U.S. Non-Com Radio: Separate and Unequal

[uncamark]

The post is a little old but still relevant: Pubradio consultant Michael Marcotte, in talking about why most NPR station managers won't carry "Democracy Now!", brings up the point that our secular non-com radio system has become a two-tier system, with those against federal funding of pubradio only correct in one instance in each tier: The NPR stations that offer objective news coverage (some on the far-left would say pro-Republican) but could withstand no federal funding (in the large markets, at least), and the "community" and college stations that are just as lefty as the right calls NPR (if not more radical), but in most cases do need the money. Marcotte pointedly states that these tiers are so opposed to each other that there is no way they can make a coordinated effort of advocacy towards federal funding:

http://www.mikemarcotte.com/2010/12/index.html

In fact, it seems to me that many "community" stations, as gung ho as they are about volunteerism, seem to want to turn down any kind of government funding they are offered.

 

[musichead1029]

The community stations appear to understand that they can't play the funding game without adhering to CPB standards which would undermine their programming philosophies. Thus, they have opted out of the CPB system and are going it alone, relying on listener support and in some cases a supporting institution (college, community group). Many of the Democracy Now affiliates have very little public affairs or news programming outside of DN. Given DN's often-mundane topics and polarizing politics, it's probably a tune-out for a majority of commnuity radio listeners who tune in for music. (I believe this is one of the prime reasons community stations attract relatively little funding - they generally don't have the resources to produce public affairs programming that is compelling and entertaining other than music.)

Marcotte appears the typical CPB/NPR insider. He characterizes the opposition to public radio taxes as

"1) the services are purveyors of liberal bias, and 2) the services are doing well attracting money on their own."

both of which are true to an extent, but in his post he misses the main point: Why should public radio and TV stations command taxpayer dollars when all other media do not? What makes public media worthy of a tax when 97% of taxpayers have no interest in consuming its output?

He addresses the point in this post quoting Pat Buchanan (Buchannan's statements in italics)

Why should taxpayers have to fund a government version of Al Franken’s Air America, when the private version went belly up? Let the PBS-NPR elite audience fund its own news and entertainment.

When public television first came on air, there were three TV networks and few cities had more than three TV stations. The case for public television, that the people need “alternative programming,” collapses when there are more channels than most of us have heard of, tailored to every conceivable taste and interest.

This is Buchanan's best point, except for one problem, that there is still a societal interest in creating a free media system for all citizens that does not exist to yield profits to private individuals but exists to yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself. The fact that the market is big does not mean the market meets the vital needs of the democracy.

Even discounting public media's lavish facilities and managerial salaries, Marcotte's response is unconvincing. Even if there is a "societal interest" in media that "exists to yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself", both presumptive and unproven assertions, why should it be paid for by a tax? If the citizenry so desires a nonprofit network in the midst of numerous other media choices, wouldn't it be willing to pay for it voluntarily? The answer is yes - Marcotte himself admits that the tightening of PBS/NPR funding during the Reagan era caused NPR stations to produce self-supporting programming. Today PBS and NPR are quite healthy despite "measly" public funding.

Marcotte also dismisses the notion that there might be a political bias at NPR; to him, NPR's managers "generally abide by a set of professional programming standards that assure high-quality, politically-neutral, fact-based information." So does CNN, yet they are accused of political bias, because they have one. Media professionals, most of whom are liberal, don't seem to recognize their own bias, (lower taxes are characterized as a "loss to the government", the criticism of Republican Presidents vs the adulation of Democrat Presidents, the stressing of the Gulf oil spill as an environmental disaster vs little coverage of the success of the cleanup, etc....) because to them, the center is left-of-center.

This is neither here nor there when it comes to advertiser-supported CNN (its current low ratings notwithstanding). But when the citizenry is taxed to support programming, it has every right, in fact a duty, to evaluate the program content.

In short, NPR is professional, it does hold a political bias, and it doesn't need tax support. It would likely be doing itself a service by turning down tax support as its community radio brethren have - not that any government-supported entity would ever do so.

