NPR is good news, I often listen, and I contribute occasionally to supporting it. That said, our government was not created to run news stations and it is not fair that we use tax policy to force people to support a radio station network.

"That said, our government was not created to run news stations and it is not fair that we use tax policy to force people to support a radio station network."

Obviously a 4,000 word document written 3 centuries ago is adequate in dealing with the challenges of modern government.

What was our government "created" to do? And considering there was wide disagreement among the people who founded it as to what government should do, whose views from the 1700s should we adopt?

If left to the Democratic-Republicans/Democrats of the early 1800s, we would have zero infrastructure whatsoever.

Even using your reliance on the Constitution, government control of radio is allowed. Radio waves travel across state lines - the interstate commerce clause applies.

Our Constitution protects the minority from the majority. Although I like NPR, and support NPR (I emphasize this), I don't think my majority view allows me into the pockets of the minority. We who listen/watch should support our interests. If we don't care enough to support it, we shouldn't listen/watch.

Access to information should not be controlled by those who have all the money to invest in 'supporting' particular stations. News is too important to be dictated by the market. For-profit news has had a deleterious impact on our republic. Any benefit of having "choice" to abstain from providing a couple of tax dollars to support the society you live in is outweighed by the negative consequences of for-profit media.

Never said news had to be for-profit.

You assume, Putin33, that just because NPR is public it is unbiased and non-profit. It is neither. The profit is made, not in monetary capital, but in political and intellectual capital. Just like any institution that seeks to educate or inform, the most important thing to the policy directors of NPR is the message they deliver. I have very little problem with NPR existing, but there is no fair principle by which everyone should have to unwillingly pay for something like this.

"Never said news had to be for-profit."

Your solution is media run by voluntary donations? How is that financially stable or workable? What's to say media won't run to things like the Gates Foundation for donations (heck, they already do) in exchange for positive coverage about Gates and Microsoft?

"Just like any institution that seeks to educate or inform, the most important thing to the policy directors of NPR is the message they deliver."

What do you mean? Maybe I'm a simpleton, but I don't get your point here. What on earth is meant by "political/intellectual capital" and how does that in any way equate to profits?

" I have very little problem with NPR existing, but there is no fair principle by which everyone should have to unwillingly pay for something like this."

There's no fair principle by which the media is owned by a handful of private companies and in which our news is polluted with gimmicks, commercials, and tabloid style journalism.

Putin- right now the media runs to the government for donations, yes? For the rest, we live in a democracy. People make choices. But the basic idea of the Bill of Rights is that my rights end when they impact your rights. In this case,

In this case, my desire to listen to NPR ends when it impacts someone else's wallet (right to privacy, implied in the Bill of Rights).

"What do you mean? Maybe I'm a simpleton, but I don't get your point here. What on earth is meant by "political/intellectual capital" and how does that in any way equate to profits?"

Profit is a positive gain in an investment, and it is usually talked about in terms of a monetary value. An example would be arbitrage, buying something for a low price and sell it at profit. It does not, however, have to be monetary. You can substitute for money anything that is worth the opportunity cost. In other words, the people who run any media outlet can (depending on the individuals' subjective desires) be just as happy controlling what is said as they can by making a large amount of money.

"There's no fair principle by which the media is owned by a handful of private companies and in which our news is polluted with gimmicks, commercials, and tabloid style journalism."

I never said that was fair either. The question is whether or not there is an alternative to both unfair systems.

@ Froctal - I see what you're getting at, but that argument doesn't only apply to NPR. What if I'm a pacifist? Should my tax dollars be used to support the military if I don't want them to? What if I'm a libertarian, then do I get to say I don't want my tax dollars supporting medicare or social security? The government's job is to keep the republic healthy and that requires that the public be informed. And NPR does a better job informing people than any of the other public news outlets.

@Mafia - apples and oranges comparison. If the private sector would raise armies to defend the people, then do away with the US military. If the private sector provided for the poor and the retired as they should, then do away with welfare, social security, and medicare. The private sector *does* provide a means to inform the populace.

Now, mind you, I'm not advocating doing away with NPR, but it's losing funding from the feds is a minor bump in the road. It would still exist as both NPR and PBS receive the majority of their support from private donations anyhow.

"Profit is a positive gain in an investment, and it is usually talked about in terms of a monetary value. An example would be arbitrage, buying something for a low price and sell it at profit. It does not, however, have to be monetary. You can substitute for money anything that is worth the opportunity cost. In other words, the people who run any media outlet can (depending on the individuals' subjective desires) be just as happy controlling what is said as they can by making a large amount of money."

No, sorry, profit/capital does not = utils. There's a qualitative difference between the idea of a media company making money off the news vs journalists within a media company being "happy" they're reporting the news. The two are in no way equivalent, and happiness is not "capital" in any sense. Happiness cannot be used to make goods or services, it is not an input or instrument of any kind.

"I never said that was fair either. The question is whether or not there is an alternative to both unfair systems."

