NPR: 23 Million Listeners

[jericho]

> I can tell you don't like NPR.

I haven't made any statements whatsoever about whether or not I like it, actually. The rest of your post is not worth a response.

 

[tbetz]

Re: 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.

What's ignorant about reporting reality? "Ignorant" would be willfully ignoring it.

You never heard NPR described as "National Pentagon Radio."? I heard it a lot, especially in 2002 and early 2003.

NPR's news programming was no less "rah-rah" during the runup to (and the early stages of) George W. Bush's unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq than was any other news organization.

Largely because it feared the criticism of the Bush administration's appointees to the CPB, like every other American news agency, NPR failed in its responsibility to cast a critical eye on the pronouncements of government officials.

The irony of the present attacks on NPR coming from the right, despite their best efforts at appeasement of those attackers, is not lost on me.

Personally, I have no problem with the abolition of the CPB. I'm old enough to remember Spiro Agnew's involvement in its founding, and the murder of "The Great American Dream Machine". The CPB was invented by the Nixon administration to quash criticism of that administration's policies by public radio and television programming. <P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[2001]

Re: 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.
>
> What's ignorant about reporting reality? "Ignorant" would
> be willfully ignoring it.
>
> You never heard NPR described as "National Pentagon Radio."?
> I heard it a lot, especially in 2002 and early 2003.
>
> NPR's news programming was no less "rah-rah" during the
> runup to (and the early stages of) George W. Bush's
> unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq than was any other
> news organization.
>
> Largely because it feared the criticism of the Bush
> administration's appointees to the CPB, like every other
> American news agency, NPR failed in its responsibility to
> cast a critical eye on the pronouncements of government
> officials.
>
> The irony of the present attacks on NPR coming from the
> right, despite their best efforts at appeasement of those
> attackers, is not lost on me.
>
> Personally, I have no problem with the abolition of the CPB.
> I'm old enough to remember Spiro Agnew's involvement in its
> founding, and the murder of "The Great American Dream
> Machine". The CPB was invented by the Nixon administration
> to quash criticism of that administration's policies by
> public radio and television programming.
>

Wait a minute! I'm confused here! The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 established the CPB, yes? And that was during the Johnson Administration, right? Then what?, NPR (A CPB creation)came about a few years later, around 1970. I'm pretty sure of that. If I read your last paragraph correctly, you're saying the CPB was a Nixon Administration initiative??...Ummm, I don't think so.
But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly?

 

[tbetz]

Re: Never Fails!

> The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 established the CPB, yes?

Yes. And the Nixon Administration (elected in 1968, taking office in 1969) had the privilege of organizing the brand spanking-new CPB and emasculating it utterly.

Or do you believe that the CPB sprang fully-formed from the forehead of Lyndon Johnson immediately after the legislation passed?

There's a very interesting series of excerpts from Nixon administration documents following the development of its policy re: CPB and NET/PBS starting at:

http://www.current.org/pbpb/nixon/nixonintro.html

Reading it and the pages (one per year) that follow, you will see how Nixon's administration became more and more hostile toward the nascent CPB, attempted to interfere with public broadcasting programming decisions, and finally determined to politicize CPB and control it (contrary to the terms of the legislation that created it), thereby establishing Administration control over programming on public broadcasting. Had not Watergate intervened, they might have been completely successful; as it was, they managed to pack the CPB board with rabid right-wingers like Irving Kristol and Joseph Coors.

Incidentally, in reading through the documents, you will also see many eerie parallels between the Nixon and Bush II administrations.<P ID="signature">______________
also known as tombetz.</P>

 

[network]

The "Ignorance" Spin

> I haven't made any statements whatsoever about whether or
> not I like it, actually. The rest of your post is not worth
> a response.

You can spin this thread and nitpick what you what to respond to all you want so you can dance around the subject at hand. You responded EXACTLY the way I knew you would. So, you've officially lost this debate with me. But, what should one expect when they have a screen name after a WWE wrestler.

Intelligent back-up and defend their statements. You obviously haven't reached that level of intelligence yet. You'd rather spew your crap on this forum instead of addressing the fact I called you on the carpet. YOU FAILED!

