Separation of media and state?

[DonTheTrucker]

Great..only one problem: People won't be able to watch or hear the shows, because half of the public radio and TV stations will have to shut down.

Which is why you get rid of the antiquated fundraising restrictions. Then if the viewers/listeners don't pony up, it's their own fault when they can't listen to their favorite shows.

As a long time student of how various charitable organizations, political organizations, religious organization and fraternal organizations are shaped by their fund raising mechanisms, and how the fund raising mechanism shapes the function of the organization, it is difficult to say what would result from your suggestion that getting rid of the "antiquated fund raising restrictions" would do to public broadcasting.

They say that the oyster needs that grain of sand or some irritant, some abnormality in order to get on about the business of making a beautiful pearl, public broadcasting without the restrictions would develop some kind of cancer-growth that would kill it. "The valid discussion for us might be: What are the healthy changes that might be made in fund raising techniques and philosophy?" Would they all come at once, or would be stair-step them in over a period of time? Is being the "caged animal" of a not-for-profit corporation an essential ingredient for the beast to thrive and survive, or would "I can earn a profit" motivation be an improvement to the genre?

I think it would be fair to let the non-comm station owners write their own ticket with regards to fund raising rules. It's the least we could do if we were to eliminate the federal funding. I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with that.

It's an interesting question, for those with experience on that side of the business. Just as a hypthetical:

If you lost all government funding tomorrow, but were allowed to change the fundraising rules, what would you ask for?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think it would be fair to let the non-comm station owners write their own ticket with regards to fund raising rules. It's the least we could do if we were to eliminate the federal funding. I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with that.

It's an interesting question, for those with experience on that side of the business. Just as a hypthetical:

If you lost all government funding tomorrow, but were allowed to change the fundraising rules, what would you ask for?

I don't claim to be competent to lay out for you a proper set of rules and/or guidelines on how "community stations" or whatever we would call them under this "new world order" you are proposing. What I see is that your plan would herd the "community stations" into a stockade like they did the Cherokee Native Americans 175 years ago. But instead of marching them to Oklahoma to continue their lives as "Indians" this complete overhaul you are proposing would require that the station symbolically all strap on their chaps, their spurs and their six-shooters and march them to Dodge City for a main-street shoot-out at high noon.

Today many commercial broadcasters are friends and supporters of "community stations". Under your suggested change I see the commercial broadcasters as the guys that are the opposition at high noon at Dodge City.

For a case study, may I point you to what has happened to religion on the airwaves in the last 50 years. While there are a number of outstanding Christian Broadcasters, a big part of that genre of broadcasters have become an embarrassment to much of the Church. There are some lessons to be learned from this genre of broadcasting.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

But instead of marching them to Oklahoma to continue their lives as "Indians" this complete overhaul you are proposing would require that the station symbolically all strap on their chaps, their spurs and their six-shooters and march them to Dodge City for a main-street shoot-out at high noon.

I'd prefer to phrase it like this:

I'd like these broadcasters to live in the real world. Unless you're a corn farmer or build fighter jets, you have to make your own way in this world. Sure, some non-comms would fail, but the good ones would flourish even more than they are now. All of this complaining about the spectrum being too crowded, maybe this will help.

Of course, when we hear "the spectrum is too crowded" that's usually a code word for "Clear Channel must be destroyed", but I think forcing these broadcasters to live in the real world is something that is way overdue.

 

[aaronread]

I'd like these broadcasters to live in the real world. Unless you're a corn farmer or build fighter jets, you have to make your own way in this world.

Weren't you one of the people bitching about Farid Suleman? Is the cognitive dissonance just lost on you?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Weren't you one of the people bitching about Farid Suleman?

No, I've never said anything about Farid here.

 

[TheBigA]

I think it would be fair to let the non-comm station owners write their own ticket with regards to fund raising rules. It's the least we could do if we were to eliminate the federal funding. I wouldn't have a bit of a problem with that.

That's a very naive point of view. No one asks people to "write their own ticket." It's like the IRS asking how much you'd like to pay in taxes.

The fact is that it would require new federal legislation to change fundraising rules. Either from the FCC or Congress. Until the new rules were approved, the stations would be forced to operate under the old ones. Even if the federal dollars are pulled out from under them.

The second fact is that commercial broadcasters are not going to allow non-profits to enter the commercial world. The commercial broadcasters PAY TAXES. Non coms don't. The tax-paying businesses are not going to allow new competition from stations that don't pay taxes. If you're the federal government, who do you listen to? Tax-paying businesses or non-profits? I think the answer is obvious.

And most of these stations are unable to simply become for-profit stations because they're owned by educational institutions, and operate studios on college campuses, where they must be non-profit.

So your premise that they should be allowed to write their own fundraising rules is bogus.

I'd like these broadcasters to live in the real world.

