Why Should Tax /Government Dollars go to Public Broadcasting anyway?

[bturner]

Very good points here but the corporations seeking ever increasing profits must serve the radio listeners/TV viewers or the revenue is not there and no profits. Granted it is a simple answer. The more clear picture is the profit-earning commercial end may very well not be truly serving the public. It's sort of like candidates. You might not like any of the choices but you for for the one you dislike the least.

Public radio funding? It is fine but what irks me is I'm forced to contribute via my tax dollars. I love the idea of a check box on my tax form. At least I don't have to pay for corporate radio.

I'm not a fan of the big boy commercial companies and I'm not a fan of NPR either. Here or there both have done something I'm impressed with but that's just my personal opinion. Professionally, I have respect for both.

The comment of same difference when comparing tax dollar funding of CPB and the US Chamber of Commerce is not at all the same. I don't have to pay the US Chamber of Commerce nor do they govern over me. In respect to money being funneled in a deceptive manner, I'll give you that one...not that it bothers me this is the practice. Backroom deals and agreements are far too normal in the business world. My gosh, look at movies: placing products in movies where the filmmaker receives compensation is normal...deceptive in much the same way, but everyday practice.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio funding? It is fine but what irks me is I'm forced to contribute via my tax dollars. I love the idea of a check box on my tax form. At least I don't have to pay for corporate radio.

Oh really? You don't think you pay for commercials in the price of the products you buy?

As for check boxes, that's not how this government runs. I'd love to be able to defund the Iraq War, but that choice wasn't offered. We have a representative democracy, and the people we vote for make those choices for us.

 

[bturner]

Yes I pay for advertising. So what? I have a choice in what I buy. I pay for shoplifting and corporate bonuses too. Explain how I can not do so. I don't have to like having to do so.

Why should my government get to tell me I must support their choice of broadcasters? Are they giving me a choice? At least I get to choose the products I buy.

Why can't my struggling AM station get some of those dollars? Gee, we pay taxes and annual licensing fees. Why not keep the funding and let's help all broadcasters. Radio is struggling on all fronts.

If the dollars are so minimal, then they really don't do much for NPR/PBS or am I wrong. Is government tax dollar contributions the difference between the success or failure of NPR/PBS? I say let's level their playing field. NPR pulls pretty good ratings and a local NPR brings in over 8 million a year for their FM.

Anybody know how many of those tax dollars get doled out to public broadcasters providing a radio or TV service in an area that could not make such a service available without outside help. I'd support that hands down! I know of stations like KTNA in Talkeetna, Alaska.

Maybe you should be able to check a box so your tax dollars don't go to the Iraq War. We are a representative-elected governed nation but neither party has a good track record of representing the majority and I think CPB funding would become very, very insignificant if we could read an audit of where our tax dollars go.

 

[TheBigA]

Why should my government get to tell me I must support their choice of broadcasters? Are they giving me a choice? At least I get to choose the products I buy.

It's $90 million. Million not billion. That's the bottled water budget at the Pentagon.

It's not really their choice. The Congress votes the money, the people vote for Congress.

Why can't my struggling AM station get some of those dollars?

Because you're not a non-profit. Change your status, and apply for funding. Maybe you'll get some.

I read an article suggesting that some for-profit stations should go to listener support. Might work for some stations.

But you probably can't even get a small business loan. Where's the justice?

If the dollars are so minimal, then they really don't do much for NPR/PBS or am I wrong. Is government tax dollar contributions the difference between the success or failure of NPR/PBS?

I don't know about PBS, but most of the radio money goes directly to stations in the form of various matching grants and incentives. NPR says they get no federal funding.

 

[bturner]

Another point to consider: some of the products I buy are advertised on commercial radio, TV, via billboards, magazines, newspapers and VIA UNDERWRITING ANNOUNCEMENTS on NPR and PBS affiliates who are receiving, indirectly, some funds provided by our tax dollars.

 

[bturner]

So it is 90 million that goes to radio? I looked at their 09 Statement and the total, if I can remember correctly, was in the neighborhood of $740 million in funding from the government...actually a bit over $2 a person in the USA. It would make sense that more dollars would go to the TV side (more costly to operate) and programming development.

