But NPR and PBS are public, and they will be governed by public boards. If PBS feels the need to put a leftwing nutjob like Bill Moyers on the air, it ought to be giving equal voice to conservatives.

And given those public boards are - by definition - representing the public, your complaint against their choice of programming runs against the fact its ultimately serving the public as best it and its viewers see fit.

And your constant complaining about Fox using 'the public airwaves' is very simply "the fairness doctrine" restated.

Actually its just pointing out an unpleasant fact you consistently refuse to acknowledge, never mind your calls for more "balance" on NPR are too one-sided to stand scrutiny.

There is no more right on the part of liberals to own and operate NPR than there is a right of liberals to own and operate the federal judiciary.

That's a tad meaningless, given these 'liberals' don't actually "own" NPR or PBS in any real sense. Of course, the same could be argued against conservatives 'owning' Fox or a sizable sliver of the AM dial.

Look, you don't like the programming on NPR, you have alternatives you can turn to for free. You don't like that a tiny portion of its funding comes from public funds, I'm sorry you feel your tax dollars are so mis-spent; personally I don't like how the US Army has conducted itself since April 2003, and its funding comes entirely from public coffers (namely my money).

But guess what: your being a taxpayer doesn't give you any more control over NPR's programming than I have over the Pentagon. Both our tax dollars are getting mis-spent and, like it or not, there isn't a blessed thing we can do about right now.

That's life. That's reality. Deal with it.

That is an idiot's point of view. The phrase 'public airwaves' harks back to an era where the bands that television and radio broadcasting could be made on were highly restricted and required federal ordering. No such restrictions exist anymore.

The restrictions aren't the issue. The reality that the radio airwaves are still considered "public property" is.

Making that argument today is like saying Glenn's partisan book shouldn't be allowed because its printed on paper from public trees or his partisan blog shouldn't be allowed since it requires the use of public fiber optic cables.

One could make that argument, if one were trying to do an end-run against the Fist Amendment. Or holding a false dichotomy of "all channels government owned" versus "all channels privately owned".

If hardcore liberals and lefties could make a TV or radio station commercially viable (and all the evidence is they can't), then there's nothing stopping them.

Fair enough. We'll see what the future brings.

"Personally, I don't see that corporations are capable of delivering news rather than propaganda...."

So, you'd like the government to run the media. That'll make sure it's all above board right?

Again with the false dichotomy? Geez but you're an extremist.

"Not the best interest of the nation or its people and certainly not the truth, just the fastest buck...."

The problem is that you want to decide (and you think you know) what's best for the nation and what's best for the people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves in the free market. Stalin and Kim-Il-Sung had similar lookouts.

As does Sun Myung Moon and the Bush Administration (given how they've either crowned themselves sovereign monarch over the United States or try to kill stories they don't like), but that's not really at issue here is it?

The management of NPR and PBS have a slate of programs that are well-received and supported by its listening audience. The continued defense of this small fact doesn't mean anyone here is advocating a state-run media. That you infer such things says more about your desires than the previous comment.

The real question is whether or not any media organization - irregardless of its funding or founding - can accurately claim to speak for "the American people". How about we focus on that and quit this no longer entertaining attack on NPR?

You can search out this blog to have Glenn tell you what you want to hear about the world, but you seek to deny others of a different opinion the same freedom.

And how, precisely, is Lynx seeking to deny anyone anything?

Or are you using the "you" in a generic, everyone-except-me kind of way? Dangerous ground upon which to rest an argument, you know. Smacks of paranoia and "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street".