Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

from the just-curious-which-standard-to-use dept

Mon, Feb 21st 2011 1:59pm — Mike Masnick

I'm sort of amazed at the silly and childish political games being played concerning attempts to cut funding here and there, but, seriously can anyone give me a logical explanation why the same folks who are so quick to demand that we stop funding NPR and PBS are so vehemently in favor of sponsoring NASCAR? Frankly, as a fan of both NPR and PBS, but not a fan of governments overspending, I actually think the complaints against pulling the funding from both are a bit overblown. I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it? I'm curious how folks who claim to support smaller government are defending such sponsorship of a private, for-profit operation with taxpayer funding?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: budget, federal government, funding, nascar, npr, pbs

131 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AdamR (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm

It's simple, 98% of the viewers of Sesame Street are not of voting age.
I guess its the Republicans and tea party trying its best to cut off the Democrats an liberal left before they can gain any traction before the next major election cycle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:07pm

"I'm curious how folks who claim to support smaller government are defending such sponsorship of a private, for-profit operation with taxpayer funding?"

Easy. They like NASCAR and hate PBS and NPR. One of the biggest mistakes we make is to assume everyone has a logical basis for their subjective opinions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:11pm

Psh, easy.
NPR and PBS have both managed to become profit making
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing.

NASCAR, on the other hand, is a HUGE money making proposition for whomever hosts a race. I've seen towns of 50,000 people spring up in the middle of nowhere and persist for more than a week at NASCAR events. And everybody who goes there buys gas and snacks on their way to and from the event. It short, it means putting some money into NASCAR likely gets you even more money out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:13pm

There's nothing inconsistent about thinking the federal government's role should be national security and only national security (the NASCAR sponsorship is for military recruiting, whereas PBS and NPR are not).

It's (in my opinion) pretty dumb, and would be dumb even if the NASCAR sponsorship were more effective advertising, but it isn't inconsistent.

There's plenty of "keep the government away from my Medicare" hypocrisy out there in the Republican party these days, but this particular juxtaposition is fully consistent with the party's (dangerously short-sighted) philosophy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teilo (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:16pm

I don't think it's that simple. Home Depot doesn't sponsor NASCAR just because they like NASCAR. They do it because it's good advertising. NASCAR = marketing. The armed forces spend quite a lot of money on marketing, and I imagine their NASCAR sponsorship is dwarfed by their other marketing expenses.

So, while you might argue that the armed forces have no business spending so much money on marketing, I hardly think this is about someone liking NASCAR.

Personally, I can't stand NASCAR, so I can understand why it would grate on your nerves that they budget dollars for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Branden Allmon (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:17pm

Nascar VS. PBS
The NASCAR advertising is pulled from the military recruitment budget. This is an advertising budget used to attract a specific demographic into the military. Where would you advertise ... Phish concerts?

PBS and NPR get much of their funding from the NEA. Without debating the merits of Art in our society a clear core vs. context argument can be made here.

Additionally, with the prevalence of youth cable programming and local radio stations, the historic justification for NPR and PBS are less and less compelling.

Budgets need to be cut. I would submit we need to focus on context, but not exclude core. You can argue that the military's budget needs cut, but arguing that advertising at NASCAR doesn't reach the correct audience would be a stretch at best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scott, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:18pm

Re: Psh, easy.
So, logically, you're saying that without the Army's support of one car NASCAR would stop operating? All of this added bonus would go away? Sure...

You just made the argument that both of these items are similar when it comes to the budget. Look, it's either you get rid of the funding for both of them or you get rid of the funding for neither. Getting rid of one and not the other (no matter which of the two is removed) is just politics as usual. We need better than that right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:22pm

If the Army wants to be a sponsor in NASCAR and feels it gets a return on the investment then wouldn't it make sense to let it pay for it out of the marketing budget?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:25pm

Re: Re: Psh, easy.
Feel free to argue that with your congress-person and/or senator.

All I'm saying is there is no profit to be made by dumping money into NPR or PBS--and they have no real need of the money (for doubters, try looking at job listings for either).

There is, however, definite profit to be made from NASCAR. At the very least, we should be pleased our politicians can do simple math and tell the difference between positive and negative income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:29pm

Saying that the DoD sponsors NASCAR is like saying it sponsors television stations every time an Army ad runs. NASCAR is pure advertising for them, nothing more. Comparing it to NPR and PBS is apples and oranges. I agree that CPB should keep its funding and the DoD should have its funding cut but this is a huge stretch of an argument to make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:29pm

Because the morons in this country just love watching those cars go round and round. I have friends and family that wouldn't leave a burning building if NASCAR was on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:30pm

Re:
They do. It's pulled from the DoD's "recruitment" budget, which is military slang for "marketing".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:31pm

It's just another chapter in the continuing saga called political hypocrisy. They go after one of their pet peeves using the budget as an excuse, but this and other petty attacks do not come close to achieving a balanced budget. They do not see or they fail to acknowledge the elephants in the room.

fta: "... eliminating funding for CPB, estimating that it would save the government $500 million in 2015"

This could cover an additional two days of our unfunded expenditures in Iraq & Afghanistan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Murphy (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:33pm

Re: Psh, easy.
NASCAR, on the other hand, is a HUGE money making proposition for whomever hosts a race.

Please provide evidence that the US Army is hosting a race.

I've seen towns of 50,000 people spring up in the middle of nowhere and persist for more than a week at NASCAR events.

So does Burning Man. Either the US Army should support NASCAR and Burning Man, or neither.

And everybody who goes there buys gas and snacks on their way to and from the event.

Is the US Army holding a bake sale, whereby sponsoring a car will increase the number of pies that get sold?

It short, it means putting some money into NASCAR likely gets you even more money out of it.

