Slashdot Mirror
NPR & The Modern Media Distribution
Isao writes "The U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) network is feeling the pinch between giving their content away for free on the radio and on the internet as podcasts. The dilemma is that some of their audience is turning from the radio to podcasts, not for flexibility, but to either access locally unavailable content or avoid fundraising marathons (NPR is partially funded by listener donations). This has begun to skew their financial model. What's different about NPR's response is that they're not pretending that their old business model will work forever."
I grew up in Minnesota where the land is flat and it would take me three and half hours to drive between my parent's house and the University of Minnesota. My car was a complete junker and therefore wasn't worth the two hundred or so dollars it would take to equip it with a CD player. So instead, I listened to the many programs that NPR and MPR had to offer.
Two of my absolute favorites were This American Life and Car Talk. Oftentimes, I would find myself in a parking lot listening to Ira Glass as the episode he was doing had me hooked and I couldn't even get out of my car to buy groceries.
My senior year of college found me looking up TAL episodes online and using Total Recorder to compress the Real Audio feeds directly to MP3. Was I stealing from TAL? I didn't really feel like it, I was a poor college student and I had heard the program on the radio--I just wanted it on my computer to listen to it time after time.
I'll never forget the time I heard the two part series of Come Back to Afghanistan and it's sequel. What really happened and is happening in Afghanistan never hit home until I heard it through the voice of a young teenager named Hyder Akbar.
I have made a few contributions to NPR since I've graduated but I can see where they'd be strapped financially. I think NPR could take advantage of the modern media formats that all of us seek. I have purchased Car Talk CDs and I'd purchase TAL CDs too. Even more importantly, I'd be more than willing to pay a dollar through iTunes or Napster or whatever service you choose to have a random episode of TAL or Car Talk on my MP3 player. They seem to have the audio book version of Poultry Slam but not every episode, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't have any kind of service to check on hand.
My work here is dung.
Couldn't one simply add the marathon-style begging for financial assistance to the start of each podcast? Many people listen to podcasts on the go (jogging, for example) where they aren't about to manually fast-forward. Some simply won't fast-forward out of laziness. Surely that sort of advertising, as long as it is short and to the point, could be effective.
To be honest, my sciences teacher (Yes, that's right, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Principles of Tech teacher :P ) is an absolute NPR junkie. I would say the reason he uses the podcasts and other materials available on the website is that it's easier to present to the students than telling them to listen to something in advance on a Friday of all days! (I've recently started listening to NPR on the radio on the way to and from school and I can see why people like it, but it's too bad its only a 10 minute drive.)
My UID is prime... is yours?
at least they're admitting that their business model is having issues transferring into the "podcast age" of media distribution. most businesses operate along the lines of "its only a fad", or "we have to load our media up with so much drm it will turn an ipod into a bomb".
"I worry that some day my child will ask me, 'Dad, where were you when they took freedom of the press from the internet?
My prediction is that NPR will be acquired by the AFN and be their "liberal" station.
Putting a very short advertisement at the beginning of the Podcast is an obvious solution to this problem. NPR already as 'brought to you by' segments between their shows anyway, so what is the difference? This would help pay for their costs and 5 seconds is not so long that it would be annoying, so everybody wins.
P.S. Frank DeFord had a great segment about A-Rod today.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The old business model is also far worse, so radios should really welcome the new era. Adding coverage used to require a huge investment in equipment. Content can now be distributed to the entire world in the form of podcasts and streams, which are much easier to scale, making the number of potential listeners and therefore revenue sources much much larger. Good content can now pay off far more handsomely. For example, my favorite station is outside my state, and it would have gone through very hard times without out-of-state contributions.
NPR and its local station here in MN MPR do advertise in a fashion. They never fail to announce who's supporting the broadcast. Its usually quick, non abnoxious, and lets the the listener know who's paying the bill. I always try to buy products from these companies. To me, that's the best way to support public radio.
The problem is choice..
I believe the article is right, we can not let the dolphins free!
Too late, they already left, and they wanted me to tell you, "So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I've really enjoyed NPR for a long time on the radio and I've really started to use their podcasting feature. I can't speak for others but I would be willing to pay a flat yearly rate, around the amount of a minimum donation, to have access to that feature. I wouldn't blame them for charging for that service. The only issue I could see arising is that the podcasts are hosted by the national NPR, but people usually donate to their local NPR stations. I would think they would have to figure out how to trickle the money made from podcasting to the local stations.