We don't have to create a perfect system where nobody's feelings are hurt in order make a decision that is in the best interests of the commonweal. We are a society after all and the state exists to protect and enhance the quality of life of those under its jurisdiction. The handful of pennies that it costs the average individual person to pay for high quality news does not exceed the large benefit it brings to society.

" The private sector *does* provide a means to inform the populace."

The private sector "provides a means" for education, so what does that mean? People can legitimately whine about paying taxes to public schools?

The point is there are lots of services the government provides that one or another person might object to, yet they can't use that as an excuse to not pay taxes or otherwise abdicate their responsibility as citizens because they don't get their way on one issue. For whatever reason people think that living in a democratic state means never having to abide by the will of the majority and never having to contribute to the public welfare.

Actually, Putin, supporting an agenda can indirectly lead to profits. When the sheep ...er... people believe what a media outlet says, they tend to support the candidates the outlet backs. Those candidates, in turn, return the favor when they get in office. Not-for-profits rely on this tit-for-tat exchange.

I'm sorry Putin. You misunderstood me. I am not saying they are "happy" as in gleeful just to be able to do their job. I am saying they can gain just as much from the power they get from controlling the education of the public as they can in money.

@Putin - I wasn't advocating doing away with NPR. I was just saying the specifics of Mafia's comparison weren't equivalencies. You school analysis is actually a proper comparison. And I should point out that very little federal government funds support schools. In Ohio (where you are from, IIRC), schools are supported primarily locally through tax levies and there is no reason my federal tax dollars should support your schools.

If the feds stopped spending our tax dollars on shit like that, then taxes could be reduced and we could support our own schools and media outlets as we see fit.

"right now the media runs to the government for donations, yes? For the rest, we live in a democracy. People make choices. But the basic idea of the Bill of Rights is that my rights end when they impact your rights."

Broadcast and cable news get donations from the government? What?

The Bill of Rights does not in any way imply that the individual is above the nation, nor imply such a restrictive view of what the government can do, nor imply that people had these absolute rights but no responsibilities. These are amendments to the Constitution, implemented to pacify those opposed to a stronger federal government for which the Constitution provided.

Look at the Preamble of the Constitution. It is remarkable for its numerous references to the collective and the common good, not the individual.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The founders (or at least Hamilton, Washington, and Adams) were the same people who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Obviously they didn't have this kind of restrictive view of government that you do, especially with regard to the media.

@ Draug - I realize it's not the same but the private sector also does provide military support as well, through Private Defense Contractors like Xe (formerly Blackwater).

"I am saying they can gain just as much from the power they get from controlling the education of the public as they can in money."

But capital is not simply "gains" - whatever that means. Capital is an instrument used in production. And you're going to have to demonstrate that a station such as NPR "controls the education of the public" and basks in this so-called power (especially considering the fact that NPR has huge for-profit competitors), to even begin to assert that monetary profit is equivalent. The amount of influence on the public mind is directly proportional to a news company's profits. So if influence = profits/power, then the for-profit media is doubly powerful.

"@Putin - I wasn't advocating doing away with NPR. I was just saying the specifics of Mafia's comparison weren't equivalencies. You school analysis is actually a proper comparison. And I should point out that very little federal government funds support schools. In Ohio (where you are from, IIRC), schools are supported primarily locally through tax levies and there is no reason my federal tax dollars should support your schools."

The Ohio system of funding schools has been for years ruled unconstitutional, and our education system was long given the distinction of having the worst infrastructure in the country
. http://www.ohiocoalition.org/pdfs/Facts_and_Principles.pdf
http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/oh/12-11-02DeRolphIV.php3
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/03/25/10YRmain.ART_ART_03-25-07_A1_3P65O4Q.html

This decentralized funding of schools and having states and localities run our education system is a prime reason why our education system is an abysmal failure. Having schools run as "localities see fit" results in children being taught religious propaganda and anti-science garbage. Charter schools have no accountability or standards, and lead to public schools getting shut down due to lack of enrollment. We're falling further and further behind because we put ourselves in a damned federalist strait jacket.

Capital is used in accounting as a means of production, but in economics it is a retainer of value. You can invest it, trade it, destroy it, use it, or produce it. By gaining a special favors of government, both big media and public media work to gain a monopoly power over information. That is what corporations do. What I cannot fathom is how you can look at large media corps and somehow think that NPR would be removed from the same kind of greed and selfishness. It is as if somehow that because the word "public" is involved the people in charge must all be angels.

Neither of them are! Both big media and NPR are corporations. They are both special interest.

"You can invest it, trade it, destroy it, use it, or produce it. "

And how is "control of the education of the public" invested, traded, destroyed, used, and produced?

People forget that news for a long time was never profit-based, and I mean profit-based in the normal sense not in the weird/expanded definition that is being proposed here. People never expected to make money off of news. News operated at a loss, but a necessary loss because it was a public service. To the extent that public media acts like other corporations to "corner the market" on information, it does so because of the changed environment it finds itself in. With no private competitors, public media would not have to worry about competing with the private media giants and could go back to the its primary mission of informing the public.

