NPR's "PROJECT ARGO"

[kc1ih]

NPR's "PROJECT ARGO" - could this be why NPR affiliates nationwide are cutting music programs (to make more room for news programs)?

Read more here
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-npr-hires-key-staff-for-local-news-effort-finalizes-station-list/ and here http://www.current.org/news/news0911argo.shtml

<Note that this was snipped from the Facebook group "Supporters of folk and blues on WGBH".

 

[notlob]

Thank you for the credit.

The first post to Facebook I am aware of was
Project ARGO. There is a name for government-run news - PROPAGANDA.
Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 9:58am
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=218403944775

It was subsequently posted to NEFolknRoots as "NPR's "PROJECT ARGO" on 1/1/10 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NorthEastFolknRoots/message/8985
in the long-running "WGBH changes tune about keeping folk and blues" thread (started 11/6/09).

The URL for the "Supporters of folk and blues on WGBH" is http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=201481030324

The "Project Argo" discussion thread (started 1/1/10) URL is http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=201481030324&topic=11402


Google search result for "Project Argo"


NPR’s Argo Project
To add depth to web news, stations try going ‘vertical’
Published in Current, June 10, 2009
By Karen Everhart
http://www.current.org/news/news0911argo.shtml

NPR Hires Key Staff For Local News Effort; Finalizes Station List
Staci D. Kramer
twitter @sdkstl
Dec 24, 2009 1:25 AM ET
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-npr-hires-key-staff-for-local-news-effort-finalizes-station-list/

NPR Preps Project Argo for Local News
by Erik Sass, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 4:10 PM
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=119887

NPR's "PROJECT ARGO"
« on: Yesterday at 08:03:11 AM »
kc1ih
NPR's "PROJECT ARGO" - could this be why NPR affiliates nationwide are cutting music programs (to make more room for news programs)?

Read more here
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-npr-hires-key-staff-for-local-news-effort-finalizes-station-list/ and here http://www.current.org/news/news0911argo.shtml
<Note that this was snipped from the Facebook group "Supporters of folk and blues on WGBH".
(thanks for the source credit, Larry)

Reclaim the Media 6 months ago
NPR's Argo Project plans to increase 'vertical' news production
no date
http://topics.npr.org/article/03J65Ydcbx91Y
(link to next entry)

NPR's Argo Project plans to increase 'vertical' news production
Submitted by jonathan on Sun, 2009-06-21 09:59
by Karen Everhart
http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/index.php?q=journalistic_practice/nprs_argo_project_plans_increa2125

Should anyone wish to dig further, the google search turns up some 96,600 additional articles.

My question is, what business does the government have in running a news organization? If it looks like propaganda, and it smells propaganda, it is propaganda.

 

[aaronread]

My question is, what business does the government have in running a news organization? If it looks like propaganda, and it smells propaganda, it is propaganda.

What the heck are you referring to? Voice of America?

 

[Tony Esposito]

Uh, NPR isn't a government station. Sure they get some federal money, but not near as much as most people think. Private money provides the majority of the funding. All their budget info is public; you can look it up and see how the numbers break down.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

With the current administration, they come closer to being in line with propaganda, but they certainly weren't in the previous... I think the best way to describe them is somewhat liberal. They do a fairly decent job, belive it or not, of being SOMEONEWHAT impartial on the air, but their true colors shine through from time to time on the air. That's because the great majority of those that work for NPR are about as liberal as one can be, and it's hard to seperate (though they sort of try) their personal beliefs from what goes on-air.

 

[TheBigA]

My question is, what business does the government have in running a news organization? If it looks like propaganda, and it smells propaganda, it is propaganda.

The government isn't running it. I worked at NPR at one time, and I can tell you it's not a government operation. If anything, most of the people there are very skeptical about the government, regardless of who's in power.

By the way, there are laws about the federal government's involvement in broadcasting. The founding fathers were very concerned about propaganda, and they did what they could to prevent it.

 

[uncamark]

My question is, what business does the government have in running a news organization? If it looks like propaganda, and it smells propaganda, it is propaganda.

