NPR: We Are Not 'Tax-Payer Funded'

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I regularly listen to NPR; my other source of news is the internet and a daily newspaper, which I subscribe to because I want to support local news coverage and investigative journalism. There isn't another station I've found that equals the news coverage on NPR. And I'm tired of reading the misrepresentations about its funding. If they were getting all their money from govt. funding, they wouldn't have to hold those on-air fundraisers, would they? But I contribute because they're the best option out there.

Mary O. of MA 10:14AM November 15, 2011

Vivian Schiller resigned....who will be your liberal left wing voice now..how will you override these biases or is this just a little road bump? I have never in my life been so outraged by someone (Vivian Schiller) making a inappropriate remark/comment. I have been a very long & faithful listener & $upporter of NPR for over 35 years. Never again will I send them another penny. They lost my trust but, I've been seeing this organization (which started out left wing) veer more & more to the left for as long as I have been a supporter and with this lastest slander from someone who should have been just alittle bit wiser in her choice of opinion, I have closed the book on my affiliation with NPR.

Tim of IN 12:10PM July 22, 2011

Mik and Bob need to check their eyesite and their facts,
1) NPR and PBS DO NOT receive the vast majority of funds under attack. It is the community broadcasters that carry their content that need this support ot exist, with a far greater need in rural areas. These parts of our country do not have inexpensive cable and satellite options, and their impovershed populations cannot affor them anyway. This is just like any other subsidy (roads, military defense, schools) that can never be born equally by all citizens.
2) Good programming can find other homes. Really? I haven't seen quality educational programs for kids available on any FREE broadcast network station. How about local classical concerts and theater performances? Nope. Their isn't a commercial market for these programs because the less affluent populations that consume them (children, young families, elderly) aren't attractive targets for the market economy. Cable or satellite providers that do have a couple offerings like this are far too expensive for those living paycheck to paycheck. or correctly rural to a much greater degree People that oppose this essential funding should also oppose public schooling on principle.
3) Federal dollars that do support public broadcasters are poorly invested. With the exception of NASA, there are very few federal dollars that see exponential growth through additional funding by individuals, grants, local businesses and supporting of state and local budgets. In essence, CPB grants are proven stimulus for the creation and maintenance of jobs, and other economic growth.
Simply put, you need to find better arguments if you truly want to attack the support of public broadcasting in our country. Better scrutiny would be placed on corporate tax loopholes (GE paid no tax in the US for 2010), subsidies for energy companies (oil companies really need financial support for oil exploration?) and examination of our bloated military industrial complex (expensive weapons programs for cold war enemies). Even reform of Social Security of Medicare would be better use of Republicans' majorities. Small changes in any of these examples would result in billions and trillions of dollars, which dwarf the savings of eliminating CPB funding - which means this is no more than unproductive party grandstanding, not trying to really accomplish their claimed objectives.

Bob Tauber of FL 3:16PM May 06, 2011

People misunderstand the effects of de-funding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. While PBS and certainly NPR might be able to continue their good work without federal funding, lack of grants from CPB would devastate hundreds of small rural public broadcasting stations around the country, leaving NPR, PBS, and important local news and emergency information, among other things, without an outlet. Many of the rural areas these stations serve have large areas without internet or wireless service, large populations who cannot afford internet or wireless service, and internet and wireless service with delicate connections that can go down and stop working for days at a time.

Mike of CO 4:10PM May 05, 2011

Okay, so taxpayer money, direct or indirect, is claimed to be a small part of the NPR budget. That seems to reinforce the argument that taxpayer funding should be eliminated. We simply do not need governement funded TV or Radio. If NPR and PBS have a substantial audience, then they will be able to survive just fine without taxpayer money.
Good programs that people want to hear will find a place in the market, especially in this age of cable and satellite where the options are unlimited. Why do we need a State sponsored network that tells us what we should watch or listen to, and then pays for it with our money?

Mik of KY 9:38AM May 02, 2011

Public broadcasting is governmental success story precisely because NPR and PBS have become a commercial success story. Standards for underwriting credits have become a lot more – dare I use this term? liberal – to the degree that asserting they are “commercial-free” is laughable. In addition, many NPR and PBS programs generate cash from sales of related materials and services. NPR and PBS have morphed into commercial operations whether they admit it or not.
It's time for them to fly from the nest. The best of their programming can easily find a home or homes in the commercial market. And their news programming – which clearly has a passionately loyal audience – can admit its biases without fear of Congressional or listener reprisal.

Bob of OH 5:17PM May 01, 2011

Yay NPR! Don't take this crap from the misinformed and ignorantly blissful! I love the programming you provide, and while I have never listened to this largely followed music program you offer- I have often listened to Fresh Air, All Things Considered and several others from which I get news that is often of a fresh perspective or far more in depth than provided by the quick headline only news the mainstream media seems intent on disseminating in a quick and slapdash style with no substance. Where they seem to seek only quick ratings by the masses, you try to provide intelligent food for thought to those seeking answers. I appreciate NPR and hope they keep up the fine work I've come to appreciate and expect.
Best regards!

Amy of WA 3:22PM May 01, 2011

NPR is so lackidasical about goverment funding that I would think they would welcome the loss of funding. Unless of course the percentage of their budget is closer to 60%, than 2%?
Let our goverment stop funding Public TV and Radio. They were given to ability to SELL advertising commericals 20 years ago or so, just so the goverment could stop funding them.

Dr Roulf of NE 2:04PM May 01, 2011

Could someone please tell her how Governemtn Grants materialize out of thin air?

bobbi of TN 11:25AM May 01, 2011

.. with her careful wording about "direct", the actual may be as high as 25%:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html
Why does she feel it necessarily to lie to the public that pays a chunk of her paycheck? As others point out here, then she won't object to defunding a few percent?

Doug Peterson of CA 4:45AM May 01, 2011