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

[Talk_Dude]

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.

Then the "local" station should be regarded as an important part of "local" infrastructure, and funded by local government (municipal, county, or state), using local tax revenues. It's not the Federal Government's job to make up for deficiencies in local areas.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio signals cross state, county, and city lines. That's why they're regulated by the federal government.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Radio signals cross state, county, and city lines. That's why they're regulated by the federal government.

"Regulated" means controls on signal interference and other technical issues. It doesn't mean "paid for". The Federal Government is operating within its Constitutional mandate when it says what frequency and how much power a station can have. But then the Federal Government decides to pay for the transmitter, studio, and/or any thing else, then it has stepped beyond its authority.

 

[TheBigA]

Radio signals cross state, county, and city lines. That's why they're regulated by the federal government.

"Regulated" means controls on signal interference and other technical issues. It doesn't mean "paid for". The Federal Government is operating within its Constitutional mandate when it says what frequency and how much power a station can have. But then the Federal Government decides to pay for the transmitter, studio, and/or any thing else, then it has stepped beyond its authority.

You don't understand how the government works, do you? If the federal government administers something, they pay for it. For example, school lunch programs. Social Security. Medicare. That's how things work. That's how the government maintains control over things it regulates: through the purse strings. If the government is going to tell a local radio station they must do certain things that the station normally wouldn't do, then the government must pay for it. Otherwise, why mandate it in the first place?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

You don't understand how the government works, do you? If the federal government administers something, they pay for it. For example, school lunch programs. Social Security. Medicare. That's how things work. That's how the government maintains control over things it regulates: through the purse strings. If the government is going to tell a local radio station they must do certain things that the station normally wouldn't do, then the government must pay for it. Otherwise, why mandate it in the first place?

So everything the government has any regulations on must be fully funded by the government? That's a scary thought. How about we just license out the spectrum like we've always done, and leave it at that? I don't mind helping small stations in places that have nothing else out, but subsidizing huge media conglomerates is ridiculous.

 

[TheBigA]

So everything the government has any regulations on must be fully funded by the government?

In the case of PTFP, which is what we're talking about, it's not fully funded by the government. They're usually matching funds or some form of partial funding.

I don't mind helping small stations in places that have nothing else out, but subsidizing huge media conglomerates is ridiculous.

Follow the thread. We're not talking about commercial radio here. This is public/non-commercial radio.

 

[bturner]

If the small isolated community needs a radio station or some form of media to keep its citizens informed especially in times of need, then the local government should fund it and not the federal government?

Nice in theory but how do you fund it without the revenue?

The Post Office delivers a letter for 44 cents. Should the Indian tribe in Arizona that has its mail delivered by pack mule pay more?

Maybe the rural stretches of states should not have roads because the land owner cannot afford to pave a road for the length of his farm or ranch?

Other such programs exist. How about the federal funds that went to bringing internet to rural areas? If it had to be financed on the shoulders of the local people, nobody could afford it.

How about schools? If the district is very poor should kids just not go to school or should the federal and state governments step in?

The list can go on. In fact, most projects in rural areas are paid for mostly by federal and state dollars. Town roads, police, fire, emergency services, even the electricity provider many times get federal or state monies to provide essential services to areas where there are not enough dollars/people to provide for the services.

I suppose the question is: Is radio essential? I say it is. If it isn't then why does the FCC mandate Emergency Alert System participation of licensees. I know its voluntary but try to get a license by refusing to participate or try to avoid a fine if caught with a non-working EAS at your station if it is truly voluntary.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Follow the thread. We're not talking about commercial radio here. This is public/non-commercial radio.

You don't think that NPR and APM don't qualify as media conglomerates? I can think of a lot of commercial radio companies that would like to do as well as they do.

 

[TheBigA]

You don't think that NPR and APM don't qualify as media conglomerates?

NPR doesn't own any radio stations, so I wouldn't consider it a "conglomerate."

Also, you're confusing aid to small local non-coms with national program distributors. As we've said, they don't get federal funding.

 

[bturner]

I never mentioned Commercial stations. I'm not as dumb as I appear. I realize we are talking non-comms.

And for the post above: I too know many, many commercil stations who would love to trade places with some NPR affiliates.

Earlier a suggestion was made for listener supported stations on the commercial band and I shall add for less commercially successful formats. Without non-comm restrictions, there might be some unique ways to make oldies, nostalgia, smooth jazz, indie rock, etc. viable but that is fodder for another thread.

 

[The_X_Man_Cometh]

Radio signals cross state, county, and city lines. That's why they're regulated by the federal government.

"Regulated" means controls on signal interference and other technical issues. It doesn't mean "paid for". The Federal Government is operating within its Constitutional mandate when it says what frequency and how much power a station can have. But then the Federal Government decides to pay for the transmitter, studio, and/or any thing else, then it has stepped beyond its authority.

