Skip to comments.NPR Launches Offensive Against Congressman Trying to Cut Its Public Funding
Posted on 01/13/2011 5:05:39 PM PST by Sub-Driver
NPR Launches Offensive Against Congressman Trying to Cut Its Public Funding
published January 13, 2011 | FoxNews.com
National Public Radio is accusing Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who is leading a Republican charge to cut public funding to the broadcaster, of trying to stifle free speech, a move that puts the embattled network on the offense as it fights fallout from its decision to fire Fox News contributor Juan Williams.
Lamborn immediately fired back, saying the whole point of not funding NPR is to enhance competition and viewpoints.
The tit-for-tat comes just a week after the NPR news editor who fired Williams resigned as the network's board of directors completed its independent review of the dismissal. The directors recommended new internal procedures for personnel decisions and disciplinary action, and cancelled NPR CEO Vivian Schiller's annual bonus because of "concern over her role in the termination process."
Lamborn first introduced his NPR defunding legislation in June, but it didn't receive much attention until the network fired Williams in October over remarks he made on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" about his anxiety over seeing people dressed as Muslims on airplanes.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I thought NPR was supposed to be neutral....even about their public financing.
Yep. They should just increase their private donations from fellow liberals.
No more money for you. We’re broke. Go find a new career on blogspot.
It’ll be free speech once we’re done paying for it.
The crew at NPR can spew whatever stupidity they desire,but they need to do it on their own dime.
The government has no business funding things like NPR and Planned Parenthood and ACORN
Amazing to me that “free” speech now means getting government subsidies. I guess NPR is taking the phrase literally. Foolish me. I thought free speech meant freedom to speak without interference from government.
Of course, I can’t blame NPR for trying to keep the $ coming, because they certainly aren’t the first in line for government cheese, so to speak. We live in a land where special interests squabble for government monies like children fighting over pinata candy. Sad to say, not entering the fray is a good way to put yourself or your company at a distinct disadvantage.
What part of the Constitution allows the government to fund left wing (actually, any) communication agencies?
I guess even limp-wristed, bed-wetting liberals fight when their backs are against the wall.
NPR can badmouth this guy and lie and spread rumors all day long and it won’t matter. Only 20 people total listen to them.
They are being defunded whether they like it or not and no one is going to ride in to save them. No one cares anymore. Bye bye Nina Tottenberg.
Free speech isn’t free when the tax payers have to pay for it.
Money for nothing and your checks for free.
Got them in your sights, NPR?
Or maybe you’re ready to hit them with both barrels?
Or are you targeting them for defeat?
NPR is a perfect example of one political bias completely capturing a “public institution” - nearly always allowing the domination of one political bias in that institution and what it produces - and, then in the highest form of hypocrisy claiming it is fighting for “free speech”.
NPR should be de-funded 100% because it does not operate in “the public interest”; it operates predominately in the interests of the political Left, period.
NPR should be de-funded 100% because GOVERNMENT has no business owning, funding or operating ANY media operation. Allowing such an operation and advocating for a “free press” simply expresses an oxymoron.
The corollary to this issue is that “foreign correspondents” for any foreign government-owned media should be sent home and U.S. “work visas” for such people should be denied. If their governments want to ask U.S. officials something, we have a state department for that. If their citizens want to ask something or find “U,S” news and information, they can check out what any private media offers (from their country, the U.S. or anywhere), or sit dumbly and take the word of their governments’ media (which in some cases is all they have).
Yes, I know, that would mean the BBC would have to close down its U.S. operations. Oh, boo hoo, boo hoo!!!
I’m afraid that’s about the size of things. Think we could corral the leftists in NYC and L.A.? It’s a shame we won’t have Isaac Hayes to run NYC though.
“I guess even limp-wristed, bed-wetting liberals fight when their backs are against the wall.”
But you can still count on them to fight like girls with a lot of groin-kicking, scratching and eye-gouging, LOL!
DEFUND NPR & PBS!
(Note: My employer pulled all funds from our local WPR years ago. He disagreed with their gay-friendly agenda, so we no longer do the spring expo or advertise on the local stations at all. I KNEW I joined the right company way back when! Oh those evil, EVIL White Christian Men who have all the money, LOL!)
If your product is THAT GOOD, consumers will beat a path to your door. If it’s NOT that good, then TAXPAYERS need to fund it? I. Think. Not. *SPIT*
The congressman is brave. I expect NPR will fight back by accusing him of being complicit in a brutal mass-murder or something, as is now wont by the media.
“My employer pulled all funds from our local WPR years ago.”
They can compete in the regular media market without government funds.
No more six figure “bonuses” for the overpaid “executives”. I want a Congressional investigation and complete audit of PBS. It is nothing but another liberal scam of the taxpayers. Defund and revoke their “non-profit” status.