Yes, it is a new era, yes we need to face these challenges. Since NPR is our radio station, they owe more to the people than they do to their affiliates. If you look at their 2003 Annual Report you can see that they derive less than 3% of their annual revenue from members and that their internet initiatives account for 5% of their annual expenses. I say it's time for a paradigm shift in radio and let's see public radio lead that charge. Is there a chance that the affiliates will go under? Absolutely. Are we required to support those affiliates even as the world changes around them? No. Sure, my grandmother may not be able to listen to Prairie Home Companion until I come over and set her up with the podcast, but she is in the minority at this point in my opinion and that minority is getting smaller by attrition every year.
...has always been "we're in danger! Fund us, Congress!"
I also find it somewhat amusing that the typical response to a for-profit business facing the same conundrum around here is "adapt or die!", but for NPR... the poor things!
Worry not your pretty little heads. If Congress has shown anything, it's a willingness to spend, spend, spend. NPR isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Pointing out that the Armed Forces Network may be a future home for NPR as a counterbalance to their existing mixed lineup of 'conservative' and 'liberal' shows is not a troll. If NPR is having trouble with funding, they may find it in the strangest places.
I watch public television and listen to NPR, but I turn it off whenever they start with their "Beg-athons". I know they get government funding, plus at least the television broadcasts are now rife with commercials. The commercials are not as bad as the commercial media yet, but then the commercial media need to turn a profit and don't get government money (in fact they pay taxes, which I doubt the public versions do).
The Beg-athons must be terribly ineffective or else the organization is very inefficent with their funding. Either way, I'll never contribute money directly (I already do though, via taxes and watching the commercials).
I was born there myself and lived there most of my life. I swear it seems like MN has more NPR listeners than any other state.
Anyway, it's good to know that they're willing to adapt to a new buisiness model and that they're going with the change instead of trying to fight it. If this was run by the RIAA, they'd probably run half hour of commercials during the broadcasts and lobby to make podcasting illegal.
I'd happily pay $1 or $2 per show for some NPR shows. This American Life is certainly worth that and more...
I just can't use Audible's DRM nonesense. iTunes aparently has the same issue (I've never used it).
The big difference with the podcasts for me is they're in a format I can use.
What's different is they're not suing their competition for patent infringement or their listeners for downloading content.
That makes them smarter than Netflix and RIAA. Admittedly a pretty low standard to meet on the later.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Anyone who wants to know what is going on in the world need only tune to their channel. In my opinion, they're taking a stab at eliminating ignorance in our nation by bathing everyone in nearly free (and unbiased) information and I'd consider that more valuable than cable TV.
My work here is dung.
"What's different about NPR's response is that they're not pretending that their old business model will work forever."
A content provider in this day & age not trying to screw their end customer? That's inconceivable!
The best NPR (and TV network, for that matter) affiliates offer great local content. They will survive and deserve donations from everyone who downloads their show (why should a person give to their local affiliate when they show they're listening to is produced by another affiliate?).
The worst NPR and local TV affiliates have sat on their asses for years, resting on their local transmitters, and produced nothing original of their own. They will die. And they deserve to.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I listen to NPR from time to time, even more so I watch WGBH for its Wall Street Journal and Jim Lehrer news hour.
My only complaint about publicly funded programming is the fact it doesnt have anyone to compete with.
In fact I would argue the reason it has a slightly left slant is due to its lack of any real competition since its publicly subsidized...
If public broadcasting did not exist, would the Vacuum for unbiased news be filled by private industry, Yes I believe it would. Air America in my opinion is a sorry sorry example of left broadcasting, so far left it makes fox news et al seem only semi right wing....
This is just how i feel about public broadcasting, but as an avid listener and watcher I really can't complain much, other than I often wonder what would occur if publicly taxpayer subsidized programming did not exist.
I firmly believe private industry woudl fill the void....
NPR and WGBH do get tax money before people accuse me of having mistaken facts... http://www.cpb.org/aboutpb/faq/pays.html
The lower the barrier to donation is, and the more closely associated it is with the listener feeling they've received something which they enjoyed, the more likely someone is to want to donate. And the easier you can make that, the more likely it is that they'll actually do so.
I used to commute a little over 100 miles a day, and NPR was the only station that really worked and made the time feel like less of a waste.
When the first fund drive came up, i ponied up my $20 - not much, but a lot to a college student. It was a good feeling to support something I used every day.
