Another editorial on federal funding of public broadcasting

[bturner]

That's what I thought. A natural break in programming is a legal ID, end of a song, end of a news story, etc.

I see no rule underwriting is limited to 30 seconds. I see where the FCC cautions that an underwriting spot lasting longer than 30 seconds has a tendency of violating underwriting rules.

They also say over 6 underwriter units per hour may be too many but never state if this on a weekly, daily or hourly basis. I recall then the 18 minutes of commercial time an hour rule was in effect I asked the Field Agent that visited our station when I was at my first radio job and he said they were loose on how that was figured. He said it was normally based on a weekly average but he said in places that, say, were tourist based, they considered the local business climate. If almost all the business came during summer months, the average might be based on an annual average. I say this to indicate the FCC would consider the particular situation. So, 8 to 12 an hour in peak listening hours might be okay as long as the weekly average does not exceed 6 per hour or perhaps if a station was really struggling.

While we tend to look at the FCC as this entity that is trying to catch us doing something wrong, I find the FCC very understanding and merciful in the event of an honest mistake or mistaken interpretation of a rule. If only other regulatory agencies were so gracious!

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What vital national interest does NPR serve? The only thing they can claim is that they do journalism better than NBC or the Wall Street Journal. As we see in this thread, that's debatable in itself.

NPR reminds us that civility is a value, that it is possible and do-able even in broadcasting, and is a tutorial to citizens who wish to radiate civility in their own lives... how it can be done.

 

[Talk_Dude]

What vital national interest does NPR serve? The only thing they can claim is that they do journalism better than NBC or the Wall Street Journal. As we see in this thread, that's debatable in itself.

NPR reminds us that civility is a value, that it is possible and do-able even in broadcasting, and is a tutorial to citizens who wish to radiate civility in their own lives... how it can be done.

Sorry, but I can't buy that. NPR is a classic example of "preaching to the choir". NPR doesn't change anything. The only people who tune in to hear what it has to offer are those who are already convinced of whatever messages it transmits.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Sorry, but I can't buy that.

Maybe this isn't a question of whether you buy it, but a question of whether you understand it.

My post was not about the content or the correctness of the content. It was about style. It was respect for the personhood, the dignity of the listener. Even beyond the listener, the dignity of the person who is the subject or target of the story. Even when it become obvious that the journalist or commentator disagrees with the politician or dignitary that is the subject of the news story, the target person is not called names, is not referred to with derogatory nick-names.

So let me say it again. What vital national interest does NPR serve? NPR reminds us, and in some cases introduces us to the idea... that CIVILITY is a national value.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Sorry, but I can't buy that.

Maybe this isn't a question of whether you buy it, but a question of whether you understand it.

My post was not about the content or the correctness of the content. It was about style. It was respect for the personhood, the dignity of the listener. Even beyond the listener, the dignity of the person who is the subject or target of the story. Even when it become obvious that the journalist or commentator disagrees with the politician or dignitary that is the subject of the news story, the target person is not called names, is not referred to with derogatory nick-names.

So let me say it again. What vital national interest does NPR serve? NPR reminds us, and in some cases introduces us to the idea... that CIVILITY is a national value.

Content or the style of the delivery of the content, it doesn't matter. The only people who experience NPR are the ones who listen to it, and who already agree with it. Whether that's a question of what they say or how they say it, it's still preaching to the choir.

 

[johnbasalla]

Dennis Prager, who is on commercial radio, does the dignified things that are suggested here. In fact, he 'bends over backwards' to be fair.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Content or the style of the delivery of the content, it doesn't matter.

This thread has explored several different facets related to the fact that the federal government does put some funding into the operation of radio and tv stations and program production grouped under the term "public broadcasting". (The scope reaches beyond NPR and PBS.)

A sub-topic very appropriate to the thread asks (simplified) "Why would the government take tax money from people who are not interested in public broadcasting and from people politically and philosophically opposed to tax funding of public radio and give it broadcasters." That is a question that deserves discussion and answers and there has been some of each, but not exhaustive conversation in the directions.

Another sub-topic very appropriate to the thread centers on the issue that the government funds a number of things that some people are not interested in and some people are politically and philosophically opposed to. Public Schools. Libraries. Hospitals. Green Space and Walking Trails. Play areas where children can play baseball, soccer and other sports. National Parks. Guarantees of home loans. Student loans for college students. Foreign aid. Broadcasting (and other distribution) of propaganda to citizens of other nations trying to convince them that Americans are nice people. Some ask why tax money should be spent on airports. We could fill page after page if we expanded the list.