War was an exception so movies were made regarding our own side in a war although the John Ford documentary was restricted since it showed REAL DEAD BODIES. (Hey, it also showed my Uncle more than 2 dozen times ~ which was great ~ except when he was on a stretcher ~ Ford showed that too).
Come NPR a lot of the older theories on keeping the government out of the news business were simply ignored.
Actually those ideas weren't all that nuts ~ but they were carried to extreme by restricting publication of postage rates to the inside of post offices.
Maybe we need to get back to LIMITING GOVERNMENT'S VOICE.
Geter dun, now that Newt isn’t there to pull their fat out of the fire.
My suggestion... congressional hearings to grill NPR administrators.
Yo NPR, it’s time to grow up. Stop suckling from the tax payers’ teat and go out out and earn a living on your own.
Kudos for Lamborn and I hope he succeeds. I would also like to see them lose their tax-free status. THAT is overdue, as well.
If speech is taxpayer funded, it is not free! If I am forced to pay for it, it cannot be free speech!
About as neutral as CAIR.
National Public Radio is saying Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., who is leading a Republican forward motion to decrease public funding to the broadcaster, of trying to soften free speech, a move that puts the harried network under an umbrella as it covers itself from its decision to let go Fox News contributor Juan Williams.
Lamborn immediately talked back, saying the whole point of not funding NPR is to enhance teachable moments and viewpoints.
It’s time for the liberal elitists over at NPR to stop living off the government trough and get real jobs.
Aren’t they supposed to be non-political anyway? They keep telling us they are anyway....
Imagine conservatives had a federally funded right-leaning radio network called “Patriot Radio Network” or something... could you imagine the anger, vitriol and rage from the left?
The real question here is whether there are enough Congressmen and Congresswomen to defund NPR.
GOVERNMENT speech is NOT "FREE" speech, and "public" funding is INVOLUNTARY funding, morons.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson, 1779
That’s all liberals do - fight. Then they call us haters if we complain. For me, I’d be happy to have my tax dollars support NPR if liberals are also forced to use their tax dollars to support Rush and Hannity and all the rest of our shows....
Not to mention all that equipment, broadcasting real estate, etc, belong to the Tax Payers!
Fire and evict their asses! Sell off the electronics! It ALL belongs to US!
Good one, FreeKeys.
It’s not free speech if the taxpayers are funding it.
I will offer some advice to NPR...which they might want to consider. If congress comes to your door and says defunding is to occur, and that measly three percent that you really bragged about the magic amount is wrong...then you’ve got major issues in a sluggish economy. My perception is that your budget guys hid a fair amount of money which funneled its way from other government resources, and twenty percent of your budget is from the government.
Here is my advice. If you packed up the NPR base of operations in Washington DC, and moved everything to Nashville....you’d cut your cost by half. You wouldn’t have to pay your employees the DC rate for salary. You could cut down the rental cost and operating cost by a significant amount. You could get down to a base of operations that wouldn’t require government funding.
Course, there is a negative to this. Nashville would be in the heartland. You’d have to start grasping at how real people think and operate. You’d have to cut back on political news and get back to regular news. You might even have to get back to old fashioned reporting like folks did in 1966.
Only a suggestion.
Nashville is too cosmopolitan for them.
I like Nebraska. Buy them an old farm. Have the talent from “All Things Considered” Milk the cows and sell it. Nina Totenberg can get the corn harvest in. Zero overhead for NPR because the farm offsets any expenditures in the broadcast. Be the most honest work those Commie Pinkos have ever done.
But I like NOva, and Frontline, and Masterpiece Theater....and yes... Lawrence Welk reruns, Barry Manilow and Paul Anka and oldie revivals....and offers to buy the CDs for 100$ donation when I can get them at Walmart for 5$.... What will happen to me?!!!!!?????? I’m starting to hyperventilate here.....Please....tell me... WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO MEEEEEEEEEEEE?????!!!!!!!
Yes. And while we are at it, I move that all government agencies, and all government communications including speeches on the floor of the House, be vetted for any and all uses of the word "public," (or "society) - and any instance of the usage of "public" or "society" as a euphemism for government be translated to actually say "government."These thugs want to blood libel Republicans, and use that to censor all the pervasive military metaphors out of Republican (but, you may be sure, not Democrat) speech. Which, as Ann Coulter points out in her characteristically pointed way, would include banning the word "campaign" from political discourse.
Let's see how they like it if a point of order is raised every time they use their trademark euphemisms. They'd be tongue-tied!Note: What's the difference between "society" and "government?" Simple - freedom. In the absence of freedom, but only then, there is no difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.