Please provide evidence where the US Army "gets...even more money out of it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Psh, easy.
I never suggested the Army was hosting a race--but they do normally happen in one of the continental United States. Kindly pay attention.

"Either the US Army should support NASCAR and Burning Man, or neither."
"All or Nothing" is a false dichotomy. Try again.

"Please provide evidence where the US Army "gets...even more money out of it"."
Sorry, I left the State multi-tiered comprehensive income database in my other pants. However, feel free to demonstrate how the Army's NASCAR investment is not a cost effective method of recruitment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh King (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:50pm

Silly Post
+1 to Brandon's point - the Army has a recruitment budget, and they do all sorts of marketing, including TV spots, print ads, brochures, and yes, sponsoring a NASCAR team, to drive recruitment.

Comparing the NASCAR sponsorship to NPR funding? You might as well say the feds are sponsoring the NY Times and NBC when they buy recruiting ads.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kaot, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:51pm

The answer to the title is actually quite easy:
"panem et circenses"
(Bread and Games) as the roman Poet Juvenal said.
Basically, education is not essential for any government to stay in power. A distracted public on the other hand is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:56pm

Re: Psh, easy.
You mean it transfers money to host communities from the surrounding areas. It's a broken windows fallacy to say that the same money wouldn't be spent elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DCX2, 21 Feb 2011 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
There is, however, definite profit to be made from NASCAR.

Oh no, the US Army is crowding out private investment in NASCAR!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:01pm

Re: Nascar VS. PBS
It would be worth it if the Army's car had a gunner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karr, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:05pm

Stupid debate
I wish everyone in the media would get something straight. The Army does not sponsor NASCAR, nor do they fund NASCAR. They sponsor a team that races in NASCAR, and by that they bought the primary advertiser spot on that team's cars/merchandise. NASCAR itself could care less if they were there or not except for the fact that they might lose a team if they don't find a different sponsor.

The Army on the other hand does care because it is damn good advertising. NASCAR fans are very loyal to the sponsor's of their favortie drivers. According to Col. Crotts 46,000 out of the 150,000 leads Army recruiters get each year come through motorsport events (Google it). If you sponsor a good driver, for a couple million a year you can get a ton of air-time. A lot more than buying commercial slots.

The real question that should be asked is should the budget for advertising for the Army be cut, not who the Army is allowed to advertise with. If they want to cut that budget, then fine, do so and let the Army figure out where they want to spend the money they end up getting. This is one of the most asinine debates I have seen in a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ccomp5950 (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:07pm

Easy explanation.
Circuses and Bread.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kirk (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re: Psh, easy.
However, if your argument is that the expense is an effective use of their advertising budget, I agree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm

I think it strange
I have always wondered why we dont have an accounting firm go over all the expenditures, our gov makes and Tells us in straight english Where the MONEY IS GOING.

Isnt there a Level of government that is SUPPOSED to be responsible to the tax payer(?) with this knowledge that can TELL US IN ENGLISH and simple language, where the money went?

I also find it very strange, that Many Laws/bills/.. past in congress have these ADDONS, that ask/transport/send money to OTHER SOURCES besides what the BILL IS to pay for.

Going thru all the paper work, and finally deciding WHERE the money went/is going, would be worse then the paper work for a Muti-tiered Corp and all the subsidiaries.(thats how people steal Millions and it takes years to find out)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:09pm

Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

Sure, but your not going to like it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
I wondered how long it would take for recruitment to show up. IMO this is the ONLY rationalization for the Army sponsoring a NASCAR or NHRA team. I would love to see the stats on how those teams affect recruitment. Some how i doubt it would be much. I can understand the Army team(s) in college sports, but I don't get the racing teams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay Flatiron, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:17pm

The difference is in the goals. PBS wants to entertain children while teaching them values, numbers, and the alphabet. NPR aims to bring "important stories, insight and delight to audiences everywhere" (Quote from their site). While the money spent on the Army racing programs ($12m total a year between NASCAR and drag racing teams) goes to machines that eat gas, rubber, and metal to recruit 46,000 of our young adults a year to be shot or exploded in foreign countries that have no direct value to their lives.

Which is more important to our current elected officials: smart, independent, and informed citizens? or more cogs for their war machine?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:27pm

NASCAR is more relatable to knuckle dragging Deliverance-style hicks that make up the Republican demographic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:30pm

Re: I think it strange
That would be the GAO http://www.gao.gov/

It's the only arm of the government, that I'm aware of, that actually does a damn good job. The problem is they don't have any enforcement powers. They sit on the sidelines, slam various agencies for being all screwed up, and then nothing comes of it.

The really screwed up part is if we actually gave them real power instead of them actually fixing things all the other agencies would become interested in the GAO and start gaining influence and screwing it up like everything is screwed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:31pm

Mike, you, and a good half or so of the early commenters here, just got snookered by liberal columnist at the NYT.

There's really no comparison between the two item spends, as quite a few later commenters have pointed out.

The army "sponsoring" a team in NASCAR is really a pure advertising spend, no different than any of their other recruiting efforts. It would be just as appropriate to say the military "funds" comedy central or wherever else they advertise. It's also some low millions of dollars, perfectly in line with other media campaigns. Whether that's worthwhile or not is really a pure marketing decision, no more complicated than that.

On the other hand, the government really does "fund" and sponsor PBS in the traditional sense, and perhaps more troublingly, NPR. It's ~$450 million or so, and there's actually a lot of obfuscation on this number, it could be a good bit more in total. Now, trotting out sesame street is a little like saying "we censored for the children," isn't? We all like Kermit, and I'm a huge Nova fan besides. Problem is that a huge part of that budget goes to shows that really liberal advocacy programs, especially on NPR. How would you feel if the NYT (liberal) or Foxnews (conservative) were 20% funded by the federal government? It would be a huge problem, I'm pretty sure you would agree.

