AvenueA said:
Dan Mason is an old top suit who has always believed in autonomy and turning the content control over to the locals. His first main task after coming back was to dump Free FM. Next order of business is kicking Jack out the door.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Who should replace Paul Sullivan?
- Thread starter Varulven
- Start date
Dan Mason is an old top suit who has always believed in autonomy and turning the content control over to the locals. His first main task after coming back was to dump Free FM. Next order of business is kicking Jack out the door.
I've suggested Chris too. One of Brudnoy's long-running jokes was that he was making less than Lydon's producer Mary. And I don't think he was kidding.
The Bruins are a big factor here. They usually play 2 weeknights per. Maybe the station would be content with a lesser talent or perhaps a syndi show but I doubt they would go that route.
J. Rich kept stressing last week that there is a 90/10 Con. to Lib. ratio of hosts, because the conservatives were " more talented." Maybe he was trying to tell us something.
The Bruins are a big factor here. They usually play 2 weeknights per. Maybe the station would be content with a lesser talent or perhaps a syndi show but I doubt they would go that route.
J. Rich kept stressing last week that there is a 90/10 Con. to Lib. ratio of hosts, because the conservatives were " more talented." Maybe he was trying to tell us something.
Jordan Rich actually is fairly conservative when he's discussed issues.
Some lib hosts may succeed if their show is done right. It could be that lib hosts are more concerned
about political correctness --don't want to offend some groups/types of people (not to say that hosts of
any type can't make crude jokes or whatever). Talk radio listeners for the most part are those who rebel
against liberal content in other media (TV, movies, papers) and a niche has been built for it. In this state
with one party rule, you can see why conservatalk thrives--it's an alternative and it goes after the
status quo of pols, who happen to be 98% Dems. Not that it always works that way. (Also note that
conservative talk, and poss. lib talk too, can "take on their own side". Howie went after Jane Swift and
is now going after Bush and the legislators who support the amnesty/immigration bill...Alan Colmes used
to say "if Pres. Clinton (at the time) does something I disagree with, I'll say so."
Again, had CC put prog talk on a fairly strong signal, LOCAL DAILY HOST, promotion, etc. it may have done well or at least would get SOME ratings. Given time, it could have built up a following...maybe wouldn't
have ratings as big as the conservative talkers around here, but better than what they got.
So far conservative hosts have managed to reach across the political spectrum to entertain and inform
listeners and with effort lib hosts could do the same--or do they just preach to the choir? Note that I have
heard libs call in to conservative shows (check out Steve from Montreal on Howie's show, for example)
but how many conservative callers call in/listen to liberal shows?
about political correctness --don't want to offend some groups/types of people (not to say that hosts of
any type can't make crude jokes or whatever). Talk radio listeners for the most part are those who rebel
against liberal content in other media (TV, movies, papers) and a niche has been built for it. In this state
with one party rule, you can see why conservatalk thrives--it's an alternative and it goes after the
status quo of pols, who happen to be 98% Dems. Not that it always works that way. (Also note that
conservative talk, and poss. lib talk too, can "take on their own side". Howie went after Jane Swift and
is now going after Bush and the legislators who support the amnesty/immigration bill...Alan Colmes used
to say "if Pres. Clinton (at the time) does something I disagree with, I'll say so."
Again, had CC put prog talk on a fairly strong signal, LOCAL DAILY HOST, promotion, etc. it may have done well or at least would get SOME ratings. Given time, it could have built up a following...maybe wouldn't
have ratings as big as the conservative talkers around here, but better than what they got.
So far conservative hosts have managed to reach across the political spectrum to entertain and inform
listeners and with effort lib hosts could do the same--or do they just preach to the choir? Note that I have
heard libs call in to conservative shows (check out Steve from Montreal on Howie's show, for example)
but how many conservative callers call in/listen to liberal shows?