You don't understand how the government works, do you? If the federal government administers something, they pay for it. For example, school lunch programs. Social Security. Medicare. That's how things work. That's how the government maintains control over things it regulates: through the purse strings. If the government is going to tell a local radio station they must do certain things that the station normally wouldn't do, then the government must pay for it. Otherwise, why mandate it in the first place?

YOU don't entirely understand how government works. Or you've never heard of "UNFUNDED MANDATES."

 

[TheBigA]

Or you've never heard of "UNFUNDED MANDATES."

I have, and I've also heard of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, that limits them.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Or you've never heard of "UNFUNDED MANDATES."

I have, and I've also heard of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, that limits them.

You mean that act that purports to limit them.

Besides, I was talking about the difference between what the Constitution permits Congress to do, as opposed to things that Congress does that it is not authorized to do. Not that being blatantly unConstitutional doesn't stop or even slow down Congress. But if you're going to nitpick every legal point, then be prepared to have ALL of the legal points nitpicked right back at you.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

As we've said, they don't get federal funding.

You can say it all you want. Doesn't make it any more true. Laundering the funds through the CPB doesn't make it any less taxpayer money. NPR itself gets 1.5% of its funding from the CPB. That's not a lot, but it's still in the millions. Add to the the taxpayer dollars that member stations use to purchase programming. It adds up to a lot of real dollars that could be better spent.

 

[TheBigA]

But if you're going to nitpick every legal point, then be prepared to have ALL of the legal points nitpicked right back at you.

If you have a problem with the way the government operates, then you're talking to the wrong person.

And this is the wrong forum.

 

[bturner]

Let's just deal with facts:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/about/mpr/finance/annual_report_2009.pdf

Scroll to page 7 and you will see Minnesota Public Radio received $7,136,000 in "Total Support From Governmental Agencies", HOWEVER, that amount from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting (CPB) was $4,524,000.

CPB generated $4,524,000 of the Total Support and Earned Revenue of $74,536,000.

Minnesota Public Radio claims to serve 5,000,000 people from their 85 broadcast facilities (which includes translators). The website claims 900,000 listeners per week (or 18% of the total potential market) and they claim in excess of 103,000 members. This does not include their sister organizations including their large syndicated programming arm that offers a nice array of programs and a classical music 24/7 format.

 

[TheBigA]

But let's go back to the topic of this thread: Why should tax dollars go to public broadcasting? Because the American public, through its elected representatives, said they wanted a choice from privately owned broadcasting. They wanted an option to corporate control. So the option that exists in all other civilized countries is government funded media. The only reason it isn't exactly like the BBC and CBS, which is directed owned by the government is because there's a law that forbids it. So you have intermediaries.

Do away with government subsidized boardcasting, and you have a corporate monopoly, as we had before 1967. We all know what a great job they're doing.

 

[local oscillator]

The government using my tax dollars to fund stations that compete with my commercial station is beyond ridiculous.

 

[TheBigA]

The government using my tax dollars to fund stations that compete with my commercial station is beyond ridiculous.

They've been doing it for over 40 years, and they did it with the support of broadcasters, who were thrilled to be rid of the responsibility. They don't compete, because they do things commercial stations don't do, such as play classical music and long form news programming. AND they're in their own non-commercial ghetto at the bottom part of the FM dial. You may not like it now, but the previous generation of broadcasters thought it was great.

 

[MattParker]

However this started originally, public radio does not need government money now.

The distinction between commercial and non-commercial stations, however well intentioned it might have been originally, is archaic. As pointed out in another current thread, the line is between commercials and underwriting announcements is a fine one and open to wide interpretation. Public radio stations take money from clients and deliver messages for them. Clients pay this money because they think the messages will (1) increase business, (2) build public image and good-will, which is also good for business or (3) both 1 and 2. Public radio stations often have enough money left over to (1) Pay executives big bucks, (2) Buy the newest and best equipment, (3) Have nice, fancy buildings in good locations and (4) Start for-profit subsidiaries. "Commercial radio" should be doing so well. Drop the non-commercial classification and let "public radio" play by the same rules as everybody else.

End all "welfare" payments to public radio. Yes, including rural and community radio. The boondocks get more in government funds than they pay in taxes. The biggest welfare consumers live on farms, not in urban neighborhoods. They get subsidized phone service, subsidized Internet and on top of that (and all the farm payments) they want subsidized radio (the rest of us pay for). Sorry, no thanks.

@BigA: Come on. Do you really believe elected representatives ever reflected what people want? Maybe that was the correct answer on your middle school civics exam but nobody believes that in the real world. In fact, that's about the only thing tea-baggers and progressives agree on.