End Taxpayer Support of NPR?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

maycocksean

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
4,915
Location
Ohio
I love NPR. I'm a member. I listen every day, even during the membership drives.

But while I don't DEMAND that federal government cut public broadcasting funding, I'm not convinced that ending that funding would be the worst thing in the world.

Perhaps it would be good to have NPR etc be fully "public" funded, through membership alone.
 
it won't be nearly as good. the reason why NPR and PBS are so good is because there are no corporate masters to serve. journalists operate like a non-profit.

and it will save us maybe 1,000ths of a penny on the dollar. those calling for it's defunding are only out to score political points because of the notion that it's "liberal" or non-Fox or something.
 
Those calling NPR "liberal" have to recheck their political compasses.

Those calling for the defunding are the same ones that didn't want to cut the funding for the NASCAR sponsorship... this is not about financial responsibility, like Irvine said this is about winning points with the uninformed tea party crowd.
 
I don't want to see this funding go away, but I do like that the result could be a big "Fuck You" to people who say public broadcasting can't stand on its own.

A consequence that people don't realize is that public radio broadcasts in under-served rural areas that aren't viable for commercial radio. This will be one of the first things to go.

Anyway, I'm a long-time member of Minnesota Public Radio. Our recent pledge drive ended successfully. I believe we will lose approx. $4 mil with this Federal cut. Management is scrambling to plan for that loss. MPR and American Public Media produce loads of content for public radio stations nationwide, and they will survive pretty much intact. I'm very proud of Minnesota Public Radio.

I'm not worried, and I may up my monthly pledge if the cut goes through. This is just another piece of the bullshit pie that House Republicans are serving the American people while they serve their corporate masters.

As I have said a number of times, Congress needs to address corporate media ownership. There are monopolies that need to be broken up.
 
The thing is they wouldn't be cutting federal funding to NPR itself, as I understand it. The people would lose out would be local NPR affiliate stations who pay NPR for the rights to air specific programs.

The affiliate stations losing out would, of course, be the ones in lower-income areas that receive more federal money to make up for less member contributions.

So while your local NPR station in some sane part of the US that seems to make sense (the Northeast), the rural areas in the rest of the country may lose NPR affiliates.
 
Might as well plug this here:

170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting

Annual federal funding amounts to $1.35 per American.


The Numbers

Every month over 170 million Americans use public media – through 368 public television stations, 934 public radio stations, hundreds of online services, education services, and in-person events and activities.

Every month over half of all Americans use public media.

* Public television has a monthly broadcast audience of 121.9 million people. Each viewer is counted only once, whether they watch one program or many. (Source: Nielsen NTINPower October 2010 Total Day 6a-6a Reach US Persons 2+)

* Public radio has a four-week broadcast audience of 64.7 million people. Each listener is counted only once, no matter how many times or public stations they tune in. (Source: Arbitron Spring 2010 National Regional Database, CPBStation Composite, Persons 12+, M-Su 6a-12m, US Total, compiled by the Radio Research Consortium)

* Network websites reach 13.7 million unique visitors per month at npr.org (Omniture SiteCatalyst, 3 month average, Aug-Oct 2010),10.8 million unique visitors per month at pbs.org (Google Analytics, October 2010), and 9.5 million average unique visitors per month at pbskids.org (Google Analytics).

* Station websites serve growing numbers of users – from a few thousand unique visitors per month in smaller communities to several hundred thousand unique visitors per month in major markets. Google Analytics, reported by Public Media Metrics

* Other digital media reach millions of people each month – through podcasts, mobile devices, smart phone apps, and satellite channels. Examples include 972,000 monthly unique users of NPR Mobile Web and 692,000 monthly unique users of the NPR News iPhone App. OmnitureSiteCatalyst, 3-month average, July-Sept. 2010

* Public media educational technologies and services are resources for millions of teachers and students through instructional TV content, interactive video and distance learning systems, online professional development for K-12 teachers, and workshops and services for childcare providers, pre-school instructors, and classroom teachers.

* In-person connections. Stations and producers connect in-person with regular activities and special events including, concerts and performances, lectures and forums, workforce development programs, and oral history projects. Many of these activities are partnerships with local school districts and educational institutions, museums and libraries, and national institutions, including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian.
 
A consequence that people don't realize is that public radio broadcasts in under-served rural areas that aren't viable for commercial radio.
Yes. I've lived in rural areas most of my life and NPR was/is proportionally far more popular there than in urban and suburban areas I've lived in. It's what everyone listens to in the car, while getting dressed in the morning, while out fishing or working on projects in the garage or barn, etc. For people who don't have hours of leisure time to just sit and watch TV or read papers, they can get in ten minutes what would take two hours of slogging through inane talking-points presentations, fluffy filler stories, shrill histrionics from 'anchors' who think it's them you should be interested in, and all the other mind-rotting bullshit otherwise getting in the way of a straightforward rundown of the day's events. An informed citizenry is a public good.