W
webcastboy
Guest
I'd like the idea of hearing Lydon on WBZ, but I agree that the "behind the scenes" change would be significant. You're right that Lydon is usually at his best when he's got Mary McGrath (and a producer or two) in the control room, and God only knows if that would be acceptable to WBZ...both in terms of the overall impact to station operations and the raw fiscal impact from salaries.
Here's a question, though...assuming for a moment that WBZ does decide to bring on Lydon, can WBZ earn enough from syndicating him nationally to justify the higher staff costs of having McGrath and perhaps a producer or two? I don't know how much national syndication really means fiscally for the players involved (affiliates, home station, talent, etc).
One wonders if Lydon could also make a home at WTKK. He sure could help plug the overall hole that Imus (and Barnicle) have left. And WTKK might be more "conservative talk" but Imus was relatively liberal, so it's not like Lydon's politics would automatically disqualify him.
Here's a question, though...assuming for a moment that WBZ does decide to bring on Lydon, can WBZ earn enough from syndicating him nationally to justify the higher staff costs of having McGrath and perhaps a producer or two? I don't know how much national syndication really means fiscally for the players involved (affiliates, home station, talent, etc).
One wonders if Lydon could also make a home at WTKK. He sure could help plug the overall hole that Imus (and Barnicle) have left. And WTKK might be more "conservative talk" but Imus was relatively liberal, so it's not like Lydon's politics would automatically disqualify him.
raccoonradio said:
If you listen to lib talkers via web (Nova M, Jones network, Air America) you will find that there are conservative callers. However, I agree - it is a medium where people are looking to spend 'time' with folks they agree with. If you want to actually hear both sides of an issue, you are more likely to hear it on public radio then anywhere else, which is why their listening audience is 1/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative and 1/3 independent, according to ratings. (btw, before anyone writes here they are supported by tax dollars - they get 3% of their operating budget from government sources, which is less than Honeywell, General Dynamics, Halliburton, etc etc etc etc).
In any case, we don't know how many conservative callers would call in/listen to liberal shows, do we?? The experiment has never been run. (I do not count the faux exercise conducted by Clear Channel - they did nothing to promote and show and let people know it existed).
And before TSB (welcome back) blames me, the listener, for not knowing the programming was available (again).... I have worked for companies that blame clients for not knowing about the products that were available to them, but.....
By the way, earlier I posted here that the only local host on that station (weekend show) did not even have a board operator. I was wrong. (ouch - it's painful to say that, especially to this crowd!
). I have since learned that there was always a board operator. However, there was not a producer for most of the time he was on the air and as mentioned above, no one assigned to sell ads.
Jordan Rich actually is fairly conservative when he's discussed issues
Rich actively lobbied to be Brudnoy's replacement when it became obvious that Brudnoy was going down for the count. Lost out to Sullivan. The thinking at the time was that Sullivan, due to his newspaper work amongst other things, was considered to be more wired into the local grassroots political action, where Rich has always been considered more of a creature of the Boston entertainment and advertising scene. Rich may think that he's earned a shot at a more conspicuous slot. I'm sure LeVeille thinks the same thing.
Morgan White has been considered too much of a one-trick-pony to get anything more than he currently is getting (overnight fill in work) but if Rich ever got the Sullivan slot White could get the weekend overnight gigs as a reward for being a good soldier (plus the ultra- light stuff he does would probably work on the weekends.)
I'm not sure WBZ is looking for any hard-edged politcal talk, avoiding any perception that politics are tainting their news effort (which pays all the bill quite nicely.) The opinionated talk hosts, mainly Brudnoy, and to some extent Raleigh, predated the all news format and stayed around because they had strong followings and, in Brudnoy's case, was a local icon.
I would think that 'BZ will stay pretty much local 'soft' talk in the PM.
I've suggested Chris too. One of Brudnoy's long-running jokes was that he was making less than Lydon's producer Mary. And I don't think he was kidding.
I don't believe he was. I understand that when Brudnoy came back on-air after being fired in 1990 over 'lifestyle' issues, he took a cut from 80k down to 60k. WBZ has never been noted for being free spending when it comes to talent.
