1. Is PBS/NPR still an important part of the broadcasting landscape?

[berniek]

Given in the impact of cable, satellite and the rest....are PBS/NPR still a needed part of the broadcasting family? Or have they been replaced by specialized channels that are serving the same niche needs?

 

[jeffwoehrle]

Good topic.

I question whether there was ever a need. Folks have been voting with their radio/TV dials for quite some time, and the public stations are consistently shown to have little impact.

Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to censor any viewpoints. I just don't want to subsidize (with my tax dollars, either directly or indirectly) propaganda that I find objectionable and flat out wrong.

Eliminate government subsidies for the so-called non-profit broadcasters. Rework with a listener supported financial model and run with it. If it is not viable (and by most measure, it isn't) let it fail. 501 C 3 designation is fine, but the price of that is to swear off 'sponsorships' of ANY type. Listener supported, period.

However, in this era of bailouts for even commercial concerns, radio welfare really doesn't shock me much anymore.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I question whether there was ever a need.  Folks have been voting with their radio/TV dials for quite some time, and the public stations are consistently shown to have little impact.

Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to censor any viewpoints.  I just don't want to subsidize (with my tax dollars, either directly or indirectly) propaganda that I find objectionable and flat out wrong.

Eliminate government subsidies for the so-called non-profit broadcasters.  Rework with a listener supported financial model and run with it.  If it is not viable (and by most measure, it isn't) let it fail.  501 C 3 designation is fine, but the price of that is to swear off 'sponsorships' of ANY type.  Listener supported, period.

However, in this era of bailouts for even commercial concerns, radio welfare really doesn't shock me much anymore.

It appears the conversation so far is more interested in discussing political issues as opposed to broadcasting issues.

If you are in the radio business and thinking about building a new facility and you want to understand current practice in studio design and acoustics, you will find that NPR has done for that field what NASA has done for science in general.

If you are in the radio business and have been avoiding and ignoring going digital with your RF and you want to talk to the people who are on the cutting edge and can tell you what you need to know, you probably need to buy lunch for some engineering types at NPR.

If you are in the radio business and you are having second thoughts about how stale your sound has become in this day of automation, and you want to regain some personality, some presence, some sound of localness, arrange for some of your programming people to get a close up look of how NPR and their stations do it.

So, what teeny, pitiful little bit of your tax money has gone to public radio has purchased profound amounts of research and development that the rest of the broadcast industry can use to try and save their failing product.

As a businessman, if I want to go to the station and buy time in the Rush Limbaugh program because I want to make sure such a message continues to have a place on the dial, and the station doesn't abandon the program, with what logic would you deny a businessman the opportunity to buy an endorsement, a sponsorship on Public radio to make sure that kind of programming continues and to let your customers know you support that content. It's a level playing field if you can support Limbaugh programming and I can support Terry Gross programming.

 

[Aramondo]

If you are in the radio business and thinking about building a new facility and you want to understand current practice in studio design and acoustics, you will find that NPR has done for that field what NASA has done for science in general.

If you are in the radio business and have been avoiding and ignoring going digital with your RF and you want to talk to the people who are on the cutting edge and can tell you what you need to know, you probably need to buy lunch for some engineering types at NPR.


As a businessman, if I want to go to the station and buy time in the Rush Limbaugh program because I want to make sure such a message continues to have a place on the dial, and the station doesn't abandon the program, with what logic would you deny a businessman the opportunity to buy an endorsement, a sponsorship on Public radio to make sure that kind of programming continues and to let your customers know you support that content. It's a level playing field if you can support Limbaugh programming and I can support Terry Gross programming.

Coupla things.

Sounds to me like all that progress and cutting edge digital and design info comes from money to burn.

Far as buying time to support messages? What red-blooded American businessman gives a crap about the message over the audience he's peddling to? Advertisers are on Rush (or would be on Gross) because they attract the people who the advertiser is trying to get into the tent.

You new around here?

 

[jeffwoehrle]

I question whether there was ever a need. Folks have been voting with their radio/TV dials for quite some time, and the public stations are consistently shown to have little impact.

Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to censor any viewpoints. I just don't want to subsidize (with my tax dollars, either directly or indirectly) propaganda that I find objectionable and flat out wrong.

Eliminate government subsidies for the so-called non-profit broadcasters. Rework with a listener supported financial model and run with it. If it is not viable (and by most measure, it isn't) let it fail. 501 C 3 designation is fine, but the price of that is to swear off 'sponsorships' of ANY type. Listener supported, period.

However, in this era of bailouts for even commercial concerns, radio welfare really doesn't shock me much anymore.

It appears the conversation so far is more interested in discussing political issues as opposed to broadcasting issues.

If you are in the radio business and thinking about building a new facility and you want to understand current practice in studio design and acoustics, you will find that NPR has done for that field what NASA has done for science in general.

If you are in the radio business and have been avoiding and ignoring going digital with your RF and you want to talk to the people who are on the cutting edge and can tell you what you need to know, you probably need to buy lunch for some engineering types at NPR.

If you are in the radio business and you are having second thoughts about how stale your sound has become in this day of automation, and you want to regain some personality, some presence, some sound of localness, arrange for some of your programming people to get a close up look of how NPR and their stations do it.

So, what teeny, pitiful little bit of your tax money has gone to public radio has purchased profound amounts of research and development that the rest of the broadcast industry can use to try and save their failing product.

As a businessman, if I want to go to the station and buy time in the Rush Limbaugh program because I want to make sure such a message continues to have a place on the dial, and the station doesn't abandon the program, with what logic would you deny a businessman the opportunity to buy an endorsement, a sponsorship on Public radio to make sure that kind of programming continues and to let your customers know you support that content. It's a level playing field if you can support Limbaugh programming and I can support Terry Gross programming.

Actually, I'm interested in discussing the topic as presented. You may wish to check out the first post for guidance.

As to NPR being 'cutting edge'...well, that's easy to do when a little thing called profitability isn't in the cards. As to comparing NPR to NASA, methinks your opinion of the public network is a little higher than the space shuttle. Just saying...

I'm not denying anyone the opportunity to support a program of their choice. BY LISTENERS. Commercial sponsorship of public broadcasting flies in the face of commercial radio...you know, the radio that actually has to play by the rules, pay taxes and make money for the capital it uses. Public radio is no threat to commercial radio in terms of listeners...that's pretty plain. But every single dollar that falls into the black hole of public broadcasting is one less dollar flowing to the real radio business. That's criminal.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Far as buying time to support messages? What red-blooded American businessman gives a crap about the message over the audience he's peddling to? Advertisers are on Rush (or would be on Gross) because they attract the people who the advertiser is trying to get into the tent.

How do you think they sell high school football broadcasts in rural America?

You really think sales people don't evaluate who is a "flag waver" when they put together a sales presentation and spec tapes for a schedule in right wing talk radio?

You really think sales people at Air America were digging to find out who would get an ego-thrill out of being a part of that genre of programming?

You new around here?

New around here? Not exactly.

If 'here" is the discussion board, been here 7 years.

If "here" means dealing with talk radio and figuring out who will buy it, I was doing that in the 1960s.

If "here" means cracking the studio mic to do a station break and intro a record, try first week of June, 1956.

Yeah, I'm kind of new around here.

How about you?

 

[BaltimoreJack]

The question as presented..Is PBS/NPR still important?
I would say that it never was important. It was a politcal tool from day one. It's pretty hard to dissect politcs from the discussion of PBS. The government already operated a propaganda arm known as The Voice of America. PBS as we know it today was given a big push by LBJ's far-reaching "Great Society". It was designed by Democrats to be a a Democrat propaganda tool. For the most part so-called Public Radio or Public TV has never been about being "for the public or for the community". If that was the case you would see serious efforts at the broadcast of local news & information..even high school sports on "public" tax-payer stations. With very few exceptions, that has not been the case. For the most part PBS has been a home for the granola-crunching, tree-hugging, blame America for everything crowd. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, quality local program efforts on WVIA such as WARM-Land Remembered or even Pennsylvania Polka which is directly programmed to a local audience are very few and far between. WVIA is one of the very few PBS outlets that has to some extent bucked the trend of being nothing more than a leftist mouthpiece. Quality national PBS programs like Masterpiece Theatre, Antiques Roadshow, Wall Street Week, Jacques Pepin and the various Julia Child cooking series would have very easily found commercial support.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what they program as long as my tax dollars don't have to fund it. My tax bucks should not have to go to fund the political rantings of either side. That's not what our money is supposed to spent on. If they want to sell spots or rely entirely on tax-deductible donations like any other 501-C-3 then that's fine. Let them live & die on what they offer. If they are operating as a charity, the market will still deicde. If the communty decides that the station is worth their support, then they will receive it. If not..well....

