Ah, yes now I see what you meant about cutting government funding wouldn't cause NPR to go out of business, and that's true. I think there was a time when government subsidized them even more heavily than they do now - perhaps Reagan was the one to change that, but I'm not sure. With a little luck, maybe we can get ALL government funding out of there - and I don't actually want them to go out of business - I just want MY tax dollars to quit going to leftist causes!

Congrats on your party's recognition of your value!

Thanks for the welcome!

I think we're in total agreement. The government shouldn't subsidize businesses.

What I was pointing out, however, is that cutting government funding wouldn't cause NPR to go out of business, which is what I took away from your original post.

So, a little about me: In the past, I embraced some of the leftist ideology promoted by the Democrats, although I was always staunchly anti-communist. I didn't see the hypocrisy in that position for many years.

I then became a "Regan Republican" while serving in the Army, and continued to support, and vote the RNC ticket. Unfortunately, they've become as much political whores as the Democrats.

I now vote Libertarian, and I was twice a Regional Representative of my State's Party. Although I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. the LP comes closest to my current political beliefs, despite their anarchist leanings.

I had read The Fountainhead in high school but didn't embrace Objectivism until I read Atlas Shrugged about 15 years ago.

NPR -- aka mooching thugs.

Welcome to the Gulch! When you can, tell us a bit about yourself, if you choose!

So, for number 1, this isn't the first time I've complained about government funding for NPR/PBS. It's just that the topic has come up here, so I commented, and it's something some people tend to forget. Based on the comments I see here, I don't think they just decided recently to be against government funding of NPR/PBS; I think they are pretty aware, which is good.

For number 2, I don't care if it's "only 2%," that 2% has some of MY money in it that I'd prefer went somewhere else. Of course I have no issues with people who make private donations. That's an entirely different thing. But for those of us who pay State taxes, definitely a problem, at least for me.

Just like you cannot be "a little bit pregnant," the amount of money forced into a subsidy I do not want to pay is less material than the fact that it is being used that way.

NPR was created by the left at a time when MSM and newspapers weren't blatantly left or Democrat leaning, and they've never deviated from their mission of moving the country's view of itself as far to the left as they can. Both NPR and PBS should be de-funded of taxpayer money to rely on their supporters for funding. Or they can sell advertising to Twitter, Google and Facebook if those entities don't see them as competitors.

C-Span carried, and still has on its web site, the Tony Bobulinski statement to the media about Biden and his involvement in the Bidens' China payments when Joe was VP.

Agree completely. Also PBS and and the "arts" groups.

First time posting.
Two things:
1. Even if NPR, and PBS for that matter, always broadcasted news that only promoted our viewpoint, it shouldn't be tax-supported. Why wait until they tick you off to demand that they be cut off from government funding?
2. A quick web search shows that NPR gets only 2% of its funding from the federal government. States legislatures also contribute. But the majority comes from private donations.

Although I agree that the government shouldn't contribute tax revenues to NPR and PBS, it won't matter much if they are cut off.

Could be. I provide a simply layout as a hypothetical for what would be justified. Actual logistics - including what you do when there is just dead time - would certainly be for someone to lay out who is in the business.

The number of channels required would be larger. Committees meet concurrently with each other and with floor activities.

Yep, it's kind of like the train wreck you can't look away from, even knowing you're going to be sorry you watched.

From their website:

We are a non-profit created in 1979 by a then-new industry called cable television, and today we remain true to our founding principles, providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the workings of the U.S. Congress, both the House and Senate, all without editing, commentary or analysis.

Over the years, we've grown to be so much more – on TV, online, on radio, through podcasts and on social platforms (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram). We supplement live coverage of the Capitol with ideologically balanced programming concerning all manner of public policy and politics. In so doing, we promote open and transparent dialogue between the public and their elected and appointed officials – and those campaigning for office.

Underpinning this impartial, balanced coverage is the fact that no government or taxpayer dollars support C-SPAN, as we continue to be funded as a public service from your cable or satellite provider.
==================================

The only thing in this that alarms be a little bit is the "ideologically balanced programming." Who decides what's "balanced?"

I absolutely despise the fact that this is nothing more than a ploy to forcefully rob me and use my money to support the left wing of the DNC. Now THAT is deplorable!

Gotcha. Still trying to figure out who "owns" C-Span, which is something I probably should already know.,

I can't, either! Wonderful definition, Thor!

Could be. I'm just saying that if one was going to support a nationally-funded radio station, these are the relevant items to cover. If you can get a private entity to do it (and still remain in business), even better!

Of course not, but I just bet the majority of people like us wouldn't be within the group of "we" that created these entities.

In general, isn't this what C-SPAN does? I may be talking out of turn, but whenever I wanted JUST the Supreme Court discussions in the Senate, I had Alex look for C-SPAN, she found it, and I listened. Direct feed. I don't know about all the others on your list, because I haven't looked for them. But given that I got what I wanted, I am likely to do it again as other items come up.

Art was not a talent I have ever had. I have to admit being somewhat envious of those who can draw even a competent stick figure. =D

No, they should be neutral, period, SINCE they ARE getting public money. But it would be better to take away public money and then they could say (legitimately) whatever they wanted.

I have found the commentators on NPR to be horribly conceited and often devoid of self-awareness.

Recently, there was a story reported regarding deaths in New York due to C19 -- essentially, many died state hospitals while there were beds open in private hospitals. The two commentators agreed that there was such a simple solution to that problem and it would have saved those lives. They engaged in a group hug, and did not mention the solution since it would have been so obvious. Of course, if they were in charge, they would have forced the private hospital to take in C19 patients from the state hospital.

These statists are so blinded by their conceit that they would use force to spend other peoples' money. This theme has been repeated over the 20+ years that I have listened to NPR as one of my "news" sources. There have been times when I was so infuriated by their magnanimous virtue-signaling, that I have avoided their programming for up to a year at a time. Then, I dial them in just to see what they've been up to; no surprise, their statist slant is ever the more disgusting.

Absolutely, gov't sponsored media is something that's long outlived its usefulness, especially since it has become an organ for gov't propaganda.

I'll have to illustrate one and post it.

So we think that we can create parasitic entities like NPR and the NOT have them be biased toward parasitic ideas and candidates?

"A self-licking ice cream cone."

Can't get that image out of my head. Nice!