Regards,
TSB
Rich actively lobbied to be Brudnoy's replacement when it became obvious that Brudnoy was going down for the count. Lost out to Sullivan. The thinking at the time was that Sullivan, due to his newspaper work amongst other things, was considered to be more wired into the local grassroots political action, where Rich has always been considered more of a creature of the Boston entertainment and advertising scene. Rich may think that he's earned a shot at a more conspicuous slot. I'm sure LeVeille thinks the same thing.
Morgan White has been considered too much of a one-trick-pony to get anything more than he currently is getting (overnight fill in work) but if Rich ever got the Sullivan slot White could get the weekend overnight gigs as a reward for being a good soldier (plus the ultra- light stuff he does would probably work on the weekends.)
I'm not sure WBZ is looking for any hard-edged politcal talk, avoiding any perception that politics are tainting their news effort (which pays all the bill quite nicely.) The opinionated talk hosts, mainly Brudnoy, and to some extent Raleigh, predated the all news format and stayed around because they had strong followings and, in Brudnoy's case, was a local icon.
I would think that 'BZ will stay pretty much local 'soft' talk in the PM.
I've suggested Chris too. One of Brudnoy's long-running jokes was that he was making less than Lydon's producer Mary. And I don't think he was kidding.
I don't believe he was. I understand that when Brudnoy came back on-air after being fired in 1990 over 'lifestyle' issues, he took a cut from 80k down to 60k. WBZ has never been noted for being free spending when it comes to talent.
Regards,
TSB
(btw, before anyone writes here they are supported by tax dollars - they get 3% of their operating budget from government sources,
Well, that's just not true, but it is the usual blue smoke and mirrors which they like to peddle.
The way NPR is structured, the member stations pay dues to NPR. The CPB, which is almost completely funded by the government, gives taxpayer-funded grants to the the affiliates which use the money to pay their dues and buy and and produce programming which is fed into the system. So, 1/3 of the money comes directly from the taxpayers. Another 1/3 comes from corporate grants, which are tax write-offs for the businesses which make the grants, and the other third from listener contributions, which are also tax write-offs for the individuals concerned (after, or course, you deduct the value of the nifty logoed tote bag.)
So, in truth, there is hardly a nickel that goes into NPR that doesn't have the government's or taxpayers' fingerprints on it.
And before TSB (welcome back) blames me, the listener, for not knowing the programming was available (again)....
Is it okay if I accuse you of being a little disengenuous on the subjects of NPR funding?
Regards,
TSB
Well, that's just not true, but it is the usual blue smoke and mirrors which they like to peddle.
The way NPR is structured, the member stations pay dues to NPR. The CPB, which is almost completely funded by the government, gives taxpayer-funded grants to the the affiliates which use the money to pay their dues and buy and and produce programming which is fed into the system. So, 1/3 of the money comes directly from the taxpayers. Another 1/3 comes from corporate grants, which are tax write-offs for the businesses which make the grants, and the other third from listener contributions, which are also tax write-offs for the individuals concerned (after, or course, you deduct the value of the nifty logoed tote bag.)
So, in truth, there is hardly a nickel that goes into NPR that doesn't have the government's or taxpayers' fingerprints on it.
And before TSB (welcome back) blames me, the listener, for not knowing the programming was available (again)....
Is it okay if I accuse you of being a little disengenuous on the subjects of NPR funding?
Regards,
TSB
>>it is a medium where people are looking to spend 'time' with folks they agree with.
yes--I should add that lib callers on conservative talk shows are the exception rather than the rule of
course and they risk being made fun of by the host or at least pointed out for having a big diff. of
opinion ("OK, Mr. Liberal"--Hannity, or even Mark Levin; "OK, ok, so you're a moonbat!"---Carr)
I think I heard there was a study that said conservatives listened to public radio more for the entertainment
shows (Keillor, Whad ya know, music, etc.)
