NPR: 23 Million Listeners

[Scribbler]

I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk radio must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up from 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something right.

<a href=http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/11816016.htm>LINK</a>

 

[classic_rocker]

> I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk radio
> must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up from
> 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> right.
>
> LINK
>
Actually they are doing something "left".

 

[tbetz]

> > I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk radio
> > must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> > president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> > today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up from
>
> > 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> > right.
> >
> > LINK
> >
> Actually they are doing something "left".

Yeah, that's why they are known as "National Pentagon Radio."
<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[doc9464]

> > > I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk
> radio
> > > must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> > > president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> > > today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up
> from
> >
> > > 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> > > right.
> > >
> > > LINK
> > >
> > Actually they are doing something "left".
>
> Yeah, that's why they are known as "National Pentagon
> Radio."
>

See even faced with the idea that NPR has more listeners and is popular with all type of people from all walks of life, the critics or conservative critics still try to malign NPR and its value. NPR provides entertainment, cultural events, and news. NPR stations offer so much to people who really see its benefit.

Notice that conservatives will not discuss or challenge the current effort to alter NPR to become another FOX (or in my opinion FOX GOP Radio). See that would be ok to them, to have NPR become the next GOP outlet for spin and distortion.

Now we face the question of a government organization stepping in to demand radical changes to programming on radio stations the CPB is supposed to protect the government from....but now the CPB has been hijacked by the GOP...and being instructed to "balance" NPR where no political party should be able to do so. Thats just wrong and its unfair to the American people.

No one has criticized that the president of the CPB spent millions of dollars to track how many times NPR broadcast what he considered to be "unbalanced' radio ..just like he did to Bill Moyers on his TV show.

 

[kaufcom]

If this is correct, that means that the NPR audience is 23 times the size of
AAR audience, because current ratings reveal that AAR has about a million listeners per week.

> I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk radio
> must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up from
> 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> right.
>
> LINK
>

 

[jericho]

> should be able to do so. Thats just wrong and its unfair to
> the American people.

What is wrong and unfair to the American people is the fact that they are compelled by force to financially support a public radio network whether or not they have any interest in its programming. If NPR is as valuable as you claim it is, it ought to be able to survive without the benefit of government monetary largesse. As it is, it's the Amtrak of the American broadcasting industry.

 

[network]

Never Fails!

> > Actually they are doing something "left".
>
> Yeah, that's why they are known as "National Pentagon
> Radio."
>

It always good to know that ignorance is alive and well in this forum. Those two comments prove it.

 

[robbbc]

> > should be able to do so. Thats just wrong and its unfair
> to
> > the American people.
>
> What is wrong and unfair to the American people is the fact
> that they are compelled by force to financially support a
> public radio network whether or not they have any interest
> in its programming. If NPR is as valuable as you claim it
> is, it ought to be able to survive without the benefit of
> government monetary largesse. As it is, it's the Amtrak of
> the American broadcasting industry.
>
What Americans give to the CPB represents nothing in comparison to the massive government welfare programs for big businesses that make large donations to the Republican party- I don't support that money expenditure and I am sure it comes out to more than 11 cents a taxpayer. We could sit here all day pointing out programs, not the least of which is the war in Iraq, that should never be supported financially by the American people. Why should the citizens of this country pay for anything for that matter? The American people are compelled by force to support wars and welfare for the poor and health care for the poor/sick and money to prop up the airplane industry and you name it. The tiny pittance given by the CPB to PBS/NPR is hardly worth talking about. The fact that not everyone approves of a government program/war/subsidy doesn't mean they are victims.

Amtrak is a mess primarily because congress and even the republicans in congress have demanded every podunk town in Backwoods USA have a stop. The system could fund itself if left only in the Northeast corridor but you know how that would go over. We need service to Little Rock and Houston!

That being said, I think NPR/PBS would be better off loosing the CPB garbage hanging around their necks. If a small check box could be found in tax forms to give, say, 3 dollars to CPB they would probably be better off financially as well.