The arguments that Marcotte avoids are that there is no good reason to have a government funded media in the modern day when media can be self supporting and hence editorially independent, public media already holds a pro-government bias by virtue of the political orientation of media professionals, yielding the appearance of funding-based bias, and that it is simply wrong to tax the citizenry for something that the vast majority of them neither want nor consume. How can PBS and NPR possibly "yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself" when they cannot attract even 5% of that citizenry to consume their media?

 

[musichead1029]

Senator DeMint editorializes in the Wall Street Journal today, expressing similar sentiments on the public funding of media.

 

[aaronread]

Not to be dismissive of our "community" (as opposed to "NPR") stations, but I think there's a fatal flaw in Marcotte's otherwise cogent argument:

Marcotte argues there is a "two-tiered" system but mistakenly implies that both are equal partners in the fight for federal funding and must join forces to succeed. I strongly suspect that is not the case. Certainly having "community" and "NPR" stations on the same page wouldn't hurt...but the deciding factor is going to come from the "NPR" stations, which have the money, influence, and audience to make an impact in Washington. The NFCB is a fine and useful organization for many, many things. But it doesn't wield even 10% of the clout on Capitol Hill that NPR ultimately does.

BTW, another reason a lot of stations won't air Democracy Now? It's got no breaks. You can't sell underwriting to support paying the program fees without any breaks. I mean, technically there ARE breaks...but the number of them in a show varies every day, the location within the show varies wildly, the duration of each break varies from a few seconds to a few minutes, and you can't cut cleanly to/from them as there's no drop to silence. And the breaks themselves frequently have spoken words / lyrics so they're not really breaks. They might be a "break" from the regular show, but they're bloody useless to radio affiliates. And yet the DN crew wants every radio station to carry them live at 8am ET, the prime-est of prime dayparts. No matter how popular the show might be (and it's pretty damn popular with our audience) airing at that timeslot is like flushing money down the drain. (shrugs) That's a major reason we tape-delay an hour to 9 - 10am.

Senator DeMint editorializes in the Wall Street Journal today, expressing similar sentiments on the public funding of media.

DeMint also editorialized that Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell was the "common sense" vote in Delaware. : I don't care if I agree with it or not, anything DeMint says I take with a huge grain of salt. ;D

 

[TheBigA]

How can PBS and NPR possibly "yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself" when they cannot attract even 5% of that citizenry to consume their media?

Huh? Even the most conservative usage numbers I've seen are ten times what you post. Over 160 million people use public broadcasting regularly. How's that 5%? The problem is that there's no way to ensure any of those people pay for what they use.

 

[TheBigA]

Why should taxpayers have to fund a government version of Al Franken’s Air America, when the private version went belly up? Let the PBS-NPR elite audience fund its own news and entertainment.

First of all, it's not a government version of Al Franken's Air America. That characterization is simply wrong. It's wrong on multiple counts. Air America was a talk show network. NPR and PBS are not built around talk shows. You can cancel all NPR-PBS talk shows, or defund all NPR-PBS talk shows, but that's no reason to completely walk away from the mission of public broadcasting. Also, there were lots of other issues that led to the collapes of Air America that have nothing to do with the content. Some of it has to do with bad bank deals and debt issues that are irrelevent to non-profits. So the comparison is simply wrong, and shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Second of all, it's wrong to characterize the audience as an "elite." But the fact is the classical music audiences DO support their programming. But there are lots of other types of programming on public broadcasting that don't receive direct audience support. They're the same types of programs that commercial stations can't get popular support. Should we only provide media for the people who can afford it and pay for it? Is that what America is about? Or is it about access to information and media, regardless of financial ability? You tell me your vision of America.

Why is this discussion always centered around a small group of highly paid CEOs, none of whome get a dime from federal funding? Why is there no discussion about the services these stations provide that actually AREN'T available elsewhere, especially from advertiser supporterd media. Why do the supporters of defunding ignore the consolidation of media that exists in America today, where a handful of big successful corporations control all we see? Is it OK to be biased if your money doesn't come from taxes? Is it OK to cut back on public services because they're not commercially viable? Is it OK to limit choices and opportunities because they're not 100% paid for by users? This is a lot bigger discussion than the defunding supporters want it to be. They're only focusing on topics that mobilize their base. But when you look at the far bigger issues, are we really happy with the commercial system of media we have in this country? Is that all we want to exist?

