NPR: 23 Million Listeners

[dampier]

> 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.

The thing is, the majority of funding from public broadcasting comes from listeners and private, non-governmental or corporate sources, not from tax dollars. The compelled by force argument is just nonsense. I don't like corporate ownership of the airwaves - freely licensed to radio and television stations to serve the public interest and rake in enormous profits. But most radio and TV stations offer programming I don't want or like. I wouldn't hear them if the government didn't hand out licenses for miniscule sums in comparison to profits taken... sounds like a subsidy to me.

I personally believe public broadcasting has lost focus on what it is supposed to be - a service for the underserved, the ignored, or the unprofitable. There is no reason we should see Lawrence Welk on PBS. There is little need for Wall Street/business programming when we have multiple outlets doing the same thing.

There are public stations that serve minority communities, American Indians for example. Others offer compelling educational programming that does not simply have tie-ins with commercially sold products. There are all types of viewpoints on offer on PBS, but they have definitely been toned down in order to achieve corporate underwriting. I like the idea of a refuge on the radio dial that plays music commercial radio won't, that will allow long form news and analysis programming, and that will cover topics commercial broadcasters won't touch in a politically charged America.

If NPR is doing its job, it should -NOT- be able to survive on its own. That's the entire point.

 

[jericho]

> The thing is, the majority of funding from public
> broadcasting comes from listeners and private,
> non-governmental or corporate sources, not from tax dollars.

True but irrelevant.



> The compelled by force argument is just nonsense.

So I guess we can assume you don't bother to pay your taxes because you're certain that no negative ramifications will befall you? Otherwise your claim is hypocritical.



> I don't
> like corporate ownership of the airwaves - freely licensed
> to radio and television stations to serve the public
> interest and rake in enormous profits. But most radio and
> TV stations offer programming I don't want or like. I
> wouldn't hear them if the government didn't hand out
> licenses for miniscule sums in comparison to profits
> taken... sounds like a subsidy to me.

If that's what it sounds like to you, you need to consult a dictionary. The metaphor that the public "owns" the "airwaves" is flawed and not in accordance with actual broadcasting technology. A better system would be one that allocates the right to broadcast at a particular frequency along the same lines as how ICANN distributes domain names. In any event, even with the current system there's no "subsidy" unless one wishes to twist the word until it loses any meaning.



> toned down in order to achieve corporate underwriting. I
> like the idea of a refuge on the radio dial that plays music
> commercial radio won't, that will allow long form news and
> analysis programming, and that will cover topics commercial
> broadcasters won't touch in a politically charged America.

It's nice that you like it, but that does not give the government the authority to actually do it.

 

[network]

You're Wrong, Too!

> 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.

Let me correct you, too. I took him to task about his "left" comment and asked for him to back up his accusation. I put him in a corner, so in an attempt to wiggle his way out of it, he danced around the subject and decided to cherry pick his responses to suit him. He failed. Period!

> 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.

Scorecard....Smorecard. My issue isn't funding. I'm still waiting for Jericho to put some proof behind his crap. That's because he doesn't have any. If you're going to try to argue with me about this, then I suggest you come prepared. And come with more than an attempt at being funny. YOU are the one who needs your own pencil to review. I've got my own, anyway.

> 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!

This is irrelevant. I called Jericho out and he's dancing around every single response. THAT is fact. He's already shown he's like many others who comment on this section. They express some crap they can't back up. Period.

 

[network]

> 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.

I am not here to discuss funding. I never was. In fact, you and I are on the same page in regards to that.
I originally called you out on the "left" comment you originally made several days ago. You weren't even bright enough to figure that out because you had to put your own spin on it when you responded.

Show me actual stories from Morning Edition and All Things Considered that back up your ish. Put up or shut up!

And stay away from referencing anything about funding. That is NOT the point.

Put up or shut up!

 

[network]

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

Huh? What is your definition of "huge".


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

Aw c'mon man, NOW you're sounding as ignorant as Jericho with that comment. You need to do some research instead of making asinine comments.

>
> 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?
>
> 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"???