Is PBS Still Important? It Never Was.

 

[ThomasCarten]

I had this as a logical extension of the "WARMland Remembered" thread. But it also goes here.

* * *

Is PBS relevant?

1) For a while, it was not. Discovery, TLC, A&E and History covered the territory pretty well. But A&E, TLC and (to some extent) Discovery have gone off the tracks and thru the meadows. So PBS still has some function.

2) I do think PBS is more Fair & Balanced than the other nets. However, the others at least let their take on the news be known. Faux is conservative, NBC is more liberal, CNN is probably best down the middle. You know your product and choose what you want to watch. It doesn't take long to figure who matches your own leanings.

3) NPR is, I think, also balanced. Conservatives will scream "Lefties" at what they feel is the slightest on the liberal side; Liberals will have difficulty when NPR broadcasts conservative programming. The "rights" are just louder when they shout.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I'm not denying anyone the opportunity to support a program of their choice. BY LISTENERS. Commercial sponsorship of public broadcasting flies in the face of commercial radio...you know, the radio that actually has to play by the rules, pay taxes and make money for the capital it uses. Public radio is no threat to commercial radio in terms of listeners...that's pretty plain. But every single dollar that falls into the black hole of public broadcasting is one less dollar flowing to the real radio business. That's criminal.

I assume for something to be criminal, it needs to be against the law.

I forget the year, but something like ten years ago congress bowed to pressure from citizens like yourself who find spending tax money on public broadcasting to be undesirable. The government funding was to be reduced in yearly steps, giving public broadcasting the time frame to reinvent their funding methods. The congress of the United States made it abundantly clear to the public broadcasting sector that they were expected to find their own funding. The new law gave public broadcasters a bit more freedom and leeway in how they can deal with businesses that want to use endorsements and advertising. Congress made it clear that public broadcasting should become more innovative in selling books, program recordings, CDs and other items. For you to say that "dollars falling into the black hole rather than flowing to traditional broadcast stations is to say that Congress passed an illegal law.

Going back to the original post that kicked off this thread:

Given in the impact of cable, satellite and the rest....are PBS/NPR still a needed part of the broadcasting family? Or have they been replaced by specialized channels that are serving the same niche needs?

My response would be: Given the lack of impact of cable, satellite and the rest, PBS/NPR are much more justified to exist today than they were years ago when established. What other form of distribution has anything to match Morning Edition and All Things Considered? What other venue does anything like Performance today? What radio network or group has anything that matches Market Place?

And I haven't even mentioned TV yet.

 

[Nokmo True]

How do you think they sell high school football broadcasts in rural America?

You really think sales people don't evaluate who is a "flag waver" when they put together a sales presentation and spec tapes for a schedule in right wing talk radio?

You really think sales people at Air America were digging to find out who would get an ego-thrill out of being a part of that genre of programming?

New around here? Not exactly.

If 'here" is the discussion board, been here 7 years.

If "here" means dealing with talk radio and figuring out who will buy it, I was doing that in the 1960s.

If "here" means cracking the studio mic to do a station break and intro a record, try first week of June, 1956.

Yeah, I'm kind of new around here.

How about you?
[/quote]

I think they sell high school football broadcasts in rural America because the same yay-hoos who want to hear Billy's name on the radio are the ones who want to buy feed or a tractor and the guys who sell them know that. The guys who sponsor high school football want to sell their crap, period.

That you've been at this fifty plus years is great. Has no bearing on whether or not you know what you're talking about however.

