BS: Finally - talk radio balance

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 07:20 PM

Well, if they're listening to Fox, everybody else must be tuned out. It only matters if they vote, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Sawzaw
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:03 AM

But not to anybody with 3 or more brain cells.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: mousethief
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM

"Fox News is burying everyone else in the ratings. "

Which is terrifying to anybody with 2 brain cells.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:56 PM

Fox News is burying everyone else in the ratings.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:27 PM

...civilized and sane...

That means more or less the same as "liberal".

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:14 PM

If I thought you capable of understanding the data, I might look up the information for you...

Spoken just like a smug, self-satisfied, supercilious, ignorant, delusional prick.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:09 PM

It's not a stretch to believe that the televison networks and all but one cable network lean left.

Absolutely Correct! Its NOT a stretch- its insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM

Doug, there are a couple of major radio corporations that have never once even tried airing a liberal / progressive talk show and others that have never tried it in many of their markets - even those where a high percentage of the population - even a sizeable majority - are Democrats and/or liberals.

I just learned today that in Washington DC a liberal station that was beating the conservative talk competition -- shocking! considering that DC is overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic -- underwent a sudden format change to "all conservative," just because the owners wanted to do that. Glen Beck is still on there, with a zero listenership rating, and the entire station's ratings are basically zero.

Talk radio and cable 'news' & commentary stations like Fox are not so much venues for making money from advertising as they are well-funded political propaganda machines. Just as people and corporations spend millions or billions of $ on overt advertising and propaganda (direct mail, internet ads, TV ads, robocalls, etc.), they also can and often do spend money on "product placement"-type advertising/propaganda in TV shows and movies, and on any other way they can disseminate their message.   The "news" shows on Fox and the political talk shows are actually more effective than ads, because the propaganda is disguised as "news" or "fair and balanced" commentary (with a token Democrat, for example) or as a talk show where "anyone can call in" (but the screener decides who gets on air and the host cuts off any articulate person with factual corrections or an opposing point of view).

If you really cared about the truth of this issue, you could do some research on progressive and conservative stations, where they've been tried, what the ratings were, and when and why they were bought out or had a format change.

Phil Donahue was MSNBC's highest-rated show when they canceled him in 2003 - as he was speaking out against the invasion of Iraq while most of the media were helping build up support for it. They said his show was expensive to produce & that his ratings had not proved competitive with Connie Chung's or Bill O'Reilly's, but the entire network was lagging behind CNN and Fox, and MSNBC did not replace Donahue with higher-ratings-getting shows.    Donahue had been brought on board after being off the air for over 7 years, and his MSNBC show had been gaining in ratings over the 7 months it aired -- actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time program "Hardball With Chris Matthews." -- but the owners claimed they were canceling because of the show's cost and because it hadn't proved as competitive with CNN and Fox as they had hoped.   (They kept Matthews, whose viewership was considerably lower but who did not use a live audience.)   
In any case, MSNBC canceled their highest-rated show, right at the time when its host was taking an unpopular political stand (against starting a war with Iraq).


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/business/media/26PHIL.html?pagewanted=print

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Sawzaw
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 10:39 AM

"they aren't out there screaming for rednecks to kill Obama"

Who is?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 09:04 PM

It sounds like the left wing is way more racist than the right-wing-religious-wakkos.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 04:29 PM

"Kiss a N****r Good Morning" is performed by "Boca Brian," a South Florida singer whose parodies are regular features on The Neil Rogers Radio Show, heard weekdays on stations in Miami Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and Ft. Myers.

Mr. Rogers, who is white, has a Web site that features an array of anti-Bush material, such as harsh biographies by former Clinton aide Paul Begala and acerbic Texas critic Molly Ivins, as well as links to reports like, "Smoking Gun: The 9/11 Evidence That May Hang George W. Bush."

The CD featuring the Bush-Rice photograph is being sold on Rogers' Web site, which links to an online store.

The blurb next to the Bush-Rice cover art includes the line: "A whopping 40 tracks, featuring the hit single, "Kiss a N****r Good Morning."