As I stated in an earlier post, you should be glad that folks like you have a place (here) to shine a light on your cluelessness.

 

[kaufcom]

> 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?

The Constitution also requires that Senate issue a declaration of war before US troops are sent into combat. This was not done in Iraq

 

[2001]

> > 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?
>
> The Constitution also requires that Senate issue a
> declaration of war before US troops are sent into combat.
> This was not done in Iraq
>

Bush didn't "declare" war. Nor did his old man. They weren't required to (and they obviously didn't feel it was necessary to do so), given the size and scope of their operations.

Oh, and as for presidents of the Democrat persuasion....Neither did LBJ (Vietnam). Nor did Harry S. Truman (Korea).

 

[Nate Wesley]

> > 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.
>
Perhaps you didn't read the first few posts very well.

Twenty-three million listners today--upwards of thirteen million years ago.

So who's getting screwed?<P ID="signature">______________
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

</P>

 

[jericho]

>
> Twenty-three million listners today--upwards of thirteen
> million years ago.
>
> So who's getting screwed?

The other 276 million Americans?

Seriously, your post makes little sense. The number of people who listen to NPR does not justify its government funding.

 

[jericho]

> The Constitution also requires that Senate issue a
> declaration of war before US troops are sent into combat.
> This was not done in Iraq

Well, that's highly debatable but in any case has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[jericho]

> You can spin this thread and nitpick what you what to
> respond to all you want so you can dance around the subject
> at hand.

The subject at hand is how NPR is funded, not whether or not I like it.



> So, you've officially lost this debate with me.

We were debating? I thought you were just slinging childish insults. My mistake.

 

[network]

Again...You're Wrong *DELETED*

Post deleted by cabradio

 

[network]

> Seriously, your post makes little sense. The number of
> people who listen to NPR does not justify its government
> funding.

Your parents can not be proud of your ignorance. While listenership on the commercial band is flat or decreasing, NPR's continues to grow. Go ahead...let's see how you spin this one to make you look like something's running upstairs.

 

[jericho]

> While listenership on the commercial band is flat or decreasing,
> NPR's continues to grow.

So? That is not at all relevant to the issue. Even if 100 million people per week were listening to NPR that does not somehow justify subsidies. You seem to be quite skilled at not addressing the actual discussion.

 

[jericho]

> That was NOT the subject at hand.

Of course it was and is. Perhaps you'd consider posting something about the actual issue rather than insults, slurs, and generally obnoxious banter that wastes everyone's time.

 

[fredflintstone]

Let me try!

I like NPR. I don't think the government should fund it, even a little.
I like oldies (no longer available in many markets). I don't think the government should fund that, even a little.
I like standards. I don't think the government should fund that, even a little.
I like progressive talk (much of it). I don't think the government should fund that, even a little.
I also like traditional talk (some of it). I don't think the government should fund that, even a little.

I don't like classical, alternative, any contemporary hits since disco and sports talk. I don't think the government should fund any of them either.

It's not about how good a job NPR does, or whether I like them or how many million people listen. It's about whether the government should fund ANY broadcast programming. I don't think anybody should have to help pay for anything they don't listen to. And I don't want the government in a position to exercise control (and yes, boys and girls, funding means the power to control) anything on the air.

Don't tell me how government money goes for ballparks, and incentives for businesses or performing arts venues. Don't tell me about all the other things the government shouldn't be spending our money for (another discussion). And don't tell me the amount the average taxpayer is forced to give NPR is counted in cents, not dollars (it's not the amount, it's the principle).


>
> So? That is not at all relevant to the issue. Even if 100
> million people per week were listening to NPR that does not
> somehow justify subsidies. You seem to be quite skilled at
> not addressing the actual discussion.
>

 

[2001]

> > 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...)
>
If it's such a tiny amount......then what's keeping NPR from becoming "huge" right now as we speak?

> Keep this in mind: NPR listeners are an advertiser’s DREAM
> due to the demographi groups they invite constantly to
> listen.

Groups like those who bring their own reusable shopping bags to the local health food store?? You mean groups like that?