Salespeople will only recognize a flag waver after the fact. Salespeople don't have sophisticated brains. They don't grasp concepts well. Me sell you commercial. Period. Sales is driven exclusively by demographics. If Rush listeners are interested in Product X, the makers of Product X are advertising on Rush. They could care less what Rush says or thinks. They care only that plenty of people who listen to Rush also like Product X.

It's a corollary of "Why do you rob banks?" "Because that's where the money is."

Name an advertiser who is there first because he supports the message.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That you've been at this fifty plus years is great. Has no bearing on whether or not you know what you're talking about however.

Armondo's question suggested that maybe someone with experience would see the world more like Armondo sees the world.  It was simply an honest effort to share with Armondo that this discussion was "not my first rodeo".

Unlike Armondo who thought maybe a little more time spent in the vineyard might improve my understanding,  you seem to feel that time spent in the vineyard is worthless, maybe even a handicap?

This thread was started by two people who apparently have a profound dislike for what is known as "public broadcasting".  They actually started two overlapping threads at almost the same time.  One of those threads was was quickly dispatched to the purgatory knows as "Take It Outside".  This thread will have to work hard to not also end up there.

There are some people who dislike the concept of non-commercial broadcasters operating under the flag of "public broadcasting".  That's fine. Don't listen.  There are some people who recognize that public broadcasting can be not only a pleasure to listen to, but can also offer a world of content that challenges and invites the brain to actually function.  And if anyone is wondering, the previous sentence WAS intended to be a subtle but obvious proclamation that a lot of radio today DOES NOT challenge the brain and may INHIBIT the function of one's brain.

Some people like jazz,  others don't.  Some people like country music,  others don't.  Some people like sports programming, others don't.  Some people like news-talk programming, others don't.  Is there any reason for you to come to the discussion boards and insult people with whom you disagree.  When I bump up against another poster I go to the listener's profile and read back through their last 30 or 40 messages posted to see how their brain works.  There have been a couple of posters that in order to understand who they were and "where their head was at" as we used to say a few years ago,  I have waded though 400 or 500 messages that they wrote.  With some posters it is easy to tell after 20 or 30 messages that they have to respect for the dignity or intelligence of other people.  With some posters you can also quickly learn that the person is someone you want to follow and learn from, not matter what subject or what geography they post in.

Now,  back to the topic at hand.  Why people buy advertising  (or endorsement/sponsorships) is indeed an interesting study.  May I share with you what I believe is the most bizarre salesman's story I have every heard.  Out in the farm country he had been pursuing this tractor dealer to become a customer.  He got up early enough one morning to be at the dealership by 7:30 in the morning in the next county over from the station.  Once again he presented radio advertising and our station in particular.  The dealer said "no" indirectly by pointing out that all his budget was committed to other forms of advertising.  Our salesman pulled out his cigarettes,  fished one out of the pack and asked the tractor dealer if he had a light.  Out of his pocket came some "book matches" with the tractor dealer's advertising printed on them.  Our salesman like something out of a dramatic movie lit his cigarette with great flair, and then very obviously studied the match book cover for a few seconds.  Your budget is committed to WHAT?  Things like THIS?  You know what happens to your advertising budget when the matches are gone?  The salesman threw the book over the top of the nearest tractor.  "People throw them in the gutter..... and then the dogs come along and piss of them."  The salesman's version of the story is that the dealer reached over and "tore" the sales order out of the salesman's hands,  signed it, and said:  "Let's get started"

Thus, I've gone though life knowing that the purchase of advertising is ALWAYS a dignified, well thought out, intelligent process!  ;D

P.S.  PBS/NPR IS still and important part of the broadcasting landscape,  and getting more so...  if only because traditional commercial broadcasting seems to have lost it's way to some extent.

 

[plooker]

Goat,

That is an eloquent response, and you certainly make some interesting points, but the bottom line is, in this day and age of Govt. Socialism, ie... owning Auto manufacturers, banks and mortgage companies, we as tax payers, need to see our money going into more important things like oh, say... this countries hurting infastructure. (Does it scare anybody out there that half of our bridges and tunnels are now unsafe and in some danger of structural failure.) I mean this is just for starters, our countrys electrical grid, our rapidly depleting and antiquated military.(our mainline bomber is now 60 years old, and not scheduled for replacement till its 100. Our Marines fly in Helicopters with the newest transport being built in 1966)
These are areas that tax dollars can be more appropriately spent, instead of peeing it away in an area where there are just so many other ways to get content. 30 years ago, hell 15 years ago, I could see the need, but now, w/ the Internet, Satellite, Cellular phones, I-pods, not to mention your rapidly collapsing terrestrial stations, there are just to many sources of content provision, for Public radio to justify its existence.
I say kill the funding, and make them compete like everyone else. And the FCC should ease all the restrictions on advertising, and allow non comms, who were formally govt. funded to compete on the same turf as commercial operations, without any restrictions on how they gain advertisers.
Will some of these stations go dark? Probably? But I bet a bunch won't and thats how things should be in a democratic, and capitalist society. Failure weeds the cream from the chaff (Hear this Obama, ya communist!) Thats how are society was set up, and pumping money down the pit that is NPR and PBS just doesn't make sense anymore...

Just my $.02

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

....... but the bottom line is, in this day and age of Govt. Socialism, ie... owning Auto manufacturers, banks and mortgage companies, we as tax payers, need to see our money going into more important things like oh, say... this countries hurting infastructure......

I understand what you are saying. As I wrote earlier, there is very little government money going into the non-com broadcasting world today. The stations are becoming very much what you described as a goal: The major portion of their financing is NON-TAX money, and getting more that way every year. That part of your wish is coming true, and more rapidly than you realize.

I would propose to you that one of the reasons we have failing infrastructure and screwed-up government finances, (and we do, BIG TIME!) is that the American people don't have a very clear view of what is going on. Commercial broadcasting hasn't helped. We've been playing more and more music.... nothing but music and commercials on a large portion of the stations. We have gone through the era of "Bad Boy Radio" in which morning teams banter with humor at the level of a high school sophomore with as daring use of bawdy-thought as the FCC will allow. That part of broadcasting has done absolutely NOTHING to help Joe the Plumber and Sammy Six-pack understand what infrastructure is, and what needs to happen to fix it and make it work. non-comm broadcasting began as "educational radio" and if you can put your prejudices aside long enough to listen to the NPR stations for a while, you will realize they do a heroic job of explaining how infrastructure works (and what it costs), how politics works, how the economy works.... it's like "on the job training" for citizenship.

So, if 10% of the broadcast facilities were to be NPR and LPFM and Educational Institution related, what harm does that bring to our society? I would suggest that it brings great value to our civilization.

The last part of your post is interesting. It's a good topic, but since it focuses on political concepts including free-enterprise vs. socialism, it belongs in another venue... maybe the "Take It Outside" forum is the place where the Editors would let us freely discuss the topic. My mother and father got married in the depths of the "Great Depression" of the 1929 to 1939 era. In that era our nation flirted with alternate economic methods not unlike what is being done today. When I lived in the Rust Belt we visited a number of historic sites from Illinois on east where state governments went bankrupt a hundred years earlier trying to jump start the primitive economy of the early 1800s with a very socialist enterprise of building canal transportation.

What the government is doing today to deal with current problems is not something radically new never done before. This nation has stuck its toes into the waters of "progressive financial models" from time to time since before the colonies got together and formed a nation we call The USA. Good radio should be encouraging and facilitating news and discussion that will help us understand when public ownership of business functions has stepped over the line beyond which we are willing to live with, and also to understand when absolute refusal to allow government to "right the ship" may be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

When commercial radio begins addressing these kinds of issues in a sane, coherent manner, then come back and maybe we could discuss the phasing out of non-profit public radio.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

Goat,

This issue is more complex than simply 'not listening' to something you find useless or disagreeable. The issue revolves around the advantages given to 'public' broadcasters, and who pays for it. In the case of public broadcasting, we all pay.

Most notable is the fact that commercial (for profit) stations end up chasing the same dollars as the noncoms and competing for the same pool of listeners. All the while being hindered by little things like taxes, preferential treatment (for the noncoms) for transmitter sites and similar advantages not afforded to real radio and television.