 

[Scribbler]

> If this is correct, that means that the NPR audience is 23
> times the size of
> AAR audience, because current ratings reveal that AAR has
> about a million listeners per week.

Where did you get that number? According to a May 19 article in LA Weekly, AAR says it has two million listeners per week and projects that it will double that number by 2006.

<a href=http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/19/deadline-finke.php>LINK</a>
>
> > I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk radio
> > must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> > president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> > today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up from
>
> > 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> > right.
> >
> > LINK
> >
>

 

[doc9464]

> What Americans give to the CPB represents nothing in
> comparison to the massive government welfare programs for
> big businesses that make large donations to the Republican
> party- I don't support that money expenditure and I am sure
> it comes out to more than 11 cents a taxpayer. We could sit
> here all day pointing out programs, not the least of which
> is the war in Iraq, that should never be supported
> financially by the American people. Why should the citizens
> of this country pay for anything for that matter? The
> American people are compelled by force to support wars and
> welfare for the poor and health care for the poor/sick and
> money to prop up the airplane industry and you name it. The
> tiny pittance given by the CPB to PBS/NPR is hardly worth
> talking about. The fact that not everyone approves of a
> government program/war/subsidy doesn't mean they are
> victims.

CPB supports TV and radio. We’re just talking about NPR here. They receive about 1-2% from fed grant programs.

They also receive about $48 - 55 million in programming fees from their member stations, which represents about 43% - 47% of total revenue.Member stations receive, on most recent estimate, about 14% of their revenue from the government (CPB).

Now think about this carefully and think hard on this one. you can pick the view here that helps yor political beliefs to determine CPB contribution to NPR programming fees.

If I want to say that they don’t receive any CPB support, I can say the programming fees come from the OTHER 86%.

If I want to show that NPR is highly dependent on the government, I say that the entire purpose of that 14% is to go to NPR.

But because CPB supports public radio and tv, one has to dig a bit to findout exactly whats going to NPR....and that number is as i said earlier about 1% to 2% of the total CPB expenditure.

In exchange for the small cash outlay, the government gets a well-maintained (due to listenership), pervasive, and ENTERTAINING radio network that can be used for many purposes. That small investment pays off each and every day...


> That being said, I think NPR/PBS would be better off loosing
> the CPB garbage hanging around their necks. If a small check
> box could be found in tax forms to give, say, 3 dollars to
> CPB they would probably be better off financially as well.

Conservatives think NPR will die if the tiny amount of federal funding is ended but it fact could create a new, stonger juggernaut that most likely will damage conservative radio (and other commercial stations as well...)

Keep this in mind: NPR listeners are an advertiser’s DREAM due to the demographi groups they invite constantly to listen. If NPR took on some percentage of “real” advertising, rather than the tiny spots they announce here and there throughout their broadcasts, they would WIPE THE FLOOR with the competition.

One of the main reasons that NPR still gets federal funding from a hostile GOP congress is that they KNOW that if NPR enters the commercial market, Right Wing Radio is going to get messed up bad by the competition NPR will create, when it doesn’t have federal dollars. NPR will take a serious bite out of the advertising dollars as advertisers flock to one of the most coveted audiences there is…

 

[jericho]

> What Americans give to the CPB represents nothing in
> comparison to the massive government welfare programs

True but not relevant to the discussion.


> it comes out to more than 11 cents a taxpayer. We could sit
> here all day pointing out programs, not the least of which
> is the war in Iraq, that should never be supported
> financially by the American people.

Unfortunately for your argument national defense is a Constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government. Left-leaning radio networks are not.


> Why should the citizens
> of this country pay for anything for that matter?

See above.

 

[jericho]

> Conservatives think NPR will die if the tiny amount of
> federal funding is ended

Please point out any conservative who has made this argument. If NPR can survive without federal welfare then so be it. As it is presently it's an insult to taxpayers to be forced to fund the enterprise.



> One of the main reasons that NPR still gets federal funding
> from a hostile GOP congress is that they KNOW that if NPR
> enters the commercial market, Right Wing Radio is going to
> get messed up bad by the competition NPR will create, when
> it doesn’t have federal dollars. NPR will take a serious
> bite out of the advertising dollars as advertisers flock to
> one of the most coveted audiences there is…

You are living in a fantasyland if you believe this.

 

[doc9464]

> Please point out any conservative who has made this
> argument.

Newt Gingrich in 1993, 1995 and his own GOP collegues..wouldnt let him kill funding of NPR/plus the GOP collegues had an outpouring of rage on the idea of killing the funding. And you ignore the current polling that 70% of Americans want NPR to be funded and supported.
Thats a supermajority = most Americans like and listen to NPR and want it to continue. Don't you get it...most people diagree with your shortsited view

> If NPR can survive without federal welfare then
> so be it. As it is presently it's an insult to taxpayers to
> be forced to fund the enterprise.

You conservatives don't get to always frame the argument here....Do you see how you are distoring things when you call the pittance NPR is budgeted corporate welfare when this administration and the GOP play lickspittle to big business as they have to the credit card and insurance industries and you ignore that as being corporate welfare.....you are not playing the game with a proper deck, my non-friend...NPR is returning a quality investment to the people.

Some other additional information which you have yet to refute

While local radio stations may use a portion of the m>oney they receive from CPB to purchase programming from PBS and NPR, CPB grants provide only a fraction of the budget for these local stations. The stations also use CPB funds, along with the rest of their budgets, to produce original programming and to purchase programming from other producers. WGBH in Boston contributes quite a few programs yet its funding has not been increased since the mid 90's



>
> You are living in a fantasyland if you believe this.

Again, you dont get to frame this argument....this is how you conservatives work...you say someting of little value and have people repeat it over and over again...if you want to prove something, bring on the details...we liberals/progressives arent going to let you get away with this kind of throwaway speech ever again...
>

 

[jericho]

> > Please point out any conservative who has made this
> > argument.
>
> Newt Gingrich in 1993, 1995 and his own GOP
> collegues.

Let's have a quote cited, then.




> the funding. And you ignore the current polling that 70% of
> Americans want NPR to be funded and supported.

Our government is not run by polling, and whatever the number of Americans that may or may not want NPR "funded and supported" - and I notice you do not specify HOW they want it funded and supported - actually is, that does not change what is and what is not constitutionally mandated.




> You conservatives don't get to always frame the argument
> here

First of all, you don't know whether or not I am a conservative. Secondly, it is not either "conservatives" or "liberals" who are framing the argument, but what the federal government has constitutional authority to do that frames the argument. Beyond that, the notion that a radio network requires federal money in order to operate undermines the idea that it provides a valuable service. If the service is so valuable, it ought to be able to exist without subsidy. Particularly if as many Americans are in favor of it as you claim.




> Again, you dont get to frame this argument....this is how
> you conservatives work...you say someting of little value
> and have people repeat it over and over again...if you want
> to prove something, bring on the details...we
> liberals/progressives arent going to let you get away with
> this kind of throwaway speech ever again...

Stop trying to turn every conversation into a simplistic binary political argument.

 

[doc9464]

> > > Please point out any conservative who has made this
> > > argument.
> >
> > Newt Gingrich in 1993, 1995 and his own GOP
> > collegues.
>
> Let's have a quote cited, then.


When you start quoting resources instead of throwing out garbage, maybe ill provide start quotes on your requests.....but you wont..its too easy for people like you to just flame and run away..instead of making a worthy, if not necessarily valiant argument.
>
> > the funding. And you ignore the current polling that 70%
> of
> > Americans want NPR to be funded and supported.
>
> Our government is not run by polling, and whatever the
> number of Americans that may or may not want NPR "funded and
> supported" - and I notice you do not specify HOW they want
> it funded and supported - actually is, that does not change
> what is and what is not constitutionally mandated.