 

[uncamark]

BTW, another reason a lot of stations won't air Democracy Now? It's got no breaks. You can't sell underwriting to support paying the program fees without any breaks. I mean, technically there ARE breaks...but the number of them in a show varies every day, the location within the show varies wildly, the duration of each break varies from a few seconds to a few minutes, and you can't cut cleanly to/from them as there's no drop to silence. And the breaks themselves frequently have spoken words / lyrics so they're not really breaks. They might be a "break" from the regular show, but they're bloody useless to radio affiliates. And yet the DN crew wants every radio station to carry them live at 8am ET, the prime-est of prime dayparts. No matter how popular the show might be (and it's pretty damn popular with our audience) airing at that timeslot is like flushing money down the drain. (shrugs) That's a major reason we tape-delay an hour to 9 - 10am.

The other thing I notice is that the opening is never 1 minute on the dot and the news segment varies wildly in running time from day to day. I assume that's Goodman's way of keeping stations from inserting NPR or BBC newscasts, but for those stations that carry the show after noon ET, it means that the news segment is going to be waaaayyy out of date on those stations. But I assume that Goodman requires that the news segment air in full. When is "DN!" going to start doing afternoon and evening refeeds with the news segment updated? Goodman doesn't even have to do them, they can just have someone say as the theme fades out "Welcome to 'Democracy Now!', democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report--we'll join Amy Goodman and her guests in a moment, but first this is [name] with late news headlines..." I assume money's the reason they don't do it or they're afraid in being in 'FSN"'s way.

 

[musichead1029]

I didn't realize that DN doesn't have structured breaks. That makes it a very tough sell for a live clearance on NPR stations which rely on those breaks for local drop-ins and fund raising (or even a delayed clearance if it won't fit into a defined time slot with breaks). If the content's compelling enough to the audience, they'll survive, but it sounds like they want to break into the NPR tier with "indie" or community formatting.

By the way, sorry for the length of this post. I really need an editor.

DeMint also editorialized that Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell was the "common sense" vote in Delaware. : I don't care if I agree with it or not, anything DeMint says I take with a huge grain of salt.

Aaron, from my involvement in college radio I know you're a knowledgeable and experienced participant in the noncomm field, but if I were to dismiss the message because of some of the messengers, I would not know what the President had said for the past 24 years. I like to focus on the message. In politics, the messenger can be characterized in any way the spinner wishes. But the message remains debatable on its own faults and merits. I linked to the WSJ editorial to show that the points in my argument against funding public media are being debated nationally.

Why should taxpayers have to fund a government version of Al Franken’s Air America, when the private version went belly up? Let the PBS-NPR elite audience fund its own news and entertainment.

First of all, it's not a government version of Al Franken's Air America.....

True, but as was astutely mentioned elsewhere in this thread, that coarse comparison amplifies a selling point to a considerable portion of the electorate who view public media as left of center, don't consume it and don't want to pay for it.

Second of all, it's wrong to characterize the audience as an "elite."

I think not. There's nothing wrong with being an elite per se. We're all elites in some areas of life that we concentrate and excel in, be it a hobby and/or a job. But it's an individual decision as to how each of us is elite. When someone tries to force you to become involved in their passion against your will, 'elite' becomes a dirty word, as in 'government elites' or 'Classical/NPR/PBS elites.' Those elites think that everyone should pay for their passion.

But the fact is the classical music audiences DO support their programming.

Good. And they should support it to the extent that they don't have to tax the American public.

But there are lots of other types of programming on public broadcasting that don't receive direct audience support. They're the same types of programs that commercial stations can't get popular support. Should we only provide media for the people who can afford it and pay for it? Is that what America is about? Or is it about access to information and media, regardless of financial ability? You tell me your vision of America.

