-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Another editorial on federal funding of public broadcasting
- Thread starter The Voice of Reason
- Start date
It's time for "public radio" to ween itself off the fed dole in general. It's hard to stop getting it all in one bang, but given a five year period, let's say, it would be easier. In the end, the system would be actually better without federal dollars. Several things aren't rosy about the federal money thing, but one thing that stands out in my mind is that some of the benifit is ate up in things like additional auditing costs etc. Medium to large markets could live without the money long-term. Smaller stations could stand to loose the most as they really don't have a very good finacial support otherwise in many cases.
I find all this to be absolute silliness. The fact that anyone is picking on federal funding of public broadcasting is nothing more than politically-motivated opportunism. No one seems to be talking about all the federally funded research projects, all the federally funded arts projects (some of which are also broadcast), and all of the federally funded think tanks. There are a lot of non-profit groups that have spokespeople who go on TV and radio stations as professional "guests" who get federal funding and tax breaks. Some of them get federal funding to speak out against federal funding. Ironic, isn't it?
The previous generation spent a lot of time an attention to make this country and the people who live here better than those who came before. Now, it seems there are people who want to make it worse, who are more focused around the negative, rather than the positive.
The previous generation spent a lot of time an attention to make this country and the people who live here better than those who came before. Now, it seems there are people who want to make it worse, who are more focused around the negative, rather than the positive.
As America tugged and struggled with it's own bootstraps in the 1930s as we tried to drag ourselves out of the nasty financial mess of 1929 and later, we as a nation put a lot of money into public funding of programs that were assumed to be helpful to our society. My father and mother bought their first farm under a government subsidized financial program. Mother participated in the Home Demonstration Club which was sponsored and partially funded through what we call the Extension Program that works through the "Land Grant" universities. The idea was to teach the back-woods women of America how to cook (better?), how to sew, how to participate in society.
When the Federal Government decided to put some funding into what we know today as Public Broadcasting is was just a continuation of what has been a long, long American tradition: we have as a nation have a long history of subsidizing humanitarian progress in this country. In the 1940s they taught my mother how to safely can sauer kraut and where to buy patters to make dresses and shirts out of feed sacks. Today we fund (a small portion) of Public Broadcasting so people can learn to safely understand how government works and to appreciate music and the arts.
When the "small government is better" folks get around to taking away the obscene farm subsidies from wealthy corporate farmers, then some of us who are fond of Public Broadcasting will be a bit more convinced that their cries to defund public broadcasting has some sincerity and integrity.
When the Federal Government decided to put some funding into what we know today as Public Broadcasting is was just a continuation of what has been a long, long American tradition: we have as a nation have a long history of subsidizing humanitarian progress in this country. In the 1940s they taught my mother how to safely can sauer kraut and where to buy patters to make dresses and shirts out of feed sacks. Today we fund (a small portion) of Public Broadcasting so people can learn to safely understand how government works and to appreciate music and the arts.
When the "small government is better" folks get around to taking away the obscene farm subsidies from wealthy corporate farmers, then some of us who are fond of Public Broadcasting will be a bit more convinced that their cries to defund public broadcasting has some sincerity and integrity.
Maybe this should be two questions?
Should the government have funded public radio?
Should the government continue to fund public radio?
In 1970, government funding to set up public radio and get it going was arguably a good thing and a public benefit. Setting aside issues of whether public radio is good or bad and whether you like it or not, the question now is does public radio need public money? I don't think so. And taking government money subjects public radio to political intimidation. Public radio has been on welfare long enough. They've got an income. They should get off the dole.
Should the government have funded public radio?
Should the government continue to fund public radio?
In 1970, government funding to set up public radio and get it going was arguably a good thing and a public benefit. Setting aside issues of whether public radio is good or bad and whether you like it or not, the question now is does public radio need public money? I don't think so. And taking government money subjects public radio to political intimidation. Public radio has been on welfare long enough. They've got an income. They should get off the dole.
MattParker said:Public radio has been on welfare long enough. They've got an income. They should get off the dole.
It's not welfare. Any more than government funding of hospitals or colleges is welfare. They both have sources of income too.
We need media that isn't tied to advertising and commercial pressures, and isn't owned by major corporations.
How about eliminate federal funds if they eliminate restrictions on funding, allowing stations to run commercials? Do you think the NAB will approve?
Whether you are charged with operating a public radio station, a county hospital, a charter school, a library or any other enterprise that really needs to focus on the quality of its product or service, it can be a good thing to have at least a minimal participation by the government. It becomes a protective barrier for the chief operating personality and for the board that manages the operation, in fending off dominant personalities in the community that want to bully or mother-hen the station, the hospital, the school or the library.
If the government becomes too intrusive, we complain. When the government, like a mature parent, gives a modest amount of money and rule making, good things can happen.
If the government becomes too intrusive, we complain. When the government, like a mature parent, gives a modest amount of money and rule making, good things can happen.
I certainly don't object to government funding of public radio if those dollars do not go to organizations that already generate enough revenue to exist and flourish without the funding. To me, dollars going to Minnesota Public Radio is wrong, but dollars going to a station like KTNA, the only radio station around Talkeetna, Alaska, makes sense to me.