I have no problem with listener/viewer supported broadcasts. None whatsoever. My problem lies in that a portion of MY tax money is used to fund my competition. Be that tax money in the form of outright bribes, er, grants or simply preferential treatment of revenues from a tax perspective.

(P)looker is right... Government Socialism now puts Ford and other bailout-free auto manufacturers up against a General Motors and Chrysler that are under the government's wing. That is no more fair in the automotive world than it is in broadcasting.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

...
There are some people who dislike the concept of non-commercial broadcasters operating under the flag of "public broadcasting". That's fine. Don't listen. There are some people who recognize that public broadcasting can be not only a pleasure to listen to, but can also offer a world of content that challenges and invites the brain to actually function.
...

Your line above made me smile. In addition, it provides a perfect window into the reasons why NPR (etc.) remains popular with liberals: Liberals take great comfort in their belief that they are the smartest people in the room.

Now, listening to Nina Totenberg drone on about “Bush War Crimes” probably validates the thinking in the minds of many who drive a Subaru with a “Yes We Did” sticker, but that certainly doesn’t make it any more truthful than the views of dozens of other pundits. The funny part is that NPR listeners think that it qualifies as news. Better yet, it’s news that only they have the capability of fathoming. Lord knows those knuckle-dragging Conservatives can not possibly understand the subtle nuances thus provided.

Again, ;D

Personal feelings or preferences aside, it’s useful to note that mostly liberal politicians support taxpayer funding of public broadcasting. Conservative politicians, mostly, do not.

I don’t think anyone needs a "NPR-caliber" I.Q. to figure out why.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This issue is more complex than simply 'not listening' to something you find useless or disagreeable. The issue revolves around the advantages given to 'public' broadcasters, and who pays for it. In the case of public broadcasting, we all pay.

When the nation needed people to venture west into the untamed woods and carve out a place for crops and other enterprises, a little "socialist" scheme was devised and settlers were given free homesteads to get done what society needed done. Nobody was willing to do it otherwise.

Then all those fools got out there and had no way to get their products back to civilization on we developed the little "socialist" scheme for states to build canals for transportation to make the commerce of our nation work. Nobody was willing to do it otherwise.

When the canals didn't do as well as planned are were not enough, we needed railroads which capitalists were willing to build in the eastern industrial areas, but they were unwilling to invest in the "the amber waves of golden grain" so we as a nation once again stooped to a "socialist" methodology and we bribed the railroads to go west with land grants. Nobody was willing to do it otherwise.

Thomas Edison and a bunch from his generation brought us electrification.... well, at least to the cities and to the land of industry. But the farmers? So once again we stopped to a "socialist" methodology and granted franchises and financing for Rural Electric Cooperatives. (One of them is providing power for my computer as I type.) Nobody was willing to do it otherwise.

A portion of the public wanted something. Traditional commercial capitalism-based broadcasters refused to deliver what they wanted so the Federal mechanism once again reached down into the "bag of tricks" and set up a mechanism whereby some alternate programming and views would have a place to be heard. Nobody was willing to do it otherwise.

One of the things usually missing from a conversation like this is that conservatives are convince that everybody has to be either a conservative or a liberal. There are no other choices. Being somewhere in between is not possible in the mind of the conservative. Yes, people who are liberals are likely to be fond of, be listeners of, and be supporters of NPR type stations. There is what I would assume is a rather significant mass of people in the middle, some of whom may also be fond of, listeners of, supporters of.........

Is PBS/NPR still an important part of the broadcasting landscape? I see public broadcasting constantly broadening the scope of what it does, and I see tradition, capitalistic, commercial broadcasting narrowing the scope of what it does. For you this is simply a question of socio-political debate and righteousness. For a very large gob of Americans this is a question of would you put something on the air worth turning the radio on for, would you engage in journalism that will help citizens see the full, big picture, would you excite the electrons with something worth reaching over and turning on the radio. Is anybody willing to do it? (besides NPR).

 

[jeffwoehrle]

Again, I am not against the concept (and perceived value) of 'non-commercial' radio. Just taxpayer support and the unfair competition that results.

