Will Public radio be hurt by HD the way Public TV was hurt by basic cable?

[TheBigA]

Station managers who don't raise money, don't keep their jobs.

That's true, and that's why I don't understand your problem. This is not your decision. If a GM raises twenty times as much money as he earns, why do you care how much he makes? In any other business he'd get a commission. Maybe 5-8%. So why do you (and you're his boss) care how much he makes? Are we at a point where the public is going to vote on how much a GM should make?

 

[MattParker]

Station managers who don't raise money, don't keep their jobs.

That's true, and that's why I don't understand your problem. This is not your decision. If a GM raises twenty times as much money as he earns, why do you care how much he makes? In any other business he'd get a commission. Maybe 5-8%. So why do you (and you're his boss) care how much he makes? Are we at a point where the public is going to vote on how much a GM should make?

When a station asks me for money, then I care about how that money would be spent. If they get money from the government, too, I care a bit more.

Likewise, if I buy stock in a commercial broadcaster, I also care how they spend money.

If a public radio station does not get public money and doesn't ask for pledges, relying just on corporate sponsors, then I don't care.

 

[TheBigA]

When a station asks me for money, then I care about how that money would be spent. If they get money from the government, too, I care a bit more.

Do you attend station board meetings? Do you volunteer? If so, you get to be involved.

In any case, do you get to vote on how your tax money is spent? I was against the Iraq War. But my tax money went there regardless. Same with public radio. That's why stations have boards of trustees and various member counsels. But the general public turns over operations to the staff. That's how things work.

Giving money to a station assumes you agree with what they do. THAT is how you vote. Not by saying how much a GM should make. Once again, if he is bringing in twenty times his salary, what percentage is fair compensation?

 

[MattParker]

When a station asks me for money, then I care about how that money would be spent. If they get money from the government, too, I care a bit more.

Do you attend station board meetings? Do you volunteer? If so, you get to be involved.

In any case, do you get to vote on how your tax money is spent? I was against the Iraq War. But my tax money went there regardless. Same with public radio. That's why stations have boards of trustees and various member counsels. But the general public turns over operations to the staff. That's how things work.

Giving money to a station assumes you agree with what they do. THAT is how you vote. Not by saying how much a GM should make. Once again, if he is bringing in twenty times his salary, what percentage is fair compensation?

The difference here is congress is elected. Station boards are not.

I don't agree. I don't give. I don't even listen (I get my public radio fix on the Internet).

At the station I'm talking about, staff morale is terrible (some have gone public), staff salaries have been cut and some positions cut. The station manager doesn't bring in money. Sales (I mean, development) people do and they are able to do so because programming people bring in listeners. Meantime, a tight little circle of elitists on the board continue to give their buddy, a city career bureaucrat with no other broadcasting experience, roughly three-quarters of a million a year (plus goodies). I also don't appreciate the station pulling out of NPR programs to air bought and paid for news stories (actually infomercials passed off as news).

 

[Talk_Dude]

You should see their "trophy wall". It's 20ft wide and 6ft tall...and they have to take DOWN the old trophies every year because they keep winning so many: RTNDA, NAB, NPR, CPB, AP, Murrow Awards, Peabody Awards, etc etc etc.

Considering how many of the awards were specifically created to favor public (and/or "elitist") radio, and how the awards are awarded based on careful behind the scenes lobbying and promotion, winning a pile of them doesn't necessarily mean as much as you might think. When I worked in advertising and graphic arts many years ago, there were piles of awards that could be won. Some agencies and studios worked their butts off working towards winning them, including going to great lengths to prepare their submissions for consideration. Others who were just as could didn't bother submitting entries, but merely contented themselves with depositing checks from happy clients. Broadcasting awards aren't much different.

In any case, do you get to vote on how your tax money is spent? I was against the Iraq War. But my tax money went there regardless. Same with public radio. That's why stations have boards of trustees and various member counsels. But the general public turns over operations to the staff. That's how things work.

And when Congress spends my money in a way that I don't approve of, I do several things. I complain in public forums. And I vote. Last November, we voters told the Democrat Congress what we thought of them. Perhaps you read about it. The results were in all the newspapers.

Just who are you to imply that no one should speak out against wasting taxpayer money on elitist radio? While it's true that we don't get to directly vote, and we have to live with it when our representatives vote counter to our wishes (at least, until we can vote them out), it's also true that we have the right to speak out against what they've done to encourage them to change their minds and to not do it again in the next year's appropriations.

 

[TheBigA]

The difference here is congress is elected. Station boards are not.

I don't agree. I don't give. I don't even listen (I get my public radio fix on the Internet).

If you want to have a say, you have to give up your time and participate.

