone you get in his face and let your fist fly. Guess what you will be charged with? It doesn’t matter, of course, that he is not in uniform, he is an officer 24/7.

            You may be thinking that this ethical concept was set up to advantage LEO’s over the public, but that is not how it originated. The other side of the coin of being an officer 24/7 is that you do not have the same private capacity in your person as the rest of the public.

            As a citizen you only have the right of boycott in your private capacity. Once you become an officer, because of the power inherent in that position, that very same action now becomes an act of extortion. As an officer, your political actions have a far more restricted legality, at least in most states, and I don’t think mine is an exception. The officer in Wisconsin signed that letter would be in a shit load of trouble if he had done so here. Beyond lobbying for their department appropriations, voting or endorsing candidates (actually this is controversial though not an illegal activity) there is not much leeway to what they are allowed to do in terms of partisan politics.

          2. Note, I’m only speaking of extortion as a class of crime. Whatever specific code is violated depends upon the state.

            He conveys a threat here because every action he takes is that of an officer of the law, and to tell a businessman that there will be repercussions if he doesn’t do the officers bidding means those repercussions are those that can be acted upon in his capacity as a LEO, and not just as a member of the public making a personal choice.

  15. So reason is still on the right wing crusade du jour, defunding public news outfits. What about the subsidies for baseball and NASCAR? Sort of like how mere threats of subsidy for solar panels trump actual gigantic cash sinkholes for oil and coal. I wish reason wouldn’t be led around on a leash by the Republican “ideas” factory so much.

    1. No subsidies for baseball and NASCAR, then. As it should be. I’d love to see that happen.

      We subsidize way too much as it is.

      1. As for the completely-unrelated solar and coal subsidies… shitcan those, as well, with equal vigor.

        1. If you don’t stop, Tony will have nothing to whine about today.

    2. If killing of NPR is the price we have to pay to end the practice of publicly funding stadiums, that sounds pretty good to me.

      1. As long as you understand that the Republicans’ crusade to kill NPR has nothing to do with small government whatsoever.

        1. Sure, as long as you admit Dems efforts to fund it have nothing to do with any commitment to objective journalism.

        2. +1

          This is why I mention AFN and VOA above.

          From Wisconsin to Washington the GOP is doing nothing but trying to damage groups it sees as offering support to the Dems and liberals. This is why they target teacher compensation but not police or military, PBS but not AFN, etc

          With common sense exceptions…

          1. Pretty much. But so what? Any idea that one should play fair in these things ended with how Obamacare was passed. And further, if the Unions are going to turn themselves into wholly owned susidiaries of the Democratic Party and then use the force of law to collect dues, they shouldn’t be shocked when the other side defunds them when they get in power.

            Why the fuck wouldn’t Republicans want to defund public employee unions?

          2. Yes, MNG, and Dems and libs do and will pull dirty tricks to damage groups they see as threats to their existence.

            God, it’s fun to watch.

          3. “From Wisconsin to Washington the GOP is doing nothing but trying to damage groups it sees as offering support to the Dems and liberals.”

            BREAKING NEWS! POLITICAL PARTY TRIES TO GAIN POWER OVER RIVAL!
            And MNG sees this as reason for government support for that rival. Your tax dollars at work (so long as you favor that rival)

          4. MNG-who cares about AFN? It started out as a way for GIs in Germany or Korea or Japan to see programs from the states that weren’t available in those countries. But Hulu exists now-if you cut it they could still watch their shows-heck it’s even better because they aren’t bound by AFNs schedule. You want to cut it-you won’t get much opposition (other than from those who work for AFN).

        3. If NPR survives without our money, so be it. Cutting the umbilical is no uarantee of such a fate.

          1. [in voice of Ivan Drago] If he dies…he dies.

    3. Actually Reason is quite excellent in periodically covering the subsidization of sports stadiums.

    4. The closest broadcasting analogy to the subsidies for baseball & NASCAR (by providing facilities) is the operation of broadcasting stations by gov’t, which is done almost entirely by state & local gov’t and hence would not be affected by removal of federal funding.

    5. What about the subsidies for baseball and NASCAR

      Are you an idiot?

      Nick specifically quoted Matt about ending Baseball subsidies in the article.

      Though it’s frequently dressed up in (bogus) economics, the obscene practice of handing out tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to finance state-of-the-art professional sporting venues is at heart a cultural question, too. Some of us (raises hand) love to spend our leisure time at nice ballparks, some of our wives (hi, honey!) believe that live professional baseball is “the death of the soul.” Why should she be forced to pay one dime to the Washington Nationals?

    6. “What about the subsidies for baseball and NASCAR?”