Rogers just happened to play the song - titled "Condoleezza" and sung to the music of Nat King Cole's "Mona Lisa" - on his Wednesday show.

Performed in vocal mannerisms reminiscent of "Amos 'n' Andy," the lyrics expand the attack on Rice delivered last week by washed-up calypso singer Harry Belafonte, who painted the Bush national security chief as a "house slave" in an interview with CNN.

Some lyric excerpts:

"Condoleezza, Condoleezza, what you be doin'?
That neo-facist black-haired token schwartza dog.

"Is you there 'cause you a high-toned public Negro?
Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart?
Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza?
Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars.

"Georgie junior says he trusts you, Condoleezza. Who said our (unintelligible) off the greedy oil woes. But then he make you clean all the White House bathrooms. The public sink, the toilet and let's scrub the floors."

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:51 PM

Kendall: Your statement, "I never learned anything from someone who agreed with me." If you really believe that, you should be a steady listner of Fox News Channel!

Genie: I respect your opinion, but I still believe that if enough money could be made by a radio station making a profit from liberal (or progressive)talk shows, there would be an ample number of such stations on the air.

As to Greg F's silly post: It's not a stretch to believe that the televison networks and all but one cable network lean left. I seem to recall the results of polls after the 2009 elections reporting that the majority of staffs at such stations voted liberal. If I thought you capable of understanding the data, I might look up the information for you but ...if you are truly interested, you can try to find it yourself.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 02:21 PM

It would seem to me to make sense to determine who--or what group--dominates the mainstream media, and then figure out what their agenda is. At that point you'd be able to make a responsible observation, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:37 PM

You have to be so far right that John Birch looks like a commie to think that "NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN and CNBC" are in any way, shape or form "liberal"....

Not at all! You just have to be a delusional moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:22 PM

I have just made this point in the "Beck" thread, but if you think of listening to the "right wing media" as an alternative to searching for facts and as a buffer against information which may challenge prejudices then the reason that "left wing" media is not more successful become more clear.

Progressives gather their information from all sources and pick what they want. Limbaugh listeners reject any source of information that does not agree with their preconceived views.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Neil D
Date: 27 Mar 10 - 12:15 PM

From: Riginslinger - PM
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

"Who you hell are you to judge us."




                      ?



I'm saying that you were judgemental in making the implication that liberals sit around all day collecting welfare. "Who the hell are you to judge us" may not have adequately expressed my indignation, but I had already self censored my first 10 responses to your scurrilous aspersion.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 05:11 PM

Poppagator, many of the "liberal/progressive" talk show hosts I listen to have conservatives - even arch-conservatives - on the show as guests regularly, and they don't cut off their microphones or shout them down.    I don't hear much of this on "conservative" talk radio (though Michael Medved and a few others occasionally do it).

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 05:08 PM

Art, most of the "liberal" talk show hosts I'm aware of embrace the terms "liberal" and "progressive" equally.   I won't abandon either term just because some other group tries to vilify them or usurp them. The fact that the Nazi's and Stalinist Russia called themselves "socialist" does not mean that socialism was practiced by either, much less that it was the kind of "socialism" that Canada, Scandinavian countries and many other democracies have today.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

"Who you hell are you to judge us."




                      ?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: PoppaGator
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:59 PM

Most intelligent people, in my experience, and people who have well-rounded, fulfilling lives, are more interested in listening to music on the radio than to preaching, rabble-rousing, etc.

That, sadly, is the reason why there is a larger market for sensationalist radio "talk" than for any sane, even-handed discussion of political issues. Those who might constitute an audience for intelligent and balanced political talk generally have better things to do with their time than to sit foaming at the mouth as they dote on the words of some alarmist jackass

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:20 PM

And this seven-year-old news article is relevant how?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 11:29 AM

Radio host calls Rice 'Aunt Jemima' Powell called 'Uncle Tom'
        
Nov. 19: A Madison, Wis., radio host says he is willing to apologize for calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima," but not to her. MSNBC-TV reports.