HHH: if you're considering talk radio, then it's conservative dominated, yes, but there is TV and other
media. Consider this though: what films are they showing kids in schools? Fahrenheit 9/11. An Inconvenient
Truth. Now, is there any chance that a film rebutting those views might get shown in class? Do conservative
documentaries appear as often in theatres as liberal ones? How many musicians out there go the
Nugent route and show off their conservatism?
Admittedly there are token conservatives in places ranging from the Globe (Jacoby) to CNN-HN (Beck)...
but I still need to know: are there any conservatives on NPR?
yes--I should add that lib callers on conservative talk shows are the exception rather than the rule of
course and they risk being made fun of by the host or at least pointed out for having a big diff. of
opinion ("OK, Mr. Liberal"--Hannity, or even Mark Levin; "OK, ok, so you're a moonbat!"---Carr)
I think I heard there was a study that said conservatives listened to public radio more for the entertainment
shows (Keillor, Whad ya know, music, etc.)
HHH: if you're considering talk radio, then it's conservative dominated, yes, but there is TV and other
media. Consider this though: what films are they showing kids in schools? Fahrenheit 9/11. An Inconvenient
Truth. Now, is there any chance that a film rebutting those views might get shown in class? Do conservative
documentaries appear as often in theatres as liberal ones? How many musicians out there go the
Nugent route and show off their conservatism?
Admittedly there are token conservatives in places ranging from the Globe (Jacoby) to CNN-HN (Beck)...
but I still need to know: are there any conservatives on NPR?
A
AvenueA
Guest
Yeah that mattered 50 yrs. ago!
TSBench said:
Couple of things:
1) Tax write-offs are only worth the value of the write-off, which as you know is the appropriate corporate or personal marginal tax rate applied to the value of the contribution. So, if you donate $1,000 and you are in the 35% marginal tax rate, the tax impact is $350, not the $1000. I am sure you know this TSB, but not everyone does and it's important not to overstate the case.
2) I will check into what you are saying here and will get back to you. If you are correct, I will say so. The facts are the facts.
3) Many people do not realize how much private industry is funded by government. Years ago I worked for a hi-tech company who regularly bid for government contracts to develop new technologies - essentially, taxpayers were funding their R&D work which was used to develop commercial applications. I recently met a guy on an airplane whose job is to try to match up military needs with companies - the issue is that the companies are only interested in military projects that have a future commercial application - in other words, taxpayers funding the R&D. I don't necessarily have a problem with this. It just galls me when conservatives are constantly yelling about public radio 'sucking on the government tit' and 'our tax dollars' and ignoring these other activities. It seems inconsistent.
4) Since disengenous implies an intentional attempt to deceive readers, I guess I have to say no, I don't think it is okay to accuse me of it. But thanks for asking!
How's your lawn looking these days?
I heard David himself say "I'm not making $100,000," but I doubt he was as low as 60k. He was probably close to six figures.
As you would probably expect, Chris signed off (7:55pm) quoting Emerson. He said he was looking forward to the time when he would "draw a new circle."
If he wants the BZ job --if it's even available, who knows they may have their guy?-- Lydon had better be ready to make his case without using metaphors . This is a nasty business.
Herald: Emotional send off for Sullivan
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1008806
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1008806
W
webcastboy
Guest
Well, that's true for commercial stations, too, ya know. Us taxpayers pay for goods that advertisers on these stations sell. It's not exactly a zero-sum game, but what really drives the entire US economy is the exchange of funds from one entity to another...doesn't matter if that entity is a person or a government agency.
Anyways, most big market public radio stations get about 5-10% of their operating budget directly from CPB grants, or similar government grants (like PTFP equipment grants). In smaller markets, it's more like 20-50%, although the dollar value for every station is surprisingly similar; the difference in percentage is just that smaller market stations have much smaller budgets - even behemoths like WBUR only run on about $15-$20 million a year. Contrast that to WEEI which made over $35 million for Entercom in 2004 (for obvious reasons). Most major and medium pubradio outlets operate in the $1-5 million range.