My vision of America is that media providers identify a market and serve it. We have hundreds of media outlets at our fingertips 24-7. Most of them are advertiser supported. Some are subscriber supported. NPR and PBS are the only media aimed at the general public that receive national tax dollars, and this is so simply because of heritage, not necessity. So I don't understand your contention that people don't have access to affordable information and media. People voluntarily support media every day through their willingness to sit through commercials, and their cable, satellite, cellphone and broadband bills. If programming doesn't receive audience support in one form or another, of what use is it?

In summation, on what basis do you propose to tell taxpayers that they must support certain programming by law?

Why is this discussion always centered around a small group of highly paid CEOs, none of whom get a dime from federal funding?

First off, incorporate any way you want - ultimately, it all comes out of the same pot and taxpayers recognize that.

I'll be the first to defend large CEO salaries when they're based on metrics of merit. I suspect that most public media managers are skilled at fundraising and noncomm management commensurate with their salaries. I'm just not interested in paying them. If an organization is on the public dole, it's expected to use its money efficiently. Find someone who will work for less out of passion and plug the savings into programming. Or get supporters to give enough to support the salaries without taxes.

Why is there no discussion about the services these stations provide that actually AREN'T available elsewhere, especially from advertiser supporterd media.

Perhaps because it's not clear what those services are and who wants them? Identify who wants them and garner their support.

Is it OK to be biased if your money doesn't come from taxes?

Sure. Why wouldn't it be? If people support the bias by consuming the media at the assigned cost, you're in business. Just about every media source I consume is biased in some manner. As long as they're honest about it and provide me with content I find useful, I'm good with it. I don't have to be forced to support what I like or need. That works out well, since there's no way any organization can purport to know what I like or need without my voluntary input.

But when you look at the far bigger issues, are we really happy with the commercial system of media we have in this country? Is that all we want to exist?

For most, what exists is perfectly adequate. For those of us who want more - show your support. That's why I've volunteered my time and skills to several noncommercial stations over the past 35 years. Very gratifying, and I'd like to believe that those facilities are better because of my contributions. Everyone should try it in some form be it monetary or direct participation. But in order for it to be meaningful, it has to be voluntary.

How can PBS and NPR possibly "yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself" when they cannot attract even 5% of that citizenry to consume their media?

Huh? Even the most conservative usage numbers I've seen are ten times what you post. Over 160 million people use public broadcasting regularly. How's that 5%? The problem is that there's no way to ensure any of those people pay for what they use.

I base 5% on an average of market ratings. What is the 160 million number based on, and what is meant by "using regularly?"

I have heard numbers in the 3% of listenership range for those who voluntarily support public media through monetary contributions. Someone else may be able to give us a better figure on that.

I think public media have demonstrated the ability to attract a sizable audience and support themselves. Aside from being readily achievable and the right thing to do, editorial independence would be enhanced were public media to fund themselves 100%.

 

[TheBigA]

In summation, on what basis do you propose to tell taxpayers that they must support certain programming by law?

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which has been supported and revised multiple times, and the current funding amounts have been approved by Congress through 2014.Its consitutionality has never been challenged, and both parties voted overwhelmingly for the service. How's that?

I have heard numbers in the 3% of listenership range for those who voluntarily support public media through monetary contributions. Someone else may be able to give us a better figure on that.

It's higher than that. But how much tax would you pay if it was a voluntary system? We know for a fact that the majority of public broadcasting users are freeloaders, and the FCC prevents public broadcasters from putting their services behind a pay wall like cable TV, requiring users to pay. So taxes are the only way to ensure that users are charged for the service. It's a nominal charge, and way lower than the tax imposed in other Democratic countries.

 

[uncamark]

I have heard numbers in the 3% of listenership range for those who voluntarily support public media through monetary contributions. Someone else may be able to give us a better figure on that.