They don't wanna get rid of it, but they certainly don't like being criticized. Just look at the actions of recent that have hit the news about CPB. They certainly want to "control" what is being said. They don't come right out and say it, but actions speak louder than words.


> 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.

First of all, NPR is pretty much mainstream. I agree with you on the rest of your comments there. People go to Rush for a reason. People go to Springer for a reason. Or Hannity, etc for a reason. People to go NPR for a reason. And a large part of those audiences listen to NPR. You can't compare an organization that does actual news to the others who aren't news programs, but offer their own take on it.

 

[dampier]

> > The thing is, the majority of funding from public
> > broadcasting comes from listeners and private,
> > non-governmental or corporate sources, not from tax
> dollars.
>
> True but irrelevant.

Hardly, considering the usual whine is that taxpayer money is being flushed in enormous sums on public broadcasting. The GOP may holler about it, but when the facts are revealed about exactly how much money is being spent, the overwhelming majority of Americans support the funding and don't want Congress to mess with it. Newt learned this lesson several years ago.

> > The compelled by force argument is just nonsense.
>
> So I guess we can assume you don't bother to pay your taxes
> because you're certain that no negative ramifications will
> befall you? Otherwise your claim is hypocritical.

This is a taffy twist tapdance around the argument. People have to pay their taxes because that is the law. People must pay part of their taxes to support public broadcasting because that is the law/budget enacted by the people's representatives. You can complain about it, but that's the way things work in this country. Shucky darn.

> If that's what it sounds like to you, you need to consult a
> dictionary. The metaphor that the public "owns" the
> "airwaves" is flawed and not in accordance with actual
> broadcasting technology.

It's not about technology. It's about spectrum, available presently in limited supply. Therefore the government retains the right to license users of that spectrum to serve the public interest first and foremost. Thanks to the elimination of many public service requirements and the pathetically low cost of licenses, having a broadcast license is also a license to print money. It's a subsidy as long as broadcasters can sell their stations to one another for multi-million dollar profits because the license almost always goes with it. If there was equity, the station property could be sold, but the license would be canceled and returned to an open pool where anyone can apply for it. A handful of major market commercial station sales equals the entire government "handout" to PBS/NPR. The entire argument about PBS and government goodies, as a matter of scope, is akin to yelling fire when someone lights a match but saying nothing when the building behind them is burning to the ground.

> It's nice that you like it, but that does not give the
> government the authority to actually do it.

Sure it does, and they've been doing it since the late 1960s.

 

[jericho]

Re: You're Wrong, Too! *DELETED*

Post deleted by cabradio

 

[2001]

> > If it's such a tiny amount......then what's keeping NPR
> from
> > becoming "huge" right now as we speak?
>
> Huh? What is your definition of "huge".
>
>
doc9464 said that if "conservatives" end federal support (such that it is) for CPB it could possibly backfire on them and help create, in his words, "a new, stronger juggernaut" (And just between you and me, network, "stronger juggernaut" is actually redundant, so tell doc that the next time you see him, okay?) My question was why isn't it a "juggernaut" already? I wouldn't say that it's a "juggernaut".

Now pay closer attention to the posts as you read them, network! It's sounds like you need to!


> > Groups like those who bring their own reusable shopping
> bags
> > to the local health food store?? You mean groups like
> that?
>
> Aw c'mon man, NOW you're sounding as ignorant as Jericho
> with that comment. You need to do some research instead of
> making asinine comments.
>

Assinine. Two S's. And from reading your posts--and your roommate doc's posts-- I'd say that I have a ways to go to catch up to you two in the "assinine posts" department.


> >
> > 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?
> >
> > 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"???
>
> They don't wanna get rid of it, but they certainly don't
> like being criticized. Just look at the actions of recent
> that have hit the news about CPB. They certainly want to
> "control" what is being said. They don't come right out and
> say it, but actions speak louder than words.
>

OOOOOH! Now that sounds like a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to me, network!!!
>


> > 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.
>
> First of all, NPR is pretty much mainstream.

"Mainstream" with a small "m", network.