What I reviewed in a few minutes did not offer a breakdown by TV/program development/Radio. Have you a link or some figures?

Good point about listener support.

One thing I thought of is the tons of LPFM stations out there trying to serve their communities on $40 to $180 a month in revenue. I can name stations but would rather do so in private as these details were given me in confidence. I'd love to see those little guys who are really trying to serve their communities get a little help. They're a labor of love with the head person handling everthing save for a couple of volunteers who cannot do much between family and work obligations. Luckily one operator works his land and another is retired (from Clear Channel, at that).

 

[JimmyJames]

"Anybody know how many of those tax dollars get doled out to public broadcasters providing a radio or TV service in an area that could not make such a service available without outside help. I'd support that hands down! I know of stations like KTNA in Talkeetna, Alaska."

There's a lot of us. If you defund CPB, then we lose a huge opportunity to build out licenses that were granted, for example in the 07 window. We may even be sustainable locally year to year but overcoming the hurdles to get our stations on the air in rural areas has been helped immensely by CPB - and there's no attached programming agenda. We're trying to serve our communities.

Just because commercial radio is profitable on scale, doesn't mean they're getting there by their insight into the public interest. When you fire that many jocks and network that much programming, you can make money much more easily even if on a local level you're ignoring a lot of your public.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

As for check boxes, that's not how this government runs. I'd love to be able to defund the Iraq War, but that choice wasn't offered. We have a representative democracy, and the people we vote for make those choices for us.

You're absolutely right, but that's also the definition of a republic, which is what we are. We're also not supposed to be funding media sources either, but that's a verboten subject around here. Serving the public interest is all well and good, but NPR has moved beyond that. They're just like every other major media outlet at this point. It's obvious they have an agenda, and should be treated as such.

You want to keep the CPB for those small stations? Fine. When they get their money at the beginning of the fiscal year, make it under the condition that they don't fund NPR. PBS and those little stations would thrive on that money, and it would be much better spent. It would even serve the public interest better.

 

[TheBigA]

Serving the public interest is all well and good, but NPR has moved beyond that. They're just like every other major media outlet at this point.

Name another radio network that provides as much news and information for its stations as NPR. The other media outlets have left the straight news world for personality-oriented talk. How does that serve the public?

 

[bturner]

I've noticed lots of statewide NPR affiliates are nothing more than translators of the home station. That pretty much sounds like big corporate radio. The BIG exception is that these statewide NPR networks do pay attention to the little known places they serve. They tend to be on top of severe weather and if there is a news story of some magnitude, it makes it in the state summary. In some instances the station that is part of the statewide NPR network is the only station on the radio dial. Certainly, you have to be in the upper midwest or western states to find this.

I'm all for my tax dollar sent to CPB in order to assist non-comms in providing the only radio service in a more remote area, especially when the local economy could not support a station otherwise.

I have been a longtime complainer about places where a station could serve a community with a blank radio dial if only the FCC would offer an exception on some rules to allow the station to customize to fit the economic conditions in its community of license. Let me explain: One town I know very well has a blank radio dial...yep, nothing on the AM or FM dial. The community could never provide the income for an equipment outlay to start a Class A FM or any class AM.

Before you say one should apply for a 100 watt non-comm, I want to remind you that the biggest signal reaching the largest population wins the nod from the FCC when you are MXed (have others wanting the same frequency). Being a non-commercial is almost 'bad' for the community where the local businesses strive to keep the community aware of the products and services they offer and the fact their prices are actually lower that what you pay 70 miles away when you include the gas and your time. In this community, the commercial is almost a public service because in the town business owner's minds, a way to communicate this is crucial to their survival. (I suggested they start a Shopper style newspaper). You see, locals like to take a day to drive to the nearest town to buy groceries, clothes and all the other things they might need. They come equipped with ice chests and more. Naturally there is a WalMart involved. Local businesses get the 'between shopping trip' businesses in lots of cases except for those few who choose to buy local.