If you haven't tried NPR, at least give it a shot - you may be surprised.
If you use it, help em out.
Here in Pittsburgh, we only get NPR for six hours a day -- 6:AM-9:AM, and then again from 4:PM-7:PM. At all other times, the station plays moldy vibrating-old-man jazz (no, not even some good stuff). I like to listen to Marketplace, on at 6:30 PM. There's lots of other programs I wouldn't have heard, unless they were available from the web -- 'cause our NPR station is only NPR for a quarter of the day. I find myself listening to WRCT from CMU more often, in spite of the constant noise that is their programming lineup.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
This suggests to me that the local stations are no longer adding any value to the situation. If they can't generate enough listeners for their local content, then their primary purpose is as a distribution mechanism for the national content. But the podcasts are turning out to be a more efficient mechanism for that distribution. Which means that the local stations aren't necessary.
I see a couple of options for the local stations all based on this assumption: if an entity is adding cost to the supply chain without adding value, that entity can and should be removed. In this case, the local station is no longer providing a valuable delivery of national content, so here are the options that I think the locals have:
Is this wrong? If so, wouldn't it invalidate the oft use argument around here that the RIAA should be removed because they're also no longer providing value?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Two caveats you should mention or learn that the corporation for public broadcasting is funded by congress and pays for both public content production and local station expenses, which directly supply the budget for NPR (about 50% station fees and about 50% direct grants).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Umm, according to the NPR link you posted, some of NPR's revenues do indeed come from tax dollars. From the NPR site:
"On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member
stations) receive the largest percentage of their revenue
(34%) from listener support, 25% from corporate underwriting
and foundations, and 13% from CPB allocations.*
"(* These figures are derived from the most recent CPB data
available, FY02. The remaining average revenue breakdown is:
6% from local and state governments, 15% from institutional
support, and 7% from all other sources.)"
Looks like a few "red cents" from our taxes are subsidizing NPR after all.
The link to their website says:
"A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts."
Which, as I'm sure you are aware, get at least some of their money from our taxes.
Anyone who wants to know what is going on in the world need only tune to their channel. In my opinion, they're taking a stab at eliminating ignorance in our nation by bathing everyone in nearly free (and unbiased) information
NPR = unbiased? Interesting thought...
As you can see from their website not a goddamn red cent comes from your taxes.
Let's see... from their website:
On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member stations) receive the largest percentage of their revenue (34%) from listener support, 25% from corporate underwriting and foundations, and 13% from CPB allocations.*
You clearly don't know what the CPB is, do you? It's the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They get money from the federal government.
Proposed Budget Cuts to Public Broadcasting Budget
http://www.npr.org/about/funding.html
In early June, in an unanticipated move, a House of Representatives Appropriations subcommittee recommended cutting $190 million from CPB's budget for fiscal year 2006, which begins this coming October. This was subsequently approved by the full House Appropriations Committee.
"An overwhelming number of adults in this country (80%) say that they have a favorable impression of PBS and NPR as a whole. Additionally, there are several indicators throughout the survey that demonstrate the extent to which the public values public broadcasting. For example, only 1-in-10 Americans (10%) would say that a per capita expenditure of $1.30 in taxpayer funds is 'too much' for the government to be spending on public broadcasting. Nearly half (48%) say the amount is 'too little' and roughly 1/3 (35%) say the amount is 'about right.'"
Oops... you're wrong!
I gave regularly to my local NPR/PBS stations for over fifteen years. They were listener-supported then and I was happy to support them. Then someone, named Ives IIRC, announced that they were "considering" running short commercials, which some other stations were "experimenting" with. I wrote to him and said that if they did, I would stop donating. They did. So I did.
I'll pay for commercial-free programming. I'll tolerate commercials on free programming. But I am damned if I'll voluntarily pay for programming with commercials in it.
Although NPR believes that there is some meaningful distinction between their sponsorship announcements and just-plain-old advertising, it still makes them beholden to their corporate sponsors. And the effects have been noticeable. (On TV, first they had brief little announcements. Then the announcements started to twinkle and sparkle and dance. Then they started to include corporate slogans. Then suddenly a lot of homeowner and "how-to" shows started to spring up, and the camera suddenly and for no apparent reason started zooming in on cans of paint and other products that just happened to have their labels turned toward us--that just happened to be manufactured by the companies named as having so generously given their support).
