http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article293946.ece
I'm sure there will be comments, both pro and con, regarding this editorial.
I'm sure there will be comments, both pro and con, regarding this editorial.
-
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
New Editorial On Public Broadcasting
- Thread starter The Voice of Reason
- Start date
It's not an "editorial," it's an "op-ed," or a "Viewpoints" column in News terminology. One represents the views of the newspaper, the other represents the views of the writer.
In this case, we have a writer who's coming from, and writing under the aegis of, a libertarian think-tank. One would expect him to be against government funding of pretty much anything.
(One would also expect his command of the facts to be a little stronger: while it's true that APM/PRI "compete effectively" with NPR, they do so in large part only because they also draw heavily on the payments that they receive from individual stations for their programming. This writer's math appears to include payments from stations as part of the "taxpayer funding" attributed to NPR; it would be only fair to do the same for APM/PRI programming. And Sirius is hardly the "effective competitor" portrayed in the op-ed; it has public radio programming on its channels only because most of that programming is already being produced for, and paid for by, the local member stations.)
The News itself has a good record of support for public broadcasting, for whatever it's worth; it wasn't all that long ago that the paper was an active and essential part of the campaign to keep the news and talk coming on WNED 970 AM.
In this case, we have a writer who's coming from, and writing under the aegis of, a libertarian think-tank. One would expect him to be against government funding of pretty much anything.
(One would also expect his command of the facts to be a little stronger: while it's true that APM/PRI "compete effectively" with NPR, they do so in large part only because they also draw heavily on the payments that they receive from individual stations for their programming. This writer's math appears to include payments from stations as part of the "taxpayer funding" attributed to NPR; it would be only fair to do the same for APM/PRI programming. And Sirius is hardly the "effective competitor" portrayed in the op-ed; it has public radio programming on its channels only because most of that programming is already being produced for, and paid for by, the local member stations.)
The News itself has a good record of support for public broadcasting, for whatever it's worth; it wasn't all that long ago that the paper was an active and essential part of the campaign to keep the news and talk coming on WNED 970 AM.
B
Bob1370
Guest
Mr. Shugart is like many ideologues who don't let facts get in the way of a pet argument.
APM and PRI of course get their money through the same stream as NPR stations do--station payments for program carriage. That means that they all get SOME public funding through payments from stations in those states where public, noncommercial radio gets part of its operating money FROM the state. (New York, incidentally, is NOT one of those states...all operating funds for public radio operations come from memberships, private corporate underwriting, or student fees for those noncommercial campus stations which serve college campus communities.)
Telling people to get their programming from satellite subscription is telling people that if you can't pay an extra $150 year plus the cost of a specialized receiver, you're not entitled to hear intelligent nonpartisan, noncommercial programming. Oh well, if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake...
One would have thought that this whole issue would have died after the NPR-hating Congressmen who tried to defund NPR were embarrassed by the revelation that government funding plays a negligible role in the network's or most member stations' operations...although Happy Meals do.
APM and PRI of course get their money through the same stream as NPR stations do--station payments for program carriage. That means that they all get SOME public funding through payments from stations in those states where public, noncommercial radio gets part of its operating money FROM the state. (New York, incidentally, is NOT one of those states...all operating funds for public radio operations come from memberships, private corporate underwriting, or student fees for those noncommercial campus stations which serve college campus communities.)
Telling people to get their programming from satellite subscription is telling people that if you can't pay an extra $150 year plus the cost of a specialized receiver, you're not entitled to hear intelligent nonpartisan, noncommercial programming. Oh well, if they can't afford bread, let them eat cake...
One would have thought that this whole issue would have died after the NPR-hating Congressmen who tried to defund NPR were embarrassed by the revelation that government funding plays a negligible role in the network's or most member stations' operations...although Happy Meals do.
One could easily use the logic of this writer to justify further media de-regulation and consolidation. I mean, there are far more sources of information today than there were in 1967. Eliminating federal funding for public broadcasting opens the door to eliminating federal funding for the arts, sciences, historical and cultural preservation, all of which are entangled with public broadcasting. If we're going to legislate by public opinion polls, as this article suggests, we need to be prepared for the world that will result.
B
Bob1370
Guest
"If we're going to legislate by public opinion polls, as this article suggests, we need to be prepared for the world that will result."
Actually, since among all the public services in the country today, a series of Pew Research surveys over the past decade have all said that public radio and TV are second only to Social Security among the MOST POPULAR programs that get even a pittance of public funds--and that poltically, doing harm to them is like hitting a highly charged third rail. No surprise, since it is the ONLY public service that's used by a majority of American households in any given week other than their children's public schools.
If the politicians attack it, they should be prepared for the voter wrath that will result. Remember 1995? Ex -senator Larry Pressler is an EX-senator precisely because he led an effort to privatize PBS and NPR. Bill Clinton owed his 1996 re-election in part to the fact that he confronted Pressler and Newt Gingrich over this issue. If the politicians forget that piece of recent history they'll pay. Just ask Gov. Christie of New Jersey, whose public approval has cratered since he attacked and de-funded public TV in his state, and has gone from Presidential contender for 2012 to probable lame duck one-term Governor today.
Actually, since among all the public services in the country today, a series of Pew Research surveys over the past decade have all said that public radio and TV are second only to Social Security among the MOST POPULAR programs that get even a pittance of public funds--and that poltically, doing harm to them is like hitting a highly charged third rail. No surprise, since it is the ONLY public service that's used by a majority of American households in any given week other than their children's public schools.