It's public funding of a company in a market that is thriving quite well without the help. If PBS can't survive on it's own merits, than it shouldn't survive.

There is no equivalency between these two programs, but Gail Collins would deeply like you to think there is, and apparently she succeeded.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:35pm

Re:
OK, not that I actually wanted to argue on this level, but more cogs for the war machine, seriously. That's the prime responsibility of the federal government. The states might want to educate you, or you can pay for it on your own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jake, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:41pm

I couldn't stand Sesame Street when I was a kid, but I'm moderately fond of racing. Does that count?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drokkon, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:42pm

Brandon, Karr and Josh are dead-on: it's impossible to compare the funding of public broadcasting with military recruiting, and this debate is asinine for a plethora of reasons (not the least of which would be that its just another lame excuse for one party to mischaracterize the other). I'd say shame on the Times for publishing such a lame opinion, but I've come to expect that; shame on Techdirt for propagating it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
I never suggested the Army was hosting a race--but they do normally happen in one of the continental United States. Kindly pay attention.

I'm more interested in why you think NASCAR will stop having races in the US if they don't get free money from the government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:51pm

Re: Re:
Slang? I mean, it's a marketing budget, yes, but a marketing budget for recruitment. I would think either term appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:54pm

the lie big
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." ~ Adolf Hitler
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steven (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 3:57pm

I have to say I'm rather disappointed in both Mike and many of the commenters here on this one.

As pointed out by some, the Army/NASCAR relationship is one of advertising paid out of the Army's recruitment (marketing) budget. The relationship from the Army/NASCAR funding to the funding of both PBS and NPR is, at best, that federal government funds are used for both.

"I think there are some creative things that both NPR and PBS could do to make up the difference if they lost federal funding. However, if we are going to cut public broadcasting, then it seems only reasonable to cut sponsoring NASCAR as well, doesn't it?"

If we are going to cut funding for the arts it only seems reasonable to stop the Marines from making all those cool commercials right? It's the same comparison.

There are perfectly valid debates and points that can be brought up separately about both these spending items, but lumping them together is simply asking for repub vs dem flame wars with no real content because they can't be intelligently compared to each other. Mike, I know this is a free site, but I've come to expect better of you.

Personally I think the federal government massively overspends on just about everything and has it's hands in things it has no business in. I think we should have a much smaller federal government and the state governments should pick up the slack (which I would expect to involve higher taxes in most cases). The federal governments ability to royally screw up is directly proportional to it's size and power.

I'd also like to point out that no party has ever made the federal government actually smaller.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:01pm

Re: Re:
"That's the prime responsibility of the federal government."

The best defense is a good offense eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:17pm

Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
I might actually watch NASCAR then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:23pm

What people don't understanding about advertising with NASCAR is that it isn't all good advertising. NASCAR fans usually hate certain drivers. Let Newman's Army car hit Jr's and Jr's fans will hate Army. That's one reason lots of sponsors are leaving NASCAR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 4:30pm

I want to weigh in by saying I hate Nascar. I can live without NPR, but I did like PBS when I still had TV.

I wish there were no money to be made in it. If people stopped supporting Nascar maybe we'd have fewer people having relations with their sister/cousin/mothers and raping dogs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deirdre (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:00pm

Both the Navy and the Marine Corps stopped sponsoring NASCAR because they were not sure it worked-- http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/02/ap-military-house-vote-pentagon-nascar-021811/ So what evidence does the Army (National Guard, Air Force) have that it is an effective use of money?

Considering that NASCAR actually entered into a relationship with Harlequin Romance to produce romance novels with NASCAR theme but "Nascar has put some limits on these branded Harlequin books in order to maintain its family image: no booze, no drugs, no sex." I'm not sure who the average NASCAR fan is now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:06pm

Spokane county bought a NASCAR raceway with taxpayer money
Here in Spokane, Wa, our County Commissioners bid twice as much money as a private investor, there by overpaying, to purchase a money losing motor speedway. The contractor they hired to bring the site up to date then failed to pay subcontractors - another million $s ending up as a lien against the taxpayers. A construction worker on the site also ended up killed in accident.

This money losing County owned business was bought and paid for by taxpayers because the local county commissioners saw it as a way to buy "NASCAR votes" from this blue collar community. Sad but true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PolyPusher (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:32pm

Why does Nascar want money from our armed forces?
Wouldn't it be more patriotic for Nascar to allow military sponsorship for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:34pm

My objection is that funding NASCAR is too close to funding religion. There are too many 3's on cars around here and the 24ers are nearly as prevalent.

Of course the real reason for the congress to fund NASCAR is that FOX runs a bunch of the races-- Just like in politics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 5:49pm

Re:
I think this is due to the Army, Air Force and Navy target different demographics. Take a look at the advertising each branch uses: it's pretty obvious that "redneck NASCAR watcher" is not who the Air Force or Navy prefers in their ranks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis McDonald, 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:35pm

apples and oranges
I used to be totally against federal funding of public broadcasting and believed that the vast variety of cable TV programming made such funding superfluous. Having seen what passes for "history"and "science" on so much cable TV, though, I think it's good that such quality programming as produced by public broadcasting should be encouraged, not discouraged. As a society we should encourage quality, not dumb things down, which happens on many cable TV documentaries.

As far as NASCAR is concerned, I question the wisdom of spending tax dollars to recruit there; you're talking to a convinced audience. Scarce marketing dollars should instead be channeled into markets that need more convincing.

