If the public funding component is so low then why not just completely cut it and be free from the attacks? I don’t understand. NPR uses the “public” guise as a way to come across neutral when in reality it is extremely leftist.
I find the progressive ideology espoused by Katherine Maher utterly reprehensible and do not want a single cent…
If the public funding component is so low then why not just completely cut it and be free from the attacks? I don’t understand. NPR uses the “public” guise as a way to come across neutral when in reality it is extremely leftist.
I find the progressive ideology espoused by Katherine Maher utterly reprehensible and do not want a single cent of my money going to her. Again, think if your money was paying for Richard Spencer to have his own tv show. You would be disgusted to give even a single cent out of principle. That’s how I feel about the type of progressivism that Maher espouses. It is utterly vile.
I find Donald Trump reprehensible and don't want one cent of my money going to his Secret Service protection. And the chances of me getting my way with that are the same as yours keeping your dollars from going to NPR. That's how a democracy works. We all fund things we don't like. Know any antiwar activists who want their tax money spent on the military?
Most countries need a military and need protection for their head of state. A country doesn't "need" to have a publicly funded hard-left news organization.
I never said we did. The point was that there will always be things that I don’t like and you don't like that are going to be funded. Whether we "need" to have them is beside the point. And once something begins getting public funding, it's damn near impossible to get rid of. It's the nature of the legislative beast, with its lobbyists and interest groups and all that goes with it.
okay, sparky, time to clarify wtf you think "hard" means in this context, because it ain't hard to want to distance ourselves as far from MAGA as possible.
There is an obvious difference between the military and the media. The basic tenet of a democracy is that media is objective, and that the government is viewpoint neutral, without favor to any given ideology. When you openly court an obvious ideological extremist to run a public news source, you are venturing into anti-democratic waters, wherein the government funds a preferred ideology, as in autocracies. I’d say the same thing if NPR were run by Tucker Carlson.
So what? I don't want tax money supporting thing I disagree with either, but in the country, we don't limit tax money to what you or I want, thankfully.
If the public funding component is so low then why not just completely cut it and be free from the attacks? I don’t understand. NPR uses the “public” guise as a way to come across neutral when in reality it is extremely leftist.
I find the progressive ideology espoused by Katherine Maher utterly reprehensible and do not want a single cent of my money going to her. Again, think if your money was paying for Richard Spencer to have his own tv show. You would be disgusted to give even a single cent out of principle. That’s how I feel about the type of progressivism that Maher espouses. It is utterly vile.
I find Donald Trump reprehensible and don't want one cent of my money going to his Secret Service protection. And the chances of me getting my way with that are the same as yours keeping your dollars from going to NPR. That's how a democracy works. We all fund things we don't like. Know any antiwar activists who want their tax money spent on the military?
Most countries need a military and need protection for their head of state. A country doesn't "need" to have a publicly funded hard-left news organization.
We also don't "need" tax breaks for billionaires, but here we are.
I never said we did. The point was that there will always be things that I don’t like and you don't like that are going to be funded. Whether we "need" to have them is beside the point. And once something begins getting public funding, it's damn near impossible to get rid of. It's the nature of the legislative beast, with its lobbyists and interest groups and all that goes with it.
okay, sparky, time to clarify wtf you think "hard" means in this context, because it ain't hard to want to distance ourselves as far from MAGA as possible.
Good thing NPR isn't that. :)
There is an obvious difference between the military and the media. The basic tenet of a democracy is that media is objective, and that the government is viewpoint neutral, without favor to any given ideology. When you openly court an obvious ideological extremist to run a public news source, you are venturing into anti-democratic waters, wherein the government funds a preferred ideology, as in autocracies. I’d say the same thing if NPR were run by Tucker Carlson.
An ideological extremist is one thing; a Putin apologist is quite another.
It's not that low. NPR affiliates get a lot of public funds that are passed on to NPR.
I think public funding of media is fine. But it entails a trust to avoid bias that NPR doesn't live up to.
Great. Torch it. I don't want a single cent going to someone with your views on race. Separation of church and state. Modern leftism is a religion.
So what? I don't want tax money supporting thing I disagree with either, but in the country, we don't limit tax money to what you or I want, thankfully.
Your views are as religious as they come.
The world doesn't conform to your wishes just because you think it should. Talk about a religion... Hoo boy.
ROFL. You are so indoctrinated it's hilarious.
Find a less biased media source?
NPR has an obligation to not engage in this kind of bias, no matter what others do.