      Are you totally oblivious to the numerous posts and videos created by Reason against subsidization of sports stadiums?

  16. Koko sure gets around. Mr. Rogers, the Shat, Robin Williams, Betty White. . .she’s like a gorilla slut of some kind.

    1. Koko sure gets around.

      Meh. A free-rider of the simian world because of some remarkable finger banging. Probably the precursor to a dystopian world ruled by apes. I wonder what such a world might look like…

      1. Are you positing some sort of World of the Simians?

  17. she’s like a gorilla slut of some kind.

    That’s gorilla hostess, you round-eyed barbarian.

    1. A gorilla of negotiable affection?

    2. A gorilla who enjoys the kindness of strangers?

    3. a gorillia of questionable morals

  18. All Things Considered is too right-wing for MSNBC to pick up, but maybe Bloomberg would jettison that fucking idiot Al Hunt to make room on the schedule.

    1. ATC could draw better ratings than any of the morning shows on cable short of Fox and Friends and the Today Show. MSNBC, CNN, ABC and CBS would fall all over themselves to get ATC. And so would Sirus or whatever they are calling it today.

      1. Yes, that’s well and good, but who would pick up To the Contrary or White House Chronicles? I would love to see MacLaughlin Group go kaputnik, just to see Eleanor Clift have a stroke. She looks like she is continuously reading a bad menu.

        1. The MacLaughlin Group was previously on NBC.

    2. why do you assume that NPR would disappear without federal funding. All evidence is to the contrary.

  19. Why did Betsy forget to put her makeup on that morning? She looks like she just rolled out of bed.

  20. I’m all for ending funding for public media. I don’t think people should be forced to fund the aesthetic tastes and entertainment of others.

    That said, this is way, way down my list of priorities and I’m quite uncomfortable with the GOP singling it out as a target to attack because it is viewed as a liberal bulwark. If I was in elected office, I would oppose the loss of funding (even though I ideologically support it) unless I could win concessions on things like defense spending in return.

    1. You have to start somewhere. And fuck them. If they want to be so damned liberal, they can live with the consiquences when the political winds change.

      What is wrong with singling something out. Couldn’t you just as easily say

      “I think we should cut spending but I am uncomfortable with Jason singly out defense spedning because it is such a conservative bulwark”?

      It either deserves funding or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it really doesn’t matter why its funding was cut, it still is a good thing.

    2. “I’m quite uncomfortable with the GOP singling it out as a target to attack because it is viewed as a liberal bulwark.”

      ‘Scuse me? You use my tax dollars to support a liberal bulwark, whose views I don’t support?

    3. Sure we can decide what survives and what gets cut on the basis of Constitutionally mandate duties or “inherently governmental activities” or on public vs. private goods. But everyone, left and right, have made very clear that isn’t going to happen.

      So the cuts will be made via SPITE.

      I can live with that.

  21. Damnit, it’s “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs,” not “crazy for Cocoa Puffs.”

  22. Is Government-Funded Media a Good Idea?

    It’s the only idea.

  23. There’d be something to the argument for subsidized alternative programming if it were truly “the” alternative, as in all the alternative. Imagine, for instance, a world in which for some reason the market supported some (probably the great majority, but it could be any fraction of) the programming that was offered or conceivable, and then a plausible amount of subsidy made available all there other programming that anyone would conceivably want for no charge, or would want to produce. Yeah, then you could say the subsidy provides the alternative.

    But that’s not the real world. In reality there are far more people who want to make programs, and far more programs that people would listen to or watch, that never get done even with subsidies available. So what justifies subsidizing just some of what just some people want?

    And now back to the annual pledge drive at wfmu.org.

    1. Heh…I’d really like to see “public radio” stns. raising money the way WFMU does — by having on-air people take shots of vodka, get food poured over their heads, get nipples pierced, raffle bootleg media, “marijuana roulette”, etc.

    2. Looks like it’s going to be close as to whether they hit their $1.2M pledge goal; they usually finish strong, like the pledgers save up a dramatic kick for the final hours.

    3. They got to within $45,000.

  24. Is that a tender moment with STEVE SMITH right before the rape starts?

  25. So who here also thinks that if PBS/NPR would become less statist in its opinions if the government stopped funding it?

    Don’t get me wrong it would still be far left wing….but i think it would be more skeptical of what the government does if the government stopped giving it money.

    1. I wonder if they ever realized in ’08 that it was in their interest to be more skeptical of the exploding rate of spending that would eventually have to be cut back, and soft targets like their own asses would be a ripe target to do so as the middle class entitlement spending increases hardened into a new base line. Probably not.