MILWAUKEE - A radio talk show host drew criticism Thursday after calling Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and saying she isn't competent to be secretary of state.

John Sylvester, the program director and morning personality on WTDY-AM in Madison, said in a phone interview Thursday that he used the term on Wednesday's show to describe Rice and other blacks as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration.

Rice has served as President Bush's national security adviser and was named this week to replace the departing Colin Powell as secretary of state.

Sylvester, who is white, also referred to Powell as an "Uncle Tom" a contemptuous term for a black whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.

He said Thursday night that he was referring to remarks by singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte that the price of admittance for blacks to the Bush White House was subservience.
As for Rice, "they're using her for an illusion of inclusion," he said, adding that he feels her history as national security adviser showed a lack of competence.

'Racially insensitive'
Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz called the remarks "racially insensitive," while Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement he joined "all Wisconsinites in rejecting" the statements.
Linda Hoskins of the NAACP's Madison branch said she could not comment on Sylvester's remarks until she had heard them in their entirety.

The station's corporate office received about 100 calls about his comments, Sylvester said.
He added that he has a long history of commitment to civil rights and has supported Madison's black community.

He said he was planning a giveaway on Friday's show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup. "I will apologize to Aunt Jemima," he said.

The incident came after a radio host in Milwaukee had his talk show taken off the air all of last week after he used the word "wetback" to refer to undocumented Mexican immigrants, sparking protests from Hispanics.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 11:21 AM

Riginslinger says: "If you have people sitting at home--drawing welfare, or whatever else--they won't be listening to the radio; they'll be watching television. I think that's why liberal radio doesn't work. There's simply no audience."


I'm a liberal and proud of it. I've also worked hard all my life. I've never been on welfare, or whatever else. Like most liberals. Who you hell are you to judge us.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 09:07 AM

Genie, while I agree with what you say, beware of getting yourself into the trap of allowing Limburg/Coulter/Beck to redefine the English language. "Liberal" is not the same as "progressive", and is much closer to moderate than any other commonly-used buzzword.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 26 Mar 10 - 01:20 AM

Ringinslinger, please do some more thorough research before you pronounce that there's no audience for liberal talk radio.   Check the stats on liberal talk shows that have been given a chance to compete head-to-head with shows like Limbaugh's, Hannity's, Medved's, etc. - same time slot, comparable signal strength. In many cases those shows have similar ratings to the popular conservative talk shows or even beat them. But even when that has happened, some shows and liberal format stations have been bought out or seen their format change. It's not because of ratings.

Quite to the contrary, it's often when a progressive station or show does well in a market that that's when the station is pulled.

What you say about who listens to talk radio has some validity and could explain conservative radio being more popular than progressive radio. But it cannot explain the almost 95-to-1 ratio of right wing to liberal or even moderate talk radio programs.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 07:24 PM

I know too many right wingers who seem to feed off negative energy. On the rare occasions that I have tried to listen to Howie Carr or Rush Limbaugh it struck me that these flange heads call in just to rave and get some other flange head to agree with them.
I've never learned anything from someone who agreed with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 09:31 PM

I see or hear no real news anymore. It's all about ratings and it is nothing but "Opinion Journalism". There is no law that says the media must tell the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

The thing that made right-wing talk work was the car phone, and then later the cell phone. People were working, driving around in cars and trucks, and these were the folks who never had a political voice before. Reagan refusing to re-enact "The Fairness Doctrine" allowed disc-jockies and others to mouth off without having to express an opposing point of view.
          The call-in format made it work.

          If you have people sitting at home--drawing welfare, or whatever else--they won't be listening to the radio; they'll be watching television. I think that's why liberal radio doesn't work. There's simply no audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM

ichMael - (First off, when you refer to a "Democrat" regime, you tip your hand to show the bias you bring.    The attempt to change the centuries-old name of the Democratic Party (originally the Democratic-Republican Party) dates back to the McCarthy era and is an attempt to manipulate the language in a way that evokes a less favorable reaction to the party's name. It's kind of like calling Israel a "Jew state" instead of a "Jewish state.")