It's higher than that. But how much tax would you pay if it was a voluntary system? We know for a fact that the majority of public broadcasting users are freeloaders, and the FCC prevents public broadcasters from putting their services behind a pay wall like cable TV, requiring users to pay. So taxes are the only way to ensure that users are charged for the service. It's a nominal charge, and way lower than the tax imposed in other Democratic countries.

I do point out that there is on cable PBS Kids Sprout, which is a for-profit joint venture between PBS, Comcast, Classic Media and Sesame Workshop, which may be why it's allowed behind the cable wall.

 

[musichead1029]

In summation, on what basis do you propose to tell taxpayers that they must support certain programming by law?

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which has been supported and revised multiple times, and the current funding amounts have been approved by Congress through 2014.Its constitutionality has never been challenged, and both parties voted overwhelmingly for the service. How's that?

That's fine, but CPB funding was originated by Congress. Why can't it be changed by Congress? Priorities change. There's nothing in the constitution that mandates funding for public broadcasting.

I have heard numbers in the 3% of listenership range for those who voluntarily support public media through monetary contributions. Someone else may be able to give us a better figure on that.

It's higher than that. But how much tax would you pay if it was a voluntary system?

Well, if contributions are voluntary, it's not a tax by definition. Most would pay nothing, because that is what they have decided the service is worth to them.

We know for a fact that the majority of public broadcasting users are freeloaders, and the FCC prevents public broadcasters from putting their services behind a pay wall like cable TV, requiring users to pay. So taxes are the only way to ensure that users are charged for the service.

You can only "charge" what users are willing to pay. The problem with a tax as a funding vehicle is that the majority of taxpayers are forced to pay for something they don't use. As Mark points out, there are for-profit options that could be used to fund part of public media's expenses. There's also underwriting and philanthropic giving, already used successfully. Those options are more fair and equitable than a tax. And they only have to cover another 10% of the budget for public media to achieve complete economic independence.

 

[TheBigA]

That's fine, but CPB funding was originated by Congress. Why can't it be changed by Congress? Priorities change.

But once again, that's not what's happening here. There is no discussion on public broadcasting as there was when it was originated. Just the tyranny of a minority of Republicans who want to defund certain programs they don't like. The only priorities that have changed are those being expressed by a handful of freshmen Republicans. Not the overall population, or Congress. If you want to hold Congressional hearings to discuss in the light of day the future of public funding for non-commercial broadcasting, that's all well and good. But that's not what's being done.

Well, if contributions are voluntary, it's not a tax by definition. Most would pay nothing, because that is what they have decided the service is worth to them.

Right, and most people don't serve in our all-volunteer army because they don't value the military or the service they perform. You're avoiding the question. The reason donations are low is because there is no consequence. If you don't pay your electric bill, the power goes out. You don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. You don't become a member of your local station, you can still receive all the programming, and there is no consequence. And that situation is forced by the government, that doesn't allow broadcasters to encode or scramble their content.

You can only "charge" what users are willing to pay. The problem with a tax as a funding vehicle is that the majority of taxpayers are forced to pay for something they don't use.

That's the cost of living in a democracy. I don't have kids. Why should I pay for schools? My house has spinklers. Why should I pay for fire engines? We have a one-size-fits-all government. The government approved the expense of public broadcasting. So you pay your $2 a year, even though you don't use it. I didn't support the war in Iraq, but the Supreme Court says I still have to pay for it. Too bad for me.

As Mark points out, there are for-profit options that could be used to fund part of public media's expenses. There's also underwriting and philanthropic giving, already used successfully. Those options are more fair and equitable than a tax. And they only have to cover another 10% of the budget for public media to achieve complete economic independence.

All of this "could be" stuff is nice to discuss from a theoretical viewpoint, but it's not on the table now. All that's happening now is the program is being defunded. That's it. No alternatives being discussed, no public hearings on funding options, no changes in underwriting laws. That's not fair. That's why I say it's undemocratic to simply defund a program that was created by law. It's more complicated than simply pulling the funding. The public has come to expect school lunches because the program was created by law. Defunding it ignores the fact that the program still exists, and the public still expects it.