Plus, I think anybody who believes that public broadcasting isn't being targeted for political reasons is completely out of touch; "liberal" public broadcasting has been the target of the right for years and this current political climate is an opportunity to get even, even if it means contributing to the dumbing down of the population. Public broadcasting is about as conservative as any mainstram programming source; in recent years they've bent over backwards to give all sides a voice and have really pulled punches on outing the liars for fear of being accused of taking sides. Perceptions of "liberalism," I fear, are a holdover from the 80's, like calling the Washington Post "liberal."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tina Louise, 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:39pm

Because Sesame Street doesn't bring in young men to join the army to die in illegal and immoral foreign wars, that's why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johaus (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 6:52pm

Re: Matt Bennett
I think Matt is the first to really hit this on the head: it is not hypocrisy or even confusing at all. Conservatives/Republicans dislike NPR because of a perceived liberal bias and don't want tax dollars going to fund it. NASCAR is not a political organization and does not make political comments through its official capacity � unless patriotism and the like is considered political.

Furthermore, as is mentioned above, DoD is not "funding" NASCAR anymore than Pepsi is funding NBC. I must echo the disappointment in Mike that others have said; how frequently do we discuss on this site the difference between posters and site owners? DoD is using the forum of a NASCAR car sponsorship to reach potential recruits (and very effectively as has been shown above). CPB, PBS, NPR on the other hand are analogous to the forum itself, which is funded directly by tax payer dollars.

If Mike has a problem with encouraging military recruiting, he can feel free to espouse that, but it is not hypocritical for critics of NPR to stand behind funding of (successful) military recruitment advertising, while concurrently seeking to remove funding for political rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:01pm

Re: Re: Re:
Yes....? Dur.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johaus (profile), 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:06pm

Techdirt is being hypocritical
One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with. MPAA, RIAA, etc. should be brought into the future, instead of using laws to maintain their obsolete business models. The market has spoken and the old ways of doing business are no more.

Public broadcasting has more in common with the legacy media groups than is being highlighted here. The successful enterprises, like Sesame Street, will have no trouble surviving any government cuts. While those properties that fail in the marketplace will no longer be produced. This may be disheartening to those who think America is being "dumbed down," but it is entirely consistent with the Techdirtian view of economics.

It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets. Techdirt is constantly talking about alternative business/funding models for content creation - surely these highly prized Public Broadcasting properties can find sponsorship through one of these models. If not, I don't think they will be missed, since no one will be engaging with them anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:08pm

Re:
I don't think it's particularly important to this discussion whether sponsoring a NASCAR team is the best use of the army's advertising dollar, or not. I'm not a marketer, but I suspect they know their business and it is at least comparable to other options. Point is, is that it is merely a marketing strategy and that's the only level it need be evaluated on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:21pm

Re: apples and oranges
UH.....who said it wasn't being targeted for political reasons? It has a liberal agenda (or many programs do) and it's getting federal dollars. So, republicans want to defund it, and democrats want to pretend it's an outrage. That's a political basis. I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

But riddle me this, if they were really "as conservative as any mainstream programming source" (let's not get into what a laugh that is) then why, oh why, would republicans be so enraged by their being funded by the federal government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 7:49pm

The answer is amazingly simple...
Neither PBS or NPR have box-seats.... NASCAR most certainly does... and offers them to sponsors!

Junket anyone? (after all the taxpayers funded it - we should get to use them)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pinky: Egad. You astound me, Brain.
Brain: That's a simple task, Pinky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 21 Feb 2011 @ 8:27pm

Re: Re: apples and oranges
"It has a liberal agenda"

That's right. Why just the other day I saw on Nova a discussion of evolution as if it were something that could really happen. I was outraged! And then they had the nerve to broadcast both sides of the global climate change thingie. Who do they think they are anyways. They even try to convince you that the earth goes around the sun - egads, that's enough to make yer head explode.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AW, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:06pm

Re: Re: apples and oranges
Yes it's those liberal facts...you realize that the same people who call PBS and NPR "liberal" are the same people who believe Fox "News" Channel is actually without bias. I have a 1 year old daughter so I spend A LOT of time watching PBS and sprout and I hardly think that learning languages, numbers and promoting healthy lifestyles, all of which provide long term benefits has a liberal agenda. There's no politics involved...you probably would love to do away with those liberal public schools too and those public roads...just admit you're a conservative, libertarian or tea party activist and get off your high horse. The arts and education doesn't have liberal agenda. They are underfunded because long term results don't play well with voters, plain and simple.

I mean seriously, you gloss over the huge impact that these programs can have over an entire lifetime and push kids to die in foreign wars that cost more in one day than one year of programming. What kind of monster are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
monkyyy, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:35pm

Re:
speaking of the military ad fund wouldnt that be a good place to cut?
as someone who has no intension to ever join(wouldn't go unless this government starts doing better, no amount of money or legal treats could make me risk my life), and in the age group that they target to brain wash(late middle school to a few months till out of highschool) I CAN SAY THEY SPEND TO MUCH AND IT DOESNT WORK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reply, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:36pm

Re:
It's simple, democrats want to indoctrinate children at a young age. Plus, dems have no issue claiming they care about the saftey of this great country, but really only want to see low income and under educated serve in the military.
Add to this the holier than thou attidtude of the left and this type of rhetoric is what is spewed.
No group is greater at taking money for political favors then the left. NO GROUP. The left has one agenda....take from the working class and 'rich' (as though they are evil), keep most for themselves, give a bit to the needy and keep the needy wanting more. This is the leftist way and has been for centuries. Perhaps we should take from the rcih...like the hollywood elite...a nice fat tax on their net worth...say 80%...what do they really 'need it for'? Bet that would not fly with you leftist as you buy your politicians off. Prhaps instead of asking for money to feed the poor, you could give up 80% of your money to feed the poor. Really, $1M from a hollywood liberal who has $500M and we are supposed to think they are generous.

