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.

dxAce
Michigan
USA





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.

"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.

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.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

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

Once, during one of the ubiquitous beg-a-thons that KPBS seems to always be in
the midst of, I told a cold call phone person that I wasn't about to donate
anything to support their station's operations as long as they were running so
much commercial advertising, and that they could simply charge more for those
spots and learn to operate within the revenue generated like the all the other
stations in town.


Would you pay if they had no commercials and instead were scrambled?

Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:


Would you pay if they had no commercials and instead were scrambled?

I already did.
I paid federal income tax for lo those many years to subsidize the very concept
of commercial free broadcasting, that has now effectively disappeared.

That's because they don't get tax money anymore. Not for operations.
When they do get facilities grants (NTIA) or development grants (CPB)
they are contingent on local matching funds. I can assure you that most
public radio stations are very frugal and good stewards of the public
trust.

Gillespie V. ''Sonny'' Montgomery
http://www.todayinmississippi.com/events.aspx

Soon as Finn Carter loses her trousers in the Tremors movie on the AMC
channel, I needs to gits back to woikin on my old trailer some more.
cuhulin

wrote:
Gillespie V. ''Sonny'' Montgomery
http://www.todayinmississippi.com/events.aspx

Soon as Finn Carter loses her trousers in the Tremors movie on the AMC
channel, I needs to gits back to woikin on my old trailer some more.
cuhulin


TV makes you stupid.