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

[DonTheTrucker]

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.

While I agree with your points, I don't really think the majority of non-comm stations are big state-of-the-art palaces. Don't confuse NPR and APM's slick production and high paid executives with the folks who run the little 1000 watt station that plays their shows.

 

[local oscillator]

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.

BigA, you've got to be kidding! Earlier in this thread, Michigan Radio was mentioned. I am a U-M alum and am familiar with these stations. WUOM is a superpowered Class B on 91.7 in Ann Arbor. It is the perennial number one station in the Ann Arbor Arbitron Metro, at times doubling the share of whichever station is number two (usually WJR). WUOM also has a superpowered Class B repeater, WVGR, on commercial channel 104.1 in Grand Rapids and another Class B, WFUM, on 91.1 in Flint. WUOM is MORE than competitive by ANY measure -- funding, revenue, facilities, signal, staffing, or ratings. These folks are in it to crush all comers, and I think many other Public/NPR stations feel similarly. And . . . they're doing it with a lot of tax dollars.

 

[TheBigA]

These folks are in it to crush all comers, and I think many other Public/NPR stations feel similarly. And . . . they're doing it with a lot of tax dollars.

But they're not competing for advertising dollars. And they're doing it with programming commercial stations wouldn't air.

A lot of these stations, like the one you mentioned, would give up the government funding if they could run advertising. Is that a deal you'd be willing to make?

 

[DonTheTrucker]

But they're not competing for advertising dollars. And they're doing it with programming you wouldn't air.

One thing about listeners is that they don't care if the station is commercial or not (yes, even public radio listeners put being entertained or informed over their interest in being part of something more important). And one thing about stations is that good ones will succeed whether they're commercial or not. A station that is number one in its market would be just fine without tax dollars because it's a good station.

 

[TheBigA]

Do you really believe elected representatives ever reflected what people want?

Somebody is voting for these critters every year. They don't stay in office by accident.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Somebody is voting for these critters every year. They don't stay in office by accident.

Public radio grants aren't exactly a must-vote issue for many people. Enough bipartisan supports to slip the funding into other bills and no one ever knows, and 99% if the public doesn't care. So while your "elected politicians for it for us therefore we must want it" argument is a bit flawed. They do stuff we don't want every day, and no one cares really.

 

[TheBigA]

Public radio grants aren't exactly a must-vote issue for many people.

If it's not important enough for people to vote against it, then by default they basically vote for it. In other words, if you snooze, you lose.

If "the people" want to take back the government, they need to be present for every issue. Not just the ones covered on the cable news channels. These people wearing their tri-corner hats and powdered wigs are going to be very busy if they really want to run the country. The reality is James Madison was right, Thomas Jefferson was wrong. That's why we still have an electoral college.

 

[bturner]

Some interesting comments here.

The only thing I have issue with is CPB sending funding to folks like Minnesota Public Radio. I certainly don't have a problem with the little stations getting the tax dollars to bring a first service to sparsely populated regions or first service in a community (if they really intend to focus on their community of license). I don't even mind a first non-educational FM service for an area getting some help. In fact, I'd even encourage Congress to permit equipment manufacturers to 'donate' a part or all to a needy station in a first service classification, with the company able to take the amount of the donation off their taxes. I know this can be done, but to actually sanction it might be a good idea. Naturally, there would need to be some proof of being needy. But this idea does not require tax dollars to execute.

I contend non-commercial FMs go after many of the same accounts as commercial radio. To say non-comms don't take advertising dollars is not correct. Marketing includes all forms and that budget is not typically separate from the advertising budget. Granted, public radio has some 'clients' who are not commercial advertisers. My point, I believe, is made by NCE FMs subscribing to Arbitron in my market. Why do they need to show those numbers if it is not to convince potential underwriters they can deliver results?

Fact: In advertising and underwriting, the best type of both is the message that makes the listener think of a specific business when the listener needs a specific product or service.