Perhaps it is these folks who should fund the public(social) airwaves???

You left who think freedom is free sicken the rest of us.
I thought hope and change was supposed to close Gitmo, get us out of all foriegn lands and get the rest of the world to love us because we 'understood' and blah blah. Well, news flash, the rest of the world is laughing at us (again - thanks Carter), and think our leaders are weak, immature and naive. Read the news (not just listen to CNN and MSNBC) and you'll get the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karr, 21 Feb 2011 @ 9:56pm

Re: Why does Nascar want money from our armed forces?
NASCAR is not the recipient for the sponsorship, a car team is. They are an independent company that races at NASCAR races and that sponsorship is their primary source of funds, so no they cannot just sponsor them for free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Feb 2011 @ 10:22pm

Re: Nascar VS. PBS
Thank God the Army sponsored a NASCAR driver, I'd never have heard of them otherwise!

And who knew they were hiring?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:28am

Re: Re: apples and oranges
You mean like Planned Parenthood has a 'liberal' bias? Here's a hint - it doesn't. The Republicans are vastly overplaying their hand.

PBS is a public service, and you should be grateful that it even exists in the climate of Faux news and MSNo News Here. Yet it's being defunded to help run a 'war' that the US is losing, because it doesn't know how to cellularise the military.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:29am

Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
I agree with the sentiment you make. However, you're not seeing it completely - the program is being defunded to advertise in NASCAR. And that's the main problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:37am

Sesame Street encourages kids to think for themselves and to learn.

NASCAR is just entertainment for which you don't have to think.
Just sit there and watch those drivers make left hand turns, eat your popcorn, drink your beer, and get fat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:41am

Re:
Go ahead then, explain it.

BTW, it's "you're" as in "you are" not "your".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnoNY, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:22am

Easy
This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnoNY, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:22am

Easy
This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AnoNY, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:22am

Easy
This is an easy explanation: The Army is sponsoring a NASCAR car for the same reason that any other organization does it, advertisement. The car will reach the Army's core audience of potential military men and women.

On the other hand, how much of an uproar would there be if the Army started branding a kid's show like Sesame Street? Liberal parents would be writing daily letters in opposition!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:29am

Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
It would be easy for you if everyone that disagreed with you were a religious anachronism, wouldn't it?

Regardless, you failed to contest the point. If they weren't promoting a liberal agenda (a real one, not this "evolution" voodoo you're going on about) then why would conservatives care one way or the other?

Fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oohh, I love Pinky and the Brain! Narf!

Regadless, dude, yes, I rate convincing young men to give 4 years of their life fighting abroad (which is much, much better than them fighting here) as much more important than funding entertainment and biased journalism that there's already a market for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:53am

Re: Re:
Seriously? Centuries?

Most of your statements are not 'the leftist way' but just what most of the right want people to think of the left. i'm not saying the left doesn't have its fair share of corruption, but its by and large not as bad as you make it out to be. if you truly believe that, you're no longer thinking for yourself. the left and the right are both corrupt.

Also, you need to work on your writing skills. To be honest, I can barely follow your thoughts. They're all over the place. The punctuation is really confusing too. I don't think you know how to use an ellipsis. Also, i don't know where you're getting this 80% number either.

then your last paragraph is just a mess as well. you must believe you're preaching to the choir because you don't bother explaining *any* point you're making. we don't necessarily believe what you're saying, so you can't just say something is true and expect to persuade or even have a decent debate with anybody.

you come across as someone who thinks that they are absolutely right. i have news for you, you're not. that's a fact. i don't know if you just want to try to insult individuals or what, but your purpose for commenting is largely lost on me. if you're not trying to persuade somebody to your point of view, then you're only doing this to convey some sense of 'holier than thou' attitude that you're right, everybody else is wrong. its completely hypocritical and in the end, devoid of any real meaning.

i could throw in a jab and say this is typical of the right... but i feel the joke would be lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:56am

Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Look, man, I'm pro-choice, myself, but PP mostly is involved in abortions. It advocates on behalf of a pro-choice agenda, for obvious reasons. I don't have a problem with any of that, but how is that not liberal? I DO have problem with them getting gov funding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:58am

Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
"NPR and PBS have both managed to become profit making
entities by way of selling advertisements, exactly as other radio/television corporations do. They have no need of public backing."

NASCAR managed to become profit making entities by way of selling advertisements (and tickets, and merchandise, ad deals, selling ads, and many more) just like every other sporting league does. they have no need of public backing.

it's really funny how ridiculously blind you are to the double standard you're making.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"4 years of their life fighting abroad "

1) Fighting for what, exactly. The fed is tasked with defense of this country, not world domination.

2) Four years is apparently not enough these days is it?

I'm in favor of the volunteer army in lieu of the draft. The fact that they have to advertise is telling in itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:10am

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Sort of naive aren't you?

So, which "liberal" topic found on PBS is objectionable? Please be specific.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jimr (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:14am

If you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people
NASCAR most likely lobbies and when the politicians come to an event they get special treatment.

Sesame Street is often to confusing to most politicians, the words are big and the concepts are difficult to understand - Especially that silly sharing concept. The Math makes no sense at all as all politicians know that 1 + 1 = 3 for sufficiently large values of 1.

It is obvious if you want government funding you cater to the politicians not what is best for the people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, I was in the army, trust me, the gig needs selling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:25am

Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
The RIAA & MPAA are for profit business, PBS is not. To compare the two as if they were in the same market is dishonest at best.

