The right is going after public broadcasting tooth & claw. NPR is facing the most serious threat to its existence ever.
If defunded as the wing-nutty House Republicans intend, NPR will be hurt badly.
KUOW is deep in their Spring pledge drive.
So is KPLU.
If you give to public radio, or have ever had the inclination, this is the time to give and give generously. A few bucks not only will be put to good use, but will show your support in a real way.
Don't forget KEXP and KBCS, when they have their next drives.
It's not just NPR. The right also wants to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on which many nonprofit stations - not just NPR affiliates - rely.
Posted by: Pete | March 29, 2011 at 06:18 PM
Still, the question remains...
Why does any radio or television provider deserve tax dollars?
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | March 29, 2011 at 08:15 PM
Until I read an article about funding NPR, I didn't realize how this would affect stations in smaller communities without the base to support NPR. It would be a shame to lose one of the few responsibly informative stations for these people who have only right-wing liars left. I'd send money easily to stations that need it more than KUOW or KPLU. Perhaps a national drive should occur. I interested in keeping those smaller stations on the air. Unfortunately, I don't even where they are.
Posted by: joanie | March 29, 2011 at 08:18 PM
You're an idiot to "give" to NPR. Why??? To pay for all those ridiculously high salaries. Tell the god damn people working at NPR to take a pay cut.
Posted by: Truth | March 29, 2011 at 08:25 PM
This is the kind of responsible programming NPR gives you: This is an NPR interview with O'Keefe. On The Media Notice the integrity.
Posted by: joanie | March 29, 2011 at 08:45 PM
Truth = KS = Klueless = South King County = Snow Plow "engineer" = idiot. Maybe, KS, you'd make more money if you got some education.
Posted by: joanie | March 29, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Looking at the NPR site, I found some interesting self-reflection:
BROOKE GLADSTONE: That was Kevin Putt. Among our critics there were also a fair number of liberals who felt NPR actually leaned the other way. Next up, Steve Rendall, senior analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, or FAIR, a liberal organization that monitors media bias. In a controversial study released in 2004, FAIR counted up the liberal and conservative sources cited in news reports on Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
STEVE RENDALL: And what we found was a very strong slant in favor of the GOP. Sixty-one percent of partisan guests who appeared on those two NPR shows in 2003 were Republicans.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: There was a Republican Congress, there was a Republican White House. I mean, doesn't that make sense?
STEVE RENDALL: You should see a few more Republicans on, but the number was 61 percent Republicans to 38 percent Democrats. And, we were repeating a study that we had done in 1993, when the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress. And in that study we found that there was the same bias, 57 percent Republicans at that time and 42 percent Democrats. So it didn't matter who was dominating Washington. Republicans had more guests.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now, I'm assuming that at least a third of our listeners, the third that identify as conservatives, and maybe a good number of the liberal listeners too, are thinking you’re a liberal research organization, and you make no bones about it. Why should we trust what you say?
STEVE RENDALL: Well, our studies are replicable. You could duplicate the studies. You can check the numbers. I think that, first of all, everybody comes from a point of view. Everybody is subjective. This is one of the things in journalism that you try to overcome. You accept that you have a point of view, you have a certain amount of ideological baggage, and you try to overcome that. And the way to overcome bias is by balance.
Anybody think Fixed News reflects on its guests and content like that?
Posted by: joanie | March 29, 2011 at 08:55 PM
Still, the question remains...
Why does any radio or television provider deserve tax dollars?
Posted by: Rat_Bastard | March 29, 2011 at 10:58 PM
I've been very turned off by NPR's change in attitude from "listener supported public radio" to "radio with a unique business model". When they cross a line from accountable public enitity to private business model, I become very skeptical, and perhaps a little less generous.
Posted by: Andrew | March 29, 2011 at 11:02 PM
NPR
Endowment US$258 million
Revenue US$159 million
Net income US$18.9 million.....hardly teetering on the brink, sitting on a couple hundred million in cashish...
These are the facts. I agree with Luke Burbank, it will improve NPR to unhitch themselves from the public feed bucket....
Posted by: WILD BILL | March 30, 2011 at 02:59 PM
Only if the listeners can really support it, and not have it taken over by corporate dollars, which will destroy the reason for having NPR in the first place.
Posted by: sparky | March 30, 2011 at 03:51 PM
People are impressed with dollars in the millions. Do you realize how small that amount is in the larger context of our economy? I believe that is one of the reasons people get so caught up in this deficit problem. We and a lot of other country have had much bigger deficits and not sacrificed the common good to bring them down. The average person does not get it.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | March 30, 2011 at 04:08 PM
You're right, they don't.
Posted by: sparky | March 30, 2011 at 04:12 PM
"In a controversial study released in 2004..."
Posted by: joanie | March 29, 2011
--------------------
Pretty old data...I'm not sure a current survey would produce the same results, given the dramatic change in the political climate over the past 7 years.
The constant negative references to FOX (Faux, Fixed) are clearly from those who don't watch it and/or are parroting their party talking points. As with any other media source I watch or listen to, I evaluate what I hear in the context of who's saying it. FOX guests regularly come from both sides of the political spectrum and they are clearly identified by their affiliations: democratic strategist, Senator X (R-WI), former White House Press Secretary to Bush, etc. At least I don't have to "guess" at their agendas.
Posted by: Radio Queen | March 30, 2011 at 04:12 PM
"FOX guests regularly come from both sides of the political spectrum ..."
