Is Public Broadcasting Needed Anymore?

[Flying Headbutt]

At a National Press Club luncheon on Monday, now deposed CEO Vivian Schiller told the audience that NPR was "a public service" in arguing why it should continue to receive federal funding. To me, that answer was absurdly arrogant.

I know a lot of people really like NPR and PBS. But with all the broadcasting outlets that exist now, should the government be subsidizing any of them? Or has the time come for those companies to be self-supporting?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

 

[YankeeFan]

This came up in Cokie Roberts appearance on MSNBC this morning.

She pointed out that in rural areas, NPR stations receive a greater percentage of funding from the government and are more likely to provide a service that others don't.

And, while that might be nice, I'm not convinced that it's a service that's necessary. And, I don't think it's enough of an argument to justify public financing.

Also, the fact that there is a government subsidized radio station in the market could be the very reason that a for profit station doesn't exist. Why would someone start a station, and incur the risk and costs, when there's already a subsidized station in place. You wouldn't be able to compete.

The costs to broadcast are now incredibly low. (There's already Free Libyan Radio on the air in Eastern Libya.) It's the license and regulations that make it expensive.

I don't se why these stations couldn't either make up for the funding or be replaced by commercial stations if they went away.

 

[YankeeFan]

As much as NPR uses the smaller/rural stations to justify their continued government funding, I read this post, and think that the day will come where -- without government funding -- NPR will throw them overboard the minute it becomes in their best interest. (The only thing that might stop them is the composition of the board, which is heavily weighed towards local stations):

Fourth, look at the NPR board. It is comprised mostly of local stations. That made sense when the stations distributed NPR programming and paid for it. But today, NPR the network does not need the stations when it can distribute online, which is how radio will be distributed more and more. The stations that don’t add real value in their markets — such as WNYC does in mine — are screwed as their value as distributors diminishes. The stations’ audiences are going to shrink and with that their revenue. Most of them have no real local presence other than their towers. The stations also depend heavily — more than NPR does — on government support, so they cannot easily give it up and buy their independence. The board fired the last NPR CEO because he pissed off the stations. Now Schiller is gone. Who the hell would take this job next?

Bottom line: The stations’ interests and NPR’s interests are no longer aligned. That has been the case for some years. It is the elephant in the studio. Schiller tried hard to find ways to improve the stations’ lot. That’s why she created new content initiatives in their backyards, to have them create more value. But in the end, the stations will fear a stronger NPR.

http://www.buzzmachine.com/

 

[Ace]

Yeah, we need it because it's the only good radio. The rest all sounds the same.

 

[YankeeFan]

Yeah, we need it because it's the only good radio. The rest all sounds the same.

Well, it wouldn't go away without public funding.

As the link above points out, it's programming could easily be distributed over the internet, and with smart phones, etc., internet radio is much easier to access.

And, if it went way, who's to say that someone wouldn't fill the gap?

 

[Ace]

Yeah, we need it because it's the only good radio. The rest all sounds the same.

Well, it wouldn't go away without public funding.

As the link above points out, it's programming could easily be distributed over the internet, and with smart phones, etc., internet radio is much easier to access.

And, if it went way, who's to say that someone wouldn't fill the gap?

They sure as hell aren't filling the gap now.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

So it's incumbent on the government to use tax dollars to entertain you? There's no way the programming you like can be funded entirely without tax dollars?

 

[YankeeFan]

They sure as hell aren't filling the gap now.

Why would they? How could they compete against a commercial free, subsidized competitor?

No one is competing against the Post Office for basic, residential mail service. Now, I'm not suggesting we put the Post Office out of business, but if it did go away, that service would be replaced by the private sector. But (besides the fact that it's illegal), to compete against the Post Office now would be suicidal.

 

[Ace]

So it's incumbent on the government to use tax dollars to entertain you? There's no way the programming you like can be funded entirely without tax dollars?

No. It's all the sweeter when I know teabaggers are fuming that Prairie Home Companion is costing them .002 cents a year.

 

[Ace]

They sure as hell aren't filling the gap now.

Why would they? How could they compete against a commercial free, subsidized competitor?

No one is competing against the Post Office for basic, residential mail service. Now, I'm not suggesting we put the Post Office out of business, but if it did go away, that service would be replaced by the private sector. But (besides the fact that it's illegal), to compete against the Post Office now would be suicidal.