No one forces anyone to stay at this station. Employees are unhappy? Quit. No one has job entitlement. Enough people quit, someone will be forced to take action. The longer people show up and do their jobs, the longer status quo remains. Public radio stations are no different from any other form of non-profit.

 

[TheBigA]

Just who are you to imply that no one should speak out against wasting taxpayer money on elitist radio?

I haven't said that. I'm saying if the public wants a say, they need to devote their time. Not just post on message boards.

And not all public radio is "elitist." Why should you sit in judgement of who or what is elitist, and if they should get money? Personally, I find it elitist to call someone an elitist. How about that?

 

[Talk_Dude]

Just who are you to imply that no one should speak out against wasting taxpayer money on elitist radio?

And not all public radio is "elitist." Why should you sit in judgement of who or what is elitist, and if they should get money? Personally, I find it elitist to call someone an elitist. How about that?

That's true. There are some programs on public radio that are not elitist. That's one of the things that the elites like to do, include some token non-elitist elements in what they do. It's called "slumming".

 

[TheBigA]

That's true. There are some programs on public radio that are not elitist. That's one of the things that the elites like to do, include some token non-elitist elements in what they do. It's called "slumming".

And as I said, making those judgements and using that kind of language is elitist.

 

[Talk_Dude]

That's true. There are some programs on public radio that are not elitist. That's one of the things that the elites like to do, include some token non-elitist elements in what they do. It's called "slumming".

And as I said, making those judgements and using that kind of language is elitist.

No, you said, "Personally, I find it elitist to call someone an elitist. How about that?" I don't disagree that you find using that kind of language elitist. You're wrong, but that's how you find it.

Words have meanings. They mean what they mean. This is one source's definition of the word "Elitism". Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite (a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field) are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Under elitism these people are seen as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, as opposed to the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes. Members of an inherited elite are aristocrats.

Your assertion that those who recognize an attitude as elitists are themselves elitist is your own personal and unique definition. It is not the definition that the rest of the English speaking world uses. If we are all communicating in English, then it is very helpful if we all use the meanings of words in the English language in the context of their exact meaning, and not to invent our own definitions.

Perhaps if public radio had some programs geared towards educating English speaking Americans to use American English words correctly, then it would be better serving the people that it is tasked with serving.

 

[TheBigA]

Perhaps if public radio had some programs geared towards educating English speaking Americans to use American English words correctly, then it would be better serving the people that it is tasked with serving.

Ahh but you say public radio is already elitist, so therefore it's not tasked with serving those who don't use English correctly.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Perhaps if public radio had some programs geared towards educating English speaking Americans to use American English words correctly, then it would be better serving the people that it is tasked with serving.

Ahh but you say public radio is already elitist, so therefore it's not tasked with serving those who don't use English correctly.

I didn't say that public radio was tasked with being elitist. It was originally tasked with serving and benefiting the masses. It was turned into an elitist entity by the elites who fund and run it. The elitist have turned what should have been something that served and benefited those who needed what it could provide the most into their own private little cultural club.

 

[TheBigA]

I didn't say that public radio was tasked with being elitist. It was originally tasked with serving and benefiting the masses.

Not exactly. If you read the debate that led to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the goal was even more elitist than the actual result. They intended it to provide high culture, music, and theater. Once the federal dollars went away, they were forced to "slum," to use your word.

 

[Talk_Dude]

I didn't say that public radio was tasked with being elitist. It was originally tasked with serving and benefiting the masses.

Not exactly. If you read the debate that led to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the goal was even more elitist than the actual result. They intended it to provide high culture, music, and theater. Once the federal dollars went away, they were forced to "slum," to use your word.

I was referring to the The Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was the vehicle by which the elitists made their seizure of public radio (and television) legal. There was public broadcasting long before 1967.

 

[TheBigA]

There was public broadcasting long before 1967.

Yes I know, and it was filled with classical music and radio drama. All entertainment of cultural elitists.

By the way, elitists are citizens too. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because they happen to be smarter (or think they're smarter). They are equally entitled to broadcasting that they like. They pay taxes. Typically more than average.

 

[landtuna]

Yes I know, and it was filled with classical music and radio drama. All entertainment of cultural elitists.

By the way, elitists are citizens too. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because they happen to be smarter (or think they're smarter). They are equally entitled to broadcasting that they like. They pay taxes. Typically more than average.

I've known a number of people who listen to classical music who are (a) mentally ordinary and (b) not rich. They just happen to like classical music.

Personally, I think opera fans are elitist, and snooty. ;D

 

[Talk_Dude]

There was public broadcasting long before 1967.

