[ARCHIVED THREAD] - In Defence of NPR (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/26/2011 3:41:29 PM EDT
| I am listening to Praire Home Companion. I listened to awesome classical music all day. Why do we hate them? |
|
I like NPR, and I contribute to my local station. News is news, no matter where you go it will have a slant, you just have to be smart enough to read between the lines. There other programing is what I really enjoy... Not to mention they are the most tolerable radio station out there, if your like me and DJ's make you want to beat the shit out of DJ's. However, if any funding cuts forced them to drop all Jazz from their broadcast, I wouldn't complain. Nothing pisses me off more than than turning on the radio for a late night drive home, and JAAZZZZ!!!
|
|
Quoted:
I am listening to Praire Home Companion. I listened to awesome classical music all day. Why do we hate them? Fine. As long as enough people feel like you do then they will have no problem getting sponsers to buy ads on their stations. I hate anything I have to support with my tax dollars that is not called for in the constitution. |
|
Quoted: I like NPR, and I contribute to my local station. News is news, no matter where you go it will have a slant, you just have to be smart enough to read between the lines. There other programing is what I really enjoy... Not to mention they are the most tolerable radio station out there, if your like me and DJ's make you want to beat the shit out of DJ's. However, if any funding cuts forced them to drop all Jazz from their broadcast, I wouldn't complain. Nothing pisses me off more than than turning on the radio for a late night drive home, and JAAZZZZ!!! +1
|
|
Shut em down...like public tv there were to be no comercials or anything like them,only a sponsored by signature or read a name.Now there are full fleged ads like regular tv.They are all liberal,shill for the demoncrats and unions.They ought to compete with all others now as with the internet they are no longer revelant
PS if you see most of them especially the tv all got hired by the pound,radio has to be the same way,is funny when they tal;k about how to be healthy they got some 300 pound chick reporting it wheezing away |
|
Quoted:
I am listening to Praire Home Companion. I listened to awesome classical music all day. Why do we hate them? Garrison Keillor is a liberal douche. I confess to finding his show fucking hilarious and his approach to politics to fit with all the polite but pointed prarie liberals I have ever known (through my wife and my old boss). At times, these people have a point to make and they make it in the most American way possible. Michael Moore is a disgusting pig that approaches politics the same way he approaches an all-you-can-eat buffet. He is all in, falling off the plate, shoveling it down until he and anyone taking notice of his gluttony are ill. Prarie Home Companion isn't a political show, it is humor. It may or may not have a market without NPR but it is no reason to go on funding the garbage NPR spews on issues that has an obviously un-American and leftist spin. |
|
Quoted:
I love Car Talk, "Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me", PHC and some of their other programming. Yes, I do see the liberal spin. Really, it's not that hard and NO, I don't donate. I pod cast wait wait every single week. Many good shows that are worth having access to. We also watch Masterpiece Theater, Doc Martin, and MI-5 along with several other PBS shows. They should just allow commercials and not need the gov funding. I am usually a paid member of PBS. I think that lapsed based on the piles of renewal notices. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. |
|
Prairie Home Companion can make a profit on its own, without a government subsidy.
If you want to listen to great classical music all day long (I do), then put it on your iPod or get XM radio. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize my preference for Mozart any more than they should have to subsidize somebody else's preference for Slipknot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. I will have to go consult a calendar, but I'm pretty sure 1999 isn't in the last few years. |
|
I will confess to listening pretty regularly. There are a few "conservative" talk show hosts that I cannot stand, and sometimes the commercials on our FM talk station here get to the point of being ridiculous, so I switch over to NPR.