The government isn't running it. I worked at NPR at one time, and I can tell you it's not a government operation. If anything, most of the people there are very skeptical about the government, regardless of who's in power.

By the way, there are laws about the federal government's involvement in broadcasting. The founding fathers were very concerned about propaganda, and they did what they could to prevent it.

Well, the problem with notlob and people like him who want NPR to go back to the days of the network being just "ATC," a couple of BBC newscasts and concert programs distributed on disc (with the rest of the time on the local stations filled by local DJs playing records) is that they can't tell the difference between the CPB and NPR.

 

[MattParker]

Actually, NPR doesn't get CPB money: stations do. They use it (along with money from other sources) to buy programming from NPR, APM, PRI and others.

My question is why do public broadcasters still need welfare money? Maybe there are some smaller operations still struggling but in larger markets, member stations have enough to new facilities, high management salaries and starting other (for profit) ventures. Listen to all the spots, I mean "enhanced underwriting announcements" on public radio. These stations are above the poverty line and they should stop collecting welfare.

Back to Project Argo: A lot of hype over nothing. They have put together a bunch of local station single-topic blogs on one web page. Yawn. At least one station doesn't even carry NPR news programming so what are they even doing there?

 

[TheBigA]

My question is why do public broadcasters still need welfare money?

Unlike welfare, the government money usually comes with strings. It's not just a cash outlay that can be spent on anything. The government has an agenda, and they want these stations to carry it out. So they provide funding to accomplish that. A lot of time the money is for certain kinds of minority hiring programs, or the production and distribution of certain kinds of programming that normally a station wouldn't carry. The "welfare," as you call it, went away a long time ago. The stations that are struggling won't get a government bail out. But as author Matthew Lesko points out, there are lots of federal programs that non-profits qualify for. That's usually how these stations get money.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I am only an amateur linguist so I may have this attribution wrong, but there is a term that I assume came out of the era when we learned about something new called Atomic Energy.

The term: Critical Mass.

The government gave some care and feeding, some incubation to the creation of Public Broadcasting. NPR plus the affiliated stations combined seem to have reached Critical Mass and are ready to leave the nest and find a life all their own. Just like little bird chicks in the next jostling over territory, the national organization and (as a group) the stations are jostling in the nest over who gets to grow up and be Big Bird.

In the future there will be some in government and some Liberals who actually give as much allegiance to collectivism as liberals are accused of, who will rue the day the NPR concept was set in motion because Mama Bird (a.k.a. Uncle Sam) will be as much of a target for investigative news and commentary as will others.... such as Conservatives.

Not to make a religious point, but take the Christian Holy Writings as literature for a moment. There is a place where the central figure (Jesus) is commanded to instruct his followers to shut up and quit promoting their dogma. The reply (taking a bit of liberty in translation) was: If they zip it up, the rocks and the mountains will be forced to cry out the same message. MY POINT: If some 40 years ago the people in Washington had not put in motion this effort for NPR, PBS, CPB and some regulations to encourage the operation of the stations, even those not affiliated with the organizations, society today would be twisting and churning to establish and create some similar mechanism. Maybe it would be Internet centric rather than transmitter based.

But the American experiment in self government would have the rocks and mountains crying out for a form of communication that mirrors what NPR and the rest are doing.

Are they perfect in how they handle it? No. Tell me what group, what organization, what media IS perfect.

 

[TheBigA]

The government gave some care and feeding, some incubation to the creation of Public Broadcasting.

Keep in mind we're talking about the 1960s. The Great Society. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Medicare. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.

Context: The United States was the greatest and richest country in the world in the 60s. Why did our broadcasting suck as much as it did? Why did Newton Minnow in 1964 refer to TV as a "vast wasteland?" This is long before deregulation. The answer is because TV & radio was subject to ratings and advertising. So the idea was to create radio and TV that was free of that. Then, better quality programming would result. So went the theory.

Fifteen years later, the public elected Ronald Reagan, and he asked why the government was funding broadcasting. So he pulled the rug out from under the great public broadcasting experiment. They were left to mostly fend for themselves.