And yes, public media is removed from greed and selfishness. Why would they care if they operated at a loss if they didn't risk going out of business? The fact that its public also means that there is accountability that private media does not have. Public media alone has to go before the government and justify its existence and defend its practice. It alone has to adhere to rigid standards of objectivity and professionalism. Private media only has to worry about one thing - selling more of its 'product'.

The action verbs I mentioned were examples. They were meant to show that capital is something of subjective value that people use in their interactions with each other. If you must pick one of my non-comprehensive list then it would be "used." Any group in control of a mass media organization can (and I would argue does) use their influence to mold public opinion and the breadth of public knowledge. Yes, having that kind of control is a type of capital.

If you do know the history of journalism then you would know the public sources of news are just as bad as private ones. The problem, just like similar controversial issues, is not that it is public or private. The true error lies in the special favors that are granted to the institution that give it a monopolistic power.

"...yes, public media is removed from greed and selfishness."

No. Public media is run by people. They are just as flawed as people in the private sector and are prone to greed and selfishness. So by your understanding the other thing that can count as greed is greed for monetary gain. Greed for political gain doesn't count? Greed for power doesn't count? Greed for attention? Greed for pleasure?

"The fact that its public also means that there is accountability that private media does not have."

No. Private media, in real free-market scenario, is just as accountable as a public source. If a media outlet is engaging in journalism that is unscrupulous, people will generally stop using it and use a more accurate, more ethical news source. It must provide an good product or people will "buy" a different one. There is freedom for as many news organizations as can be supported by the populous.

This doesn't happen because government props up and gives favors to both public AND private media. With that type of favoritism how can the market properly operate?

why are we talking about the military?

war is becoming irrelevant. policing is what the future holds, not war.

the war in iraq/afg is/was really just a massive policing operation. don't you agree?

a really intense one, sure, but all this stuff you guys are talking about... carrier groups etc, is really pretty irrelevant.

you're kidding yourself if you think there will be a conventional war within the next, say, 30-50 years. all the stuff you're talking about will be irrelevant by then.

i mean i know this is a diplo site, bound to be lots of war buffs here but... dont you get the sense that war as we knew it is becoming an anachronism? (caveat: for developed countries)

idk. that's what i think about it anyway

about NPR.

if you have a brain on your head you'll know that whatever NPR is doing works much better than what say NBC or Fox new is doing in terms of getting real journalism done.

so judge the method by the results. and the results are good.

i'm not hearing anyone so far (adm. i skimmed thread) claim that NPR is poor quality content wise.

it is a force for good in journalism, do we not agree? so why not accept the forumla they've worked out? a nice blend of personal, private, and public donations.

works well dont you think. not without flaws but better than anything else i know of.

@thucy:

"the war in iraq/afg is/was really just a massive policing operation. don't you agree?"
- yeh sure, if you also think WW2 was just a massive policing operation to bring down those 'rogue' leaders. Tell us, do the police in your neighbourhood carry grenade launchers and call in airstrikes on the naughty peoples houses? In my country the police dont even carry so much as a pistola.

"dont you get the sense that war as we knew it is becoming an anachronism?" - the hundreds of thousands of iraqis blown to bits by allied firepower would probably disagree. :)

"all this stuff you guys are talking about... carrier groups etc, is really pretty irrelevant."
- yet again someone needs to call the president with a money saving idea!

talk about no-brain! :)

""dont you get the sense that war as we knew it is becoming an anachronism?"

War in western Europe maybe, but war between the US & Iran is very thinkable. And Iran is no small military power. Nor is Saudi Arabia. War between the US & China is very thinkable. Or Japan & China. Or between the Koreas and involving China, Japan, and the US.

War between NATO and Russia was a very possibility just a couple years ago with the Georgia/S. Ossetia situation.

So while yes, war between the core of the European Union is not realistic, that's just one part of the world. Plus, if nationalists come to power in the EU, and the EU continues to face crisis, things could change.

hey no you dont understand what im saying lol.

violence is here to stay.

*CONVENTIONAL* war *IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD* is gone forever though, i think.

thats what i was saying.

war b/w china/us is very NOT thinkable.
i mean seriously? why the fuck would we go to war? lol i think an alien invasion is more likely.

and why would china attack japan? they too are huge trade partners. what is the motivation? conquest doesnt work anymore. the world knows that.

and nato was never going to attack russia. no one wants the cold war to come back.

thats why i say the next 30-50 years, because thats how long i think it would take for the world to forget that going to war is a dumbass idea that would wreck the world.

not to mention that conventional war now pretty much involves at least contemplating nukes. and most people are not willing even to contemplate nukes. ergo, they are not willing to contemplate conventional war.

yo will still see poor people fighting poor people, you will still see big countries occupying little ones. the latter isn't a war, its a police action similar to what's happening in mexico. contest the use of police action if you want, it is meant however to point out that it is not the kind of war you guys are talking about, with submarines and air battles and carrier groups.

it is a war of small arms and explosives and ambushes and traps. it is a land-war.

the other kind of war, b/w poor people, is similar except that the sides are actually more evenly matches, witness libya or rwanda or congo or sudan or thailand/cambodia (averted it seems however, maybe they have gotten too rich for it), etc etc.