What's the rest of their funding? Directly from listeners is about 35%, and that increases to 55-60% if you include the challenge grants from individuals and businesses. Corporate underwriting goes another 30-50%, and then there's private gifts and the like that average around 5-15%. This doesn't add up to 100 because I'm making sweeping generalizations about many different stations. I'm mostly talking about the big major-market outlets, though. Those few stations that produce national programming also get a few hundred thousand from affiliate fees, and perhaps two or three times that from merchandising sales and satellite radio fees (satradio plays handsomely for pubradio programming, but that gravy train is coming to an end very soon I think).
Don't forget, most stations have to pay NPR (and PRI or APM) for the right to air NPR-owned programming. Not the other way around.
So if you think of individual donors and corporate underwriting/challenge grant donations as "taxpayer contributions", then yeah...public radio does get a lot of taxpayer money. But that is rather disingenuous to think in those terms...it's more accurate to say that direct government support is from CPB and that's a pretty small percentage. I would hazard a guess that it's probably less than what Clear Channel and other major commercial group owners save by playing games with their taxes. So you could say that ultimately many commercial stations are costing the government more than public radio is.
1) Tax write-offs are only worth the value of the write-off, which as you know is the appropriate corporate or personal marginal tax rate applied to the value of the contribution. So, if you donate $1,000 and you are in the 35% marginal tax rate, the tax impact is $350, not the $1000. I am sure you know this TSB, but not everyone does and it's important not to overstate the case.
Coming from someone who just posted that only 3% of NPR funding came from the taxpayers, accusing me of overstating the tax write-off case sets the current world record for chutzpah. Congrats!
I assumed most folks here have at least a passing familiarity with the tax laws, so I didn’t think the tax consequences of non-profit donations had to be explained in detail. Since NPR uses the tax angle in both its on-air and web fund raising appeals, so they seem to think it’s important, too.
2) I will check into what you are saying here and will get back to you. If you are correct, I will say so. The facts are the facts.
Yes, they are. IIRC, the correct sequence is to do fact checking first, and posting second (with the exception of the NY Times, of course.)
3) Many people do not realize how much private industry is funded by government. Years ago I worked for a hi-tech company who regularly bid for government contracts to develop new technologies - essentially, taxpayers were funding their R&D work which was used to develop commercial applications....
And your point is? I don’t think there is anyone in the US who got out of the third grade on their own hook who isn’t aware that the USG spends mucho dinero on R&D projects with private companies (just who else, exactly, has the expertise, infrastructure, and skilled workers to do it?). As I'm sure you're aware, by law, the government doesn't hold any patents, and everything developed using government funding is public domain so the corporations getting the research funding can't own or patent whatever is developed, if anything (I think the law may have recently changed to benefit university research departments.) Some things have become so expensive that, if you want them done, the government is the only organization with the necessary seed money and risk capital. I'm not certain that radio programming is what they had in mind.
The precedent for governments funding I recently met a guy on an airplane whose job is to try to match up military needs with companies - the issue is that the companies are only interested in military projects that have a future commercial application - in other words, taxpayers funding the R&D.
Which applications they aren't allowed to own and the government is free to use without rights payments, and everyone else has a shot at making the commercial application work to their financial benefit. If the R&D does have a commercial application, all well and good. Companies that can develop non-governmental uses for the research make money selling it and pay taxes, as do the people making the product. And, if it’s a good product, a lot of folks may personally benefit from having it available (such as the advances in health and weather forecasting made possible by extensions from government funded R&D projects.)
I don't necessarily have a problem with this. It just galls me when conservatives are constantly yelling about public radio 'sucking on the government tit' and 'our tax dollars' and ignoring these other activities. It seems inconsistent.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the major difference between, say, the space program and NPR is that most the space program is too expensive and risky to be handled solely by private enterprise, but radio programming is handled by private enterprise about 16,000 times every day and around the clock without government funding.
