I want to reply to Fred Flaxman's letter of March 30 [“Don’t let public Media Go to Static,” Xpress].
National Public Radio wants the taxpayers to subsidize [its programming]. I listen to Fox News Radio all day long, They use commercial advertisers, not corporate sponsors. Advertisers pay a lot more than sponsors. That is the success of Fox News Radio!
— Yale W. Mooers
Candler
National Public Radio wants the taxpayers to subsidize [its programming]. I listen to Fox News Radio all day long, They use commercial advertisers, not corporate sponsors. Advertisers pay a lot more than sponsors. That is the success of Fox News Radio!
— Yale W. Mooers
Candler
Subscribe to XpressMail. Free Sneak Peek. Every Week.
Want to know what's coming out in Xpress this week before the paper even hits the stands?
We've got your free sneak peek, along with deals available in XpressMail, our weekly email newsletter. (It's the best we can do without time travel.)
-
Comments
-
Related Articles
-
Comments
Make a comment
I hope Mr. Mooers understands that those advertisers supporting his favorite station likely influence the news he hears (and doesn't hear)
I also hope he understands that the small amount of federal funding NPR recieves has little effect on their bottom line, and that removing it will not effect NPR as a whole in any significant way, although it certainly will effect some smaller rural affiliate stations.
NPR does just fine coming up with funding from non-federal sources and anyone who thinks this issue is anything more than pandering to a specific demographic is seriously uninformed.
By bill smith
04/13/2011
yeah, what he said!
By bill smith
04/13/2011
Let's see... advertisers likely influence news coverage on commercial stations, but federal funding doesn't affect news coverage on NPR?
I guess there is something special about money from the government that makes it incapable of influencing organizations.
By TallPaul
04/14/2011
Some things go without saying.
Such as, "I listen to Fox News Radio all day long,"
By brebro
04/14/2011
Fox News (television) viewers are "the most uninformed" among all who watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC or other news sources. There is no reason to suspect that listening to their radio propoganda outlet leads to anything else, witness the 'letter' by Yale Mooers. And by the way, there are many corporate sponsors and other underwriters of NPR.
It is entirely possible (I would guess 'probable')that listening to Fox Radio all day long may very well lead to some kind of psychopathology, in addition to the seething anger and intolerance typical of Fox fans in general.
By Dionysis
04/14/2011
"there are many corporate sponsors and other underwriters of NPR."
But that too is "magic money" that has no inpluence on news reporting, right?
"...in addition to the seething anger and intolerance typical of Fox fans in general."
Have you studied a lot of "Fox fans"?
By TallPaul
04/14/2011
Let’s see… advertisers likely influence news coverage on commercial stations, but federal funding doesn’t affect news coverage on NPR?
I'm far more concerned with and aware of the large financial contributors influencing NPR from folks like Merck ADM and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation than the approx. 2% from Federal dollars.
So, why is it people are pretending that this is even an issue?
Oh, right, because it panders to the social conservative base while distracting from REAL budgetary issues like the military and agricultural subsidies.
By bill smith
04/14/2011
"But that too is “magic money†that has no inpluence on news reporting, right?"
Never claimed it had "no influence," but NPR does not receive a dime in direct federal funding; they receive a whopping 2% of their entire funding from grants, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Dept. of Education (yeah, that buys a lot of influence). Sponsorships (of all kinds) account for 22% of their funding, with most of the rest (53%) from station programming fees and distribution services.
That the Republican controlled House called an 'emergency session', while ignoring their own rule of allowing 72 hours to study a proposal before voting on it, speaks volumes about just how blatantly they are trying to appeal to the lunatic fringe while diverting attention from the bankruptcy of their idea-less approach to ruling (they don't even try to govern, just rule).
"Have you studied a lot of “Fox fans�"
I've "studied" them much as a biologist might study the highly aggressive behavior of Africanized bees, for example. Plus, there are a couple of Fox hounds in my own family, as well as several long-time acquaintances that can fairly be characterized as chronically angry and definitely intolerant.
By Dionysis
04/15/2011
"I’ve “studied†them much as a biologist might study the highly aggressive behavior of Africanized bees, for example. "
Really? How many "Fox fans" are in your study population?
By TallPaul
04/18/2011
"Really? How many “Fox fans†are in your study population?"
Enough.
By Dionysis
04/18/2011
"Enough."
When you are convinced of your result before you begin your study, your sample population might as well be zero.
By JWTJr
04/19/2011
I study Fox Fans everytime I watch Slingblade, Deliverance, or a Larry the Cable Guy bit
By Ashevegasjoe
04/19/2011
"When you are convinced of your result before you begin your study, your sample population might as well be zero."
I don't need to "convince" myself of anything, Junior. Are you lobbying to be a lab rat or something? That must be why you piped in on this.
By Dionysis
04/19/2011
http://matrophe.freeshell.org/images/popcorn2.gif
By mat catastrophe
04/19/2011
Looks suspiciously like a snipe war. Perhaps take things down a notch?
By Margaret Williams
04/19/2011
Fox news is a perfect example of free market success.
By Hugh Akston
04/26/2011