Was the NPR video "journalism?"

[musichead1029]

My point in this discussion has been that the appropriations process is pretty complete.  They look carefully at the nuts & bolts of where the peoples' money is spent. 

The process can't possibly be complete when the federal government continues to spend more than it brings in (aka, printing 'funny money').

That's why I say if the goal is to defund public broadcasting, there should be hearings on the subject, so the Congress knows what it's cutting.

As I've tried to emphasize consistently throughout these threads, I believe there is a gathering consensus that the primary goal at this point needs to be adjusting federal spending to appropriate levels. Before we can even entertain what 'appropriate' levels of spending are, we have to reduce expenditures to sustainable levels - where current federal government spending consumes no more than it currently annexes from taxpayers. The easiest way to start this process is to identify and eliminate unnecessary spending - non-essential spending. Individual hearings can't establish sustainable levels of spending. To achieve that goal requires high level action. This is not micro-process - not business as usual. This is simply the beginning of the macro-process of attempting to balance the books at the national level, something we're all required to do in our personal lives. In our individual and family financial dealings, most of us do not imagine that we have a bottomless pocket to pick in pursuit of ever expanding spending.

This is where taxpayer funding of public media hits the spotlight. Under the current budget conditions, it's a poster child for unnecessary spending. If we're successful at achieving sustainable levels of federal spending, then we can entertain the luxury of hearings in pursuit of the definition of 'appropriate' spending. In that phase, we can scrutinize taxpayer funding of public media at our leisure, knowing that, if we choose to pay for part of public media's tab, we'll have real funds to allocate to it as opposed to the current Monopoly script.

[TheBigA]

As I've tried to emphasize consistently throughout these threads, I believe there is a gathering consensus that the primary goal at this point needs to be adjusting federal spending to appropriate levels.

That's fine.  Appropriations for public broadcasting have been pretty stable for the past 20 years.  So don't blame the current deficite on public broadcasting.  The government needs to focus on those budget items that have grown disproportionate to the GDP.  So hold the line on public broadcasting, and force those departments that are spending beyond their means to trim down to size.  That's what families around the country are doing.  I think if the government operated that way, we'd be able to control the debt.  We are not some third world country.  We're very rich, and the American people deserve more for their taxpayer dollars.  But it's unfair to ship American tax dollars to other countries during a recession when we're trying to hold the line on spending.  We need to continue to invest in our people and our services, and public radio is part of that. 

[musichead1029]

don't blame the current deficit on public broadcasting.

I haven't and I don't know anyone who does. That's not the point of the defunding proposals.

The government needs to focus on those budget items that have grown disproportionate to the GDP.  So hold the line on public broadcasting, and force those departments that are spending beyond their means to trim down to size.

That approach isn't working because every cause, like public media, has its constituency that throws every roadblock possible into the process. This is understandable, but it's also counterproductive. A more effective way to evaluate appropriate spending is to pare back, establish sustainable spending levels and then move forward from there. This treats all non-essential spending equally as a class. It gives each service the opportunity to make its case for taxpayer support in the context of the current budget.

Those who feel entitled to taxpayer support of certain services will have to examine that notion in the context of cost vs benefit. This won't be a pretty process, nor will it make anyone completely happy, but that isn't the point of the endeavor. Jobs will be lost and political careers will be ended whether or not the budget is brought to sustainability. But if the budget isn't moved toward sustainability, those jobs and careers aren't going to return for a long time, if ever. The support and the funds just won't be there.

Again, a public media tax would appear to be easily expendable, for the reasons we've discussed in several threads here, which is why it is one of the first in the spotlight.

[TheBigA]

Those who feel entitled to taxpayer support of certain services will have to examine that notion in the context of cost vs benefit.

That's what the appropriations process is all about.  And you're right, it isn't pretty, and doesn't typically get news coverage, which may explain why no one seems to know anything about it.  But for 43 years, CPB reps have gone to the Hill to explain cost vs. benefit, and for 43 years, they've come away with most of what they asked for.  Why?  Because both Republicans and Democrats recognize that the benefit is worth the cost.  And taxpayer money is better spent on things the voters can see and use, and that employ Americans.  All it would take would be a state by state breakdown of how many people would lose their jobs because of this defunding for them to realize the cost vs. benefit.

Again, a public media tax would appear to be easily expendable, for the reasons we've discussed in several threads here, which is why it is one of the first in the spotlight.

Yet it does little to actually solve the very real fiscal problems of this country.  All it does is satisfy a very small and vocal minority of conservatives who have a vendetta against NPR.  In the light of day, those people will find out that their personal prejudices can't be used to deprive the American public of a useful service.  I predict that when this comes to a vote, the full appropriation will be returned to the budget, and we'll move on to far more substantive discussions.

[recto101]

I wonder if Juan Williams is behind this hidden camera operation? It got to be Juan Williams of Fox news mainly because he a tirade with NPR management over his statements on Fox news over Muslims.

[recto101]

What was Juan Williams response to this?

[TheBigA]

I wonder if Juan Williams is behind this hidden camera operation? It got to be Juan Williams of Fox news mainly because he a tirade with NPR management over his statements on Fox news over Muslims.

The video maker said it was specifically built around the Juan Williams thing. 

What was Juan Williams response to this?

He's only commented on the edited video, not on the fact that it was edited to make the exec say things he didn't say.  And in all the Fox coverage of NPR, the only person who has addressed the fact that the video was faked is Glenn Beck.  And give Beck some credit here.  He didn't have to support TheBlaze in their study.  He could have shut it down.  But he didn't.