In addition, I do not see educational material coming out of either the RIAA or the MPAA. Determining what should be made available as educational material should not be left to the market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Almost everything on NPR has liberal spin to it, with the possible exception of Planet Money (which I'm a huge fan of, and I almost feel tries to be liberal, but logic wins through). Do you remember the Juan Williams controversy? Were you awake that month? That's really what started this thing, btw. Tell you what, let's give Fox News $450 million in federal funds. Then we can both be equally unhappy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:32am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Almost everything on NPR has liberal spin to it, with the possible exception of Planet Money (which I'm a huge fan of, and I almost feel tries to be liberal, but logic wins through). Do you remember the Juan Williams controversy? Were you awake that month? That's really what started this thing, btw. Tell you what, let's give Fox News $450 million in federal funds. Then we can both be equally unhappy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:39am

Re: Nascar VS. PBS
as always, killing people is more important than art.

budgets do need to be cut. cut out four JSF from the final order and fund PBS and NPR for years and years. I would suggest you would be getting a much hire ROI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:39am

Re: The answer is amazingly simple...
So......I wouldn't discount that as a reason, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Comparing PBS to Fox News, that's rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 5:56am

It's not that simple
A lot of comments about how the Army sponsorship is advertising while PBS and NPR are "funded", without any mention of the difference in costs, or the alternative means for either. If the Army stopped sponsoring a NASCAR car, they still have MANY avenues for advertising and recruitment. If NPR and PBS go un-funded, they have ONE WAY to raise capital, fund raising. So while they aren't really in the same realm of expense category from the governments perspective, they are comparable under the umbrella of "what should we be spending money on". Personally, I think the armed forces commercials are pretty darn cool (and can't be cheap to produce), and are VERY effective at raising the interest of the young people they're targeting. The NASCAR only hits NASCAR fans, not a wider audience, so from a cost-benefit perspective, it's not the most cost effective, and isn't that what we're after?

NASCAR does raise a lot of interest and money, but it has it's downside too. Gateway Speedway in St. Louis has closed recently, completely.. why? Because after 5+ years of being promised a cup-series race by NASCAR, they took the race to Arkansas (or Oklohoma, don't remember which).. The track here couldn't cover expenses after that and closed. So everyone in the area loses NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA and club racing. Yep, they sure deserve my tax dollars...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Are you incapable of having perspective on this? I actually think both PBS and the NYT are more biased, at least in their basic reporting, than FOX. FOX, on the other hand, has a host of conservative commenters and then straight reporting whihc is relatively fair. I suspect you have a different opinion, that's fine, but if you refuse to admit the analogy, you're basically giving up any pretense of reasonable conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rocco, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:39am

Re: Re: The answer is amazingly simple...
I have the answer. Sesame Street needs to provide in product placement of the Army, then Sesame street could go after these add dollars. One episode could be the sesame street animals enlist. Another could be them fighting in a war in such a way that people watching want to join the army. That way PBS is funded and the army gets advertising. Everyone will be happy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
I believe the point that many, many people are making is that PBS should be a for profit business, that has to survive on it's own. Or hell, it can be a non-profit that survives on viewer contributions, that's generous I think, but fine. They're fond of saying that's where most of their funding comes from. Point it, they should stand on their own merits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
erin, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:07am

Re: Psh, easy.
Try 200,000 people. The Texas Motor Speedway gets that easily when you count spectators and vendors. It's a HUGE economical boon to the area.

NPR has just turned into a democrat shill agency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
erin, 22 Feb 2011 @ 7:09am

"although given car racing�s sinking popularity,"

This past Daytona 500 set viewership records, actually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian Schroth (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:26am

I hate NASCAR and like NPR/PBS, but this article is ridiculous. The Army isn't "funding" NASCAR. It is buying a product (advertising) from NASCAR.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BigKeithO (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:27am

Re:
The US military spends $250 million a day on those 2 wars?! Wow... That's sustainable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Psh, easy.
Yes.....and the only public backing for NASCAR is that the army is essentially buying an ad (it happens to be wrapped around a car) same as they do during the superbowl.

Did you miss that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:55am

Re: Psh, easy.
It short, it means putting some money into NASCAR likely gets you even more money out of it.

So what kind of RoI has NASCR promised Congress?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:59am

Re: Nascar VS. PBS
Additionally, with the prevalence of youth cable programming .. the historic justification for ... PBS [is] less and less compelling.

Historically, the availability of cable programs for children has never impacted the segment of the population that watches PBS.

In other words, they're poor, dumbass. They can't afford Sprout.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Selling is different than the wholesale lies peddled by most recruiters.

Says the daughter of Air Force parents, relative of Army and Navy family, wife to a veteran Marine, living in a military town.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, you're saying I don't get to battle a dragon ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:37am

I disagree with having my taxpayer money go to NPR. I'd rather hurt myself with a penny than giving it to NPR. They are liberal biased as all hell, even if they were conservative i would disagree with giving money. They need to be neutral and do what they are supposed to: be a public radio not a propaganda machine. Same goes to NASCAR, no money for them either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bruce Ediger (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:25am

Re: Re:
I really have to agree. Even the visible DoD budget appears bloated and corrupt and wasteful. That doesn't include the estimate 30 to 50 Billion dollars of "black budget", which is apparently a complete and utter waste of time and money.

Seriously. Black budget should not exist. Statistically speaking there's only a very few secrets of national importance. There's huge numbers of career-ending blunders and opportunities for graft, kickbacks & etc.

Statistically speaking, the black budget is guaranteed to be all waste. That's right, all fat, and no meat. Ditch it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe L'Amarca, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:03pm

info for you
If you dont like the rules of the Roman empire ! then dont go to Rome !!! if you dont like what they do with your tax dollar dont give them any more money !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re:
Is that you Glenn, Rush, Sean, or are you just a mind-numbed robot spewing their garbage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
atalexa (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm

Because with cuts to NASCAR sponsorship you get death threats
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sirprometheus (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm

Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
I don't know where you'd find the demographic, but I very much suspect the viewership of PBS is more affluent than the average.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M J Cowan (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 1:32pm

If we are so in debt as a nation that we have to cut health programs and veteran's benefits, why can't we cut out the $12 million+ spent on car sponsorships? Does that money really gain any recruitment over tradional methods? How many people join just because Ryan Newman, someone who ranked 15th last year, drove the Army car?

