Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: NPR/PBS demonstrate how subsidization impairs journalism

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 09:01, 1 July 2010; Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Declan McCullagh. "Should you be taxed to subsidize 'The New York Times'?". CNET. September 28, 2007 - "I'm sure that at this point, some readers might be thinking, 'What about National Public Radio? It's taxpayer-supported, right?' Yes. NPR and PBS receive about 15 percent of their combined budget from the government. [...] Even though that's not a huge amount by percentage, it has made NPR the target of political threats by President Richard Nixon and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both Republicans, to eliminate its funding. Conservatives say NPR itself has admitted a liberal bias while liberals accuse it of being elitist. Do newspapers really want that controversy spilling over into their pages?"


Gerry Storch. "Gov't Bailout for Newspapers?". Our Blook: "the U.S. taxpayers have been bailing out two of the media for years. They're called National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. They get federal dollars and lots of them ... about $400 million worth a year, in fact ... if these are editorial successes, why wouldn't the same method be OK for print?

Both NPR and PBS indeed have their legions of devoted fans. Unfortunately, they also are mistrusted or ignored by most conservatives and many in the middle except for the (hopefully) nonpolitical dramas and cultural programs they run. The federal handouts should stop; let them depend on their fundraising pledge drives and the advertising they already do to create their budgets."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.