Other weird stuff started to happen, too, like one FM station dropping all their classical music programs in favor of news and talk--and the other FM station dropping their drive-time classical music programming in order to broadcast the identical news programming at the same time as the other station.
I am sure I am not the only listener who feels that "public" broadcasters cannot serve two masters. If they are going to serve the public, well and good, and I'll be glad to pay my share. On the other hand, if they are going to take money from Babson Executive Education, Top-Ranked by the Financial Times, Enrolling Now for its Executive Managing Knowledge Program, on the web at Babson Dot Eee Dee You, and Archer Daniels Midland, Supermarket-of-the-World--and Keane, Outsourcing Your Job to India, We Get IT Done--and broadcast their slogans--that is all well and good, but that is a different choice and they do not need my money.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I like NPR, but for every worthwhile segment there are ten segments on things like the Wisconsin Cheese industry, or the effect of jazz music on the modern housewife, or some truly terrible music that's only included because it's "interesting."
Listening to NPR on the radio is like browsing slashdot on 0. Sure some of the things are very insightful, but the vast majority are not. It's a very basic signal-to-noise issue. Fortunately, with podcasting, you can skip through the riff-raff, with the added benefit of simply only recording shows that you enjoy. Plus, you can skip past commercials. It's no wonder people aren't even bothering with the radio version.
-Grym
From the article:
"She says she's seen few new donations from out-of-market listeners but that the expanded audience helps her sell larger underwriter sponsorships."
Selling larger underwriter sponsorships is the key here. If people are switching off during pledge drives, or fast-forwarding through them on MP3 players, they'll end up dying a slow death. I don't know about your local NPR station, but ours always seems to be on the ragged edge of dropping a lot of programming, at least to hear them tell the story. They might be able to keep up with a few CD sales here and there, and perhaps people will pay a buck or two to listen via legal dowloads, at least for a short time.
But as we've already seen, if people can download it for free, they'll do it instead of buying those CDs. People might not like the idea of sponsorships, but it's what is going to keep them on the air.
If we spend too much on NPR, we won't have money for important things... like invading Iraq!
I didn't notice it in the main posts, but McDonald's Corp.'s founder's wife Joan Kroc left NPR $200 million back in 2003. AND NPR has practically shifted to an all-sponsorship model. You can't hear more than 10 minutes of radio during drive-time without hearing a thinly veiled ad. But it's the best thing going. Here's a NYTIMES article that explains what NPR's management is going through right now http://www.freepress.net/news/14516/ From this article, it looks like NPR is doing pretty well for itself.
Ooops! That would make them "Nazis", wouldn't it?
Wait a minute. . .
And PlannedParent Hood is the biggest recipient, $40 billion a year from fed, state, and local.
NPR, counting all 3 levels, gets 80% of its dollars from taxes. Remember, the local stations and transmitters are entirely tax welfare. I particularly like the corporate aspect, you're getting news shaped by ArcherDanielsMidland, Exxon, Siemens, and other corporate agendas. That's why liberals are idiots.
If NPR was shut off, you wouldn't know what to think.
I really should make a pledge to support NPR because of shows like "This American Life".
Every once in a while I scan over some AM radio stations and come across Limbaugh or some other wack-job... All I can say is that I am very very glad to be able to listen to Ira Glass rather than some ham-fisted fathead like Limbaugh.
Why the hell was that modded informative when it is flat-out wrong?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
and for people who suggest putting an ad in the podcast and consider themselves smart, think! the fundraising marathons are not for NPR - it's the local stations!! while there's only one given episode of 'wait wait don't tell me' podcast for any one in the US, there are 292 affiliates airing it all over the country with their own advertising. it isn't an easy task to personalize/localize the episode for each podcast listener.
even if they did come up with a fee/subscription scheme for podcast, to whom should the money go? if it is NPR then the affiliates are still losing.
My sig has been answered.
Why the hell was that modded [+5] informative when it is flat-out wrong?
Because this is Slashdot. And all independent-minded correct-thinkers like NPR.
The 13% figure that you quoted as coming from CPB is actually describing where individual public radio stations get their operating funds. NPR (which does not operate individual radio stations) receives less than 2% of its operating budget from competitive federal grants. They compete with any other not-for-profit to receive those grants. Read the page you quoted again more carefully as the information is all there.