But they DO live in the real world. It's just not YOUR world. They live in a world where they beg for every dollar they get. Including the federal dollars. They beg Congress every year. They beg corporations, and they beg users. They live off charity. That is not a world they created, but the one imposed on them. And it's not a world that will change just because federal dollars are removed. They will still be forced to beg every day because commercial broadcasters will not let them enter the commercial world.

You make this assumption that because something is OK with you, that it becomes law. That's not how the real world works. Just because it's OK with you that these folks change fundraising rules doesn't mean it's OK with everyone else. I think YOU need to spend some time in the real world. You'll find that those of us who do can't make up our own rules.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I like this "real world" twist in the conversation.

It could be argued the broadcast industry, profit and non profit, is a tribe of people and organizations that do not live in the real world.

This tribe is a conglomeration of people who gather in their respective silos, and with or without external input and research, declare the world to look like THUS-AND-SO and soon we find these streams of audio and/or video launched like so many mortar shells on their vision of world.

And some of us out here conclude we must live in our own little silo rather than the real world, because little or none of that audio and video ever leaves a bomb-crater in or near our little silo.

 

[MattParker]

I like this "real world" twist in the conversation.

It could be argued the broadcast industry, profit and non profit, is a tribe of people and organizations that do not live in the real world.

This tribe is a conglomeration of people who gather in their respective silos, and with or without external input and research, declare the world to look like THUS-AND-SO and soon we find these streams of audio and/or video launched like so many mortar shells on their vision of world.

And some of us out here conclude we must live in our own little silo rather than the real world, because little or none of that audio and video ever leaves a bomb-crater in or near our little silo.

And the "real world" is where the audience is. Yes, broadcasters - corporate, public and mom and pop - have lost touch with the real world and that's why the folks out in the real world stop listening.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, broadcasters - corporate, public and mom and pop - have lost touch with the real world and that's why the folks out in the real world stop listening.

BS. Millions and millions of people are listening. You would be surprised how many. And the impact radio has can be felt every day. They may not listen in real time, but they're listening.

 

[MattParker]

BS. Millions and millions of people are listening. You would be surprised how many. And the impact radio has can be felt every day. They may not listen in real time, but they're listening.

Not my BS. Arbitron's. Cume dropping. TSL dropping. The size of the slice (AQH share) doesn't matter since the pie keeps shrinking. And advertisers keep cutting radio spending.

They may not listen in the real world, but they listen in the world radio people live in.

Sorry, dude, nobody buys it. Maybe you'd have better luck selling shares in a hedge fund.

 

[TheBigA]

Not my BS. Arbitron's. Cume dropping. TSL dropping. The size of the slice (AQH share) doesn't matter since the pie keeps shrinking. And advertisers keep cutting radio spending.

All a function of the multiplicity of today's media marketplace, not losing touch with the real world. The overall numbers of people using radio is in the hundreds of millions. 94% of the public listen to radio. They divide their attention among lots of types of radio, including non-commercial.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I think YOU need to spend some time in the real world. You'll find that those of us who do can't make up our own rules.

I've run a business. I didn't have the luxury of being in an industry that someone somewhere has seen fit to give confiscated tax dollars to. THAT IS THE REAL WORLD.

My suggestion to let non-comms "write their own ticket" was just a nice way of saying that they shouldn't be hung out to dry. It's a compromise position of sorts. I thought people liked compromise. I guess they don't when their free lunch is in danger of being taken away.

So before you talk down to me, you'd best know what you're talking about. You may know how a non-comm radio station is run, but I know how a real business is run. Whether you like it or not, the gravy train is coming to an end. You'd best start thinking like a businessman and less like a ward of the state if you want to continue serving your audience.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think YOU need to spend some time in the real world. You'll find that those of us who do can't make up our own rules.

I've run a business. I didn't have the luxury of being in an industry that someone somewhere has seen fit to give confiscated tax dollars to. THAT IS THE REAL WORLD.

When the trucking industry builds their own roadways (like railroad tracks) and they quit clogging up tax-payer built roads, maybe we could continue this conversation.

In the meantime, non-comm radio which has been going through a morphing of their financial model will continue to change and it will eventually look much like you are looking for.

It looks like we are getting ready to have a new opportunity for people to build these little LPFM stations which is a little bit like acquiring a two-cup teapot. If ever there was a form of non-commercial radio that begs for some kind of change in the "enhanced endorsement" rules, it is the LPFMs. If that change is to happen, it probably can't happen without some changes to NCE category of stations which would include the NPR and community "educational" stations.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

When the trucking industry builds their own roadways (like railroad tracks) and they quit clogging up tax-payer built roads, maybe we could continue this conversation.

The massive taxation of the trucking industry pays for the roads you drive on as well. If I showed you a tax bill for one truck for just one year, you'd have a coronary. (For example, just the fuel tax averages more than $32,000 per year. For one truck.) Not to mention the paperwork involved.

In the meantime, non-comm radio which has been going through a morphing of their financial model will continue to change and it will eventually look much like you are looking for.

