If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:42:32 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
wrote: Jona Vark" wrote: "Alex Bird" wrote in message groups.com... Of course it's practically impossible to get total impartiality, true. Sad but true. but the bbc is paid fairly directly by the people, and is answerable to the British people. As are some of our publicly funded media. Actually not. Only about 2% of NPR finances come from the government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR NPR makes some of its funding information public. According to the NPR Ombudsman, currently NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding to government grants and programs (chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting); the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government has been decreasing. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the government. Steps were being taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but a major funding crisis in 1983, which almost led to the demise of the network, brought about more rapid shifts in NPR's funding setup. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the government. In 2003 the widow of the founder of McDonalds left $200 million to NPR, which is about two years of its budget. You thus could say that the last 2 years of NPR were NOT publicly funded but indirectly paid for by McDonalds, and be more accurate than saying that NPR is "paid fairly directly by the people". McDonalds is not the government. The widow is a member of the public. The fact that they received the funding does not mean they quit soliciting or that they just blew it all at once to fund two years of operation. Why do you find it necessary to quibble over this? But they lean only one way and resist any change or call for fairness. Actually, I would observe that any effort to be "balanced" or "fair" cannot help but be perceived as "liberal". Toleration of dissenting views is not a hallmark of the "right" so allowing any consideration of views inimitable to theirs is inherently a "liberal tilt". Independent moderates like myself get castigated by the left at times, but face constant derision from the right for being less than true believers. The extreme right lumps us in the middle in with "liberals" because we are insufficiently extreme. This tells me that their idea of "balance" is 90% their views and token mention of less extreme positions. lojbab |
Ads |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BATMAN WEBSITE !!C@@L!!! | [email protected] | Dolls | 2 | September 3rd 05 05:42 PM |
FS: 1992 DC Comics "Batman Returns" 16-PRISM Sticker Set | J.R. Sinclair | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | November 2nd 04 05:54 AM |
FS/T: MANY Sets & Chase & Uncut Sheets | Amalia Barrios | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | July 3rd 04 06:12 PM |
FS/T:Sets, chase & what-not for trade...long list | Amalia Barrios | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | June 6th 04 10:27 PM |
FS: 1992 DC Comics "Batman Returns" 16-PRISM Sticker Set | Jim Sinclair | Cards:- non-sport | 0 | August 9th 03 03:40 AM |