So we came to the next sub-topic: "Are there some of these things which appear to be optional that actually benefit ALL the people to some extent. If we can get some radical nation somewhere to cool their buns and not start another war that will involve us, does that benefits us all?" If we build a play area where kids from troubled homes can learn a more healthy attitude toward life and they end up being productive citizens rather than hardened criminals for whom we have to provide a prison bed, meals and healthcare, does that benefit citizens who don't have any children in their family to use the playground?

So in the pursuit of this line of thinking, someone pointed out that it was their opinion that NPR serves no vital national interest. In return I suggested that NPR contributes value by introducing us to civility, and providing a role model of how civility works. I offer my opinion: Civility is a valuable trait, yes even and essential trait to our form of civilization and our form of government.

If the conversation had died right there, that would be fine. I had my say.

But in a demonstration of the lack of civility that is being modeled by other venues of news and talk radio, what I get back in conversation is: Content or style of delivery doesn't matter. Its simply preaching to the choir.

Done. Just make a wild blue claim without support, declare victory and walk away.

I hope other participants will offer some pros and cons on the topic better than this one example I offer: Let's assume that not a single rank and file citizen ever tunes in NPR unless they are already a card-carrying-member of whatever dogma supposedly drives their broadcasting. There is one group of people who are not part of the choir who as part of their occupation MUST become occasional listeners. And that would be the loyal opposition. The other broadcasters (you can substitute "conservative talk" here if you wish) look at the ratings and good business training and practice demands that the staff of all forms of media listen to NPR enough to have internal discussions as to why this supposedly elitist, biased form or broadcasting is succeeding to some extent. If no one other than the competing media people ever listen (in addition to the choir), then our civilization has gained something when these other purveyors of information observe that you can actually communicate without name calling and insults hurled at people you disagree with.

In my view of the world we are then down to a debate over what is that worth to the average American citizen: half-a-cent per year? 25-cents per year? $1.98 per year? $50.00 per year?

 

[TheBigA]

If no one other than the competing media people ever listen (in addition to the choir), then our civilization has gained something when these other purveyors of information observe that you can actually communicate without name calling and insults hurled at people you disagree with.

But I think so much of this criticism is focused on NPR news coverage. My question is why should all of public broadcasting suffer if the only thing anyone has a problem with is NPR News? Why should Sesame Street, Car Talk, and Great Performances suffer because a handful of people don't like Cokie Roberts or Linda Wertheimer? I watched Live From Lincoln Center last night and the only "preaching to the choir" that happened was the New York Philharmonic performing the Nutcracker Suite. What's wrong with that?

If there's a problem with NPR news coverage, and it's viewed as biased (they do news coverage at VOA too), there is a simple way to handle that. But one needn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and I think that's what this campaign by a handful of Republicans is about.

 

[fybush]

But I think so much of this criticism is focused on NPR news coverage. My question is why should all of public broadcasting suffer if the only thing anyone has a problem with is NPR News? Why should Sesame Street, Car Talk, and Great Performances suffer because a handful of people don't like Cokie Roberts or Linda Wertheimer? I watched Live From Lincoln Center last night and the only "preaching to the choir" that happened was the New York Philharmonic performing the Nutcracker Suite. What's wrong with that?

If there's a problem with NPR news coverage, and it's viewed as biased (they do news coverage at VOA too), there is a simple way to handle that. But one needn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and I think that's what this campaign by a handful of Republicans is about.

I have been deeply hesitant to wade into these waters, since I have a dog in this hunt, working as I do as a part-time newscaster and program host at my local NPR outlet. But I've spent enough years in commercial radio and TV news to believe I can be at least somewhat dispassionate about the subject, especially since I also still draw a substantial portion of my income from providing services to the commercial side of the industry.

What's often forgotten here is the nature of the bulk of the Federal contribution to public broadcasting. As Aaron (who's a friend and a colleague) has pointed out somewhere along this thread, the bulk of the funding to local stations comes in the form of CSGs, the Community Service Grants aimed at providing and maintaining service to communities too small or remote to sustain public media on their own. I don't know the specifics of Minnesota's CSG grant, but I do know that MPR has been active in recent years fleshing out its networks in the outlying parts of the state. Will a full-power license in International Falls ever be able to sustain itself based on local contributions? I'm not privy to MPR's finances, but I'd guess that the network's not getting rich off donations from I-Falls or Pine Rapids or any of the other small towns that got full MPR service in 2010, and I strongly suspect that whatever government money MPR received in 2010 came in the form of CSGs and PTFP money to build out those outlying portions of the network to make MPR available to parts of the state that likely have no other broadcast connection to in-depth news at the state or national level.