Public broadcasting used to have much more of a liberal bent than it does now (if you think of being pro-civil-rights, etc., as "liberal"). But its public funding has been cut so much that it has relied more and more on grants from private industry, for at least a decade or two, that at best most of its shows try to be as "neutral" as possible, and even bend over backwards not to report stories that would anger their corporate sponsors. They now censor "news" content that might cast those corporate sponsors in a bad light.

When I hear NPR, I don't hear much content in the news shows that's obviously liberal or conservative.   Same goes for PBS. Some shows, e.g., Bill Moyer, have a liberal bent; others, like Wall Street Week, have a pro-business slant; others like Charlie Rose seem pretty neutral.

Conservative radio sprang up when Bill Clinton was elected, with a Democratic majority in Congress.    It was well funded by those who wanted a return to Reagan-type Republican conservatism.

There is not "plenty of balance" on radio and TV, even with public stations included, when so many stories are suppressed either because their content isn't what the big business powers want aired.    So many important issues and stories never get discussed at any length outside of the internet, newspapers, and some "progressive" liberal radio and TV shows. And I'm not just talking about "opinion," I'm talking about the presentation of facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: kendall
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

Personally I have better things to do with my time than to listen to anyone running his mouth from preachers to conservatives to Liberals. If I can't get in on it, screw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM

Air America Corporation, by the way, was mismanaged financially from the outset, including having some outright crooks handling some of the finances. Most of the popular liberal talk radio hosts - Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Alan Colmes, Rachel Maddow, Mike Malloy, etc. - either never were with Air America or left Air America several years ago.    Do not equate Air America with "progressive talk radio" in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Genie
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:33 PM

DougR, progressive talk radio has no problem finding audiences when it's given a chance (i.e., actually put on the air on a station with a strong signal and at a time when people are awake).   There have been many progressive stations that have been bought out by big business conservatives, well-funded right-wing Christian organizations, etc., when the stations and programs were doing very well both with advertisers and with listeners, and the replacement programming often loses listenership. This happens in markets like San Diego, NYC, Chicago, etc.

Many of the right-wing shows do not have a lot of listeners, but sometimes the popular conservative shows like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., refuse to be aired on a station that also airs liberal or non-conservative talk shows.    Many conservative talk radio shows are also given away to some radio stations.   The big business and/or right-wing religious groups who back many of the right-wing talk shows are not primarily concerned with making money off of the radio shows, especially in the short run. Yes, they are motivated by profit, but they see bigger, longer-lasting profit in having powerful influence on the political process - helping to get conservative Christian and/or pro-big-business politicians elected to office.    Talk radio (and TV) is more a matter of advertising and propaganda than a profit center in and of itself.

Limbaugh's radio show lost millions before it finally got heard by enough people often enough to carry its own weight. (Pun noted but not intended.)   Not unlike the way a song can become a hit if enough radio stations play it often enough ("payola," anyone?).

The idiotic part of what seems to be your underlying premise is the idea that there are not enough liberals in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc. to support even one progressive talk radio station, while those areas have many conservative talk shows on air 24-7.
Even a "conservative" city like San Diego is pretty much split 50/50 between Republicans & Democrats, liberals & conservatives. Whichever party wins in an election usually does do by a few percentage points or less.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:33 PM

Twice, actually. Just goes to show that liberals and progressives (which are not at all the same thing) have better things to do with their time.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 07:30 PM

Hey DougR... she got the message and nobody got hurt...
but those crazy French Canadian students made her very nervous...


they also helped to keep us out of Iraq a few years ago.....

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:59 PM

How many times has Air America gone broke, 3 or 4 at least. This doesn't seem to be a format that works for liberal audiences.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 04:15 PM

Guest Bankley: promoting violence? How unprogressive/liberal you must be.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 03:48 PM

meanwhile she had to cancel her speech in Ottawa due to boisterous protesters causing fear for her safety... well done


she might have better luck in Calgary, they love GW Bush out there..