That's kind of where we are now. Except now, we have a lot more outlets for communications than simply radio and TV. So now the government wants to do for the internet what it did for public broadcasting. It wants to fund free wifi. It wants to use extra spectrum for minorities. You might as why the government needs to get involved when we have profit making companies that want to build wifi and charge people for it. Similar situation to 1967. The government wants everyone to have wifi, not just those who can afford it. So if you want to use the word MattParker used, it's wifi welfare. Personally I don't like that word, but the government wants to subsidize it.

The government doesn't fund news and public affairs coverage at NPR or PBS. That would be a problem. Bill Moyers was very careful not to take any government money on his projects because he's been very critical of government policies. BUT the government funds training programs at NPR and PBS that brings young would-be journalists in the building and allows them to work side by side with the pros. A lot of shows began that way. The profit making companies may do internships, but they don't teach or train people. that's the difference. For 200 years, the government has felt that it has a role in education, and that an educated electorate makes for good citizens and voters. If radio & TV can educate, that's good for the public. But even Aristotle had trouble distinguishing between teaching and preaching. And it's the "preaching" part where some have problems. But as one who was on the inside at NPR for a long time, I can tell you that there is a very big difference between NPR and the VOA. And the VOA gets a direct government subsidy. But the VOA is also prohibited from broadcasting in the US.

 

[MattParker]

Big A: Did broadcasting suck in the 60s? Compared to today, commercial radio (and to keep things straight, let's stick to radio and public radio) was generally (not totally) a class act. Public service requirements. Limits on commercials per hour. Limits on station ownership with local ownership favored. And, of course, the fairness doctrine. All stations did news and many had active news-gathering news departments.

Minnow was talking about TV and was trying to force his elitist tastes on everybody. In his world, people did not know what was good for them. Heaven forbid, they'd rather watch the Beverly Hillbillies than CBS Reports or the New York Philharmonic. If broadcasters would only give them "quality," they'd learn to appreciate it. It's like saying if your mother only let you eat broccoli, you'd lose your taste for ice cream (apparently there a still people who believe that one, too).

If Morning Edition and All Things Considered sound like anything else it's Monitor on the NBC Radio network, and like some of the news and information morning shows on the heritage 50kw clear channel (small c, small c) stations. If public radio changed anything, it gave commercial broadcasters an excuse to give up the high ground and go for the more profitable lowest common denominator.

 

[TheBigA]

Big A: Did broadcasting suck in the 60s?

Put it in the context of its time, and who was saying it sucked.

Commercial Top 40 radio was very popular, had very tight playlists, loud obnoxious DJs, and lots of advertising.

The people who felt it sucked were people who remembered what radio was like in the golden age, doing original drama and variety. That was all gone by the 60s.

A few of the biggest, most popular DJs of the day quit and started a different kind of radio. Two people in particular, Tom Donohue on the west coast, and Scott Muni on the east, became frustrated with what radio had become and decided to try something different.

That's how some people dealt with frustration in the 60s. They became entrepeneurs and started new things.

Minnow was talking about TV and was trying to force his elitist tastes on everybody.

Well what he found out is that he wasn't the only person with elitist tastes. That's how he got Congress to pass the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. And I think a small percentage wanted a place where they could enjoy opera and Shakespeare. Nothing wrong with that, and if the airwaves belong to the public, there's nothing wrong with reserving a small part of that spectrum for the snooty minority.

I question the verb "force" because that's not at all what he was trying to do. If he was, he could have simply required commercial stations to air more highbrow stuff in prime time. He could have done that, and he didn't. What he ended up doing was creating cultural segregation. A kind of "separate but equal" for the upper crust. In contrast to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was trying to do the exact opposite for the lower class.

If public radio changed anything, it gave commercial broadcasters an excuse to give up the high ground and go for the more profitable lowest common denominator.

That's why they were so willing to give up a portion of the then-useless FM spectrum for NCE. That was the trade-off. That's just one of the deals that got broadcasting to where it is today.