PBS and NPR were supposed to be "un-biased". They never were and are not now. The time for a government supported alternative is gone. I see as good or better programing on the History channel and all of the other channels we have on cable.

I would be all for PBS/NPR becoming a fully pay as you go, donation only, place.

All this education on the left and they still don't know what pompous means nor understand why it is not a desirous trait.

So...before there was public funding of the arts we were in the dark ages? WTF? Ever heard of the renaissance? Some pretty nice art produced without TAX MONEY. Good art is self sustaining. Always has been.

PBS will survive quite nicely without my tax dollars. They have an appreciative audience and produce some quality programming. In order to bring their work to the marketplace they may be forced into some awful compromises like (gasp!) selling advertising.

I think you mean that some pretty nice art was produced without FEDERAL TAX MONEY?

The Renaissance ruling classes' pursuit of art became something of a competition between city states to commission the finest pieces. These rulers used TAXES (extortion?) to pay for it!!!

It always bothered me that the fed. gov't. wouldn't subsidize me when I played in a band and we weren't good enough to get signed to a major label. Whaaaaaa! It's not fair! Why does any "art" get subsidized? If it can't survive on its own, let it die. And does anyone really believe we will lose "opposing viewpoints" if PBS and NPR go private? Last I checked, there still plenty of Bush haters on network news.

Tcar, I've heard that too. But what drives me nuts is the uproar and demagoguery every time privatizing NPR or PBS the others, NEH and NEA gets mentioned. If NPR is 98% privately funded, then the 2% they're getting is corporate welfare. I wonder what their tax situation is.

Definitely the LEAST intelligent thind I've read on this forum all month.

Yeah, it's a shame some folks have a computer, when their time would be better spent getting a GED or preparing my meals for me.

NPR needs to go to a subscription-only model, or go fully commercial, and then sink or swim. It's ridiculous that it's even partially gov't funded. What public need does it fulfill that is not offered by private networks and their 86 cable news channels? We pay for those (by watching their ads); we should pay for NPR if we like it.

Just 2 cents from a Republican NPR member (I subscribe for Car Talk and Wait Wait don't tell me).

Not true. The renaissance first blossomed in Florence and was funded by the Medici. Neighboring cities followed suit, but funding of the magnificent art works was provided by the church and wealthy patrons whose social status was secured by the quality of the work they supported.

It is possible that public monies were misappropriiated during the renaissance, but it was hardly a major source of funding.

Deal!:cool:

AFRTS?

Ummmmm.....have you read Mulls posts?

As soon as I finish my PHD I'll get right on that genius.

http://www.afrts.osd.mil/

AFRTS is the American Forces Radio and Television Service.


even trade


And if NPR is only funded at 2% level, why the fuss. Let's not fund it.

Question:

Where did the Medici get their money in the first place?

Fred Rogers, kicking ass and taking names with trademark kindness....

http://www.transbuddha.com/index.php/buddha/wont_you_be_my_neighbor/

Banking.

Thank you.

No involvement in politics?

Pretty inspiring clip.

No, not with money taken without consent. It sullies anything it's used for, particularly the arts.