(Another poster suggested that MPR's roots date back to the old land-grant university days; this is true of networks in neighboring Wisconsin, Iowa and in the Dakotas, but MPR has been independent from its beginnings in the 60s in Collegeville; the land-grant station in Minnesota was the University of Minnesota's KUOM, which went its own way as a student-run station and never joined NPR.)

The stations where I work are operated by a joint community radio/TV licensee. What government funding (state and federal) we get is all very targeted - PTFP money from NTIA to replace a burned-out mask filter at the TV transmitter (a 50% matching grant), Local Journalism Initiative money from CPB to start a new regional reporting project that's added seven news staffers across upstate New York (on a two-year challenge grant, after which it's up to us to raise money keep the program going), and a chunk of money that funds educational programming.

I think that funding is the most justifiable of all - it's what the licensee was founded to provide way back in the late 1950s, when even then the local commercial stations wouldn't/couldn't provide full-fledged educational broadcasting. We have an education department that works with area school systems to supply them with educational programming in a very cost-effective manner, including a daily "Homework Hotline" show that airs on our station and most of the rest of the PBS stations around the state. I can comprehend (though I disagree with it) the full-out libertarian position that posits that government has no business funding education at all. For any stance that's any less doctrinaire than that, I think it's quite easy to justify our use of government money to provide that service: it's much less expensive for us to provide educational TV service to seven counties at once than for individual school systems to try to do it themselves.

The news coverage (and we now have the largest radio newsroom in town, not to mention the only radio reporter stationed at the state capital in Albany, 200 miles away) may benefit incidentally from the government funding that supports other station functions, but the idea that we have "government paying for biased news reporting," or indeed for any news reporting at all, does not seem to me to be a fair assessment of the situation.

(This applies as well to those who would calculate NPR's federal funding by attributing to it the government funding that goes to NPR's member stations. Sure, some of that cash might pass through to NPR in the end, but by that same logic Shively would become a "government-funded antenna maker" if it sells an antenna to a public radio station, or Harris a "government-funded transmitter manufacturer." The op-ed piece that started this thread made a similar error, attributing government funding via member-station payments to NPR, yet somehow presenting APM/PRI, which depends on station payments to the same extent, as an "independent competitor.")

 

[Talk_Dude]

Done. Just make a wild blue claim without support, declare victory and walk away.

1. I simply stated what I think anyone with any common sense can simply recognize as a self-evident truth. If I were to claim that water is wet, I wouldn't provide any "support" for that claim, either.

2. I just got back from a two-week time out for saying too much about non-radio issues, and expressing opinions about using the radio to further some sort of beneficial civil agenda. I'm not going to get into any depth of detail on anything in that vein again. I got my hand slapped once. I'm going to avoid getting it smacked again.

It seems liberals like TheBigA can get away with all the political content they want, but a conservative like me needs to be much more careful about what he says in here.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

It is good to see you participating again. You, like me, like some of the other participants, have some strong views and we all struggle with expressing our passion and not stepping outside the talk-space the board grants us.

Tonight I think I pretty well exhausted my trail of logic on what I called a SUB-TOPIC of this thread. While others may have their own take on what value, if any, civility plays in this discussion, I shall leave it to others to carry on if more needs to be added or if counter-views are needed.

I fully expect the new session of Congress to have robust discussion of how we find ways to trim the budget. People of all occupations, of all business pursuits, of all economic levels will find some budget cuts distasteful and painful, and will rejoice when congress leaves in place some items that we need or cherish. Congress will not be a place for the timid. I listened to news reports yesterday and today about how many members of the congress can be described as part of the Tea Party movement and will be quick to participate in votes that demonstrate to their folks back home they are serious about living up to their campaign promises.

Add to that the people in Congress who may not be as committed to the goals of the Tea Party thinking, but still are fiscal conservatives and when they see they will not stick out like inflamed thumbs when they vote against programs popular with many people, they will take advantage of voting what they have long wanted to vote.

Watch for some Democrats to surprise people by being strongly in favor of achieving fiscal sanity.

If indeed public broadcasting, both radio and TV, is as good as some of us who are fans claim they are, public broadcasting will be a great place for people to get a very good picture of the turmoil that will be keeping Washington colorful this year. And if Talk Radio, conservative-style is indeed the trustworthy conduit its listeners want to believe that it is, this will be their year to prove their value to our national conversation.

 

[bturner]

Scott makes some excellent points and I sure do appreciate the MEAT. Like Goat Rodeo Cowboy, I'd love to see more discussion. I might add I find it a bit difficult weeding out the bunny trails as those few choose to take us away from the target. It makes me wonder if they have something to add.