One good thing about Government funding is it requires accountability. Even so, don't donors demand the same?
One good thing about Government funding is it requires accountability. Even so, don't donors demand the same?
TheBigA said:I find all this to be absolute silliness. The fact that anyone is picking on federal funding of public broadcasting is nothing more than politically-motivated opportunism. No one seems to be talking about all the federally funded research projects, all the federally funded arts projects (some of which are also broadcast), and all of the federally funded think tanks. There are a lot of non-profit groups that have spokespeople who go on TV and radio stations as professional "guests" who get federal funding and tax breaks. Some of them get federal funding to speak out against federal funding. Ironic, isn't it?
The previous generation spent a lot of time an attention to make this country and the people who live here better than those who came before. Now, it seems there are people who want to make it worse, who are more focused around the negative, rather than the positive.
I speak out against federally funded research projects on research project discussion forums. I speak out against federally funded arts projects on art project discussion forums. I speak out against federally funded think tanks on think tank discussion forums. I recently was emphatically reminded that in this forum, the discussion is to be limited to radio, and on this page of the forum, to public and non-commercial radio. And so, in here, I will repeat that it is not in the best interest of the taxpayers of the United States for broadcast radio to continue to be funded from with tax dollars. It is a luxury that we cannot afford.
If enough people want the programming carried on public and non-commercial radio, they will donate enough money to cover the costs. If there aren't enough people willing to fund it, then we as a nation will learn to live without it.
Well said Talk_Dude. If we knew the amount of money we pay in taxes that goes to things most all of us would consider wasteful, we'd likely figure a way to run all of our Government out of the country. But, alas, we must pick our battles and try to chisel away. Is this politically motivated? No. Those who think otherwise would be wrong.
Is there a place on the dial for Public Radio? You bet. Why is it people who tout the popularity and success of Public Radio are seemingly the same saying we must have government funding to keep it, yet in the next breath try to make a case for public funding by saying it is such a tiny amount. I must be missing the 'inbetween' bits to make this logical to me.
Is there a place on the dial for Public Radio? You bet. Why is it people who tout the popularity and success of Public Radio are seemingly the same saying we must have government funding to keep it, yet in the next breath try to make a case for public funding by saying it is such a tiny amount. I must be missing the 'inbetween' bits to make this logical to me.
Talk_Dude said:If enough people want the programming carried on public and non-commercial radio, they will donate enough money to cover the costs. If there aren't enough people willing to fund it, then we as a nation will learn to live without it.
Sorry but that's not how decisions in this country are made. That's why the government funds a lot of things that certain individuals, myself included, don't like. The government funds things for its own purposes, not the purposes of certain individuals, and it doesn't put each and every item in the budget up for popular vote. So this funding will continue, just as funding for NEA continued after the Mapplethorpe controversy, regardless of the short term controversy that surrounded it.
This is a political, not a broadcasting, decision, and has no place in this forum. Which is why sooner or later this subject will be sent to TIO, like all the other ones on this subject.
I agree. Decisions are made as you noted and that's not the way I understand the government is to operate.
I think NPR can stand on its own. It has good financials and good listenership. Certainly other public radio ventures are doing fairly well too. I wonder if the need for funding has passed.
I think NPR can stand on its own. It has good financials and good listenership. Certainly other public radio ventures are doing fairly well too. I wonder if the need for funding has passed.
TheBigA said:Talk_Dude said:If enough people want the programming carried on public and non-commercial radio, they will donate enough money to cover the costs. If there aren't enough people willing to fund it, then we as a nation will learn to live without it.
Sorry but that's not how decisions in this country are made. That's why the government funds a lot of things that certain individuals, myself included, don't like. The government funds things for its own purposes, not the purposes of certain individuals, and it doesn't put each and every item in the budget up for popular vote. So this funding will continue, just as funding for NEA continued after the Mapplethorpe controversy, regardless of the short term controversy that surrounded it.
This is a political, not a broadcasting, decision, and has no place in this forum. Which is why sooner or later this subject will be sent to TIO, like all the other ones on this subject.
Issues of funding public radio and non-commercial radio are probably the most important issues about public and non-commercial radio. Securing government funding is every bit as relevant and no-topic for any discussion of public and non-commercial radio as discussing ratings and how they relate to commercial sales are to commercial radio. Nothing goes out the transmission tower of any public or non-commercial radio station unless the electric bill has been paid, and the transmitter is in working condition. Just because you don't want to talk about it doesn't mean it isn't the single most important issue in the entire subject of public and non-commercial radio.
Talk_Dude said:Just because you don't want to talk about it doesn't mean it isn't the single most important issue in the entire subject of public and non-commercial radio.
Smells like baiting to me.
Bottom line: Your side doesn't have the votes. And the President won't sign it.