 

[MattParker]

While I agree with your points, I don't really think the majority of non-comm stations are big state-of-the-art palaces. Don't confuse NPR and APM's slick production and high paid executives with the folks who run the little 1000 watt station that plays their shows.

Maybe some are not. But the majority of the audience listens to public radio stations operating from plush quarters on prime real estate. Off the top of my head, WNYC's three stations recently moved from a city-owned office to a brand new building with performance space in SOHO. The CEO gets a reported half million a year. WHYY has a modernistic building (expanded several times) sitting on Independence Mall. Their old building was good enough for Dick Clark but wasn't good enough for them. The CEO is a politically connected, former water department manager without broadcasting experience, pulling in a cool 3/4 million a year. It's not just major markets: See the earlier post about WUOM in Ann Arbor, MI.

Fact is non-profits routinely get away with stuff that would send executives to jail if a public corporation tried it. I'd like to see public radio corporations act more like other corporations. Instead of pledges, sell stock to listeners. Let "members" vote. And hold boards and executives accountable for their actions like Fortune 500 companies.

 

[local oscillator]

"But they're not competing for advertising dollars. And they're doing it with programming commercial stations wouldn't air." ?????

BigA, you're still kidding!?! WUOM has a sales department that would dwarf those of all but a few commercial stations -- including big markets, and their news/talk/NPR programming is obviously competitive and high-quality or they wouldn't be number one. Your idea that a public radio station spins scratchy classical LP's and has two part-timers going around town begging for support so the town won't lose its only source of fine arts programming may be true in your neck of the woods, not mine.

 

[TheBigA]

Your idea that a public radio station spins scratchy classical LP's and has two part-timers going around town begging for support so the town won't lose its only source of fine arts programming may be true in your neck of the woods, not mine.

I went to their web site, and all they seem to run is national NPR programming. No local programming. I read on these broads that the public wants live and local programming. That's what will save radio from certain death. And these NPR stations are kicking everyone's butts with national syndicated programming.

The fact is they're beating commercial radio not because of federal funding, but because they have a better handle on their audience. And they have that because they program to their listeners, not to advertisers. That connection, through fundraisers (like the one they're doing now) make them more responsive than commercial stations. And they have better facilities and staff because they pour every dollar they get back into their product, and not into the pocket of the owner.

 

[MattParker]

Programming commercial stations wouldn't air?

I wonder. If public radio was shut down tomorrow, I bet commercial broadcasters would adopt its news and information formats. A very loyal audience with money to spend. A long list of corporate sponsors to turn into advertisers. Even paying taxes (instead of getting tax money) and with sound business practices, a good broadcaster could make good money doing long-form news and interviews.

 

[TheBigA]

Programming commercial stations wouldn't air?

I wonder. If public radio was shut down tomorrow, I bet commercial broadcasters would adopt its news and information formats.

There's no reason for them to wait. That's what competition is all about. You don't wait until they go away and you can have a monopoly. You beat the other guys with better programming. My local football team would have won if the other team didn't show up. But it wouldn't have been much of a game.

 

[aaronread]

WXPN, for example, operates a restaurant, performance venue and concert business "on the side."

No, it doesn't. WXPN subleases the space (it, like everything WXPN, is owned by the University of Pennsylvania) in their building to "World Cafe Live", which is a separate for-profit entity operated by Hal Real. He pays a tidy sum to license the branding from WXPN, too. They do have a cooperative agreement, as one might expect, in that WXPN gets rights to broadcast various performances that occur on WCL's stages...although I don't know the exact fiscal details.

If WCL went under tomorrow, it would be a fiscal blow to WXPN's budgets because it's a good source of revenue for them...not to mention prestige...but AFAIK, WXPN does not own nor operate WCL.

FWIW, I know WCL is opening a satellite branch down in Wilmington, DE...sometime this fall, IIRC. I have no idea how that relates to WXPN fiscally, though.