It's certainly not as important as educating our children or caring for the elderly, as far as it goes, but that isn't the kind of choice we're actually facing.

My concern about relying solely on individual listener support would be that most people won't pay anything for a resource if they don't have to. And by "have to" I mean accessing it right now, while perhaps telling yourself you'll contribute something "later," by which point it may be too late.
 
Last edited:
What makes NPR decent enough to listen to for news is that they live in a paralell world where the Fairness Doctrine was not repealed by Mark S. Fowler (Reagan appointee).

This is a big reason why U.S. news 'opinion' radio sucks big donkey dick these days.
 
Ironically, what made me question whether federal funding should continue was not the arguments from the right but the piss poor arguments by the guy advocating for continuation of the funding on one of our local public radio program, All Sides with Ann Fisher.

You can check out this link and scroll down to the March 1 broadcast: All Sides | WOSU Public Media

It's long but you only have to listen to a few minutes before you notice that the guy really isn't doing a good job of explaining why NPR should keep federal funding.

I know that this is a lame partisan ploy by the Right--this business of cutting NPR funding. But I'm just uncomfortable with my only reason for supporting federal funding is because I happen to think the product is great. There should be a reason why it's in the country's best interest for the government to fund this service. During pledge drives we're constantly reminded that we need to give because public funding makes up just a tiny percentage of the budget to keep NPR on the air. But now we're being told there will be drastic cutbacks if federal funding is lost.

I could understand if you had to pay for all other forms radio or television and public media was the only way that poor people could get access to the news, but that's not the case.

I like the idea of a media source that is not beholden to corporate interests. . .I just don't see how that is ONLY possible if the federal government provides funding for it.

I don't want to see public media outlets cut in rural areas of course, but I don't see how that sentiment alone should be reason enough to argue for continued federal funding.
 
I don't want to see public media outlets cut in rural areas of course, but I don't see how that sentiment alone should be reason enough to argue for continued federal funding.

That's true, but I wish more people in rural areas would understand just how subsidized their lifestyles are. Everyone pays more for phone and internet service to help fund stringing lines out to almost nowhere. If we've agreed (or at least are passive about) phone/internet/U.S. Mail/etc. subsidies are fine, why not public radio?
 
That's true, but I wish more people in rural areas would understand just how subsidized their lifestyles are. Everyone pays more for phone and internet service to help fund stringing lines out to almost nowhere. If we've agreed (or at least are passive about) phone/internet/U.S. Mail/etc. subsidies are fine, why not public radio?

Because public radio is not the only way people living in rural areas can access radio. It's not as if they won't be able to listen to radio at all if funding is cut--just that particular station.
 
Because public radio is not the only way people living in rural areas can access radio. It's not as if they won't be able to listen to radio at all if funding is cut--just that particular station.

Oh no, I agree. A subsidy that only benefits a few is a fair start for the budget chopping block.

I was just stating that it seems as if people who benefit from these subsidies rarely acknowledge that they get them.
 
Oh no, I agree. A subsidy that only benefits a few is a fair start for the budget chopping block.

I was just stating that it seems as if people who benefit from these subsidies rarely acknowledge that they get them.

True. This has always been one of my beefs with the Tea Party. They're not really against government spending. . .just government spending on Other People. I mean, I get it. . .it's basic human nature to feel that way, but it's a lousy argument and hypocritical not to acknowledge thats the argument you're making.
 
true. This has always been one of my beefs with the tea party. They're not really against government spending. . .just government spending on other people. I mean, i get it. . .it's basic human nature to feel that way, but it's a lousy argument and hypocritical not to acknowledge thats the argument you're making.

true. This has always been one of my beefs with the tea party. They're not really against government spending. . .just government spending on other people. I mean, i get it. . .it's basic human nature to feel that way, but it's a lousy argument and hypocritical not to acknowledge thats the argument you're making.

true. This has always been one of my beefs with the tea party. They're not really against government spending. . .just government spending on other people. I mean, i get it. . .it's basic human nature to feel that way, but it's a lousy argument and hypocritical not to acknowledge thats the argument you're making.

qft
 
I don't understand why the federal government should use tax payers money to fund a radio station.
It's a fair point, and everyone has his own opinion as to how the tax payer money pie is divided.

I think the main issue is that the amount of federal spending going towards NPR is minuscule, and defunding NPR appears to be a political move by Republicans to dump something they don't like or don't believe in, rather than being for the benefit of substantially reducing the deficit.

As someone who has expressed libertarian political leanings, I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy in trying to defund public radio, Planned Parenthood, etc, while at the same time ignoring defence spending and entitlement programs.
 
This sort of stuff always reminds me of the West Wing episode about the National Endowment for the Arts.



yes.

and an informed citizenry is a public good. NPR is supposed to inform the public, and it does it way, way, way better than any of the networks or, god forbid, cable news.
 
The West Wing is the moderate liberal's wet dream of U.S. government.