You might be interested in reading exactly how NPR works. Check out this link for more information: http://www.npr.org/about/nprworks.html The bottom line is that because individual public radio stations operate independently from NPR, they are (more or less) free to choose their programming. This is why not all NPR content is available on all stations across the US.
To sum up, you can bitch and whine all you want about the feds supporting local public radio. However, NPR itself is a largely self sufficient operation that produced some really great content.
Taft
If you use it, help em out.
:(
Admriable goal but nowadays thanks to the relentless sqeeze put on working stiffs everywhere in the USA due to cost cuts, computerization, offshore employment, and general corporate 'race to the bottom' mentality, their money goes toward food, clothing, shelter, and (maybe) entertainemnt.
In that order.
Get the picture....
Which is worse?
Unchecked capitalism...or unchecked communism?
We have a gawdawful NPR affiliate here: WABE. They play ATC, Morning Edition, Marketplace, Fresh Air, This American Life, Car Talk, Wait, Wait... and a little tiny bit of other public affairs content - a fair amount of which is crap.
But when Morning Edition goes off at 9AM, you have a "Workday Full of" mainstream top-40 classical music. Not anything adventurous, just the same old crap.
The worst part is that the license fee WABE pays to NPR entitles us listeners to almost all of the content that NPR offers. WABE is STANDING IN THE WAY of listeners that want NPR content.
So what's wrong with listening to WAMU and KCRW on the web? What's wrong with getting podcasts of stuff that WABE blocks?
Oh yeah, and the other dirty-little-secret: in cities where public radio and public television are run by the same organization, the money from both Radio and TV fund drives can land in the same pot. In Atlanta, the NPR fund drive props up WPBA, channel 30.
So they're getting MORE funding than they need to deliver a full day of NPR content, but siphoning it off to run the TV station. Gotta love it. Where's my iPod?
Atlantans should check out the Atlanta Public Radio Initiative
I'm waiting.
Three hundred million dollars? Riiiiiight.
My point is that the $0.02 per American that is being spent is negligible. It's not longer even considered a "red cent" it's so minute. Secondly, people like you spread information that is flat out wrong about how much of your money is being sent to NPR.
I'm guessing that survey about $1.30 per American just picked an arbitrary value and went around asking people to make them think that they are paying $1.30 per year to NPR when they really aren't! It's wrong!
My work here is dung.
Oh. So this whole "let's vote to continue funding NPR" thing is just an elaborate joke?
So your response to "stop taxpayer funding of NPR" is "there is no taxpayer funding." And your source is "the NPR website."
I'm sure if you went to the Josef Stalin website, it'd tell you that he never murdered 10 million Kulaks, either.
(Of course, you also consider their information "unbiased," so I think you're pretty far gone anyway).
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
NPR and PBS do get some limited federal funding, but it is very limited, coming from grant sought by CPB, NSF, and the National Endowment for the Arts as stated on their "About NPR" page under the "Annual Reports, Audited Financial Statements, and Form 990s" link.
From the About NPR (http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html):
"NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 780 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts."
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
(Why is it I never have mod points when I need them :) )
This is the obvious answer. In the old distribution model, local stations held membership drives to raise funds, which were used to "purchase" distribution rights to the national shows, and pay the staff for the local shows. In the new distribution model, the national "station" would collect subscription fees, which are used to pay for distribution rights of the national shows, and a portion would/could (maybe opt-in your local PubRadio station) be diverted to the local station to pay the staff for local shows.
Most PBS stations are already set up to do 12-part (monthly) draft payments for donations, as well as one-time collections, so set the membership fee to, I dunno, $5 per month or $50 for the year. Change the Podcast availability to such that you need to have an account to be able to download. Free/non-donating accounts can only download 2 'casts a week, donating accounts get unlimited access.
I think that most people who listen to NPR feel that they get more than $5 worth of information out of it a month, especially if they listen to more than one show...hell, I'd probably pay $5 a month just for "Prairie Home Companion", let alone "Car Talk", "Marketplace", "All Things Considered", and "Talk of the Nation", just to name a few off the top of my head that I listen to regularly on the radio.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
This is a common charge coming from conservatives, and I've always been puzzled by it. It would be interesting to sit with you through a few episodes of Morning Edition or All Things Considered, simply to learn what specifically you are finding there that you consider to be "liberal bias". You might learn something from such an exercise yourself.