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.
>

Wipe the floor? How?


> 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…
>

Okay, this paragraph confuses me. You're saying that Republicans dislike NPR and, well, they kinda-sorta want to get rid of it.....but at the same time, they also want to keep it around (in its current state) so as to keep conservative radio guys like Limbaugh from being "messed up"???

If that's what you're saying....then that's ridiculous.

And as far as NPR taking "a serious bite" out of talk radio advertising dollars....what are you smoking, my friend?? The advertisers that are on "right-wing" radio are there for a reason--and will continue to be there, regardless if NPR goes mainstream. NPR may very well attract its own brand of advertisers....but that won't affect radio shows like Limbaugh's.

 

[2001]

> > 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.
>
You know something? That's the second time in this thread you've used the word "spew".

Interesting........


> And please quit whining about the "insult to taxpayers".

Who's "whining"?

> 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.

Okay! I will! Who's hiring in your neck of the woods these days?
>
> 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.

Ah! The silly (and overused) "drank the Kool-Aid" remark. A while back I told (instructed) another poster about the origin of that remark. It's in reference to the Jonestown Massacre of 1978. (By the way, just out of curiosity, how old were you in 1978?) Many of the people (victims) involved in that unfortunate incident were FORCED AT GUNPOINT to "drink the (poisoned) Kool-Aid". The people there were largely women and children! You think they wanted to kill themselves?? You think a child (any child) wanted to commit suicide because the "good reverend" told them to do so?? Geez! Get with it!
Every time I hear someone (usually on the left) make that ill-informed/ignorant remark I want to throw up! And you're ignorant, my friend!
>
> So...in case you forget: let's see some facts to back up
> what the ish you've stated. This should be funny.
>

 

[2001]

Re: Again...You're Wrong

> > The subject at hand is how NPR is funded, not whether or
> not
> > I like it.
>
> Learn to read. That was NOT the subject at hand. It was
> people like you with your biased, uneducated comments that
> you failed to backup with facts that directed it into how
> it's funded. Even when it comes to that, you don't know
> what the hell you're talking about either.
>

The subject at hand, as I recall, was about NPR listenership numbers. Jericho added an opinion about its funding, and you (willingly) decided to take him to task for his opinion about its funding. I think my scorecard is correct. Would you like to take a peek at it? Perhaps the next time you engage someone in what you would call a "debate", you should get one of your own--and of course, a freshly sharpened number 2 pencil to go along with it.


> > > So, you've officially lost this debate with me.
> >
> > We were debating? I thought you were just slinging
> childish
> > insults. My mistake.
>
> You don't know how to debate. I call it as I see it.
> Educate yourself and maybe it won't hit home so much. Truth
> hurts. Can I get you a band-aid or some Tylenol for the
> pain?
>
May I ask, are you in radio in some capacity? If so, how? Are you by chance a talk show host? In an odd way, I would hope that you are! Because, brother, I'd surely love to listen to an hour or two of your show! I'm smiling to myself right now just thinking about it!

 

[dampier]

Re: Never Fails!

> Largely because it feared the criticism of the Bush
> administration's appointees to the CPB, like every other
> American news agency, NPR failed in its responsibility to
> cast a critical eye on the pronouncements of government
> officials.

Frankly, NPR should be called IBR - Inside the Beltway Radio. It's definitely gotten establishment. I've even fled Diane Rehm. Hour One: The same inside the beltway pundits you see and hear EVERYWHERE discuss the same issues you've already heard. Hour Two: Albanian Lesbian Haiku Authors Bore You to Death. I tolerated the Voice of America Special English the woman uses, but I can't take the guests anymore. Buh, bye.

Talk of the Nation is anything but, and has been terrible since Ira Glass left. Science Friday is better. They trashed their morning show by dumping Bob Edwards and All Things Considered is now All Things Considered That Won't Threaten Our Funding. Thank goodness for As It Happens from the CBC... even when they are discussing Alberta politics, it's more relevant to me than the latest insider bit from Bill Frist. Since everyone seems to be cancelling the news and replacing it with fluff, I'm very happy with BBC World Service. Real news. No obnoxious pledge drives.