David wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:13:16 -0600, clifto wrote:

David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

That's not exactly true. Government largesse works in mysterious
ways.

Here's a civics lesson for you:

Advertising supported media is not free to tell you what you need to
hear. Too much conflict of interest.


Besides, the vast majority of talk radio is considered entertainment.
It's not considered news in any form. Even with the loose definition of
"news" used by American media, it's not considered news. This provides a
convenient smokescreen for the gabbers-every time somebody takes them a
little too seriously, they say "hey, we're legally entertainment, we're
not providing an actual news program, people should know that". That
ignores the fact that many people get their information almost
exclusively from talk radio. People think they're speaking the gospel
truth, when in fact they can lie more than the current president under
the cover of being entertainers. Every time somebody points out lies or
errors in some pundit's crap, be he conservative or liberal (think
Michael Moore), said pundit always pulls out his big ENTERTAINER shield
and claims that he doesn't have to be held to the same standard as the
nightly news.