It looks like we are getting ready to have a new opportunity for people to build these little LPFM stations which is a little bit like acquiring a two-cup teapot. If ever there was a form of non-commercial radio that begs for some kind of change in the "enhanced endorsement" rules, it is the LPFMs. If that change is to happen, it probably can't happen without some changes to NCE category of stations which would include the NPR and community "educational" stations.

I don't want these stations to go anywhere. I want them to have a chance. I'm all for giving them the tools they need to survive in the form of relaxed fundraising rules. I'm sure these stations can all get together and figure out what they'd need to survive. I certainly don't want them to lose their tax exemptions.

What I see a lot of here is the attitude that somehow some stations/businesses are "entitled" to this money. Here's a bit of a news flash: They're not. No one is entitled to anything in this world other than a chance to live in peace and the opportunity to make something of oneself.

 

[TheBigA]

My suggestion to let non-comms "write their own ticket" was just a nice way of saying that they shouldn't be hung out to dry.

But they ARE being hung out to dry. You're in no position to grant them any privileges. They are being screwed by the government that formed them, and all you can say is "let them write their own ticket." They can't. It's against the law. No one is making compromises. They're just pulling the plug and saying good bye. That is the real world. No compromise.

 

[MattParker]

All a function of the multiplicity of today's media marketplace, not losing touch with the real world. The overall numbers of people using radio is in the hundreds of millions. 94% of the public listen to radio. They divide their attention among lots of types of radio, including non-commercial.

It's a function of not being able to compete in today's marketplace. That's a function of losing touch with the audience in the real world. The issue is not that the audience has more choices. They've always had other choices. The issue is that increasingly they are not choosing radio. Radio is cheaper and more convenient than most of those other choices most of the time. Yet, listener are not satisfied to the extent they pay for downloads, download, transfer, buy new equipment, put up with mobile data outages .... and more, to get what they want - to get what radio no longer provides to their satisfaction. It may be too late but the only chance radio has is to stop blaming everyone and everything else for driving away listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

It's a function of not being able to compete in today's marketplace. That's a function of losing touch with the audience in the real world. The issue is not that the audience has more choices. They've always had other choices. The issue is that increasingly they are not choosing radio.

Absolutely wrong. The facts are that it's not a one or the other thing. They're doing both. And they have NEVER had as many choices as they have now.

Yet, listener are not satisfied to the extent they pay for downloads, download, transfer, buy new equipment, put up with mobile data outages .... and more, to get what they want - to get what radio no longer provides to their satisfaction. It may be too late but the only chance radio has is to stop blaming everyone and everything else for driving away listeners.

No one is blaming anyone, and no one is driving away listeners. Satellite radio is the only service that is similar to broadcast, and only 8% of the population subscribes. A third of them still listen to broadcast.

 

[TheBigA]

What I see a lot of here is the attitude that somehow some stations/businesses are "entitled" to this money. Here's a bit of a news flash: They're not.

Actually they ARE entitled to the money, in the way that it was promised to them in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and laid out for them in the Tax Code:

There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund which shall be known as the Public Broadcasting Fund (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the “Fund”), to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.

So it's their money, and they're entitled to it.

You may know how a non-comm radio station is run, but I know how a real business is run.

Last time I checked, this is a RADIO board. We discuss radio here. Not trucking. You want to discuss trucking? Go to the trucking discussion board.

 

[MattParker]

Actually they ARE entitled to the money, in the way that it was promised to them in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, and laid out for them in the Tax Code:

There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund which shall be known as the Public Broadcasting Fund (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the “Fund”), to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.

So it's their money, and they're entitled to it.

Last time I checked, this is a RADIO board. We discuss radio here. Not trucking. You want to discuss trucking? Go to the trucking discussion board.

That would include what radio can learn from businesses and industries that are successful, and from those that have failed. Right now radio is following a well-trod path of businesses that aren't around any more.

In 1967, congress said they were entitled to money from a public broadcasting fund - until congress says they are not entitled. Congress gave. Congress can take away.

And they have NEVER had as many choices as they have now.

Possibly you are not aware of all the choices people had. But if you are claiming radio once succeeded because there was nothing else to occupy people, that's pretty damning.

 

[TheBigA]

In 1967, congress said they were entitled to money from a public broadcasting fund - until congress says they are not entitled. Congress gave. Congress can take away.

Doesn't change the fact that they have been entitled to this money. So if someone wants to know where this feeling of entitlement comes from, this is where.

But if you are claiming radio once succeeded because there was nothing else to occupy people, that's pretty damning.

Where did I say there was nothing else? My point is there's more now that ever. The fact that radio has managed to keep its audience (and that is in fact what Arbitron says) in the face of increasing competition. You're making screaming generalizations that people aren't listening to radio, or that radio programmers are driving them away, and neither are the case. If you want to say that low power AM stations are losing audience, I'll agree. If you want to say that brokered programming is driving listeners away, I'll agree. But if you're saying that B101 is losing listeners in Philly or driving people away, you're wrong. And over and over, what we're seeing is that people who once paid for radio are realizing that they don't have to, and listenership was actually up last year.