Forgetting the 'commercial vs. non-commercial' aspect, even if the town were to get a non-comm, there is no way the town could produce enough revenue for a station to operate and pay for the cost of construction/equipment.

There are quite a few places where a local radio service is needed pretty badly but the costs prevent it. Sure there is high speed internet in many of these towns and there's the options like Dish Network, but you have to remember outside the town some ranches have just a sat-phone and some are off the grid because it just costs too much to physically run lines out there. Radio could really provide a service in such places.

I recall driving near Faith, South Dakota as a bank of darkening clouds threatened. It was nice to get local weather updates via the only station on the dial, the local Soth Dakota Public Radio station.

Finally, is CPB open to applications for assistance from non-profit stations such as LPFMs and non-comms with no NPR affiliation?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Name another radio network that provides as much news and information for its stations as NPR. The other media outlets have left the straight news world for personality-oriented talk. How does that serve the public?

And NPR hasn't turned into exactly the same thing? It may be softer-spoken, but it's no different than any other media outlet. Consolidation, opinion, political correctness. It's no different than any other radio company, so why should tax dollars be funding it?

I recall driving near Faith, South Dakota as a bank of darkening clouds threatened. It was nice to get local weather updates via the only station on the dial, the local Soth Dakota Public Radio station.

Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think were listening besides you? In order for the public interest to be served, the public has to be interested.

 

[JimmyJames]

I know PTFP has funded noncomms such as ones licensed to Native American tribes and some LPFMs.

CPB I believe requires a certain amount of their grants be used to purchase or produce programming. This doesn't necessarily have to be NPR programming.

 

[JimmyJames]

"Just out of curiosity, how many people do you think were listening besides you? In order for the public interest to be served, the public has to be interested."

In rural areas, public radio carries a high level of respect for the information it provides on a regional level - and in cases of weather and other emergency. I know that's the case in the rural west and midwest. Often the closest commercial station is "on the bird" or off a hard drive and good luck getting any useful info.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

In rural areas, public radio carries a high level of respect for the information it provides on a regional level - and in cases of weather and other emergency. I know that's the case in the rural west and midwest. Often the closest commercial station is "on the bird" or off a hard drive and good luck getting any useful info.

I understand the importance of this sort of station, and it's even likely that the particular station you are talking about has nothing to do with NPR anyway. The point I'm trying to make is that if an individual station or syndicator wants to accept public money, they have to conform to certain standards. Blatant advancing of agendas and engaging in "wars" with other media outlets is not acceptable behavior.

For example, lets take NPR out of the discussion. Should a station that runs a show like "Democracy Now" get tax dollars?

 

[bturner]

NPR does do a good deal of news. Commercial radio has turned news into farmed-out rip and read from a third party service. Media was once the watchdog and protector of the people, ready to pounce on government that was not following the straight and narrow path. It was an honorable and noble cause to stand against that which was wrong and pull back the covers on that which was covered. News departments brought accountability to those who govern and serve.

I'd say NPR's news coverage, while plentiful, is not perfect and has tended to take the direction of most major news organizations, but in defense, when your support is the same way, how can you not get a bit caught up in it all. After all, AP, Reuters, etc., are typically a bit slanted in their delivery of stories either on purpose or because time constraints limit a more complete coverage. I was on the air when Anwar Sadat was killed. He died about 20 times in three hours before Egypt's national radio service interrupted programming to signal he was indeed deceased. My point is sometimes the need to get the story out there does not afford the time to investigate or complete the story in a manner the reporter would want.

I'm not making excuses one way or the other, I'm just saying the trend in news reporting these days is not a full disclosure style but one that tends to be a bit slanted. For example, a story I read today talked about how many people needed help financially. They cited an example that a couple had been getting everything they needed from a charity because their mortgage payment exceeded his disability payment and her social security. Instead of saying "oh those poor folks" I thought "Why don't they forget the house and try to find a cheaper place to live?" The article was slanted to these poor victims. Yes, they are poor and they are victims, but have they explored their options? It would seem to me if my house payment exceeded both fixed monthly incomes of the couple, they should be living elsewhere. I know that is an 'easy' question that can become more difficult when the reality of circumstances is involved, but it sounds to me like they're living in a place they never could have afforded in a good economy. Certainly their incomes would be the same in a good or bad economy. So, how is their example attributed to the economic problem? Was this example utilized to 'slant' the story or was it a green reporter who failed to think through what they were writing?