    2. OH, so secretly that’s why the reason crew wants to defund NPR – to create a kernel of liberaltarianism.

      1. OH, so secretly that’s why the reason crew wants to defund NPR – to create a kernel of liberaltarianism.

        I don’t know about a libertarian NPR.

        I think they would simply be happy if left wingers would simply be against giving huge sums of money to wall street and GM and insurance companies.

    3. I don’t care what their opinions are. I just don’t want them to get any tax dollars. They don’t need it and there is no constitutional mandate to pay for public media. People who want the service can pay for it.
      I, for one, doubled my contribution to public radio in anticipation of the loss of federal dollars.

    4. So who here also thinks that if PBS/NPR would become less statist in its opinions if the government stopped funding it?…I think it would be more skeptical of what the government does

      Like MSNBC? Daily Kos? Mother Jones?

      1. yeah…my premise does have that counter factual.

        Still how happy is Kos and Mother Jones with the wall street bail outs?

        I think it is a measurable quantity less then NPR/ PBS is.

    5. For an example of privatization, you could compare WNYC’s programming before and after the Municipal Broadcasting Corp. was sold. WNYC AM & FM were bought by a private foundation, while the TV station, which always was authorized to air commercials, was sold to for-profit businesses. The content I’ve observed on WNYC radio went slightly but noticeably farther to the left; more or less statist is hard to tell.

  26. I’ve never bothered with incif, but if there was some version where you could block based on who the poster was replying to…

    1. You could stop reading the comments and focus on the editorials. Or you could use the scroll wheel on your mouse to skip the stupid comments altogether. You’re welcome.

      1. Or you could stick an ice pick in your eye every time you read a comment you didn’t like


        1. rather|3.12.11 @ 7:12PM|#

          Or you could stick an ice pick in your eye every time you read a comment you didn’t like

          No one has any idea what you are doing here. Would not a Justin Bieber fan site be more appropriate for a silly, silly girl like you? These discussions are little over your head, don’t you think?

          1. I bet you OCD everything in your life. Does it make you crazy that I’m different? Go jack-off, you’ll feel better.

            1. Tell me, how many scars do you have on your wrist? It’s quite obvious you are slasher, giving your every other post is a projection of violence on others.

              Come on, tell daddy, it’ll be like old times.

              1. You’re another slow one! Most of rather’s posts are helle, and other members of the merry troop of masturbating munchkins.

                Tell me what’s it like to never feel like a man?

                1. Most of rather’s posts are helle, and other members of the merry troop of masturbating munchkins.

                  English, do you speak it?

                  Come on, answer my question. I need to know if I should pick on you for being an asshole, or just ignore you given your fragile state of mind.

                  1. Read my blog, and if you’re as astute as you ostensibly believe, you’ll get me. Your fucking easy to read, a rather boring pamphlet of a typical disorder

                    1. Lol! I was just called a pamphlet! Honey, if that is the extent of your wordsmith skills, I’ll take a pass on your blog.

                2. I swear I’m not retarded! Really I’m not!

        2. Volition is hard!

  27. and HelleRectal wreck another thread that was almost saved after the John/MNG make out session.

    1. SHUT THE FUCK UP SMALL DICK!

      1. Don’t drag me into your unholy union.

        1. I’m not helle, I’m rather. Rather retarded.

          1. whatever, you’re both the same person

            1. No Helle is my crush. I mean he’s a little boy with a small dick, like all males that aren’t my Daddy. I hate him!

  28. I dunno man, its kinda scary when you think about it. Wow.

    http://www.anon-tools.es.tc

  29. Screw weening them off the taxpayer teat. Cut them off NOW

  30. I think its good to have varied media sources.

    Well, give yourself a pat on the back, you self-important douche!

    It’s nice to see you admit that your argument is based on nothing more than an assertion of your personal preference.

  31. It’s funny that minge spends an entire thread arguing that NPR is a needed different voice because it is taxpayer funded not realizing that NPR gets like 90% of its funding from individual and (evil)corporate funding.

    1. not realizing that NPR gets like 90% of its funding from individual and (evil)corporate funding.

      It’s that 10% tithe that makes it sacrosanct.

    2. What’s missing from this discussion is that the federal funds go to local radio stations. It’s not the programming that they’re paying for, it’s access. I’m quite sure Republicans would be fine with rural radio consumers only having access to GOP agitprop, which is the only alternative out there in some cases.

      1. But… rural residents are all inbred God’n’guns gay-haters!

        /snark

  32. I like NPR. I don’t see a ready substitute on the market. If it takes public money to continue NPR, I’m ok with that. I don’t believe taxation is inherently “wrong” and I have a voice, however small, in my government’s decisions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.