I wonder. If public radio was shut down tomorrow, I bet commercial broadcasters would adopt its news and information formats.

There's no reason for them to wait. That's what competition is all about. You don't wait until they go away and you can have a monopoly. You beat the other guys with better programming.

I can promise you they wouldn't. The legal obligation of most commercial radio (since it is publicly traded) is to maximize shareholder value. That means shoving as many ads as possibly into every hour. That ethos is diametrically opposed to the style and execution of public radio. Not to mention the listeners would hate it and walk away in droves.

Maybe some are not. But the majority of the audience listens to public radio stations operating from plush quarters on prime real estate.

So your argument is that because commercial radio puts out a sub-par product from crappy digs that all public radio should have to do that as well? Y'know, virtually all commercial medical and pharma research is heavily funded by the taxpayers, too. Maybe they should have to operate with ancient and crappy facilities, too! I'm sure that's the best way to get a quality product in the end.

 

[bturner]

I sort of feel like we are missing the point. Why would an organization with 85 stations, a fulltime radio format, numerous syndicated programs, after market revenue and a radio network of 85 stations (almost half being translators) need tax dollars to survive? They have almost 75 million rolling in and almost 10% from government.

Should out tax dollars be going there or perhaps to, say KTNA in Talkeetna, Alaska or KRTS in Marfa, Texas? These two are small NCEs that are first services in rural locations without the population numbers that could make a quality operation viable without some outside assistance?

I suppose my question is why are some tax dollars going to successful organizations that could make it without government tax dollars?

By the way, most commercial radio stations are run by mom and pop companies, not the publicly traded corporations.

Good point on serving stockholders. I said when this happened that it wouldn't work because a radio station cannot serve two masters (community and stockholder). Still, I suspect the voicetracking and diminishing services would have happened anyway but without the big boys to demand it, it would have taken a few more years to occur.

 

[TheBigA]

I sort of feel like we are missing the point. Why would an organization with 85 stations, a fulltime radio format, numerous syndicated programs, after market revenue and a radio network of 85 stations (almost half being translators) need tax dollars to survive?

I understand what you're saying, but they're the exception. I find it interesting that so many other NPR stations in larger markets haven't tried to do the same thing.

But sure, why should the Indian tribes who own huge casinos get the same breaks as tribes living in teepees on the prairie? I don't know, but that's how government funding works.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Do you really believe elected representatives ever reflected what people want?

Somebody is voting for these critters every year. They don't stay in office by accident.

No, it isn't by accident. They stay in office by bringing home the bacon, as in getting pork barrel money for their districts.

 

[Talk_Dude]

There's something I haven't been able to find. I haven't been able to find many instances where money for public broadcasting was the main item on a bill. It seems like appropriations for money for public broadcasting are usually attached as riders on pieces of legislation that are likely to pass. If there's a bill to support motherhood, apple pie, and the flag that will easily pass, there's usually dozens of little rider amendment to throw pieces of pork hither and yon. Can anyone disprove the assertion that the only way Congress can vote tax dollars for public broadcasting is as an amendment to another bill?

 

[TheBigA]

Can anyone disprove the assertion that the only way Congress can vote tax dollars for public broadcasting is as an amendment to another bill?

Public broadcasting money is in the regular budget that gets approved once a year. Like all the other line items that get funded year in and year out. It's not "attached as riders." It's simply in the budget.

However, when Congress passed a bill about the digital conversion a few years ago, there was an additional fund set up to help public radio and TV convert to digital. Once again, the majority of the money went to TV. A small amount went to fund HD Radio at public radio stations. The people who follow HD Radio might have more info on how it was passed.

 

[TheBigA]

This might answer some of your questions:

http://www.answers.com/topic/corporation-for-public-broadcasting

I though it was interesting that the appropriation was pretty stable under Clinton, but shot up about $100 million under Bush. Those rich Republicans love their public TV.