 

[musichead1029]

BigA, in order to justify taxing the public to support noncommercial media, you're attempting to equate a non-essential entity with essential services like defense and schools. That's a fallacious argument.

Funding public media through underwriting and philanthropic giving isn't "could be", pie-in-the-sky stuff. It's done successfully today. This is one of the reasons why there is a debate over tax funding. Because in light of other available voluntary funding sources, involuntary funding isn't necessary.

As we're discussing elsewhere, adjusting the current Congressional funding of CPB to a level of $0 doesn't necessarily stifle debate. Funding levels fluctuate all the time, and the current House majority believes that $0 is an appropriate figure under current conditions. The debate will certainly continue.

How can PBS and NPR possibly "yield beneficial service for the good of the citizenry itself" when they cannot attract even 5% of that citizenry to consume their media?

Huh? Even the most conservative usage numbers I've seen are ten times what you post. Over 160 million people use public broadcasting regularly.

I base 5% on an average of market ratings. What is the 160 million number based on, and what is meant by "using regularly?"

It looks like NPR pegs their weekly reach at 27.5 million.

 

[TheBigA]

BigA, in order to justify taxing the public to support noncommercial media, you're attempting to equate a non-essential entity with essential services like defense and schools. That's a fallacious argument.

We're discussing voluntary participation. In that way, it's not fallacious. It's very direct to the issue. Contribution to charity is voluntary, as is service in the military.

Funding public media through underwriting and philanthropic giving isn't "could be", pie-in-the-sky stuff. It's done successfully today. This is one of the reasons why there is a debate over tax funding.

No that's not why it's being debated. Because if that was the reason, then it wouldn't be a total line iten defund. It would be a case by case analysis of improving or changing the system of appropriation. There are hundreds of non-commercial stations for whom this kind of funding is life & death. Not every non-commercial station has a multi-million dollar budget with CEOs making a half million a year. That's part of the mythology that's being presented. But if the Congress would simply hold public hearings on this issue, and had station budgets presented for public view, the American people would get a much clearer picture on this debate, and they could make a much more INFORMED decision.

It looks like NPR pegs their weekly reach at 27.5 million.

The defunding covers more than just NPR. So the numbers are bigger than just NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

Let me add that us discussing things like audience reach in computer groups really devalues the real importance of the process itself. When CPB goes to the Hill for appropriations hearings, it comes armed with lots of details of audience and programming and how they justify the use of taxpayer money for this service. And for almost every year, the various committees have seen fit to not only approve the appropriation, but also increase it from the previous year. So obviously someone is doing their job. It was a whole lot more thorough than the way in which these defunding decisions were made.

 

[musichead1029]

Funding public media through underwriting and philanthropic giving isn't "could be", pie-in-the-sky stuff. It's done successfully today. This is one of the reasons why there is a debate over tax funding.

No that's not why it's being debated. Because if that was the reason, then it wouldn't be a total line item defund. It would be a case by case analysis of improving or changing the system of appropriation.

Looking at the big picture (government spending cuts), I think that's precisely the reason public media funding is in the spotlight - it's being used as a litmus test. If Congress can't cut funding from a non-essential service that can demonstrably fund itself, they won't be able to cut anything. Public media also fits the bill, because outside of 'Big Bird', it isn't seen as a cut against children or any other single favored constituent group.

(Several recent political missteps on the part of NPR management won't help their case, most notably now-former Senior Vice President for Fundraising Ron Schiller's common sense off-the-record comment that NPR would be better off without public funding - my contention also. This directly contradicted NPR President Vivian Schiller's Press Club speech Monday night where she had to assert that government funding is essential, further diluting her credibility. And Schiller's revelations of his extreme partisan views played to those who find public media biased).

What happens in the next few days will be an early indicator as to how contentious the budget process is going to be. Right now, it looks like Congress is not going to agree on any items being proposed for cuts, so public media may fade from the spotlight shortly. But right now because of its ready-made criteria, the public media budget is center stage. And fair or not, these budget debates are going beyond mere process-as-usual which hasn't yielded tangible results in the past.