I'm not a regular listener to NPR but I sometimes listen to NPR affiliates. There are some great programs and in my opinion they have more of a liberal slant if I am forced to attach a label, but I hear lots of nuetral content. Is Public Radio beneficial? I think it is. Has it reached the point in growth and popularity to be a major player in radio? I believe it has.

In looking at Minnesota Public Radio, I pulled up their application for KGRP in Grand Rapids, Michigan. From what I can figure, they currently run two translators in Grand Rapids, serving 14,755 people. They have a CP for a 9.7 kw. station at 146.5 meters HAAT that will serve 40,969 people. In their application, they indicate they have 194 'members' out of 14,755 people. I calculated their average 'member donation' at $145.27. The number of members is divided between the News & Information and the Classical formats, as both formats are represented via the traslators. Assuming the new station will carry either the News & Information format or the Classical format and assuming both formats tend to have an equal number of donors or members, I can assume the new FM will have the potential of about 240 'members' and around $40,000 in revenue annually. Thus, they're sure not getting rich on this one!

Manta, a site that offers information on businesses, notes a local Grand Rapids commercial FM station has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year while the two other commercial stations are stated as having incomes between 1 and 2.5 million per year. In defense for these rather large amounts of billing, it should be pointed out all three of these stations are 100,000 watt FMs and a 5,000 watt AM with exceptional daytime coverage. I shall also state the AM and one of the 2 FMs make up a combo, thus, it is likely the 1 to 2.5 million figure is a combined AM/FM billing total although Manta lists each station as separate entities. Assuming I am right, here's the conclusion:

Grand Rapid, MN - 2 commercial FM; 1 commercial FM; 1 full power Non-Comm, 4 Translators (2 are MPR; 2 are Christian).
Commercial Radio Revenue: about 2.5 million (averaged between $500,000 and $1,000,000 = $750,000 PLUS average between 1 and 2.5 million = $1,750,000. Total: 2.5 million).

I offer this detail, although not purely scientific, to use as a random case study. Maybe it will inspire additional discussion. In fact, I'd adding a new topic in hopes of learning something.

 

[drt]

FWIW, VOA does have some online streaming available at

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/

Also, I have not been listening to shortwave in a few months, but back in either August or September I was able to receive a clear signal from VOA broadcasting the news in "Special English", which is newscast for people learing English, so it is the news slowed down and enunciated clearly.

IMO VOA and AFRTV is still a needed service and I know not all our troops are in the postition of having the luxury of satellite reception, but a small medium wave and or short wave receiver can be an option in remote areas.

Now Radio and TV Marti, that is so badly jammed that nearly no one in Cuba is able to receive it, that's another story.

drt,
st. petersburg

 

[aaronread]

I see no rule underwriting is limited to 30 seconds. I see where the FCC cautions that an underwriting spot lasting longer than 30 seconds has a tendency of violating underwriting rules.

You're correct, it is not a "rule". Not in the sense of being in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). I believe it was mentioned in a Report & Order (R&O) and the wording was, IIRC: "we do not see how an underwriting credit greater in length than 30 seconds could not be commercial in nature." (I'm paraphrasing, but basically it's what you said.)

More specific was the fine issued against KXPW-LP in 2009 that said: (I quote)

Contributing to our finding is the fact that many of these announcements appear to exceed thirty seconds in length. Although the Commission has not imposed quantitative limits on the length of underwriting announcements, it has found that the longer the announcements, the more likely they are to contain material, as here, that is inconsistent with the “identification only”
purpose of such announcements.
(page 4, paragraph 7 - http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-51A1.pdf)

In its usual roundabout way of imposing limits on speech while skirting the First Amendment, the FCC is essentially telling broadcasters "don't have underwriting spots longer than 30 seconds." Oh sure, you COULD do spots longer than that, and in some cases I imagine it would be perfectly fine to do so...spots for a concert come to mind, where a lot of the time in the spot is just playing the band's music. But you do so at your own risk.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Grand Rapid, MN - 2 commercial FM; 1 commercial FM; 1 full power Non-Comm, 4 Translators (2 are MPR; 2 are Christian).
Commercial Radio Revenue: about 2.5 million (averaged between $500,000 and $1,000,000 = $750,000 PLUS average between 1 and 2.5 million = $1,750,000. Total: 2.5 million).

Go run your traps again. Find more look-up resources. I'm going to guess the radio revenue in that market maybe 8 times what you calculated.