In my experience, conservatives are quick to cite as "biased" any information or insight suggesting that the world is a larger and more diverse place than the little cultural boxes they grew up in, especially if presented in a nonjudgemental way. Stories about the lives and problems of migrant farm workers, or families with no medical insurance, or teenagers in Afghanistan... merely touching subjects like these is indicative of "liberal bias", isn't it? All the more so if any deeper understanding is actually communicated. If that's the real crime (and I suspect that it is), then indeed NPR is guiltier of it than most other news outlets.
And how would this feed distinguish the "donated money" listeners from the "non-donated money" listeners? You couldn't in a manner that people wouldn't find a way around. The MPAA/RIAA/etc battle should have taught you all that. The NPR choices are, going out of business, directly asking for money (and we know how you all love that), or getting money in the most round-about ways they can find so they can keep up the illusion that free really is "free". Either way when the number of freeloaders is greater than the number who pays then NPR will slowly decline and disappear.
Yes, some NPR content is still great, but they've succumbed to two deadly temptations:
On the latter, I saw the NPR ombudsman attacking Terry Gross after her Bill O'Reilly interview, I saw the firing of Bob Edwards, but I didn't realize how bad it had gotten until I heard their treatment of John Kerry vs. President Bush after the debates in 2004. Either they weren't watching the same debates I saw, or their minds are warped from proximity to power. Whatever, they get no more money from me.
Having Air America around has definitely helped my sanity. Plus it's free, sponsored by commercials from companies and organizations that don't actually seem that bad...
Energy: time to change the picture.
Ah yes the "Internet will save us" faith. The only thing the internet does in this case is shift more of the burden to the listener, and creates a dependency. All the while ignoring the fact that the internet isn't everywere (for various reasons). NPR goes from a big tower to an internet server, while the consumer goes from a cheap radio to a more expensive broadband connection* plus the podcast player they need, to get the same advantages the cheap radio gave them (freedom of movement).
*And yes you need a broadband connection to get the same quality FM delivers.
The should just charge for the online downloads. That should make up the difference. They already basically sell CD's to raise funds (free with a donation), what's the difference?
"NPR = unbiased? Interesting thought.."
When you are standing on the right wing, the center looks left. And visa versa of course.
I listen to NPR a considerable amount. I would not say that all of NPR has a bias one way or another. Though I have found that when NPR covers a President Bush speech, I hear a little "backhanded" commentary on what he said. I found that pretty clear during the State of the Union speech.
In my experience, conservatives are quick to cite as "biased" any information or insight suggesting that the world is a larger and more diverse place than the little cultural boxes they grew up in, especially if presented in a nonjudgemental way
That's it! You nailed us! Shoot.. talking about those foreign people is just wrong!
Let me listen in now... Oh noes! They're talking about Jordan! That country is full of foreigners!
Accordingly, perhaps they should consider that their reporting bias is costing them fundraising dollars.
Ironically, before the Reagan budget cuts "forced" NPR to essentially become a thinly disguised commercial
radio network, NPR was substantially less biased, in the manner of the current BBC.
Note that I have not elaborated on what exactly NPR is biased toward, but let me say that I am a staunch
anti-Republican and pro-environment voter. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess the nature
of the bias I refer to.
I live outside the US and I bought a subscription to Audible precisely because I could no longer get my NPR fix in the car every day. I also have a pretty long commute (40 minutes at best, 3 hours when there are demonstrators closing the bridges) and the available radio sucks.
Everything was fine until NPR decided to cut off Audible because they wanted to experiment with podcasting[1]. Podcasting is fine with me, but they waited six months before getting something online -- and what they put up was "Most E-Mailed Stories". I don't want the most fucking e-mailed stories, I want "All Things Considered"!
Anyway, this really got me pissed off at NPR. Here I was actually paying them (through Audible) and they went and cut me off.
Bastards.
[1] Here's the response I got from Audible Customer Service:
A few of your red cents are subsidizing local public radio stations, who can do what they like with the money. Many of them spend some of it on content from NPR. This is not taxes "subsidizing" NPR any more than Air Force spending is "subsidizing" Boeing. Despite having "National" and "Public" in the name, NPR is not a governmental agency; it is a non-profit. It seeks funds where it can find them, chiefly by selling content to member radio stations. It does not, and can not, "force" anyone to pay for anything. The OP who doesn't want to donate to NPR as long as they force him to through taxes is an ignoramus.
