On 10/22/10 16:53 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 10/22/10 16:46 , dxAce wrote:


Brenda Ann wrote:

wrote in message
...
Juan was fired for publically expressing a view that NPR felt was less
than impartial. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/10/2...ex.html?hpt=T2

Meaning that he is denied free speech.


You are not guaranteed the right to say anything you want in the performance
of your job. The Government may not abridge your freedom of speech, but
this does not apply to your employer, who can fire you for pretty much any
reason.

And, as has been stated here in the past NPR (National Propaganda Radio) is, and
never has been, in favour of free speech.

They are clown 'tards.

Hopefully, we just might get government funding stopped for both NPR and PBS.

Seems to be moving this way, doesn't it. Whether or not, should
this move be successful, there is a change in content or thrust at
NPR or PBS, is less certain.

More likely, with funding pressures increased, both will become
as responsive to their donors as commercial broadcasters are to
their advertisers.

In the US, after all, broadcasting is always about the money.

Then let them stand on their own. We'll then see just how quickly they fall flat on
their face.



Oh, that won't happen. There are too many donors willing to
replace the limited federal funding currently distributed.

There's a lot of money in public broadcasting. They'll just keep
having pledge drives and making underwriting calls until they've met
their budgets.

Now, if you REALLY want to squeeze them, hold them to the
original charter provisions that prohibit commercial advertising.

Corporate undewriting would dry up pretty quickly if, there were
no longer the heavily produced spots running on PBS.