The Post Office has a ton of competition -- FedEX, UPS, email, newspapers delivering fliers etc.

Radio has been watered down to the least common denominator. For the most part, Screechy talk radio and pop stations playing the same songs over and over.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

The NPR station in Boston, WBUR, has the highest ratings in morning drive time of ANY station (It's not in the book, but this is a known fact). There is a consumer demand for public radio. I'm not so sure about public television. I mean, how many doo-wop revival programs does any one society need?

 

[93Devil]

We do need an NPR, but opinion needs to be removed.

Facts like traffic, weather, live political speeches and other hard news should be the programing.

Do traffic on the 8s. Weather on the 3s. Hard news synopsises on the 5s. That's your loop.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Traffic, weather and news briefs are commercial radio's province. Longer pieces and stuff commercial radio NEVER does, like foreign news, are what drives public radio. That and interview shows where people don't scream. By "removing opinion" I assume you mean "remove mentioning facts my side doesn't want to hear." Most people do, whatever side they're on.

 

[93Devil]

Traffic, weather and news briefs are commercial radio's province. Longer pieces and stuff commercial radio NEVER does, like foreign news, are what drives public radio. That and interview shows where people don't scream. By "removing opinion" I assume you mean "remove mentioning facts my side doesn't want to hear." Most people do, whatever side they're on.

But you start bringing in other things, then you can be swayed from one side to another.

WTOP in DC is great at hard news and this format. That is the way I see public radio should function.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

They sure as hell aren't filling the gap now.

Why would they? How could they compete against a commercial free, subsidized competitor?

No one is competing against the Post Office for basic, residential mail service. Now, I'm not suggesting we put the Post Office out of business, but if it did go away, that service would be replaced by the private sector. But (besides the fact that it's illegal), to compete against the Post Office now would be suicidal.

The Post Office has a ton of competition -- FedEX, UPS, email, newspapers delivering fliers etc.

Radio has been watered down to the least common denominator. For the most part, Screechy talk radio and pop stations playing the same songs over and over.

Over-the-air radio, sure (though I'd submit the radio has always cast their lures there, and that we're nostalgic for the lowest common denominator of our youth, when we were more likely to be that demographic). But between satellite radio, Internet radio and online music services such as Pandora and last.fm, there's never been a better time to be a radio fan. You just can't depend on the AM/FM to provide it.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

93, you miss my point. If there's already a private radio station succeeding with the format you cite, then a public station in the same market has got to provide different material or it's not going to have an audience. For most U.S. media, foreign news is when some celebrity goes off the tracks in Rome or London. It is an underserved market. That's why the BBC World News channel is on my cable system. People watch it.

 

[93Devil]

93, you miss my point. If there's already a private radio station succeeding with the format you cite, then a public station in the same market has got to provide different material or it's not going to have an audience. For most U.S. media, foreign news is when some celebrity goes off the tracks in Rome or London. It is an underserved market. That's why the BBC World News channel is on my cable system. People watch it.

Well I just did a little Wiki...

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (47 U.S.C. § 396) set up public broadcasting in the United States, establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and eventually the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he described its purpose:

It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot". We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.[1]

If this is the case, then I don't see a place for news at all on NPR.

 

[93Devil]

So I am doing a complete 180...

Get the politics out of NPR. Get the news out of NPR.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

News is why people listen to NPR, because commercial news blows. You can't get rid of it, or you'll have 12 people listening to classical music as an audience. You seem to be arguing that journalism CANNOT be objective, that all facts are inherently political, and that government cannot finance journalism in any way, because that will make journalism biased.
PRIVATE journalism, as we all know, can be biased as all hell. Private journalism organizations in broadcast media exist as parts of businesses which are licensed and regulated by the government, weakly regulated, but regulated just the same. My point being, government and media are completely intertwined (pols are terrified of television station owners, fer instance) so arguing against public broadcast journalism seems kind of irrelevant to me.
Let's cut to the chase. Republican pols hate public broadcasting because public broadcast journalism has occasionally, not always but occasionally, run programming reporting that America's economic and social system is not perfect, and that Republican policies are not perfect. It is a political party which has already become authoritarian in thought and deed. An informed public being a prerequisite for democracy, as Thomas Jefferson noted, they want to do what they can to make sure there isn't one.