Maybe we ought to take care of the veterans this country currently has instead of trying to get new recruits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MisterHux (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 2:49pm

Re:
NPR is only "Liberal" because it makes you think.

Conservatives don't like that cause they would rather tell you want to think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ClueBy4, 22 Feb 2011 @ 3:36pm

We always seem to forget Right of Way
I thought NPR\PBS funding was part of the abysmally small compensation that public receives for granting right of way access (eg land and spectrum usage).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 22 Feb 2011 @ 4:56pm

Re:
That kinda misses the point. Military budget is going to $X, and thus the recruitment budget will be $Y. Is it really for us to micro-manage how that budget is spent? I assume they have competent marketers, and they probably know better than us what is or is not effective. Is NASCAR inherently offensive? Why do you want to dictate where that is spent? Do you care, particularly, how Coco-Cola spends it's ad dollars? I don't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
You really think that kids with cable choose PBS over Nickelodeon, Sprout, and DisneyXD?

I'd totally take that bet, if there were a reliable place to view the demographics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, Joe. Marines do not, in fact, get to battle dragons.

I mean, it's possible that dragons will be genetically designed sometime in the future, escape their masters, and run rampant overseas, requiring Marine intervention...

...but it's not likely. :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:32pm

Re: Re: Matt Bennett
NASCAR is not a political organization and does not make political comments through its official capacity...

I'm pretty sure that Between the Lions, Arthur, and the like are apolitical as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 22 Feb 2011 @ 6:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
I actually think both PBS and the NYT are more biased, at least in their basic reporting, than FOX.

Which show, exactly, is more biased than Fox? Between the Lions, Zooboomafu, the Nightly Business Report, or Nova?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC, 23 Feb 2011 @ 3:36am

Re: It's not that simple
It's advertising money fot the military. If Congress where to ban them from sponsoring NASCAR due to this rhetoric, it would still be spent elsewhere. This entire discussion is rhetoric trying to get people to buy the idea that the GOP are a bunch of NASCAR-loving idiots who hate education, the arts, and women. I call BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crystal, 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:17am

Re:
I thought Nascar and Budweiser went together like peanut butter and jelly (both of which I hate). What's this about no beer and "family image"? I'll politely refrain from my "all in the family" jokes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Besides..., 23 Feb 2011 @ 11:54am

In all reality, what's the overall percentage for NPR/PBS versus the INCREDIBLE waste going on in our government? .001%? .00001%? Seriously, THIS is the most CUTTING you could do?!?!?!?

It's just sad. They aren't elected reps, they aren't even politicians, they're individuals who have figured out how to make money of the "people" they claim to represent. Do you think ANYONE of them, their families, or their friends are affected by ANY of the cuts they're making? Hell no, their families/friends are doing just fine, making millions, it's off the backs of the "everyman" they make their money, and will continue to do so as long as the "everyman" screams "dirt liberals!" whenever we try to make them see the truth.

At this point I'm seriously considering going Tyler Durden on the whole bunch. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 23 Feb 2011 @ 6:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
A) It's really not like the majority of PBS is kids programming.

B) If we were talking about kids programming (we were not) I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.

C) It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs. I pay for it, apparently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TC, 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:22am

NASCAR
Think about it folks. Driving 500 miles in a circle at 200 miles an hour. Where you can see 2-20 vehicle car crashes and not not be involved in it, while you swill beer and throw chicken bones at the track and/or tv. Now look at what Sesame Street promotes. Big yellow bird and some muppets that don't swear, fight, and are fiends on grammar and pronunciation. Which one would you fund for the sheeple to be mesmerized with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
PP mostly is involved in abortions.

No, it's less than 1% of what they do, as a whole, and many locations don't even offer abortion services, although they can generally point you in the direction of a for-profit abortion provider.

Not a single PP in my state offers abortion, but they all offer low-cost exams, birth control, and free condoms, all of which were particularly important services when I was a teenager.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
It's really not like the majority of PBS is kids programming.

Yes, actually, it is like that. Because not only is the majority of their programming for kids, but the programming with the highest viewership is for kids. No matter how you slice it, PBS is primarily a kid's channel.

If we were talking about kids programming (we were not)...

Actually, some of us were. Specifically, the justification for PBS.

...I'm relatively sure that the parents that limit their kids to PBS or other "educational" programming are the more affluent ones.

We weren't discussing parental limits, we were discussing economic limits. Children without cable generally don't have other choices. It's PBS or nothing.

Well, I guess talk shows aren't nothing exactly, but what was your childhood preference? Children's shows or soap operas?

Parents with cable choices may choose to limit their children to PBS, but why would they bother when Sprout runs children's programming - with many of the same shows - 24 hours a day?

It seems every poor family had cable and 3 TVs.

Really? Did you actually know any poor families? Because all of the poor families I knew, including my own, had one TV, local channels, and a limited amount of furniture space.

Of course, cable isn't even offered in many rural areas, so I really am unsure where you're getting these ideas from.

...I pay for it, apparently.

You pay for what? Their non-existent cable? Explain, Lucy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:21am

Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
One of the the most consistent themes of Techdirt is that government-backed monopolies for legacy business models should be done away with.

I disagree. Techdirt has a problem with government-backed monopolies for legacy business models that are interfering with innovation and/or competition. PBS and NPR (and libraries, which they've previously defended) aren't interfering with innovation or blocking competition.

