> I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians.
What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.
No it won't. The modern GOP is fueled by grievance. It needs an "other" in order to exist. They'll have a new enemy to rail against by this time tomorrow.
Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.
My kids high school recently cancelled advanced math classes because the racial composition of students there was not what the school hoped to see. No, thank you, I want parents to have a much bigger influence on what schools teach.
To which funding are you referring?
In fact[0]:
"Unlike many government agencies, the United States Postal Service (USPS) does not receive direct taxpayer funding for operating expenses. Government appropriations are limited to specific purposes, such as the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) Program."
And[1]:
"In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation."
[0] https://govfacts.org/federal/usps/how-usps-stays-afloat-fund...
[1] https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis...
What you're referring to is a kind of "respectability politics". Basically, if we're nice and do what conservatives say, then things get better and they ease off.
We have literal hundreds of years of proof that this is not the case, and the opposite happens.
Think about Donald Trump. When we legitimize him and continue to do so, has he gotten less extreme, or more? In 2016 versus now, is he less extreme, or more? Much, much more. But he got what he wanted, right? Yes. And then he wants more, because he feels emboldened. It's an ideology built on Greed.
If you give conservatives an inch, they take a mile. If you ease up a bit on reconstruction, then suddenly you have Jim Crow. If you you give them a teensy little bit of morality legislation, then suddenly you have mass censorship proposals and the Ten Commandments in schools.
As a gay man, I see this time and time again in my own community. I have been told we are too vulgar, too sexual, too gross, and this is why conservatives target us. That if we just acted more normal, more respectable, they would leave us alone, and the world would be happy.
But there was a time when we were respectable, when we hid in the shadows. When we got wives just for show, just to please the conservative narrative. When we only acted like ourselves in our own hidden bars, our own hidden spaces. Out of sight, out of mind. And, well, how were we treated? Was it better? No. It was much, much worse.
This will not shut them up.
Support by donations is always dependent on the largest donor.
The US government was the largest donor until now. No single non-governmental donor will ever have that level of influence again.
You are probably right.
My apologies.
For you, probably, for me it means "from/for the people".
Many European countries have public broadcasters 100% funded by tax money, yet consistently rank among the most impartial and factual media. Them being 100% independent in their reporting, also from the government that funds them, is core to their mission, and they usually have oversight boards to ensure this. That's how it should work in a working democracy. The people decided that a truly independent news source is to everyone's benefit so should be publicly funded.
"From the people" = supported by taxes. If it's supported by some small pots of private money, then it's not from "the people", it's from a select few people.
For example, Bezos "donates" (owns) WAPO. Would you classify WAPO as "from the people"? Obviously not. Just doing private money exempts you from being "from the people".
"For the people" = equal access. The only services that have equal access are tax payer funded ones.
Is your private insurance equal access? No, it's tied to your employer.
Now what about roads, parks, sidewalks, the fucking DMV? Are those equal access?
I'm sure someone, somewhere, can find a counter example, but a counter example does not a rule make. 99.99% of the time, "private stuff" = only for some people, "tax payer funded stuff" = everyone at least has an equal opportunity to access it.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-ou...
"Look, Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
https://www.npr.org/2010/10/21/130712737/npr-ends-williams-c...
"NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America."
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2010/10/21/1307132...