I agree with
> you on the rest of your comments there. People go to Rush
> for a reason. People go to Springer for a reason. Or
> Hannity, etc for a reason. People to go NPR for a reason.
> And a large part of those audiences listen to NPR. You
> can't compare an organization that does actual news to the
> others who aren't news programs, but offer their own take on
> it.
>

No, you can't compare the two (in terms of content)....and I didn't! You brought that up!

 

[jericho]

> Hardly, considering the usual whine is that taxpayer money
> is being flushed in enormous sums on public broadcasting.

No it isn't, and you know it. The criticism is that taxpayer money is funding NPR. The percentage of NPR's budget that comes from federal funds isn't material. If it's only 1% it's too much.




> This is a taffy twist tapdance around the argument. People
> have to pay their taxes because that is the law.

Exactly. Therefore, government funding is compelled by force. Not a complicated concept.




> It's not about technology. It's about spectrum, available
> presently in limited supply. Therefore the government
> retains the right to license users of that spectrum to serve
> the public interest first and foremost.

The service of the public interest is to guarantee that dozens of different organizations don't broadcast on the same frequency. That's where it ends. There are better ways to allocate who has the right to broadcast on a particular frequency than the one we have, but all of that is irrelevant to your claim of supposed "subsidy."




> > It's nice that you like it, but that does not give the
> > government the authority to actually do it.
>
> Sure it does, and they've been doing it since the late
> 1960s.

That doesn't mean they have the authority to do it either, unless you've of the opinion that the government has free reign to do whatever it likes, and the very fact that it has done something justifies its actions.

 

[jericho]

> I am not here to discuss funding.

Then why are you participating in the discussion?




> I originally called you out on the "left" comment you
> originally made several days ago.

No you didn't. Go back and read your own question.

 

[2001]

Re: You're Wrong, Too!

> > 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.
>
> Let me correct you, too. I took him to task about his
> "left" comment and asked for him to back up his accusation.
> I put him in a corner, so in an attempt to wiggle his way
> out of it, he danced around the subject and decided to
> cherry pick his responses to suit him. He failed. Period!
>
The thread began with the discussion of listenership numbers. Jericho mentioned its funding, which was an interesting point to make--WORTHY OF DISCUSSION, I might add!!! You grabbed on to his use of the term "left-leaning" and you spiraled this discussion to where it is now! Everyone else here was fine and content to discuss its numbers and funding, and you (for the sake of expediency) threw in the towel with regards to funding and decided to go after the "left-leaning" part. It's obvious that you don't have a head for dollars and cents and the way in which the federal government works (or should work)! All you wanted to do was steer this conversation away from listenership numbers and funding and bog it down with "tough talk" about who's a "left-leaner" and who isn't.

> > 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.
>
> Scorecard....Smorecard. My issue isn't funding. I'm still
> waiting for Jericho to put some proof behind his crap.
> That's because he doesn't have any. If you're going to try
> to argue with me about this, then I suggest you come
> prepared. And come with more than an attempt at being
> funny. YOU are the one who needs your own pencil to review.
> I've got my own, anyway.
>
WELL!! TOUCHE! YOU GOT ME THAT TIME, NETWORK!!

My tail is now firmly tucked between my legs!!


> > 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!
>
> This is irrelevant. I called Jericho out and he's dancing
> around every single response. THAT is fact. He's already
> shown he's like many others who comment on this section.
> They express some crap they can't back up. Period.
>


Well, at least you didn't use the word "spew" today! (But then again, the day is not over, so I guess I should continue to hold my breath!)

 

[cabradio]

> 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…


What you are saying is PURE OPINION...I wouldn't even call it speculation, because there is NO evidence that it would happen.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[cabradio]

Okay 2001...calm down. You're beginning to get ugly with some of your comments (again)...which are otherwise insightful, even Network seems to enjoy the dialogue with you. Don't get bent out of shape that he may not see eye to eye with you politically; that doesn't make him "evil". Remember, we are all human, everyone's color of blood is the same. We need to find a way to be unified again (as a country)...not so divided. The insults don't help. What's interesting is that you may have some people starting to understnd the "conservative" view, but as soon as you start degrading them, they become your enemy. So, kindly, please stop with the unecessary barbs.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[Mark_Giardina]

It does not come as a surprise to me that National Public Radio’s audience has grown over the years. I mean look at the alternatives.

