NPR caught pandering to Muslim Brotherhood (so they thought)

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Problem with lowering those wages (they do seem high to me), is the quality of talent. The people that run these types of places would quickly go somewhere else if they weren't getting paid a competitive wage. Then places like NPR are left with either hacks or up and comers that either can't do the jobs, or don't do it long enough to make a lasting impression.

And it's okay if they make that money. I think that Neal's point (and I agree with him) is that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying that salary. Fox and MSNBC can do it without subsidies, so I think it possible for NPR to do the same.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

NPR reported its five highest paid employees were:
1. Managing Editor Barbara Rehm, $383,139
2. All Things Considered host Robert Siegel, $350,288
3. Morning Edition host Renee Montagne, $332,160
4. Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, $331,242
5. NPR afternoon programming director Richard L. Harris, $190,267.

Ok, right, let them do that without my $$$$

this is really the short end of the stick in the world of television.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And it's okay if they make that money. I think that Neal's point (and I agree with him) is that our tax dollars shouldn't be paying that salary. Fox and MSNBC can do it without subsidies, so I think it possible for NPR to do the same.

They don't live solely on tax money, otherwise they wouldn't have sponsorships or fundraisings.
Not even regarding the quality of these channels in compariusion to PBS: FOX and MSBNC also get their funds by you: anytime you buy a product advertized in one of these stations, you pay them a sum.

The million dollar question is: how can they remain independent and make quality TV? A pay TV model can't be the answer, as this would cripple their purpose to make educational tv for everyone. Only living from advertisements, would kill their independence.
In Germany we have a (very controversial discussed) model that anybody with a tv has to pay a certain amount of money every month to fund the public channels.
Though their quality declined over the years, the public stations here still have the best reputation regarding unbiased news and educational programs - same as in the US.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Penguin

They don't live solely on tax money, otherwise they wouldn't have sponsorships or fundraisings.

You're right, they don't. However, they do receive government subsidies, which are funded by our tax dollars.

Not even regarding the quality of these channels in compariusion to PBS: FOX and MSBNC also get their funds by you: anytime you buy a product advertized in one of these stations, you pay them a sum.

You're also right, but in this case it is my choice to buy that dish soap or motor oil. I don't get a say in terms of my tax dollars; that hand goes into my pocket whether I like it or not.

I would also agree with you about the quality of PBS vs that of the cable networks.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You're also right, but in this case it is my choice to buy that dish soap or motor oil. I don't get a say in terms of my tax dollars; that hand goes into my pocket whether I like it or not.

yes, of course you choose what you consume, I just wanted to point out that the "free" stations are also not free.

However you chose to pay those stations, the result would be the same. Wheather you take tax dollars, or a fee per household, or an impost on every sold TV. Fact is they don't make stuff that is always compatible to the masses, but rather try to cover many interests, even those of a minority of viewers. If you want to have this and also commercial free television, they have to be subsided in some way.

One point is also very important : that they are independent of the government, so tax dollars can only be a sollutiuon if they are guaranteed independently of the stuff they send, wheather the government likes it or not.

[Tchocky]

Mr. O Keefe is a true patriot

Yes, fighting the good fight.

A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show.....

.....Listed under "equipment needed," is "hidden cams on the boat," and a "tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine." Among the props listed were a "condom jar, dildos, posters and paintings of naked women, fuzzy handcuffs" and a blindfold.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29...ank/index.html