Now, I understand that some folks may have an objection to government R&D financing of robotics, inertial navigation, computers, satellites and space vehicles, and much else, especially those opposed to any money spent on defense, but I’d wager that there are a lot more folks who understand the need for these things than there are those who think the government should spend 500 million dollars so Chris Lydon and others can interview people who are household names mainly in their own households.
On the television side of CPB, I remember when WGBH TV used to mention in their sales pitches that “If Public TV didn’t do it, who would?” Well, they may have had a point back in 1969, but the answer today to that question would be “well, A&E, Discovery, THC, Bravo, TLC, MSNBC, CNN, FNC, CNBC, Ovation, and untold others (as PBS found out when the cable nets started outbidding them for BBC programming.)
4) Since disingenuous implies an intentional attempt to deceive readers, I guess I have to say no, I don't think it is okay to accuse me of it. But thanks for asking!
Just where did you get those numbers? In fairness to you, you were probably just repeating public radio’s favorite myth. Of course, you could ask yourself why, if NPR is so ‘sh*t hot’ and popular, they have to dissemble about where they get their true funding.
How's your lawn looking these days?
Great, if I do say so myself, I picked up that book by the Fenway Park groundskeeper, and had the “ Fenway Stripe ” cut into it last weekend for my July 4th blowout.
Regards,
TSB
Coming from someone who just posted that only 3% of NPR funding came from the taxpayers, accusing me of overstating the tax write-off case sets the current world record for chutzpah. Congrats!
I assumed most folks here have at least a passing familiarity with the tax laws, so I didn’t think the tax consequences of non-profit donations had to be explained in detail. Since NPR uses the tax angle in both its on-air and web fund raising appeals, so they seem to think it’s important, too.
2) I will check into what you are saying here and will get back to you. If you are correct, I will say so. The facts are the facts.
Yes, they are. IIRC, the correct sequence is to do fact checking first, and posting second (with the exception of the NY Times, of course.)
3) Many people do not realize how much private industry is funded by government. Years ago I worked for a hi-tech company who regularly bid for government contracts to develop new technologies - essentially, taxpayers were funding their R&D work which was used to develop commercial applications....
And your point is? I don’t think there is anyone in the US who got out of the third grade on their own hook who isn’t aware that the USG spends mucho dinero on R&D projects with private companies (just who else, exactly, has the expertise, infrastructure, and skilled workers to do it?). As I'm sure you're aware, by law, the government doesn't hold any patents, and everything developed using government funding is public domain so the corporations getting the research funding can't own or patent whatever is developed, if anything (I think the law may have recently changed to benefit university research departments.) Some things have become so expensive that, if you want them done, the government is the only organization with the necessary seed money and risk capital. I'm not certain that radio programming is what they had in mind.
The precedent for governments funding I recently met a guy on an airplane whose job is to try to match up military needs with companies - the issue is that the companies are only interested in military projects that have a future commercial application - in other words, taxpayers funding the R&D.
Which applications they aren't allowed to own and the government is free to use without rights payments, and everyone else has a shot at making the commercial application work to their financial benefit. If the R&D does have a commercial application, all well and good. Companies that can develop non-governmental uses for the research make money selling it and pay taxes, as do the people making the product. And, if it’s a good product, a lot of folks may personally benefit from having it available (such as the advances in health and weather forecasting made possible by extensions from government funded R&D projects.)
I don't necessarily have a problem with this. It just galls me when conservatives are constantly yelling about public radio 'sucking on the government tit' and 'our tax dollars' and ignoring these other activities. It seems inconsistent.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the major difference between, say, the space program and NPR is that most the space program is too expensive and risky to be handled solely by private enterprise, but radio programming is handled by private enterprise about 16,000 times every day and around the clock without government funding.
Now, I understand that some folks may have an objection to government R&D financing of robotics, inertial navigation, computers, satellites and space vehicles, and much else, especially those opposed to any money spent on defense, but I’d wager that there are a lot more folks who understand the need for these things than there are those who think the government should spend 500 million dollars so Chris Lydon and others can interview people who are household names mainly in their own households.