There are hundreds of non-commercial stations for whom this kind of funding is life & death.

NPR and CPB are perfectly capable of using their fundraising expertise to fund rural stations that can't maintain themselves. Once taxpayer funds are out of the mix, philanthropic giving can fill the void. If an independent public media can't raise the funds necessary to maintain its terrestrial stations, it can trim nonviable broadcast stations, increase reliance on cost-effective translators, LPFMs, the internet and other lower cost new media to expand coverage, and turn off the underutilized HD infrastructure.

 

[aaronread]

BigA, in order to justify taxing the public to support noncommercial media, you're attempting to equate a non-essential entity with essential services like defense and schools. That's a fallacious argument.

Who says public broadcasting isn't an "essential" service?

Who says defense and education are?

What's "essential" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[TheBigA]

Looking at the big picture (government spending cuts), I think that's precisely the reason public media funding is in the spotlight - it's being used as a litmus test. If Congress can't cut funding from a non-essential service that can demonstrably fund itself, they won't be able to cut anything.

My suggestion, as a taxpayer, is not to cut domestic spending. At the very least, the defunding of public broadcasting will lead to very real job cuts. This isn't a good time to cut money used for employing voters.

(Several recent political missteps on the part of NPR management won't help their case,

It's just more "gotcha" politics. Once again, this isn't defunding NPR, but CPB. You're showing your true colors here, that it's not about the Constitution, or cutting unnecessary expenses, but rather attacking NPR over the Juan Williams thing.

NPR and CPB are perfectly capable of using their fundraising expertise to fund rural stations that can't maintain themselves.

You're making statements here that demonstrate your lack of understanding of how this system operates. First of all, CPB isn't charged with raising money from any place other than the government. That was why Congress created it. Second of all, NPR doesn't fund stations, it's the other way around.

If an independent public media can't raise the funds necessary to maintain its terrestrial stations, it can trim nonviable broadcast stations, increase reliance on cost-effective translators, LPFMs, the internet and other lower cost new media to expand coverage, and turn off the underutilized HD infrastructure.

That's unfair to taxpayers in poorer regions of the country. They have a right to the same quality facilities as people in richer regions.

 

[musichead1029]

BigA, in order to justify taxing the public to support noncommercial media, you're attempting to equate a non-essential entity with essential services like defense and schools. That's a fallacious argument.

Who says public broadcasting isn't an "essential" service?

Maybe you can help me out by defining what about noncommercial media is 'essential' when we already have numerous media options available. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for what they already have, especially in the face of budget shortfalls for government obligations that are viewed by taxpayers as essential.

Who says defense and education are?

The electorate.

What's "essential" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Relevant to our discussion here, I think that would be "in the eye of the taxpayer."

(Several recent political missteps on the part of NPR management won't help their case,

It's just more "gotcha" politics. Once again, this isn't defunding NPR, but CPB. You're showing your true colors here, that it's not about the Constitution, or cutting unnecessary expenses, but rather attacking NPR over the Juan Williams thing.

Politics is a very real part of what's going on here. The level at which CPB (and hence NPR) is funded has and always will be a political issue for as long as taxpayers are compelled to pay for any part of that funding. I believe Aaron is goingto try to contend that public media is an essential service that must be funded by a tax. Others will disagree. The debate over what one considers an essential or appropriate use of the taxpayers' funds and the acceptable size of the budget is largely political. What politicians choose to invoke and ignore in the constitution, or whether or not taxpayers should be compelled to fund a news organization they view as partisan (especially when other news organizations they prefer are readily available) is all political.

Juan William's firing and the forced resignations of both the Senior Vice President for Fundraising and the President of NPR are surrounded by political motives and overtones. At some point, NPR and PBS are going to have to ask themselves whether they're better off stepping back from the politics and controlling their own fundraising vs being accountable to the taxpayers for their actions and attitudes.

NPR and CPB are perfectly capable of using their fundraising expertise to fund rural stations that can't maintain themselves.