This is the hometown of Amway, Steelcase, Meijer stores, Bissell, American Seating, Spartan Stores, Wolverine Worldwide and (drum roll please!) Zondervan Publishing.

Other than the revenue numbers, my immediate curiosity is drawn by another possible factor. We talk about the South being the "Bible Belt" and that Nashville TN with all its denominational offices and publishing is the buckle of that belt.

There is a second "Bible Belt" in this country and it's 'buckle' is Grand Rapids. What we used to call The Dutch Reformed Church has had an enormous impact in this 'buckle'. Maybe Minnesota Public Radio senses an opportunity to garner listeners and support from people in the area who want "a breath of fresh air" in their listening opportunities.

Now before anyone gets cross-ways... strictly a guess on my part. But I have frequented GR, Holland, Muskegon, kalamazoo and that quaint little place called Saugatuck a number of times.

I think the long term potential for listeners and fund raising from this market is enormously larger than your calculation.

 

[JimmyJames]

I believe the market in question was Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Which interestingly, is also served by a fairly successful community station known as KAXE which carries some NPR but is mostly locally programmed with a healthy list of volunteers and recently received a CPB grant to operate a partner station in Bemidji, MN.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Duh! I should have caught that.... down in the next to the last paragraph.

 

[listener-in]

As a latecomer to this thread, I'd like to congratulate all the participants - both the ones I agree with and those I differ with - for a lively, entertaining, well reasoned and civilized discussion. Happy New Year to all! Since my views have been well represented, I'll limit myself to one general observation.

The nation is up to its ears in debt. Federal spending MUST be lowered, not just on this topic, but others as well. Defending the continuation of federal funds to broadcasting by saying, "it's so little, actually" doesn't change the fact that everything will help and is needed.

If we are reduced to that, it bodes ill for the quality of life in our nation. By such logic, along with public broadcasting we should shut down our national and state parks, our national monuments, our art galleries, our public libraries, and so forth (I'm not differentiating between levels of government because they are all in the same boat) and throw them and the citizens who enjoy them to sink or swim at the mercy of the private sector. That's not the America I thought I knew.

 

[Talk_Dude]

As a latecomer to this thread, I'd like to congratulate all the participants - both the ones I agree with and those I differ with - for a lively, entertaining, well reasoned and civilized discussion. Happy New Year to all! Since my views have been well represented, I'll limit myself to one general observation.

The nation is up to its ears in debt. Federal spending MUST be lowered, not just on this topic, but others as well. Defending the continuation of federal funds to broadcasting by saying, "it's so little, actually" doesn't change the fact that everything will help and is needed.

If we are reduced to that, it bodes ill for the quality of life in our nation. By such logic, along with public broadcasting we should shut down our national and state parks, our national monuments, our art galleries, our public libraries, and so forth (I'm not differentiating between levels of government because they are all in the same boat) and throw them and the citizens who enjoy them to sink or swim at the mercy of the private sector. That's not the America I thought I knew.

At the risk of getting this thread sent to TIO and myself kicked out for two weeks again, I'd like to observe that many of the things you mention are paid for by state and local governments, not the Federal government. Also, many of our art galleries, public libraries, as so forth were funded by charitable donations from the private sector. There's a reason why so many libraries are called "Carnegie Libraries", as in Andrew Carnegie. There are some things that the private sector simply cannot do, such as operate national parks. The fact that the government does things that the private sector cannot do does not automatically mean that everything that might be good must be funded by the central Federal Government.

If the American people want museums, art galleries, public libraries, and so forth, then the American people will have to cough up donations on their own to fund them.

There is nothing that "public" radio does that is such a vital interest of the nation that would cause the nation undue distress if public radio stations ceased to exist. If there is something that public radio does that the public truly wants, then some entrepreneur will think of a way to provide it and make a profit doing so. If it cannot be done by either voluntary public donations or by a profit-making operation, then that should be seen as proof that it simply isn't needed or desired enough.

 

[MattParker]

There is nothing that "public" radio does that is such a vital interest of the nation that would cause the nation undue distress if public radio stations ceased to exist. If there is something that public radio does that the public truly wants, then some entrepreneur will think of a way to provide it and make a profit doing so. If it cannot be done by either voluntary public donations or by a profit-making operation, then that should be seen as proof that it simply isn't needed or desired enough.

I agree. I think the case can be made that the former "class acts" of radio "dumbed down" and "tarted up" because public radio moved in on their former turf. Where I live, a local station did in-depth news magazines in morning and afternoon drive with quality and stature comparable to NPR. Now that spot on the dial has screaming right-wing talk. Much the same occurred in other markets. Hard to compete when they other guy doesn't pay taxes but receives them.