Why should our tax dollars go to support stations in the Alaskan bush? Alaska has all the oil money, enough of it so it pays dividends to residents. Let the state support bush radio if they feel it's important. Same applies to stations on Indian reservations. They have money from land claims settlements and from casinos and selling tax-free cancer sticks. Let them use the money for reservation radio if they feel that's important. How do you tell if something's really important? Tell people it's not free and they have to pay for it.
-
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
Why Should Tax /Government Dollars go to Public Broadcasting anyway?
- Thread starter bturner
- Start date
MattParker said:
Actually, most indian reservations have commercial stations. One of the biggest is KTNN, the Voice of the Navajo Nation. It's a huge AM station in Window Rock AZ. They don't get federal money. But reservations in general do get federal appropriations for other programs.
DG said:
Does it? When only eight per cent of listeners ever give, mostly renewals in response to mailings. And when most of their revenues comes from corporate underwriting, not pledges. They don't seem to consider how many listeners pledge drives, well, drive away. Thanks to the Internet, it is increasingly easy for public radio junkies to get their fixes without ever hearing a begathon. But public radio stations continue to imitate Jerry Lewis on Labor Day two to four times a year, a week or two at a time, because that's what they've always done. And maybe the people at public radio stations like doing them (even if listeners hate it).
MattParker said:
They know. This isn't a hobby. They study everything, and have all these facts and figures.
Eight percent is pretty good compared to other charities. The fact is that most people are cheap, lazy, and have terrible taste. Nothing wrong with that. It's just a reality that non-profits deal with every day.
You can tell them it's not free, but if people can get away without paying, they will. If the content was behind a pay wall, or scrambled, then the number would be 100%. But you can't do that. So you do the best you can, attract as many people as you can, try to get them to contribute, and then use the mass audience figure to attract corporate and foundation dollars.
MattParker said:
I seriously doubt that. I couldn't imagine anyone actually liking having to beg the listeners for money.
MattParker said:
It's not just the begging, it's the fact that they're so inelegant about it. For all the bragging about how good they are, you'd think they could come up with more entertaining and effective ways to beg for money. Though, I have to admit that as bad as most NPR stations are at their local funding appeals, public television stations are even worse.
TheBigA said:
Bull! Besides, I didn't say "nice", I said "entertaining and effective". And, I said that the local affiliates are the worst. So, when you say "we", are you referring to NPR or a local affiliate you worked for. You are, after all, just an anonymous nickname. I'm not suggesting you need to identify yourself, but as long as you have chosen to be anonymous, then you've also chosen to forgo using the "personal experience" card.
If you really did used to work at NPR and/or a local NPR affiliate, then you should have no problem persuading people to accept what you say because you support what you say with details and convincing arguments and logical explanations and examples. But when you try to pull the "I worked there so I know" routine, as long as you choose the anonymity option, it just don't work.
TheBigA said:
Funny, I've heard fund-raising messages on the air from people like Terry Gross.
As for answering my question, I asked no question. I merely observed that as long as you are anonymous, your resume doesn't give you any more credibility than anyone else. Just saying that you worked at NPR and a local affiliate means bupkis. Without knowing who you are, you could be lying. Or, you could have been a janitor.
I don't get this recent patter. Hmm, the Big A and Talk Dude...neither is a name. How can one claim superiority or authenticity over the other? What does it really matter anyway. In radio for that huge paycheck or as a listener that keeps up earning a paycheck in radio, I understand this to be a discussion on a topic.
The biggest flop I saw was the 'no begging pledge drive', just 30 second announcements saying support was needed and how to do it. It made the point of 'respecting' the listener by delivering what you to the station for. Let's just say, like Rodney Dangerfield, thaey didn't get no respect.
The biggest flop I saw was the 'no begging pledge drive', just 30 second announcements saying support was needed and how to do it. It made the point of 'respecting' the listener by delivering what you to the station for. Let's just say, like Rodney Dangerfield, thaey didn't get no respect.
Talk_Dude said:
She reads fund raising messages for local stations. All the national talent record them. But NPR doesn't fund raise for itself.
Talk_Dude said:
Ah, that's right. You never ask questions. You just refuse to answer mine until I answer yours. But you never ask. But hey, believe what you want to believe.
bturner said:
When someone states their own opinions and backs them up with logical arguments and links to sources of information, then it doesn't matter if they use a real name or not. But, when someone says, "Believe me because I'm an authoritative source of information", then not knowing who the person really is matters a lot. I don't claim to have any expertise because since I'm using an anonymous nickname, no one can verify if I'm full of sheep-dip or not. TheBigA is claiming expertise, which only works if you aren't anonymous.
The topic is whether or not Tax /Government Dollars go to Public Broadcasting anyway. If someone says that the government should give NPR money, and the reason is because the person used to work for NPR and knows all about how NPR works, then discussing whether or not that person is full of sheep dip or not is directly related to the discussion.
If I posted an opinion and a link to a blog that had information that supported by opinion, then discussing whether or not the blog I linked to could be trusted for accuracy would be on topic, right? So if TheBigA using himself as his source of information, discussing whether or not he can be trusted is also on topic.
- Status