Tuesday, March 08, 2011

NPR Foundation Pres says NPR doesn't need Federal Funding #noagenda

(UPDATE: Both video-bobbleheads, 'leaving' Ron Schiller and 'oopsie' Betsy Lilely have been put on 'administrative leave', and NPR states:

"The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality. The elimination of federal funding would significantly damage public broadcasting as a whole."

*cough* Bullshit *cough*) [doff.beanie: TPMMuckraker]

So, Ron Schiller came under fire for 'taking his NPR hat off' and embarrassing the organization. Big deal, I say. The real meat of this punking is that-

  • The former-by-one week 'guy in the know' not only elaborated that NPR would be better off without Federal aid, but also that, (timecode 5:50)

  • That NPR could more than cope without the $90 million every year out of our pockets.

  • ..of the total 'station economy' of $800 million every year that they receive" (including federal funding).

Seriously. Just can't make this up:

The juice, for those in a hurry comes around timecode 5:30, but heck, listen to the entire thing so that you, the public, know what NPR really is.

When you strip all the bluster about Islam, 'Da Jewz', Conservatives (not really), Liberals (not really), and brotherhoods of men(sm) this is all about MONEY. Our money.

By the admission of senior exec Schiller (last week), they don't need the money, right?

This is the USA. Say whatever you want, but don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it, especially if "you don't need the money."

Hat tip with SOME skepticism to The Bookworm Room for this story. Reading is fundamental, kids, and you should read everyone.

My recommendation to NoAgenda listeners is you should read this story stem to stern to see how these little "money plays at the public trough" play out.

Drunky out (totally played, playah!)

1 comment:

がんこもん said...

The statists like the unabashed socialists at NPR always tell us that 'we don't need your money' when it is threatened, then plead for more out of the other side of their mouth. Personally, I've never understood why, if 'under God' is so controversial, government contributions to the Press shouldn't be either.

let me be clear - Government has NO role to play in the media. None. Zero. Zilch. Period. The press is anyone who wants to be - whether a big corporation or a single guy in his pajamas. As long as they are posting original content, it is legally protected, and especially if it is political speech. Disagreement is the very core of the First Amendment. For example, I despise the Westboro folks, but their freedom to speak their repugnant beliefs is important (although when they trample on a private citizen's rights as in protesting at a funeral, I am not so sure that isn't crossing the line somewhat. The soldier's family has rights too and I am of the school that believes your rights end when you infringe upon mine. THAT is called 'societal responsibility'..