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 02:53 PM

No, Canadians are not ready for the Rush,,, bad enough that Coulter is doing a book tour there... Times like this, I'm glad that I'm away..

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 12:29 AM

First of all, there is nothing particular accurate about the word "liberal" when it is used to stand in contrast to conservatism. This is a false semantic dichotomy.

The word "liberal" meaning inclined toward reciprocal freedoms, has a long and positive history, or did until Ann Coulter decided to twist its meaning and make it into anathema.

Her subliteracy in this regard is only one of the many offenses she has committed and promulgated against the language.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:57 PM

Didn't he say he'd leave the country if the health care bill passed? You Canadians ready?

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 08:30 PM

Miraculous image of St. Rush

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: kendall
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 07:52 PM

How anyone with an IQ over 60 can stand to listen to that bloviating fat head, Limbaugh is a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:38 PM

NPR and PBS are far from liberal. They're the propaganda organs of the corporatocracy that are marketed to liberals, but that's not the same thing as being liberal.

Good point. NPR and PBS are corporate entities that cater to liberals. As far as politics, the organizations are corporatocracies.

I haven't listened to NPR in years, except during the runup to the last presidential election, and the skew was definitely toward Obama. Catering to the liberal audience.

As far a PBS being supported by viewers, I recall most of their programs being funded by trusts and foundadtions and such. Again, that's quasi-govermental, when the Rockefellers and the others who are involved in policy-making take part in programming.

In the early days of radio the Brits went with the government-sponsored option, but in the U.S. (because of our glorious Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech), the govt knew it could not legally monopolize the airwaves, so we went with the commercial model. I personally think NPR and PBS should receive no government money. Let the Rockefeller/Ford/Gates thugs run their propaganda without using my tax money.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: olddude
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

if being conservative means being like the lindbaugh types, i thank God everyday i am liberal

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:00 PM

There are dam**d good reasons why you don't like NPR, PBS and most 'regular' news media....they are trying to be sane & reasonable!

Fox and their conservative base CALLS anything 'liberal' if it is not walk-the-line conservative!

Fox's publicity claim of "fair & balanced" is the biggest laugh out there!

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:59 PM

You have to be so far right that John Birch looks like a commie to think that "NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN and CNBC" are in any way, shape or form "liberal"... Yes, MSNBC does broadcast some liberal shows... It also broadcasts some rather conservative, Republican-leaning shows like "Morning Joe" which happens to also be in a prime am time slot....

As fir the others??? All, like Carol said, corporate shills...

BTW, I don't think of NPR or PBS as "liberal"... Just because they aren't out there screaming for rednecks to kill Obama doesn't make them liberal... It just makes then, ahhhhhhh, civilized and sane...

(Geeze... What a pickle we have on our hands here... Anyone who isn't Rush Limbaugh has to be a liberal...)

Beam me up... There is very little intellgent life left here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:44 PM

IchMael: I agree with your post of 21 March, 10:08 PM. But you failed to mention the other liberal voices on tv and radio: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC. There are lots of liberal voices on the networks. Alan Combs, who is a liberal, also has a talk radio show but I do not know on what network it is produced.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:34 AM

NPR and PBS are far from liberal. They're the propaganda organs of the corporatocracy that are marketed to liberals, but that's not the same thing as being liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: open mike
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 11:15 PM

public broadcasting, whether radio or television is largely supported by individual members who donate because they like what they hear and see and they want to remain free from corporate advertising. NPR and PBS are more removed from the national gov't than CBC canadian broadcasting corp., and the BBC British broadcasting corp.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally - talk radio balance
From: ichMael
Date: 21 Mar 10 - 10:43 PM

But the "contributions" are largely from Trusts and Endowments, which are rooted in the government policy-making apparatus. Call it quasi-governmental backing. NPR and PBS are goverment organs. Not that there's anything wrong with that.