If the politicians attack it, they should be prepared for the voter wrath that will result. Remember 1995? Ex -senator Larry Pressler is an EX-senator precisely because he led an effort to privatize PBS and NPR. Bill Clinton owed his 1996 re-election in part to the fact that he confronted Pressler and Newt Gingrich over this issue. If the politicians forget that piece of recent history they'll pay. Just ask Gov. Christie of New Jersey, whose public approval has cratered since he attacked and de-funded public TV in his state, and has gone from Presidential contender for 2012 to probable lame duck one-term Governor today.
Joisey politics is beyond unpredictable and it's doubtful that any of us "flat-A locals" in Western New York can accurately predict anything about Governor Christie's political future. Christie is on record (Meet the Press, about three weeks ago) as saying he's not interested in a White House gig. But enough Garden State politics, let's get back to radio and NPR in particular, especially as it applies to Buffalo.
We're fortunate in this part of WNY to have two very good news-talk NPR affiliates. Mine was an Arbitron household for the Spring 2009 survey and each station received a respectable and accurately accounted for number of quarter hours each day. (BTW, this is the first time I've revealed that I was an Abitron participant. Mildly amusing that I received a random call from the ratings company only a few months after getting pink-slipped, but I filled-out my diary accurately and without prejudice.)
Each NPR station in Buffalo has its selling points. I'm fond of the WNED-AM mid-morning morning line-up and despite the station's directional pattern having more nulls than the Bills offense had turnovers last Sunday, I endure. Other times, I'm attached to WBFO for news, talk and the blues shows. I'm not particularly thrilled about the eventual annexation of WBFO by WNYPB, but given the choice of the station "going away" or having it LMA'd by WNYPB, the choice is clear. I trust WNYPB will be a good steward, but it just seems the university administration has thrown in the towel on what has been an integral part of the institution, afterall, this is the station that gave NPR a number of its featured show hosts and reporters, including Terry Gross, Ira Flatow and Bill Siemering. Yeah, I know, it ain't 1973, times change and money's too tight to mention.
NPR must me doing something right because it's the target of barbs from Democrats and Republicans. Only a few weeks ago I heard a GOP senator being interviewed on Morning Edition. The interview was fair, firm and collegial, but at one point the senator bristled, "that's exactly the kind of question I'd expect from NPR..." before answering the question. To his credit, the interviewer stayed "on-task" and never took issue with the senator's NPR remark. (How many of us might have been diverted or offered some snide retort?)
Progressives and Conservatives will always have their preferences; Schultz and Rhodes or Rush and Hannity, respectively. It's good and reassuring to know that NPR offers news, features and investigative reporting that offer an alternative to what's heard on commercial talk radio. And in many markets, NPR is more than competitive with commercial news-talk radio. Perhaps this is the core issue for those who take umbrage at the public funding of CPB and NPR.
We're fortunate in this part of WNY to have two very good news-talk NPR affiliates. Mine was an Arbitron household for the Spring 2009 survey and each station received a respectable and accurately accounted for number of quarter hours each day. (BTW, this is the first time I've revealed that I was an Abitron participant. Mildly amusing that I received a random call from the ratings company only a few months after getting pink-slipped, but I filled-out my diary accurately and without prejudice.)
Each NPR station in Buffalo has its selling points. I'm fond of the WNED-AM mid-morning morning line-up and despite the station's directional pattern having more nulls than the Bills offense had turnovers last Sunday, I endure. Other times, I'm attached to WBFO for news, talk and the blues shows. I'm not particularly thrilled about the eventual annexation of WBFO by WNYPB, but given the choice of the station "going away" or having it LMA'd by WNYPB, the choice is clear. I trust WNYPB will be a good steward, but it just seems the university administration has thrown in the towel on what has been an integral part of the institution, afterall, this is the station that gave NPR a number of its featured show hosts and reporters, including Terry Gross, Ira Flatow and Bill Siemering. Yeah, I know, it ain't 1973, times change and money's too tight to mention.
NPR must me doing something right because it's the target of barbs from Democrats and Republicans. Only a few weeks ago I heard a GOP senator being interviewed on Morning Edition. The interview was fair, firm and collegial, but at one point the senator bristled, "that's exactly the kind of question I'd expect from NPR..." before answering the question. To his credit, the interviewer stayed "on-task" and never took issue with the senator's NPR remark. (How many of us might have been diverted or offered some snide retort?)
Progressives and Conservatives will always have their preferences; Schultz and Rhodes or Rush and Hannity, respectively. It's good and reassuring to know that NPR offers news, features and investigative reporting that offer an alternative to what's heard on commercial talk radio. And in many markets, NPR is more than competitive with commercial news-talk radio. Perhaps this is the core issue for those who take umbrage at the public funding of CPB and NPR.
JimPastrick said:
I don't think so...that wasn't part of the article at the top of this thread. What was part of the article was the Juan Williams story. That seems to be the core issue, and the broader role that government should only fund a handful of things spelled out in the Constitution. About three-quarters of CPB's money goes to PBS, yet no one mentions that PBS doesn't have a news department. In fact, most articles about this issue don't deal with the specifics of how the federal dollars are spent, maybe because the writers either don't know, don't do the research, or don't think the answer is important to the discussion. In other words, the core issue here tends to be ideological.
- Status