Yes I know, and it was filled with classical music and radio drama. All entertainment of cultural elitists.

By the way, elitists are citizens too. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because they happen to be smarter (or think they're smarter). They are equally entitled to broadcasting that they like. They pay taxes. Typically more than average.

Yes, they are entitled to broadcasting that they like. So are people who like polkas or other ethnic fare. So are people who want any other kind of speciality programming. They're entitled to listen to whatever they want to, so long as someone is funding the broadcasts through either advertisers' dollars or audience donations. They aren't entitled to having it paid for out of taxpayers' money. Being able to hear what you want to hear on the radio is not an entitlement that the government should be paying for.

The money we pay in taxes should only be spent on the common good, not for luxury items like classical music.

 

[MattParker]

Some public radio (and television) stations started up prior to the public broadcasting act. They were called "educational stations." Most were operated by colleges and universities, often by land-grant schools as part of their agricultural extension services. The original idea was to provide programming for farmers and classroom programming for students in small towns and rural areas. And some were operated by local governments (like New York's municipal station, WNYC). Educational stations added public service programs (lectures or round-table disccusions on current affairs mostly).

Meanwhile, classical music was available in many, if not most, markets of any size on FM. (The joke then was AM means "American Music," FM stands for "Foreign Music.") Many FM stations were operated by local AM stations and simply simulcast AM. But most markets had independent commercial FM stations which broadcast classical music and other "elite" programs. Some of these stations did very well financially with spots of Cadillac dealers, stock brokerage firms and other businesses targeting the "carriage trade." They also got money from listeners by selling subscriptions to their program guides. A few attempts were made to start FM-only networks, such as the New York Times' QXR Network which offered live broadcasts of symphony orchestras and operas, plus some innovative attempts to produce radio dramas in stereo. People bought FM radios because FM had something they wanted to hear and couldn't get elsewhere (maybe HD Radio should take that hint).

What happened? Two things. Public radio came along and started co-opting classical music and other elite programming. And the FCC forced broadcasters to stop simulcasting AM and FM. Commercial broadcasters, often kicking and screaming, started introducing new formats with greater commercial appeal like Oldies and Underground Rock (the predecessor of AAA). Gradually, more people bought FM radios, automakers made FM radios standard equipment. FM licenses became more in demand and therefore more valuable. Stations got sold and/or flipped to formats that were "more commercial."

But public radio wasn't always so elitist. It started trying to get farmers to try rotating their crops and providing additional course material to kids in isolated one-room country school houses. And in the city, providing household hints to immigrant families in the slums. Of course, this was the elites deciding what was good for the lower classes. But at least the elites weren't just programming to please themselves.

Prior to the public broadcasting act, a good deal of "fine arts" programming was available on commercial radio. Public broadcasting killed all that.

 

[TheBigA]

The money we pay in taxes should only be spent on the common good, not for luxury items like classical music.

To you, it's a luxury item. But the culture of a nation is just as important a resource as the water, the trees, and the people. And that culture isn't simply measured as a commodity, something to be bought and sold. But cherished and preserved and even celebrated from time to time. In museums, schools, public buildings, and yes the public airwaves. That is a role the national government has played for centuries. Going back to the earliest forms of government. We have lost sight of our shared heritage and our culture, through the greed of business and industry. It is that heritage that holds us together.

 

[MattParker]

The money we pay in taxes should only be spent on the common good, not for luxury items like classical music.

To you, it's a luxury item. But the culture of a nation is just as important a resource as the water, the trees, and the people. And that culture isn't simply measured as a commodity, something to be bought and sold. But cherished and preserved and even celebrated from time to time. In museums, schools, public buildings, and yes the public airwaves. That is a role the national government has played for centuries. Going back to the earliest forms of government. We have lost sight of our shared heritage and our culture, through the greed of business and industry. It is that heritage that holds us together.

Classical music part of whose cultural heritage? The composers are almost all French, German, Austrian, Italian or some other European country. When I was in school, the music room had a chart listing all the great composers from Bach to Sibelius. Only one American: George Gershwin. At one time, maybe the Great American Songbook or Tin Pan Alley represented a shared American cultural heritage (although that's questionable). Now musical styles and musical tastes are so fragmented, there is no shared American cultural heritage.

I think you misread history in saying national government "support for the arts" goes back centuries. More accurately, kings and feudal lords commissioned music composition and works of art and patronized artists, writers and composers. But that was still an hereditary elite paying for what it likes with other people's money.

It still boils down to somebody deciding what's good for everybody else and then making them pay for it. How do you feel about government funded stadia or arenas? How about government supported rap or hip-hop concerts? Tax dollars to save the Grand Ol' Opry?