Taylor on R-I: Defunding threatens public radio, TV

[raccoonradio]

from this very website or at least a newsletter attached to it:

>>76 public radio stations would be at “high risk” if Congress de-funds public broadcasting.The toll on public television would also be harsh, says a new revenue analysis from Booz & Company ...Booz says 54 public TV stations would be at high risk of shutting down, without revenue support from CPB. The outside experts looked at five alternative scenarios, including allowing public stations to accept some advertising. It decided that “a shift from a non-commercial model to a commercial advertising model would have dramatically negative consequences for many of the communities that public broadcasters serve.”

It mentions funding from the feds has already shrunk and this could lead to the demise of "weaker stations serving smaller communities".

Running ads? Why not? Let them, and let them succeed or fail based on the market--"Car Talk
will be back after this message from Fram". There are already lots of individuals who give to
NPR and public radio in general as well as many corporate donations (boo! Evil corporations!
People like Angie's List, Visa, Fox Broadcasting, GM, and other Big Evil Corporations who donate
to public radio)

Of course some listeners may not want to donate to their NPR station anymore ...if they do
things like what WGBH in Boston is doing; they sent classical to another signal more than a
few can't get, got rid of folk, got rid of blues, now getting rid of jazz to do all kinds of news
and talk. Maybe they'll get a bunch of $$ now, but they may lose some loyal listeners.

Yes, times are hard. Yes, some stations could really be affected by this (though some argue
CPB funding is, on the whole, rather small). Money could be had through outright advertising.
Why force it from the wallets of taxpayers?

 

[aaronread]

Clearly you didn't actually READ the article, Bob, as it explicitly says that "the nuclear option"...somehow convincing Congress to modify the law and allow commercials to be aired...would ultimately result in a NET LOSS to both public TV and radio stations. And that's BEFORE the inevitable "race to the bottom" in a chase for ratings that would occur, which would only exacerbate the problem.

 

[TheBigA]

Money could be had through outright advertising.
Why force it from the wallets of taxpayers?

Because the airwaves belong to the public. And the public must pay for it. Taxes are a way to get people to pay for things.

If the advertiser-supported media was doing a great job, and providing things like classical music and news, that would be one thing. But the pages of this site are filled with complaints about how corporate radio is a vast wasteland (to use Newton Minnow's phrase), cutting staff and services. Public radio and TV were designed to fill that void, and amazingly, the void has grown even larger in the past ten years, thanks mainly to Mr. Romney's former company. The only way to replace services no longer offered by ad-supported media is through taxpayer supported media. The fact is that advertiser support for media is drying up. Cutting another slice from a shrinking pie is a very bad idea. It will mean even less money for marginal commercial broadcasters. This is why the NAB won't let it happen without getting another loosening of ownership rules.

The federal dollars mainly support state and local broadcasters in numerous states, not NPR. Politicians want to bring home the bacon. Cutting federal appropriations to state broadcasters puts local constituents out of work. That's why the federal appropriation has been approved for 40 years.