Biased or not, I remember watching mostly PBS as a child, as it was the only channel that wasn't full of sugary fluff. It actually offered information and education instead of vapid celebrity talk shows and shock-driven babble. I discovered NPR a few years back thanks to the internet and fell in love again.
Every channel has a biased program manager, and every network has extremist supporters, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Often times just from watching a few minutes of any major network you can guess which one it is, they each have their own "feel" as to how content is formatted, edited and scheduled.
A popular thing to do for university students is to compare TV networks, sometimes just the daily news to see how many minutes are devoted to military/economy/schools etc. I've seen one study where they just looked at the movies being played on each channel and looked for various forms of discrimination.. which channel degrades women, or black people, or the french (grrr!). They find so many things that just slip under our noses, it's no surprise these networks have so much power with their brainwashing.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"Fresh Air" is a popular NPR show that is now for sale on iTunes for $2.95 each. These prices are quite high in my opinion, considering that they can be recorded off the radio for free with a program like Audio Hijack.
San Francisco Photographers
Jesus, what a bunch of whining. People who think NPR is biased (always to the left apparently) are idiots; people who think NPR is a serious tax burden on them are idiots; people who can't put up with semi-annual fund raising drives for content they use are idiots; and finally, people who make carte blanche statements about entire groups of people are idiots themselves.
Sure, my grandmother may not be able to listen to Prairie Home Companion until I come over and set her up with the podcast, but she is in the minority at this point in my opinion and that minority is getting smaller by attrition every year.
Without trying to overstate things, NPR is listened over the radio/satellite in FAR FAR bigger numbers than podcasts or online. Your idea won't work because of this fact. Yes, more ppl are getting it online and those numbers are rising. But they have to rise A LOT to eclipse the radio/sat numbers. A whole lot.
It's not quite time for a "paradigm shift in radio"
And what would be the proper, unbiased way to comment on a Bush speech? If there are demonstrable contradictions, fallacies, stupidities, or deceptions in the speech itself, are you doing the public any service by ignoring them? In the perfect unbiased world, are our leaders free from the possibility of being challenged, or from having to make any sense at all?
I would argue that if NPR can deliver no more than vague, "backhanded" commentary after a Bush speech (out of fear of criticism by conservatives), then they are effectively closer to a conservative than a liberal bias.
For those of us who enjoy (at least the illusion of) paying our own way or appreciate the (relative) independence of (primarily) user-supported programming, this is pretty easy. To the extent that we appreciate our local NPR station and can afford to support it, we money up the money. To the extent we also appreciate other NPR outlets who many provide programming and delivery mechanisms we prefer, we pony up there too.
...I have to say I do a lot of channel hopping. I pledge to my local station, but because of the regionals, I end up listening to a lot of programming I simply won't get otherwise: Saturday nights is WNYC with Stiles on Your Dials (like that old music), then switch to VPR for Hearts of Space (trippy music to work to), then sometimes Alaska for reports on the Salmon or IDITEROD (or however you spell it) stories, etc.
Because most of the stations stream, I've got a playlist in iTunes just for NPR stations and then will hop around as the mood suits (hmm...what's going on in El Paso today?) Sure All Things Considered is the same everywhere, but that's what makes it great: the standard NPR lineup is the "anchor" that gives you the common platform that all the other stations build off of.
To me, NPR is like the blue ribbon seal of quality in radio; not every program appeals to everyone (I'm looking at you, Whaddya Know), but I'm more willing to experiment because I know it's, at it's heart, NPR.
If anything, it makes me want to give to each of the stations I listen to, to pay for the streaming, but there's so many, it would seem almost insulting to give each one a couple of bucks when I'd rather give a lot more. Sigh, I guess it's time to invent the better moustrap and rake in the licensing fees...then I'll have enough to give to all the stations I listen to.
i never am able to donate tons of money to these stations, but I would if I could thats for sure.. I still manage to give them atleast $10-20 every time they have a pledge drive.. thats definitely not much to ask for.. its a public service.. everyone has the opportunity to listen to great radio for free instead of their minds be washed away from those incredibly shitty playlists that repeat over and over again throughout the day that you hear on Clear Channel stations..
its the way radio should be.. entertaining and educational.. the two most important factors that almost all non-public TV and Radio lack almost completely..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
I've been thinking of this a lot lately and the timing of this article (and current fund drives) are the icing on the cake. I've drafted an open letter to NPR, PRI (Public Radio International), and APM (American Public Media) that I'd like to send along with my local NPR member station's endorsement. I should also note that I'm a supporter of my local NPR station.