You're making statements here that demonstrate your lack of understanding of how this system operates. First of all, CPB isn't charged with raising money from any place other than the government. That was why Congress created it. Second of all, NPR doesn't fund stations, it's the other way around.

The two together are responsible for fundraising and the distribution of funds. Pool the expertise and take the taxpayer out of the equation. If the current corporate structure doesn't lend itself to efficient fundraising and distribution under those conditions, change the structure.

If an independent public media can't raise the funds necessary to maintain its terrestrial stations, it can trim nonviable broadcast stations, increase reliance on cost-effective translators, LPFMs, the internet and other lower cost new media to expand coverage, and turn off the underutilized HD infrastructure.

That's unfair to taxpayers in poorer regions of the country. They have a right to the same quality facilities as people in richer regions.

Nobody has a "right" to a public broadcasting station any more than they have a "right" to a local AM or TV station. But if independent noncommercial media pools its resources and uses them wisely and efficiently, there's no reason why current coverage can't be maintained and enhanced.

 

[TheBigA]

I believe Aaron is goingto try to contend that public media is an essential service that must be funded by a tax. Others will disagree.

My view, and the view that Congress approved in 1967, is that the American public needs an alternative to advertiser-supported, corporate owned media.

That is the central core issue here. If you scan these discussion boards, you'll read loads of comments complaining about the state of commercial media. The reason commercial media is the way it is is because of its funding system. What the Carnegie Commission and Congress decided in 1967 was that the only way to create media that wasn't focused on reaching the lowest common denominator was to change the funding system. Take the commercial pressure out of the equation. So for the first 15 years of its existence, public broadcasting was about 80% taxpayer funded. That ended in 1983. From then on, there has been more outside corporate support. I believe that has affected the programming. You hear more discussions about increasing audience, and more stations are replacing arts programming with news/talk. Good for increasing audience, but bad for providing arts programming for the masses. At the same time, commercial radio is abandoning serious music formats like classical. Even smooth jazz is disappearing. I believe that Oldies is the next format to shift to non-commercial radio.

What does this all mean? Media is important. For the most part, the US is the only country in the free world where the media, by and large, is in private corporate hands. There was a realization and a recognition that the public interest isn't always served by this kind of system. That is why taxpayer support is essential in some way. There is a similar debate going on within the print journalism industry, suggesting that there is a need for some kind of taxpayer-supported system of journalism, so we can have reporting that isn't beholden to commercial interests. The CPB system that places a buffer between funding and reporting has, for the most part, worked very well. Contrary to some opinion, the journalists at NPR have the latitude to report their stories with fairness and objectivity. And the result is that the voting and taxpaying public has a choice, an alternative to corporate controlled news. The more you replace taxpayer funding with private funding, the more likely you are to get the same corporate control you see on the major networks. We already saw what happened in 1983. My fear is that further reliance on private funding will make public broadcasting no different from everything else, and I think that's a bad thing.

If the current corporate structure doesn't lend itself to efficient fundraising and distribution under those conditions, change the structure.

I keep reading these "pie in the sky" proposals about changing the system, and you can't do that when the discussion is focused around defunding. The defunding debate is strictly that. No other discussions are taking place. The only way to do that is to hold Congressional hearings on public broadcasting in general. Make funding part of that debate, but the entire Public Broadcasting Act must be discussed in order to address alternative funding issues. That's the proper course here. It's very easy for someone who has no knowledge of the process to say "Change the structure." Sounds like a very simple thing to do. I spent may years on the Hill and I'm here to tell you that it's not. Everyone has self-interest they want to protect. That's why the system hasn't changed in over 40 years.

Nobody has a "right" to a public broadcasting station any more than they have a "right" to a local AM or TV station.

The First Amendment says we all have the right to freedom of speech. So yes, people have a right to having their views and opinions heard on the media. The airwaves belong to the public, not private companies. But only public radio stations are actually OWNED by the people. In that way, public medis is far more representative and far more responsive than commercial media. But as I said, the more you place economic control in the hands of private companies, the more public stations will be beholden to their funders, and not their audience. It's already begun, and removing all taxpayer money will simply make it moreso.