What Congress Needs to Know About Funding NPR and PBS

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Government must cut spending. People can support if worth their while. Just like all the other stations do.

Bill Hedges of MO 2:41PM March 14, 2011

I agree with what you have written. I have been listening to NPR and watching PBS for a long time. I find their coverage to be in depth, informed, and intelligent. I trust NPR's reporting because I know that it is not being biased to serve their owners or their business interests. Over the years, federal funding has been cut to NPR and PBS, yet they remain and become stronger. They will survive if federal funding is lost, but it will sadden me. I like believing that there are still some in government which want to have an informed and educated American society.

kim of CA 12:41PM March 14, 2011

wrote: "why would Congress want to walk away from NPR? Here’s my advice: Rather than cutting NPR free from federal funding—and any control and balance that should go with it—Congress should support continued funding for all perspectives to be heard on public radio."
A better, and more profound question is this: Why are American tax dollars used to financially market, support, and defend causes contrary to the morals and ethics of the American tax payer?
By the way, if NPR and PBS are as popular as you presume, then they should be able to stand on their own like their counter-parts in private business. Therefore, I don't buy the basis for your reasoning that these entities "need and require" ongoing government funding.

david of ID 12:15PM March 14, 2011

Your position on PBS/NPR is analogous to a rube in a crooked casino. The house lets you win occasionally to retain the facade of being fair and to keep you, and other gomers, coming back.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 11:51AM March 14, 2011