I think I am getting a bit moist thinking about it even now.
 
This sort of stuff always reminds me of the West Wing episode about the National Endowment for the Arts.

I've been mulling this issue over for the past few days and I'm formulating my own defense of why perhaps funding shouldn't be cut. It will probably be along the lines of this.
 
Slate, Mar. 8
After unsuccessfully trying to "punk" a CNN reporter last year, conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe finally hit a new target: two NPR executives. In a video released Tuesday morning, Ron Schiller, an NPR senior executive, and Betsy Liley, NPR's director of institutional giving, are caught on tape complaining about Tea Partiers and fielding polarizing questions from two men posing as members of a fake Muslim organization. Schiller and Liley met with the men to discuss a potential $5 million donation, and throughout lunch at a Georgetown café are baited with questions about NPR's political leanings. An O'Keefe operative calling himself Ibrahim Kasaam says that the fake Muslim Education Action Center (MEAC) "was originally founded by a few members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America," then jokes that he calls NPR "National Palestinian Radio," because of its affinity with the Palestinian cause. Most of the comments fail to get a rise out of Schiller, though as highlighted on the conservative Daily Caller, he gave filmmakers their money quote when discussing the Tea Party.
The Schiller quotes most relevant to the current discussion over funding cuts would seem to be his comments on what would happen if the government cut NPR off:
Republicans play off the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the government. Very little of our funding comes from the government, but they act as if all our funding comes from the government...it is very clear that in the long run we would be better off without federal funding. And the challenge right now is that if we lost it altogether, we'd have a lot of stations go dark.​
The quotes you'll probably hear more about--Schiller musing about why this Muslim group might have so many gripes with conservatives:
SCHILLER: The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian--and I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of move...it's been hijacked by this group that...
"MUSLIM": The radical, racist, Islamophobic, Tea Party people?
SCHILLER: It's not just Islamophobic, but really xenophobic. Basically, they believe in white, middle America, gun-toting--it's pretty scary. They're seriously racist, racist people.​
And on the firing of Juan Williams:
What NPR did I'm very proud of. What NPR stood for is a non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news. Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her personal opinion, which anyone is entitled to do in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question we asked internally was, can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like that, can he report to the Muslim population, and be believed, for example? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your ethics as a journalist.​
Unfortunately for the stingers, Schiller had just announced he's leaving NPR for the Aspen Institute.

Schiller is a professional fundraiser, not a journalist. His pandering to the group is actually sort of masterful. I've asked NPR about the editorial line he assigns to the network and will update when I get a response.

UPDATE: Here's the statement from Dana Davis Rehm, senior VP of Marketing, Communications & External Relations at NPR.
The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.

Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.​
 
Schiller is a professional fundraiser, not a journalist.


what's the story here? :shrug:

looks like another hand-wringing overreaction from NPR. at least these so-called "liberals" are actually concerned with trying to present real, hard, unbiased news and worry about what other people say about them and take steps to self-correct.
 
Well, that was my reaction too, but in all likelihood this will get played as suggestive supporting evidence for alleged bias in coverage, particularly where public funding is concerned.
 
Well, that was my reaction too, but in all likelihood this will get played as suggestive supporting evidence for alleged bias in coverage, particularly where public funding is concerned.



agreed on that.

i believe that Schiller even said "let me take off my NPR hat" or something to that effect before he talked about the notion that the tea party was xenophobic.

and he's a fundraiser. not a journalist, a fundraiser.
 
When Obama wants to cut heating assistance and people are facing possibly freezing to death in their homes-no, I don't think the US govt should be funding NPR or many other comparatively frivilous things. However small the monetary amount is, the impression created for me=bad. It's time to start cutting all wasteful spending that can possibly be cut. Before food, clothing, and shelter-and HEAT. That's what individuals and families do.
 
Well, that was my reaction too, but in all likelihood this will get played as suggestive supporting evidence for alleged bias in coverage, particularly where public funding is concerned.

It already has today on the am talk shows. They treating it like another acorn expose story... GOTCHA!
 
not that this helps the discussion, but sometimes i find Wonkette gives cathartic release to the thoughts in my head:


The swirling toilet of American Public Life gained another floater this morning as NPR announced the immediate resignation of CEO Vivian Schiller — no relation to NPR executive Ron Schiller, who was secretly videotaped giving an accurate description of the Tea Party people and already left NPR. Again, this is because Ron Schiller said the Tea Party people are scary racists. (Tea Party people are scary racists.) If you’re getting a Shirley Sherrod deja vu thing about now, prepare to have this feeling every couple of weeks for the rest of your life (or, until you leave this dumb country forever), because this is America in 2011: a crumbling nation of fat slobs who ignore their kleptocrat kings and instead point their corn-dog fingers at Scary Mooslims and the “Kenyan president” and then get their little racist feelings hurt when anybody says, “Hey, look at those racist clowns.”

Tea Party Racists Will All Start Listening To NPR Now
 
Back
Top Bottom