Globe, Beam: WGBH, WBUR better off without US funding

[raccoonradio]

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2011/01/14/a_public_broadcasting_debate/?p1=Upbox_links

>>Public broadcasters — and especially prosperous stations like Boston’s WGBH and WBUR — might be better off without the government’s money...Of course PBS and NPR are biased — so what? Their weak-tea, center-left tilt hardly threatens the republic, and the NPR-niks’ resigned exasperation with bourgeois capitalism is more charming than annoying at this point.

 

[raccoonradio]

Let them run ads. "Car Talk will be right back after this message from Advance Auto Parts."

 

[N1WVQ]

In hushed tones: "Car Talk is brought to you by a grant from NAPA."

 

[DToTheJ]

... immediately followed by a loud "GET THE GOOD STUFF!" jingle... :

 

[Jimmy128]

They are running spots on WCRB and WGBH about how congress is about to vote on this in a few days.
And to go to their web site about more information.

 

[dyeingeye]

The federal funding of public radio has to be scrutinized. I heard a Diane Rehm show a few weeks ago on the topic and the public funding supporter's main argument was that CPB provides a public service to underserved areas. But that argument ignores the fact that a great deal of NPR/APM/whatever's programming is repetitive and duplicative. Why do big cities need two stations broadcasting All Things Considered? Why does the public need On Point and Diane Rehm? Why does Boston need four locally produced shows on two stations talking about the same things?

You can quote the percentage of funding that is from the government, but regardless of the level it in part allows this waste and needless repetition. End government funding for this stuff. If it is about rural areas access to news, limit the funding to that. But I can tell you that stations in rural areas just broadcast the news and classical music because they don't have the money for anything else.

 

[raccoonradio]

Supposedly the prez's budget not only continues CPB funding but also increases it.

By all means if you love public radio/TV, contribute, but it shouldn't be forced via taxation. Funding
is by individual donations, corporations, and foundations (though some of the latter may involve
taxes--things like public university money). I'm not for bare bones government but there are times
when the money could be spent much more frugally, for things that are really needed. Love
WGBH All Classical? Give just a wee bit more. A big fan of My Place with Joel Najman (plug plug)
on Vermont Public Radio? Ditto. Or again consider broadening the possibility of ad money if the
FCC can relax regulations.

And by the way, while some on the right argue the FCC should be gotten rid of, I do note that
they do have at least one vital purpose: getting rid of unlicensed broadcasters. One pirate at
99.7 in Dorchester was a bit too close to legally licensed WCRB and I believe the operators
were fined. We can't have this kind of thing happening right next to legit stations! (Incidentally
I was looking at diymedia.net's enforcement database regarding pirates and one station
in the area got a bunch of warnings and fines, etc.; and the FCC warning mentioned that
the landlord of the building they were broadcasting from was told they had "gotten a license
to broadcast for three years". Ha! If they got a license, it wasn't from the FCC!