And for The Big A, I get the impression you are a fan of NPR. Personally, it is not my first choice but certainly not close to my last. Put me in the middle. NPR is GOOD or it wouldn't be around. NPR is successful. I respect NPR and what they do. NPR is a needed media service. I don't care for rap/hip hop but the station here is an excellent station. They do a great job, employ great talent and I respect them, but they'll never win me over. And I want you to be a fan of NPR and tout their importance. Whether we like them or not, we need them in the mix.

 

[bturner]

Democracxy Now is a fine example. No tax dollars should go there. I see the point you are making. Any slant or stance that involves manipulating the outcome of a story should not get funded. In my journalism class in high school (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) my journalism teacher said a good story is one where the story writes itself. The outcome or end is only known when the story is done. She was saying a story written to achieve a certain outcome was not a story at all but propaganda. She said a great story was one where the reader provided the outcome because you simply laid out all the facts. She intentionally did not allow you to write about a subject you were personally involved with in the first year because she wanted you to understand the need to remain outside the story or in other words to feel cold enough to the story that you could not be clouded by your own feelings.

We could never put this 'requirement' in action because it has to come from the character of the reporter and editor. It has to be taught as a code of conduct and be held as the one line that is never crossed.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

We could never put this 'requirement' in action because it has to come from the character of the reporter and editor. It has to be taught as a code of conduct and be held as the one line that is never crossed.

I don't think it could be reasonably enforced, that's the main problem. Putting strings on government funding shouldn't be a problem, but who would keep track of that sort of thing? That's the main problem. The more egregious violators could be de-funded, though. For example, how many stations that do run Democracy Now get grants from the CPB or NEA?

 

[bturner]

Good point, but I got the impression the poster was asking was whether Democracy Now should receive tax dollars for the development of their programming and not whether those tax dollars aided a station that chose to carry Democracy Now.

Maybe the tax dollars should just go to qualified stations in areas where the economic support base is not there to provide a first non-commercial service or first radio service.

Qualified could mean various requirements such as a 501c3 organization in good standing with the IRS, a board of directors that provides evidence of assertaining their market on a regular basis and responding to the needs of the community and demonstrates a responsible use for funds it spends. Maybe a minimal monetary requirement to demonstrate a community's need for the improvement could be tossed in. For example, if a state wants federal dollars for a road improvement, they must raise a certain percentage for the federal dollars to kick in.

 

[JimmyJames]

CPB and PTFP funding already operates that way. You have to have advisory boards and meet a certain percentage of the funding through local support.

I'd add that there should be considerations for first local public radio service. As opposed to denying funding to a locally oriented station because there was already a networked station or network translator in place.

 

[bturner]

Keep it coming...love the discussion and I love learning more.

I agree with Jimmy. A first local non-comm service should not be denied when another non-local non-comm is in the same market/area.

As for the comments on the NPR in Faith, South Dakota, I lived on a ranch and drove to town to sell commercials in a small market at one point. Granted this was in the pre-internet days, but the vulnerability you feel by having no source of local or regional information on demand is something to be experienced. When flash flooding hits, you realize it when you come upon it, not through the radio or TV. When the tornado is headed toward you, you had better hope you can spot it if its rain wrapped because you never hear about the tornado warning.

Still today the only TV is from a satellite dish...nothing local. Radio does finally reach them (thanks to a couple of upgrades), forget internet and phones. To make a call, you drive up on a hill a miles or so away from the house and you get enough of a signal to make a call. On the ranch, walkie talkies do the trick in the regularly populated section.

My point is such a station is a vital link in getting news and weather. The 'locals' might not care too much for the other programming but they consider such a station vital for state and local/regional news and weather.