They've got their own little spin and a snarky sense of their own superiority, but it's tolerable. It does piss me off when they give air time to that shitstain cocksucking prolapsed colon Paul Krugman. I like the BBC World service that plays on NPR at night when I'm driving home from work. I can choose between a replay of Mark Levin or BBC World. If Levin is talking to some pinhead giving him verbal fellatio, I switch it over and generally get news I wouldn't normally hear about read to me in a pleasing British accent with very, very few commercials. I usually prefer Levin though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. I will have to go consult a calendar, but I'm pretty sure 1999 isn't in the last few years. Please show me where Fox News has been paying any more in taxes lately...or how that changes the amounts that they dodged out of in previous years. |
|
Quoted:
I will confess to listening pretty regularly. There are a few "conservative" talk show hosts that I cannot stand, and sometimes the commercials on our FM talk station here get to the point of being ridiculous, so I switch over to NPR. They've got their own little spin and a snarky sense of their own superiority, but it's tolerable. It does piss me off when they give air time to that shitstain cocksucking prolapsed colon Paul Krugman. I like the BBC World service that plays on NPR at night when I'm driving home from work. I can choose between a replay of Mark Levin or BBC World. If Levin is talking to some pinhead giving him verbal fellatio, I switch it over and generally get news I wouldn't normally hear about read to me in a pleasing British accent with very, very few commercials. I usually prefer Levin though. There are some conservative talk show hosts I can't stand, too. Can't stand O'Reilly, and I am really tired of Hannity and his worshippers telling each other what great Americans they are. Even Rush's paper-rattling gets on my nerves. I would be really pissed off if they were being subsidized with tax money. That's pretty much how I feel about Diane Riehm. My taxes are paying for that? Or half of one percent of that? No thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Then perhaps the Federal Government should implement a flat tax? Everyone pays the same. Would you be in favor of that? Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. I will have to go consult a calendar, but I'm pretty sure 1999 isn't in the last few years. Please show me where Fox News has been paying any more in taxes lately...or how that changes the amounts that they dodged out of in previous years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. I will have to go consult a calendar, but I'm pretty sure 1999 isn't in the last few years. Please show me where Fox News has been paying any more in taxes lately...or how that changes the amounts that they dodged out of in previous years. It's your assertion. You prove it. Although I must ask if you pay the full amount of your taxes or do you dodge out of them by taking all the deductions can under the law? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I will confess to listening pretty regularly. There are a few "conservative" talk show hosts that I cannot stand, and sometimes the commercials on our FM talk station here get to the point of being ridiculous, so I switch over to NPR. They've got their own little spin and a snarky sense of their own superiority, but it's tolerable. It does piss me off when they give air time to that shitstain cocksucking prolapsed colon Paul Krugman. I like the BBC World service that plays on NPR at night when I'm driving home from work. I can choose between a replay of Mark Levin or BBC World. If Levin is talking to some pinhead giving him verbal fellatio, I switch it over and generally get news I wouldn't normally hear about read to me in a pleasing British accent with very, very few commercials. I usually prefer Levin though. There are some conservative talk show hosts I can't stand, too. Can't stand O'Reilly, and I am really tired of Hannity and his worshippers telling each other what great Americans they are. Even Rush's paper-rattling gets on my nerves. I would be really pissed off if they were being subsidized with tax money. That's pretty much how I feel about Diane Riehm. My taxes are paying for that? Or half of one percent of that? No thanks. Hannity is a fucking ass clown. He's an intellectual light-weight, and that "You're a Great American" shit got old about the third time I heard it, 6 years ago. I can't even stand that cocksucker's voice. I turn his shit off the instant it comes on. I agree with you that the government shouldn't be in the radio business. Or much of any other business for that matter, except protecting our borders and securing our trade routes, among a few other things. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period.
By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. Irrelevant, NPR still shouldn't get federal funding |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why do we hate them? Because they are publicly funded libtard cocksuckers, and damn proud of it? It should be pointed out that Murdoch's News Corp (Fox News) has managed to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes over the past few years: One firm focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (1996-1999), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print In contrast, NPR's total annual budget is about $166 million. A report in this week's Economist newspaper offers an intruiging update. It states that in the four years to 30 June last year, Mr Murdoch's News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid only A$325m (£128m) in corporate taxes worldwide. That translates as 6% of the A$5.4bn consolidated pre-tax profits for the same period. By comparison another multi-national media empire, Disney, paid 31%. The corporate tax rates for the three main countries in which News Corp operates - Australia, the United States and the UK - are 36%, 35% and 30% respectively. Further research reveals that Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, has paid no net corporation tax within these shores over the past 11 years. This is despite accumulated pre-tax profits of nearly £1.4bn. Payments were made in some years, but in others rebates were claimed. Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. Irrelevant, NPR still shouldn't get federal funding And taxes shouldn't stand in the way of people doing business. To fundamentally believe that it's right that they do, says a lot about how someone thinks. |
| I like classical music, but stopped listening to NPR about 15 years ago when I heard one of their classical music hosts say the music he played "was for educated people". I interpreted that as at the very least a subltle slur against those who haven't attended college. And I'd be willing to bet that he'd have extended it to those who haven't attended a private school. Or the "right" private school. Regardless of how it could be interpreted, it oozed elitism, which I can't tolerate. That was 15 years ago, and in the meantime I've heard enough blips here and there on the radio or TV when flipping through stations, that now I have plenty of other reasons not to support public broadcasting. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Put bluntly, NPR's federal funding isn't even a fraction of the amount that Fox News and News Corp ISN'T paying in taxes thanks to various loopholes. Well........ http://www.workingmother.com/BestCompanies/files/imagecache/company_logo/images/1/GE_Logo_blue.jpge whiz! How much money does the United States government give Fox News? NPR WANTS to go private! They believe they can make more money IN the private sector and broadcast to a wider genre of listeners rather than having to deal with the FEDS and what those masters want them to air. If you have ever actually listened to NPR you know damn well they broadcast from both sides of the fence, but only if the FEDMASTERS approve of the storyline. |