So why am I coming here with this issue? I figure I will find the best ratio of those americans who regularly watch/listen to PBS/NPR and those who don't. Also, I am thinking ppl will be able here to set aside emotion and bias and help me ffigure this out.
By the way, this is not a religious thread at all.
A liitle background. I am a social conservative in most things, I am a union teacher, I listen to NPR on a daily basis. It is by far where I primarily get my news. I have very little respect for cable "news" and how it has been sensationalized. I hate flashy graphics and gimmicks which NPR and PBS work to avoid. I am very aware of its liberal bias which is usually easiest to see with any network in the side shows it offers (Fresh air, wait wait, this american life, independant lens, etc) but their respect for journalism as skill that is learned (and not simply measured by the pithiness of one's comments, strength of voice or number of strong opinions) is unmatched in my opinion, even if imperfect.
That said, I am not able anawer the question as to why PBS and NPR (as well as PRI and other smaller formats that mix themselves into the NPR schedule) deserve to recieve federal funding through the Corporation of public broadcasting. Why not Fox, or MSNBC? What makes thier organization objectively different from the rest?
I will say that should they lose funding, I will give more and I don't see anything wrong with that? Why should my dad pay a dime for something he never watches or listens to? Isn't that for me to take care of?
To focus this conversation, my question is not "Do they really need this funding?" (a good question, but not relevant to mine in this thread) but rather why only THEM? Just because I appreciate them and would miss it a LOT doesn't seem a good reason to force my neighbor to help subsidize mt newssource. I know it's only $1.39 per american... so averaging to $3.50 a household per year (my guess?) but what if my neighbor said I had to subsidize his cable news and it would only cost me a buck... why should I?
Thanks for hearing out my loooooong drawn out question and considering it thoughtfully guys.
Josh
By the way, this is not a religious thread at all.
A liitle background. I am a social conservative in most things, I am a union teacher, I listen to NPR on a daily basis. It is by far where I primarily get my news. I have very little respect for cable "news" and how it has been sensationalized. I hate flashy graphics and gimmicks which NPR and PBS work to avoid. I am very aware of its liberal bias which is usually easiest to see with any network in the side shows it offers (Fresh air, wait wait, this american life, independant lens, etc) but their respect for journalism as skill that is learned (and not simply measured by the pithiness of one's comments, strength of voice or number of strong opinions) is unmatched in my opinion, even if imperfect.
That said, I am not able anawer the question as to why PBS and NPR (as well as PRI and other smaller formats that mix themselves into the NPR schedule) deserve to recieve federal funding through the Corporation of public broadcasting. Why not Fox, or MSNBC? What makes thier organization objectively different from the rest?
I will say that should they lose funding, I will give more and I don't see anything wrong with that? Why should my dad pay a dime for something he never watches or listens to? Isn't that for me to take care of?
To focus this conversation, my question is not "Do they really need this funding?" (a good question, but not relevant to mine in this thread) but rather why only THEM? Just because I appreciate them and would miss it a LOT doesn't seem a good reason to force my neighbor to help subsidize mt newssource. I know it's only $1.39 per american... so averaging to $3.50 a household per year (my guess?) but what if my neighbor said I had to subsidize his cable news and it would only cost me a buck... why should I?
Thanks for hearing out my loooooong drawn out question and considering it thoughtfully guys.
Josh