You have stations which are nothing but voice tracked juke boxes after the live announcers go off the air around 9am.

NPR is going after an audience that wants in depth news coverage, not some rehash out of the morning paper, or 30 second sound bytes about some overnight vacant building fire or drive-by shooting.

NPR has made its share of mistakes starting with the way they removed Bob Edwards as host of Morning Edition. That was really unprofessional to just dump the guy without allowing him the opportunity to celebrate his 25th anniversary as host in the fall of 2004. What would a few more months’ difference have made to let Edwards remain on the air?

Instead of repeating the first two hours of Morning Edition over and over again NPR should keep the show live for most of the mornings with other features and segments. That way some affiliates wouldn’t have to resort to filling in mornings with their own programs.

I have nothing against good local programs. In fact I welcome them. It’s just there are some NPR affiliates that put anything on just to, as we used to call it, Phil Time (pun).


Talk of the Nation sometimes is good, sometimes bad, depending on the topic and the guests. However Science Friday remains an interesting radio program.

All Things Considered hasn’t changed that much. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the current three hosts’ replaced in a few years, similar to what happened to Bob Edwards. One would hope that NPR executives learned from the Edwards debacle.

It all boils down to the simple fact that more people are turning to NPR because NPR is offering them something other radio stations are not. Maybe someday the owners of those radio stations will figure it out and do something about it. Here's a hint: One of the things NPR affiliates have is local content. BINGO !!


<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[cabradio]

> 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


Barely 10 percent (23 million) of the total US population (300+ million) is HARDLY the MAJORITY. (Did I get my population stats right...I mean, the last time I counted, that's the number I got, LOL)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>

 

[2001]

> Okay 2001...calm down. You're beginning to get ugly with
> some of your comments (again)...which are otherwise
> insightful, even Network seems to enjoy the dialogue with
> you. Don't get bent out of shape that he may not see eye to
> eye with you politically; that doesn't make him "evil".
> Remember, we are all human, everyone's color of blood is the
> same. We need to find a way to be unified again (as a
> country)...not so divided. The insults don't help. What's
> interesting is that you may have some people starting to
> understnd the "conservative" view, but as soon as you start
> degrading them, they become your enemy. So, kindly, please
> stop with the unecessary barbs.
>

When you say, "again", I assume you are referring to the exchange that I had with robmidmi last week. (Oh! And then there's Bob Marvin, too! Can't forget Bob Marvin! And then I suppose there's this doc person, too.) You're right, cab. I degrade others way more than I should. The temptation to degrade others is my Achilles heel. And you'd think that a guy like me would know better, what with all of my years of Catholic schooling!

I'm sorry I degraded you, network. I won't do it no more. I promise.

Cab, I still insist, however, that there is something downright Freudian about network and his repetitive use of the word........"spew".

And if he's a young male, like I think he is......well, then......that would explain everything.

 

[2001]

> > 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…
>
>
> What you are saying is PURE OPINION...I wouldn't even call
> it speculation, because there is NO evidence that it would
> happen.
>

You see, cab, you agree with me!
That is pretty much what I said in one of my post to him!
How does this guy know this to be so--before it has even happened??!!

Is this guy Nostradamus or something?

 

[doc9464]

> Barely 10 percent (23 million) of the total US population
> (300+ million) is HARDLY the MAJORITY. (Did I get my
> population stats right...I mean, the last time I counted,
> that's the number I got, LOL)o

Cab, on the quote above, I said americans not NPR listeners.....
>

To all, I normally mark when i believe my opinion is listed...i falied to do so on my comments about the strength of an NPR. That is certainly my opinion and strong belief.

Some good information and valuable info links on the NPR Situation


http://webjunction.org/do/DisplayContent?id=1197



http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/op...ry?coll=bal-oped-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/04/27/4110167

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0427-07.htm

 

[jericho]

> 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

Apart from being common sense, there's this:

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "