Defund NPR campain

[Jeremy]

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

As soon as your done wiping your ass with the 1st amendment feel free to pick up a remote and change the channel.

Wipe your own ass from the ignorance shit that is clinging to it.

The Bill of Rights is the contract between the citizens and the government not a contract between media corporations and the government.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.�

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
� U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

As much as I would LOOOOOOVE to see how it would be applied to networks like MSGENBC and CNN ( ) , I still think it is bad law.

Here you go libs, you've seemed to have misplaced this....

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't think any one 'fears' PBS.... we just don't think we should fund shit when it is clearly promoting a political agenda. You want to pay for it, great. I don't want to. You should respect my right not to fund liberal media.

By asserting PBS and NPR are "promoting a political agenda" you're 1) ignorant of their programming, or 2) a liar putting out RW propaganda, or 3) ignorant and a liar.

It is obvious the usual echo chamber members who have posted on this thread have never watched PBS or listened to NPR and don't have a clue as to the depth and diversity of radio and TV programming. One may excuse the echo chamber of their collective ignorance, willfull and otherwise, for they simply repeat whatever their favorite talking head tells them.

Perhaps you can answer the question that no one else seems to want to touch:

Why should the government be in the news business?

The government is not. Maybe, for once, you will avail yourself to new information which may challenge what you believe?

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

I suggest you take a moment and look at the history of NPR, review some of its programs and compare NPR (and PBS) with commercial programming.

 

[Jeremy]

I'll bet the left wouldn't be defending NPR so passionately if they presented a conservative view.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I don't support the 'Fairness Doctrine' for privately owned Media Outlets but i definitely support it for Government-funded Media. NPR & PBS should be forced to present fairness. Unfortunately the Government has given them a free pass for far too many years. They have consistently only hired far Left-leaning Democrats as hosts of their shows. This same thing can be said of PBS as well. No one in the Government has called them on their years of bias.

Independent studies have shown that both NPR & PBS have consistently presented news stories with an overwhelmingly positive spin for Democrats while at the same time presented an overwhelmingly negative spin when reporting on Republicans. Obviously the usual suspect Leftists/Democrats will deny this but there are independent studies that have proven their bias. If the Democrats support a 'Fairness Doctrine' for privately owned Media,they should definitely support a Fairness Doctrine for Government-funded Media. I just want to see some more Conservatives/Republicans at NPR & PBS. There should be a required balance.

 

[daveman]

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Of course you do. You're afraid of differing views.

What differing views? They just air the same old talking points from the party of "No" 24/7.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters� First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.� In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: �The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public�s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters� rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.�

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

You don't want the FD to force Fox to present alternate views. You want to use it to shut Fox down...because you're afraid of conservative ideas.

 

[BlindBoo]

Say, maybe you could get that fuckhead from Breitphart.com to help create some lying bullshit propaganda (you know some selectively cut video clips that makes it look like NPR worships the devil) that all the connies would buy into too?

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Yea, we should also get rid of that pesky 'free speech' thing in the Constitution, huh?

The best thing - in fact, possibly the only decent thing about Fox News - is that they piss the fuck out of the left. For that, they get my support.

Clearly, the difference between a public funded enterprise and a private corporation escapes you. Are you always stupid?

Perhaps you just don't understand the First Amendment. Btw, NPR doesn't recieve direct funds from taxpayers. They do get a small amount from CPB which does get some taxpayer funds, but not all, but seeing how you're a Faux News hound you probably will not believe it anyway.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

There is very little decent with Faux News.

 

[boedicca]

By asserting PBS and NPR are "promoting a political agenda" you're 1) ignorant of their programming, or 2) a liar putting out RW propaganda, or 3) ignorant and a liar.

It is obvious the usual echo chamber members who have posted on this thread have never watched PBS or listened to NPR and don't have a clue as to the depth and diversity of radio and TV programming. One may excuse the echo chamber of their collective ignorance, willfull and otherwise, for they simply repeat whatever their favorite talking head tells them.

Perhaps you can answer the question that no one else seems to want to touch:

Why should the government be in the news business?

The government is not. Maybe, for once, you will avail yourself to new information which may challenge what you believe?

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

I suggest you take a moment and look at the history of NPR, review some of its programs and compare NPR (and PBS) with commercial programming.

I suggest that you think about whether or not the government should sponsor preferences in taste and opinion.

 

[daveman]

By asserting PBS and NPR are "promoting a political agenda" you're 1) ignorant of their programming, or 2) a liar putting out RW propaganda, or 3) ignorant and a liar.

It is obvious the usual echo chamber members who have posted on this thread have never watched PBS or listened to NPR and don't have a clue as to the depth and diversity of radio and TV programming. One may excuse the echo chamber of their collective ignorance, willfull and otherwise, for they simply repeat whatever their favorite talking head tells them.

Perhaps you can answer the question that no one else seems to want to touch:

Why should the government be in the news business?

The government is not. Maybe, for once, you will avail yourself to new information which may challenge what you believe?

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

I suggest you take a moment and look at the history of NPR, review some of its programs and compare NPR (and PBS) with commercial programming.

It's only your prejudice against conservatives that insists I don't expose myself to a wide variety of information. You have quite a closed mind.

 

[Ernie S.]

During the Bush administration was there ever a more pro govt network than Fox?

Fox is not funded by tax dollars.

 

[boedicca]

Say, maybe you could get that fuckhead from Breitphart.com to help create some lying bullshit propaganda (you know some selectively cut video clips that makes it look like NPR worships the devil) that all the connies would buy into too?

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Yea, we should also get rid of that pesky 'free speech' thing in the Constitution, huh?

The best thing - in fact, possibly the only decent thing about Fox News - is that they piss the fuck out of the left. For that, they get my support.

Clearly, the difference between a public funded enterprise and a private corporation escapes you. Are you always stupid?

Perhaps you just don't understand the First Amendment. Btw, NPR doesn't recieve direct funds from taxpayers. They do get a small amount from CPB which does get some taxpayer funds, but not all, but seeing how you're a Faux News hound you probably will not believe it anyway.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

There is very little decent with Faux News.

You display a complete incoherence regarding the meaning of the First Amendment.

 

[Jeremy]

Say, maybe you could get that fuckhead from Breitphart.com to help create some lying bullshit propaganda (you know some selectively cut video clips that makes it look like NPR worships the devil) that all the connies would buy into too?

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Yea, we should also get rid of that pesky 'free speech' thing in the Constitution, huh?

The best thing - in fact, possibly the only decent thing about Fox News - is that they piss the fuck out of the left. For that, they get my support.

Clearly, the difference between a public funded enterprise and a private corporation escapes you. Are you always stupid?

Perhaps you just don't understand the First Amendment. Btw, NPR doesn't recieve direct funds from taxpayers. They do get a small amount from CPB which does get some taxpayer funds, but not all, but seeing how you're a Faux News hound you probably will not believe it anyway.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

There is very little decent with Faux News.

I see you are completely ignoring MSGENBC again. Fucking hypocrite.

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course you do. You're afraid of differing views.

What differing views? They just air the same old talking points from the party of "No" 24/7.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters� First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.� In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: �The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public�s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters� rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.�

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

You don't want the FD to force Fox to present alternate views. You want to use it to shut Fox down...because you're afraid of conservative ideas.

Hahahah of course you can because you can read minds, right Dave? There is no FD anymore. However it is my opinion that Faux News has betrayed the public trust enough to revoke it's broadcast license. Their pseudo-conservative ideals are the only point of view they ever broadcast.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'll bet the left wouldn't be defending NPR so passionately if they presented a conservative view.

I suggest you look into NPR and PBS programming; continuing to expose your ignorance makes everything you post suspect.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

NPR & PBS can't hire Conservatives/Republicans. They're incredibly frightened that more Americans will support Conservative ideals if they're exposed to them. Therefore they only hire far Left-leaning Democrats as hosts of their shows. It's all about fear for Leftists who control NPR & PBS. They don't want more people being exposed to Conservative ideals. They know their Leftist support will dwindle further if this is allowed to happen. They have to keep Conservatives off the air. A Fairness Doctrine should be applied to any Government-funded Media Outlet. The new Congress should possibly consider this instead of Defunding. Balance should be forced at NPR & PBS. Clearly they wont do it themselves so force is necessary.

 

[The T]

I don't think any one 'fears' PBS.... we just don't think we should fund shit when it is clearly promoting a political agenda. You want to pay for it, great. I don't want to. You should respect my right not to fund liberal media.

By asserting PBS and NPR are "promoting a political agenda" you're 1) ignorant of their programming, or 2) a liar putting out RW propaganda, or 3) ignorant and a liar.

It is obvious the usual echo chamber members who have posted on this thread have never watched PBS or listened to NPR and don't have a clue as to the depth and diversity of radio and TV programming. One may excuse the echo chamber of their collective ignorance, willfull and otherwise, for they simply repeat whatever their favorite talking head tells them.

Perhaps you can answer the question that no one else seems to want to touch:

Why should the government be in the news business?

Their only link to it is thus:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it say anything of Funding it...on any level...

 

[BlindBoo]

Yea, we should also get rid of that pesky 'free speech' thing in the Constitution, huh?

The best thing - in fact, possibly the only decent thing about Fox News - is that they piss the fuck out of the left. For that, they get my support.

Clearly, the difference between a public funded enterprise and a private corporation escapes you. Are you always stupid?

Perhaps you just don't understand the First Amendment. Btw, NPR doesn't recieve direct funds from taxpayers. They do get a small amount from CPB which does get some taxpayer funds, but not all, but seeing how you're a Faux News hound you probably will not believe it anyway.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

There is very little decent with Faux News.

I see you are completely ignoring MSGENBC again. Fucking hypocrite.

Awwww poor porr MSGENBC (whatever the fuck that is) are they mad because I'm ignoring them? Again? Awww did I ignor them at some point?????

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps you can answer the question that no one else seems to want to touch:

Why should the government be in the news business?

The government is not. Maybe, for once, you will avail yourself to new information which may challenge what you believe?

NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR

I suggest you take a moment and look at the history of NPR, review some of its programs and compare NPR (and PBS) with commercial programming.

It's only your prejudice against conservatives that insists I don't expose myself to a wide variety of information. You have quite a closed mind.

Thanks for sharing. You are indeed stupid and an asshole.

 

[boedicca]

I don't support the 'Fairness Doctrine' for privately owned Media Outlets but i definitely support it for Government-funded Media. NPR & PBS should be forced to present fairness. Unfortunately the Government has given them a free pass for far too many years. They have consistently only hired far Left-leaning Democrats as hosts of their shows. This same thing can be said of PBS as well. No one in the Government has called them on their years of bias.

Independent studies have shown that both NPR & PBS have consistently presented news stories with an overwhelmingly positive spin for Democrats while at the same time presented an overwhelmingly negative spin when reporting on Republicans. Obviously the usual suspect Leftists/Democrats will deny this but there are independent studies that have proven their bias. If the Democrats support a 'Fairness Doctrine' for privately owned Media,they should definitely support a Fairness Doctrine for Government-funded Media. I just want to see some more Conservatives/Republicans at NPR & PBS. There should be a required balance.

Here's the problem with that: the definition is very politicized and driven by those who wield power. Allowing government control of the media is like allowing a little bit of totalitarianism. It's a compromise we should never make.

 

[daveman]

Say, maybe you could get that fuckhead from Breitphart.com to help create some lying bullshit propaganda (you know some selectively cut video clips that makes it look like NPR worships the devil) that all the connies would buy into too?

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Yea, we should also get rid of that pesky 'free speech' thing in the Constitution, huh?

The best thing - in fact, possibly the only decent thing about Fox News - is that they piss the fuck out of the left. For that, they get my support.

Clearly, the difference between a public funded enterprise and a private corporation escapes you. Are you always stupid?

Perhaps you just don't understand the First Amendment. Btw, NPR doesn't recieve direct funds from taxpayers. They do get a small amount from CPB which does get some taxpayer funds, but not all, but seeing how you're a Faux News hound you probably will not believe it anyway.

Then you won't have any problem coming up with alternate funding when the tax dollars are shut off.

Why are you fighting that?

Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.

There is very little decent with Faux News.

So you want the government to censor Fox News for committing Thoughtcrime.

 

[uscitizen]

Personally I think the FCC should revoke the Faux News license to broadcast.

Of course you do. You're afraid of differing views.

What differing views? They just air the same old talking points from the party of "No" 24/7.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

In answer to charges, put forward in the Red Lion case, that the doctrine violated broadcasters� First Amendment free speech rights because the government was exerting editorial control, Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote: �There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all.� In a Washington Post column (1/31/94), the Media Access Project (MAP), a telecommunications law firm that supports the Fairness Doctrine, addressed the First Amendment issue: �The Supreme Court unanimously found [the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public�s right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters� rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion.�

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Yes it was even supported by right wing gourps until they got enough influence in the corporate media to be done with PBS/BPR.