Government Spending

Wordfight at the C.P.B. Corral

|

When Congress reached its midnight budget deal last week, the finished product didn't include the GOP's measure barring federal funds for National Public Radio, let alone the party's earlier proposal to zero out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting entirely. (I told you so.) In the aftermath, over at Bloomberg Government, I've done a point-counterpoint with Kinsey Wilson of NPR about the future of public broadcasting subsidies. Wilson thinks the government's money is a "relatively modest but essential stake." I disagree, but I also argue that the funding isn't likely to go away until we can forge a left/right alliance between the people who don't like being forced to pay for media they dislike and the people who don't think their favorite broadcasters should have to answer to a bunch of politicians.

The whole thing is behind a paywall for now, but if you're a Bloomberg subscriber you can read our exchange here.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Waiting Is the Hardest Part

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. Of course Democrats absolutely wouldn’t cut NPR or Planned Parenthood. If they have to cut something, they’d much rather cut Pell Grants.

    1. Of course Democrats absolutely wouldn’t cut NPR or Planned Parenthood.

      Is NPR or PP unionized? That’s where the rubber meets the road for Democrats.

      And for some reason, I just don’t see the Republicans wanting to cut them for the same reasons that libertarians do.

      The enema of my enemy is not my constipation.

  2. Doesn’t matter, when the bond market revolts, there won’t be any money for them anyway.

  3. How perfect that a debate with an NPR exec is behind a pay-wall! It’s a metaphor. Or maybe it’s like a simile.

    1. Its a “simaphor”, which has no logical explanation but sorta seems to make sense, stylistically.

      Same point noted below.

  4. No time to RTFA now, but whenever I hear “Point, Counter-Point” I think of this:

    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CbHfI3O4j8M/0.jpg

    I hope you counterpointed the shit out of that debate.

  5. It makes perfect sense that a debate about public financing of media should be exclusive, proprietary, pay-for content owned by a media corporation belonging to the Mayor of New York/erstwhile presidential candidate…

    I actually have no idea if there’s a specific point there or not. I just think whoever is supposed to be in charge of the meta-issues has been given a little too much leeway and he’s now getting a bit too arty-farty and losing the plot.

  6. The left will jump aboard the defund NPR express just as soon as the Palin Administration puts Beck, North, Coulter and Buchanan in charge of it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.