In fact, you can't even call public broadcasting a monopoly, since the market has provided so much quality competition that some people believe that PBS and NPR are no longer needed. That certainly doesn't sound like a monopoly to me.

It seems to me hypocritical to support the use of the power of the federal government to confiscate money from Americans to fund television and radio programs that cannot survive the free markets.

So you think Techdirt should also support defunding prenatal care, public schools, public roads, and libraries because they can't survive the free market? That's certainly interesting.

I think you're confusing Mike Masnick's belief in what the market can do with his belief in what people should do. There is a difference, you know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: Re: Techdirt is being hypocritical
Or hell, it can be a non-profit that survives on viewer contributions, that's generous I think, but fine. They're fond of saying that's where most of their funding comes from.

Wow, you are really stupid. The tagline about 'Viewers Like You' doesn't mean that 8-year-old children give their pocket money to PBS. It means that your tax money funds them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
I'm sorry, it's just almost none of the things you say are true.

No, PBS is not majority kids content. (might I point out that we were really talking about funding for public broacasting company, which includes both NPR and PBS, and NPR is where most of the problem is, but hell, PBS has it's problem too.)

I think it's just silly that you think the majority of poor families give up cable TV. It would be nice if they did, that certainly should be the first thing they cut, but it isn't. And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable. Many of them, btw, I have noticed have strangely nice cars. If you fit in these categories, and this doesn't apply to you, great, very good for you, but it just isn't the norm.

ANd lastly, I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS. I would think that it would be great if they did, I'm actually very supportive of PBS as an educational tool, I certainly love NOVA, and I think it could help break the cycle of poor=uneducated. But it's just not the way of it. If you are the exception, again, hats of to you, but it's just not the norm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:16pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Again, ma'am there is simply no way that is in any way true, either by hours spent (not the procedure itself, you have to count the exams and consultations leading up to an abortion in the cases which do so) nor in revenue.

Your assertions are ridiculous on their face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 24 Feb 2011 @ 6:19pm

Re:
It's not the only thing I want to cut, by any means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nascar VS. PBS
I'm sorry, it's just almost none of the things you say are true.

That's rich coming from a guy that has asserted that Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion service and that PBS has a liberal* slant.

*I'm non-partisan.

No, PBS is not majority kids content.

Source?

And I know for a fact, that many, many, the vast majority, of families either on welfare, or in public housing, have cable.

Source?

I challenge your assertion that families limited to over-the-air TV by their incomes mostly watch PBS.

I never stated that families without cable mostly watch PBS. I stated that children without cable are more likely to watch PBS than children with cable. I stand by this postulate, but freely admit that this opinion is anecdotal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
PP mostly is involved in abortions.

Source?

Your assertions are ridiculous on their face.

My assertions are backed up by facts . Yours seem to be backed up by partisan FUD.

Contraception constitutes over a third of their services, while STD testing and treatment takes up another third. A fifth of their services are concerned with cancer screening, and a tenth of their services concern other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility-related services.

Less than than one-twentieth of their services are abortion-related.

Now, please explain how >one-twentieth equals 'mostly'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 25 Feb 2011 @ 5:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: apples and oranges
Look, man, I'm pro-choice, myself, but... I DO have problem with them getting gov funding.

If you're a liberal, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because forcing women to bear children is flat-out wrong.

If you're a conservative, then you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because they're a fraction of the cost of prenatal care, welfare, or any number of programs that we offer for poor children.

If you're non-partisan, you should be perfectly fine with government funding for abortions because a lack of legal, affordable abortion services leads to the Kermit Gosnell's of the world popping up all over America.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 2:53am

Re: Easy
And by inference, conservative mothers wouldn't mind?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 26 Feb 2011 @ 2:54am

Re: Re:
Do you care, particularly, how Coco-Cola spends it's ad dollars? I don't.

What does this have to do with how our tax dollars are spent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:47am

Marketing Budget? Its still my tax dollars
I keep hearing the defense that the monies going to NASCAR teams is part of the Pentagons marketing budget...as if that changes anything or makes it right. It is still MY taxpayer dollars being spent on SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT at a time when our society is crumbling under economic strain.
The GOP is slashing funding for The National Weather Service and NOAA, Planned Parenthood, National Education Association, healthcare for women, etc. etc., all valuable needed services, yet think it logical to continue giving our tax dollars to NASCAR racing teams (I don't give a flip if its marketing or not).....its still my money!!! Come on people. Lets please get our priorities straight!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 23 Dec 2011 @ 11:11pm

Advertisement
Your not jumping all over the army for the millions they spend annually on TV ads, that is what nascar sponsorship is a targeted ad at a specific group. 7 million annually for the amount of advertisement that comes with the sponsorship is not that bad of a deal, and nascar fans then by merchandise and wear army gear which provides more ads. You can argue that the army doesn't need to advertise but it chooses to and nascar is just one of those many forms
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2013 @ 9:11am

I am a diehard Nascar fan and a moderate republican. I find federal funding for nascar raceteacks offensive and unamerican. Rep and Dems should be ashamed for allowing this type of funding to be added to the tax bill. This is how our country got into the fiscal mess. We must address the debt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jim Lynde, 14 Jan 2013 @ 12:01pm

Nascar - PBS
The writer of this article criticizes people who want the gov to sponsor NASCAR but not PBS.
I have known PBS gets money from the gov for a long time. I did not know NASCAR was also getting gov. freebies.
I believe the majority of Americans have no idea where the Gov. is spreading it's largess. Do you know that the Queen of England has farmland holdings in the United States and receives a US Government Farm Subsidy check each year.? The politicians of both parties are guilty of these outrageous subsidies to special interests. Fire the bastards and bring in some "NEW' bastards.!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]