No, they don't. That's not even arguable anymore.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | March 30, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Are you basing your opinion on your own experience of being a regular FOX viewer, A-D?
Posted by: Radio Queen | March 30, 2011 at 05:14 PM
If I were a "regular" viewer - which is what I'm guessing you are - I wouldn't know much about the other news media now would I? Which I think you don't.
Posted by: The Anti-Dori | March 30, 2011 at 06:21 PM
A couple of days ago, one of the news guys on Fox admitted to saying stuff about Obama (regarding Joe the Plumber) that even he didn't believe when he was saying them. But, the things he said took root and a lot of people ended up believing him, most likely the Loyal Viewers, and because of that, he feels justified in doing it.
Posted by: sparky | March 30, 2011 at 06:27 PM
Hahahaha. If people believe your lies, then it's okay to lie! That says it all. Wonder what the queen has to say to that?
Posted by: joanie | March 30, 2011 at 07:29 PM
Aw, come on, A-D. You dodged the question: Is your opinion about FOX based on your viewing experience? Nope, didn't think so. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't limit my information gathering to just one source. Can you say the same?
Sparks, using another one of your vague and extreme examples to paint all of FOX with your tainted brush?
And joansie buys it all hook, line & sinker.
Predictable...on all 3 counts.
Posted by: Radio Queen | March 30, 2011 at 07:39 PM
How many examples do you want, Queen? As for anybody dodging, you've got quite a record yourself. Like most rightwingers, you are very selective.
Fox News listeners get stupder the longer they watch - was linked.
Fox News listeners didn't know there were no weapons of mass distruction - linked to PEW.
You guys - what was the one towards the end of last year where the numbers said one thing and Fox had in the background showing just the opposite. Anyone remember that one?
Three off the top of my head. Can you do that?
Posted by: joanie | March 30, 2011 at 07:47 PM
Queen,
Of course AD dodged the question. You can 'regularly' watch a show of one stripe and see other shows with counter views. But AD probably finds it much easier to demonize from the vantage point of ignorance.
And spot on for pointing out that Sparky gave another one of those vague no name, no facts, and no way to check examples.
Posted by: Puget Sound | March 30, 2011 at 07:49 PM
BTW, NPR listeners were the most informed about weapons of mass destruction according to that same poll.
Posted by: joanie | March 30, 2011 at 07:51 PM
Yeah, I know the drill...you want an example, someone gives it to you, and you blow it off as unimportant because you are either too lazy to go look it up, or it doesn't align with your viewpoint, thus the reason that I rarely bother. Putz is back, so the space will be filled up with the usual. Enjoy.
Posted by: sparky | March 30, 2011 at 08:04 PM
and sparky is still here so get use to lots of unattributed stories that align to your viewpoint.
sigh, i had hoped you'd improved a bit.
Posted by: Puget Sound | March 30, 2011 at 08:18 PM
We thought you left for the third time
Posted by: Coiler | March 30, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Yes, I'm selective and it has nothing to do with your perception about my political affiliation. I only comment on topics that interest me or to provide a different point-of-view to what's being discussed. Oh, and remember, I don't respond to personal attacks or name-calling. That might be the reason you don't always hear from me.
Sweet dreams.
Posted by: Radio Queen | March 30, 2011 at 09:03 PM
Ah, since I haven't name called you, I guess your selectivity is really absent-mindedness. Eh?
Posted by: joanie | March 30, 2011 at 09:09 PM
BTW, I guess you can't do that. 'nuf said.
Posted by: joanie | March 30, 2011 at 09:10 PM
To Sparky, A-D and other close minded leftists, how do you justify our military action in Libya - which could lead to boots on the ground - just because Obama says it won't should really give anyone with rationality all the more reason to suspect that it will -he's loves to dupe people and is good at it especially with his constituents who are chumps. If it doesn't become a war, that's all the better - but more $ is still being spent in this war effort OK, but Qaddafi will likely prevail unless there are boots on the ground. In the long run, it may be better for us if the opposition does not take over - as it looks like it could be similar to the state-sponsored from Iran, Hizbollah taking over Lebanon.
Here's the typical liberal progressive argument as exhibited by the woman - just like hearing yourself talk about Iraq - isn't it ? So, where's the outrage about Obama's war in Libya, except from a few consistent leftists ?
Posted by: KS | March 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM
the 2nd time is a charm...
Here's the typical liberal progressive argument as exhibited by the woman - just like hearing yourself talk about Iraq - isn't it ? So, where's the outrage about Obama's war in Libya, except from a few consistent leftists ?
Posted by: KS | March 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM
That's good stuff, points out the neo con aspect of Pres Obama.
But the usual folks here won't go there, cause they can't admit it.
Pres Obama is George W Bush in regards to foreign policy.
Name some substantive differences.
Nice to see that Joanie gets it. The others wish to play the birther dance.
Posted by: Puget Sound | March 31, 2011 at 04:02 AM
Guess it's a bit difficult to wean oneself from the attraction and magnetism of this blog, as so many have said they were checking out only to yet again resurface. Certainly a tribute to our fine blog-meister. "I wish I could quit you". HaHaHa
Posted by: TitanicTom | March 31, 2011 at 07:21 AM
Just as they said in "Brokebass Mountain"... Gay blogs are sometimes that way - ya know.
Posted by: KS | March 31, 2011 at 08:59 PM
As it turns out, we re ALL giving to NPR on April15th. That is, IF you pay taxes.
Posted by: Darksecretplace | April 01, 2011 at 05:34 PM