Battle Over Fed Money for Public Broadcasting Heats Up Again

[fred flintstone]

He we go again. Republicans want to cut money from CPB. They say it's economics (cutting less essential government spending). Democrats say its politics.Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans yesterday revived their efforts to slash funding for public broadcasting, as a key committee approved a $115 million reduction in the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that could force the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs.On a party-line vote, the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees health and education funding approved the cut to the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes money to the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. It would reduce the corporation's budget by 23 percent next year, to $380 million, in a cut that Republicans said was necessary to rein in government spending.FULL ARTICLEhttp://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/08/gop_takes_aim_at_pbs_funding/?

The people in public radio can't have it both ways. On the one had, they talk about what a small portion of their operating budget comes from the taxpayers (via CPB), especially at pledge time. Then they scream bloody murder when Congress wants to reduce CPB's budget, which all of a sudden becomes essential to their survival. Meanwhile, we have public radio stations with fancy buildings on prime real estate, state of the art equipment, very highly paid managers and for-profit subsidiaries started with surplus funds. (Some will reply that their station doesn't have all that; well, mine does.)Public radio sales - oops, I mean "development" people - go out to corporate advertisers - oops, I mean "underwriters" - and talk about their large, loyal, attentive, well-educated and affluent audience - complete with PowerPoint charts. But when somebody wants to turn down the tap to the federal treasury (our money), they start talking about how they serve less-advantaged individuals and communities. OK, which is it?Let's face it, public radio is a major success. They don't need our money - either listener donations or money from taxes. They have good numbers and great demos in most markets. Any competent commercial broadcasting operator could make a nice profit from public radio (with current programming). Public radio's main problem is their public sector, non-profit, welfare queen mentality. They are sort of like adult kids living off their parents who have been told they should go out, get a job and move out of the basement.

 

[radioplayer]

Hey Fred,

I know what you're saying, but the problem is that most PB/NCE places can't make it all the way w/out the help. You have posted the demise of music on the NPR's out there....and it's another problem as the news chatters always do better than the passive music folks when it comes to dropping a dime in the PB hat. Unless you really want to do away with "underwriting" and allow for real world spots to start airing on the PB's and all the non-comm's, we all need to chip in those two cents from the fed money to make this work.

The Congress would be wise to stay away from the paltry amount of $$ in this case and focus their efforts on trying to stay within the budget! That would be a nice change that will not only help radio, it will help the entire country in the long term.

 

[fred flintstone]

Unless you really want to do away with "underwriting" and allow for real world spots to start airing on the PB's and all the non-comm's

An interesting idea. When the Carnegie Commission published their recommendations on public broadcasting in 1966, the word of radio was a very different place. Public radio has been a successful experiment and could stand on its own as a commercial enterprise without government funding. Public radio news and information stations beat commercial progressive talk radio in every market in which both formats are offered - often by substantial margins. Sure, why not add the "call to action" to the underwriting spots.

 

[Chuck]

Unless you really want to do away with "underwriting" and allow for real world spots to start airing on the PB's and all the non-comm's, we all need to chip in those two cents from the fed money to make this work.

It wouldn't bother me if they did. In fact, I think it would be an improvement. Most of the "underwriting" spots you hear these days are very much on the edge of being full blown commercials. In fact some stations seem to have thrown caution to the wind and just ignore the rules. I've noticed that some of the TV spots that are run on PBS are also run on commercial TV stations, with a local dealer tag. Toyota comes to mind, but there are many others. Obviously they work.

Clear Channel is introducing "Blips" as a form of advertising. These are one word mentions of a brand name, intended to boost market recognition. It will be interesting to see if CC can sell them. As far as I can tell, they would qualify on any non-com station by virtue of the fact that there is no call to action, no comparative statement and no price mentioned. That would be virtually impossible to do with just one word. I don't even think you could build a case for one word being promotional in nature, although it is obvious that the people who are paying CC for it must think so.

Of course, the reason most companies underwrite non-com stations, is to promote themselves. True, a few do it "for the greater good," but that is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe the compromise is to limit the amount of time a noncommercial station can sell for outright advertising. Five minutes an hour would probably be adequate to keep a station afloat.

 

[uncamark]

Unless you really want to do away with "underwriting" and allow for real world spots to start airing on the PB's and all the non-comm's

An interesting idea. When the Carnegie Commission published their recommendations on public broadcasting in 1966, the word of radio was a very different place. Public radio has been a successful experiment and could stand on its own as a commercial enterprise without government funding. Public radio news and information stations beat commercial progressive talk radio in every market in which both formats are offered - often by substantial margins. Sure, why not add the "call to action" to the underwriting spots.

There's one little problem--the hard-core listeners are going to start screaming "sellout!" (just like some are doing about the relatively benign funding plugs) and threatening not to give any more support. If you're still playing music, particularly classical, that audience will scream even more (classical audiences' intolerance for advertising is amazing). It's another "you can't win" situation.

 

[fred flintstone]

There's one little problem--the hard-core listeners are going to start screaming "sellout!" (just like some are doing about the relatively benign funding plugs) and threatening not to give any more support. If you're still playing music, particularly classical, that audience will scream even more (classical audiences' intolerance for advertising is amazing). It's another "you can't win" situation.

The music listeners don't contribute anyway so ______ 'em.
If public radio runs "commercials" in place of "underwriting announcements," it does not need listener pledges - or pledge drives. That's the whole idea.
If public radio has "surplus" capital available for high salaries and bonuses (and public radio salaries are higher than commercial radio salaries), state of the art equipment, fancy buildings and for-profit subsidiaries, then they don't need pledge drives right now (or CPB money for that matter).
Public radio can be self-supporting but that would mean it would have to live within its means like the rest of us.

 

[robbbc]

The left has already left NPR behind, choosing Pacifica affiliates for news and information, and dropping money on those stations, that get nothing from the feds. NPR appears to have the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute on Speed Dial nowadays and they are more of a "today show" mentality then when I started listening 12 years ago. I say good riddence to the public money. This is a classical example of Reaganesque republican machinations. Instead of getting rid of the EPA, for example, you put in right wing hacks and corporate clowns to run the thing. The recent Ombudsman (sp?) for NPR is a Reaganism 101 tactic and it works. The Republicans now see NPR and PBS as a way to get their message out at public expense. The underwriters for NPR stations tend to be large corporate givers to Republicans (ADM supermarket to the world, GE, Exxon). To think all of this doesn't contribute to editorial policies at PBS/NPR is niave. Goodbye NPR, you were a fun place to be for a while there.

 

[fred flintstone]

Pacifica is not available to much of the country. Where it is available, the quality of the on-air product is so bad, one has to be really devoted to listen. For quality of on-air product, I'd give NPR an A-; AAR a C+ and Pacifica a D-.

If AAR preaches to the choir, Pacifica preaches to the deacons' meeting.

Among the working news staff at NPR, I do not see an indication of the kind of bias you describe. If anything, news people will go out of their way to do a story unfavorable to underwriters or sponsors to prove their independence. Same thing for NPR talk shows. Any bias at NPR appears to come from the culture of political correctness in the organization and from the inside-the-beltway mentality of the people who work there.