Again, im waiting for you to prove me wrong....your comments have not properly argued or refuted any point ive offered on NPR so why should i chase after more info for you when you havent even comprehended or debunked my statements..
>
>

> First of all, you don't know whether or not I am a
> conservative. Secondly, it is not either "conservatives" or
> "liberals" who are framing the argument, but what the
> federal government has constitutional authority to do that
> frames the argument. Beyond that, the notion that a radio
> network requires federal money in order to operate
> undermines the idea that it provides a valuable service. If
> the service is so valuable, it ought to be able to exist
> without subsidy. Particularly if as many Americans are in
> favor of it as you claim.

Only a conservative would offer such a questionalble response...but ill give you that...i dont know...but your actions and postings regrettably clue us all in on your unfortunate way of thinking and commenting. I don't want to escalate further ...but i disagree that a constitutional mandate is required for each and every effort that the government performs....im curious where you get that notion but not so much that im willing to serve as your audience on that one...
>
>

> Stop trying to turn every conversation into a simplistic
> binary political argument.

This comment deserves no detailed response....

 

[robbbc]

> > What Americans give to the CPB represents nothing in
> > comparison to the massive government welfare programs
>
> True but not relevant to the discussion.
>
>
> > it comes out to more than 11 cents a taxpayer. We could
> sit
> > here all day pointing out programs, not the least of which
>
> > is the war in Iraq, that should never be supported
> > financially by the American people.
>
> Unfortunately for your argument national defense is a
> Constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government.
> Left-leaning radio networks are not.
>

Actually the government can spend its/our money in any number of ways, the constitution doesn't say how the federal government can spend its money- it only limits its powers. From building roads, subsidizing poor schools, paying outrageous farm subsidies, corporate welfare. None of that is in the constitution. People who have a problem with how congress spends money should contact their senator or representative, not their lawyers. The constitution doesn't protect my right to pay taxes only on programs i agree with. To be sure my money would be spent differently if I had a say.

How about VOA, Radio Free Europe, Radio Marti (to Cuba), Armed Forces Radio?

>
> > Why should the citizens
> > of this country pay for anything for that matter?
>
> See above.
>

 

[network]

>
> Unfortunately for your argument national defense is a
> Constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government.
> Left-leaning radio networks are not.

And do you have solid proof of that last sentence? And not something you heard spewed on the O'Reilly Factor? Back up that talk.

It's one thing to express opinion. It's another to make uneducated statements on something you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[network]

> Please point out any conservative who has made this
> argument. If NPR can survive without federal welfare then
> so be it. As it is presently it's an insult to taxpayers to
> be forced to fund the enterprise.

Ummm...you are the LAST person contributing on this thread who has any right to call someone out and defend their comments. I'm still waiting for you to show YOUR proof to back up your spew.

And please quit whining about the "insult to taxpayers". Can you be a bigger drama queen? If the FEW CENTS a year you're paying is that much of a burden, then I suggest getting a better paying job to cover that.

I can tell you don't like NPR. Fine -- not everybody does. Not everything is everyone's cup of tea. Then drink something else. Maybe the Kool-Aid you've been drinking all these years.

So...in case you forget: let's see some facts to back up what the ish you've stated. This should be funny.

 

[kaufcom]

According to Arbitron, AAR has less than a million unique radio listens (12+)weekly. I think that the 2 million number factors in internet and satellite listening.

> > If this is correct, that means that the NPR audience is 23
>
> > times the size of
> > AAR audience, because current ratings reveal that AAR has
> > about a million listeners per week.
>
> Where did you get that number? According to a May 19
> article in LA Weekly, AAR says it has two million listeners
> per week and projects that it will double that number by
> 2006.
>
> LINK
> >
> > > I've seen many posts on this board saying that talk
> radio
> > > must be "entertaining," unlike boring old NPR. But the
> > > president of NPR is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer
> > > today as saying that NPR has 23 million listeners, up
> from
> >
> > > 13 million in 2000. Sounds like they're doing something
> > > right.
> > >
> > > LINK
> > >
> >
>

 

[jericho]

> >
> > Unfortunately for your argument national defense is a
> > Constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government.
>
> > Left-leaning radio networks are not.
>
> And do you have solid proof of that last sentence?

Are you seriously asking to have it proved to you that there is no provision in the United States Constitution for federal support of radio? Seriously?