Remove taxpayer-funded subsidies and preferential treatment of non-com licensees. Let non-com revenue be taxed on a par with commercial broadcasters if that revenue is derived from methods utilized by taxpaying stations. (Read: Advertising...no matter how you couch the word.)

The only reasonable alternative is to give ALL broadcasting the same benefits, perks and advantages given to non-commercial broadcasts. I'd be okay with that as well.

However, that flies in the face of the agenda for public broadcasting. That is, a protected existence regardless of the need, desire or wants of the "public."

After all, there is propaganda to distribute! Absent the benefits, public broadcasting would be nothing much more than Air America...just lower on the dial. And roughly as desired, successful and viable.

Meanwhile, 'public' broadcasting still suckles at the taxpayer teat, long after the canals were built, the railroads were constructed and GM begins its new infancy under the wing of Big Brother.

Maybe now the newest Chevy will have a radio that only can receive NPR.

After all, nobody is willing to listen otherwise...right?

 

[Bob1370]

"Given in the impact of cable, satellite and the rest....are PBS/NPR still a needed part of the broadcasting family?"

Given that they're among the few broadcasting venues still growing in real raw audience as well as market share in most markets (check your Arbitrons and Nielsens for proof) you better believe they're needed, or at least very much wanted.

Case in point...Morning Edition and All Things Considered are the only shows that match (and by some measures, including 25-54 men and women) may exceed) Rush Limbaugh's weekly cume. And since those shows, and other shows, get no direct taxpayer support--and most noncomm radio stations not owned by municipalities, state universities or state government don't get operating money for the rest of their schedule from the taxpayer either--taxpayer subsidies aren't the issue some people think they are. These stations get their money from memberships and underwriting raised directly and voluntarily from the private sector, not government handouts. And they operate on budgets way leaner than your typical commercial station cluster.

Now, COMMERCIAL broadcasting stations' revenues, namely advertising, are 100% tax-deductible as a business expense at the source, so indirectly you and I are subsidizing Rush Limbaugh to a degree we don't subsidize Morning Edition and never will. Now I don't agree with the efforts by some states to change that by imposing a sales tax on advertising revenue, and think things should stay as they are. But we have to put all this in its proper factual perspective.

And in terms of propaganda, two nonpartisan public opinion research organizations, Pew Research Center and Gallup, have surveyed audiences and find NPR the very most balanced, nonpartisan news source available in any medium...so if it's propaganda you dislike, NPR is the LAST media outlet you'd want to punish, because when it comes to propaganda, on NPR it just isn't there.

Thought you'd like to know.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

"And since those shows, and other shows, get no direct taxpayer support--and most noncomm radio stations not owned by municipalities, state universities or state government don't get operating money for the rest of their schedule from the taxpayer either--taxpayer subsidies aren't the issue some people think they are. "

Actually, taxpayer subsidies are the ENTIRE issue. Please refer to my posts above and realize that direct subsidy is not the only method that non-coms have to get a leg up on their commercial competition. Witness plum wilderness transmitter sites that are excluded from 'commercial' development yet perfectly fine for 'non-commercial' utilization. I guess what's broadcast DOES matter to the average snail darter...

Again, listener support is fine. Tax breaks/grants/rebates/allowances/graft/etc. to support a particular line of thought that some find convenient is not. Advertising is advertising no matter what you call it.

The simple fact that most Democrats are in favor of the current subsidized arrangement and most Republicans are not is telling. If the coverage provided ran the other way, I"m sure the support would switch sides as well...but that would not make it any less wrong.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Tax breaks/grants/rebates/allowances/graft/etc. to support a particular line of thought that some find convenient is not.

You left out the kitchen sink! Rebates? Allowances? GRAFT?

Could you bring us some facts? Some evidence?

While traditional commercial broadcasters are claiming and demanding their freedom and right to promote a particular line of thought why would you deny public broadcasting a similar freedom.

Bob1370 has expressed a claim that might be right on target. In spite of the protest from condervatives that public broadcasting is an arm of the liberalism movement, NPR in particular may be the most politically balanced of ALL broadcast organizations in this country.