On the television side of CPB, I remember when WGBH TV used to mention in their sales pitches that “If Public TV didn’t do it, who would?” Well, they may have had a point back in 1969, but the answer today to that question would be “well, A&E, Discovery, THC, Bravo, TLC, MSNBC, CNN, FNC, CNBC, Ovation, and untold others (as PBS found out when the cable nets started outbidding them for BBC programming.)
4) Since disingenuous implies an intentional attempt to deceive readers, I guess I have to say no, I don't think it is okay to accuse me of it. But thanks for asking!
Just where did you get those numbers? In fairness to you, you were probably just repeating public radio’s favorite myth. Of course, you could ask yourself why, if NPR is so ‘sh*t hot’ and popular, they have to dissemble about where they get their true funding.
How's your lawn looking these days?
Great, if I do say so myself, I picked up that book by the Fenway Park groundskeeper, and had the “ Fenway Stripe ” cut into it last weekend for my July 4th blowout.
Regards,
TSB
I can't find the 3% figure I was referencing, but:
http://72.166.46.24/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04731986.asp
40-50% of operating budget comes from fees paid by member stations - call it 45%
they receive 5 - 15% of their funds form CPB - call it 10%
.45 * .10 = .045 or 4.5%
plus the 1% NPR gets directly from CPB = 5.5%
guess you're right TSB, it's way more more than 3%. (plus the deductibility of contributions.....)
http://72.166.46.24/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04731986.asp
40-50% of operating budget comes from fees paid by member stations - call it 45%
they receive 5 - 15% of their funds form CPB - call it 10%
.45 * .10 = .045 or 4.5%
plus the 1% NPR gets directly from CPB = 5.5%
guess you're right TSB, it's way more more than 3%.
(plus the deductibility of contributions.....)I can't find the 3% figure I was referencing,
I think I did, although it was 2%.....
According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming, although some of this money originated at the CPB itself, in the form of pass-through grants to member stations.[6] About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise about one-third of their budget through on-air pledge drives, one-third from corporate underwriting, and one-third from grants from state governments, university grants, and grants from the CPB itself.
The 2% figure above refers only to money contributed by the federal government directly to NPR. Additional government money makes its way to NPR indirectly. This is because the government (again chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) provides some funding to NPR member stations, the states (and via the states, state universities) in addition to the funding provided to NPR itself. Since these member stations contribute to NPR (in the form of dues and programming fees), the federal government's portion of NPR's budget is significantly higher than 2%, and the total government expenditure is higher still.
Regards,
TSB
I think I did, although it was 2%.....
According to the 2005 financial statement, NPR makes just over half of its money from the fees and dues it charges member stations to receive programming, although some of this money originated at the CPB itself, in the form of pass-through grants to member stations.[6] About 2% of NPR's funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the remainder comes from member station dues, foundation grants, and corporate underwriting. Typically, NPR member stations raise about one-third of their budget through on-air pledge drives, one-third from corporate underwriting, and one-third from grants from state governments, university grants, and grants from the CPB itself.
The 2% figure above refers only to money contributed by the federal government directly to NPR. Additional government money makes its way to NPR indirectly. This is because the government (again chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) provides some funding to NPR member stations, the states (and via the states, state universities) in addition to the funding provided to NPR itself. Since these member stations contribute to NPR (in the form of dues and programming fees), the federal government's portion of NPR's budget is significantly higher than 2%, and the total government expenditure is higher still.
Regards,
TSB
A
argytunes
Guest
Going back to WBZ's Peter Casey...
I wonder if he'd be interested in a completely different type of a talk show? One that WBZ (or practically every Boston radio station for that matter) isn't currently offering??? :
argytunes
I wonder if he'd be interested in a completely different type of a talk show? One that WBZ (or practically every Boston radio station for that matter) isn't currently offering??? :
argytunes
- Status