Hmmm, from the postings either Public/Non-Com radio is doomed if Public Funding vanishes or Public Radio has good listenership and likely enough funding to survive without it. Public Funding, if dropped will destroy Public Radio but in the next breath the postings indicate we contribute about a cup of store bought coffee a year to Public Radio. Figures I've seen indicate about 1.7 to 3 percent. Can anybody explain how Public Radio will vanish if revenue drops 1.7 to 3% or how Minnesota Public Radio will fade away if Public Funding dries up? All I see are the extremes. How about some reality. Let's move from chewing the fat to biting into the meat of the subject. We're not setting public policy here, just trying to wrap our minds around reality. Just how crucial is Public funding? How about a real example. Can anyone explain how or why Public funding goes to Minnesota Public Radio when they have tens of millions in revenue? Do they really need this funding or might they survive without it? I'm sure there are some Public Radio folks out there that can open this can of worms for us. Let's not move the discussion to point out welfare abuse to somehow make public radio funding okay. If you're inclined to do so, might I suggest you have a remarkable quality to be better used in politics or some other profession where illusion is more important than facts.
bturner said:Can anybody explain how Public Radio will vanish if revenue drops 1.7 to 3% or how Minnesota Public Radio will fade away if Public Funding dries up?
It won't. But a station in a small town will. That's what this is about. What the end of government funding will lead to is the big fish eating the small fish. MPR eats up stations in neighboring areas. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
bturner said:Can anyone explain how or why Public funding goes to Minnesota Public Radio when they have tens of millions in revenue?
Why are billionaires getting tax breaks? Why did the Congress just vote to continue Bush-era tax breaks to Bill Gates? He's not in a position to hire anyone any more. So giving him a tax break isn't going to lead to jobs for anyone. Yet that's the way government works. Explain that to me. Yet some of those same people want to de-fund public broadcasting. What does that tell you?
The argument for continued taxpayer funding of public radio appears to boil down to....
- The government spends money on things I don't like. Therefore, I am entitled to have government money spent on things you don't like.
- Small town stations are just scrapping by, so taxpayer money should keep flowing to Minnesota Public Radio, WHYY, WNYC and other fat cat stations.
- Banks and Big Corporations got government money so public radio should get some, too. After all, two wrongs do make a right.
- Hospitals and universities rake in big bucks, give out big salaries, have fancy facilities and equipment and put their students into debt for the rest of their lives with false promises of career prospects, future income and job security and they get money from the government. The more wrongs you add up, the more right they becomes.
- It won't pass and if it does, it gets vetoed. So, who cares whether public radio really needs the money or should continue to get it? Two years from now? Don't bother me with two years from now. I don't want to think about that.
- The government spends money on things I don't like. Therefore, I am entitled to have government money spent on things you don't like.
- Small town stations are just scrapping by, so taxpayer money should keep flowing to Minnesota Public Radio, WHYY, WNYC and other fat cat stations.
- Banks and Big Corporations got government money so public radio should get some, too. After all, two wrongs do make a right.
- Hospitals and universities rake in big bucks, give out big salaries, have fancy facilities and equipment and put their students into debt for the rest of their lives with false promises of career prospects, future income and job security and they get money from the government. The more wrongs you add up, the more right they becomes.
- It won't pass and if it does, it gets vetoed. So, who cares whether public radio really needs the money or should continue to get it? Two years from now? Don't bother me with two years from now. I don't want to think about that.
MattParker said:- The government spends money on things I don't like. Therefore, I am entitled to have government money spent on things you don't like.
That's exactly how Congress works. You want my vote on something that benefits you? Then you must vote for something that benefits me. That's how billionaires got their tax break, even though it's unpopular and no one can justify it.
The rest of your list looks good to me. It's why the government still funds lots of things that are obsolete.
Sure, the system is screwed up, and it needs to be fixed. But it's opening Pandora's box, and everyone has selfish self-interest, and no one wants to lose what they feel belongs to them.
Again, why billionaires get tax breaks in not the question. We're getting spin (to quote Fox News). Maybe there are not answers in the mix, just our collective minds trying to figure things out. Needless to say, you're spot on in saying that's the way it is, but because things are on way today should we simply sit back and be satisfied with the status quo?
I can assume MPR was once a lowly struggling entity that really needed the economic help when it began, but much like the unemployed, the government help ends when you get another job and money starts rolling in. In lieu to abandoning Public Radio support should we be pushing for guidelines where than financial assistance goes?
I know I've certainly worked my share of stations where the ink turns red with a loss in revenue of 1 to 2 percent, so I fully understand this and welcome such financial support in such cases...even matching funds much like states receive for many of their projects that would be impossible without federal help.
I suppose the question I have is whether there is abuse in how some of the funding is directed (and by abuse I mean some funds going to entities that could easily survive without it).
I can assume MPR was once a lowly struggling entity that really needed the economic help when it began, but much like the unemployed, the government help ends when you get another job and money starts rolling in. In lieu to abandoning Public Radio support should we be pushing for guidelines where than financial assistance goes?
I know I've certainly worked my share of stations where the ink turns red with a loss in revenue of 1 to 2 percent, so I fully understand this and welcome such financial support in such cases...even matching funds much like states receive for many of their projects that would be impossible without federal help.
I suppose the question I have is whether there is abuse in how some of the funding is directed (and by abuse I mean some funds going to entities that could easily survive without it).
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.