I envison a system where NPR has freely avaliable podcasts of it's choosing to anyone (with a likely delay - some shows are delayed 2-4 days after the original air date before the podcast is downloadable). However, it stands to reason that NPR, and others, wouldn't want access to all of their shows. So, I think NPR should allow access to "premium" podcasts to members of their local stations. NPR could develop the "member-access" technology and distribute that to local stations. Users would sign in through their local station's website which would give them access to all of the podcasts for NPR, PRI and AMR. The end result still supports local memebr stations, and radio itself as a medium, and allows users access to podcasts to listen to on their own time. Local stations would continue to pay NPR's fees, like the current system. I also don't think NPR (and others) should limit the content the local stations receive. That is, I think I, as a paying member of my local station, should have access to shows that my local statino doesn't air. For example, I really enjoy West Coast Live (which doesn't stream arcived shows let alone podcast) but my local station doesn't air it. As a paying member I would get access to a podcast of West Coast Live.
I don't see how this wouldn't be a win-win-win situation. I get access to the content I want, I support my local station and they in turn support NPR (PRI and APM) to fund the creation of the content.
I love NPR but I admit I donate sporadically. NPR is especially great at the office here when I have to do something relatively mindless or tedious and I can load up the latest Science Friday and feel like I'm getting something out of it.
y Id=5289399)
Like other commentors here, I don't mind donating to NPR -- it makes me feel good, too. I do hate the pledge-drives, but the main reason I don't pledge more regularly is just plain laziness or inconvenience.
That said, NPR is probably one of the few online services I would happily subscribe to. If they offered full access to their online archives in return for, say, a $50+ annual donation to my local affiliate, it would motivate me to make my regular donations.
(And for those who think NPR's content is exchangeable with any cable news network out there, pull your head out of your Fox News. Wanna know the difference? See this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
I do not mind the commentry after the speech. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC all gave commentry after the speech. A wonderful person at NPR decided that their personal opinion mattered more than hearing the President speak. Every time there are clapping she would say well only the conservatives believe that. All I wanted was a clean speech uninterputed. I do not like Right wing bias, and I do not like left wing bias. To me, all of the comments were left leaning. I find that to be in poor taste.
There's some evidence that NPR has a conservative bias. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting periodically studies the NPR guestlist to determine if NPR "promote[s] personal growth rather than corporate gain" and "speak[s] with many voices, many dialects" as it purports to do. FAIR has a page dedicated to NPR that includes all their criticism of NPR programming. Was FAIR fair to NPR in their study of conservative bias? NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey A. Dvorkin says "The FAIR study seems about right to me with a couple of exceptions."
Long before podcasting, I ripped NPR programming from their RealAudio streams and crunched it down to MP3s. I stopped giving money to NPR when they killed low power FM. I felt that the corporate sponsors were (and still are) using NPR to greenwash their reputation, but I still enjoyed a lot of the programming. But NPR never strayed far enough from the administration's line for me when they covered the Iraq War, and when they "scooped" the rest of the media with their phony WMD claim, I gave up on them entirely. I turned to Democracy Now, and I use their podcast service. I also contribute more to them than I ever did to NPR, since they're free of corporate sponsorship.
i dont want to comment, just let me post damnit!
NPR would have a steady income from me if they sold TAL as MP3 for $1-$2 per show.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
The piece you linked to is a travesty of incompleteness. David Boaz tunes into the two NPR affiliates in Washington one night to find comentary from two people he considers to the left, so *obviously* NPR is irreparably biased. I just love that logic. His commentary is sloppy, shallow on evidence and comically biased towards anything that doesn't conform to his exact personal beliefs.
Additionally, he doesn't make the distinction between NPR the not-for-profit organization and NPR member stations, a common tactic of those die hard conservatives who hate the very idea of public radio. Yes, member stations often receive funding from the CPB, and those stations go on to buy NPR content, if they choose. But NPR is not congressionally funded. At most it competes with other not-for-profits for very small (relative to their other funding) federal grants.
I encourage you to actually listen to NPR and try to objectively judge for yourself whether they have bias. Most who assume bias and try this little experiment are surprised at just how good a job they do. I also encourage you not to take as gospel the words of extremist conservatives like Mr. Boaz. He has an agenda that should be clear as day to anyone. His objectivity on such issues is non-existant.
I wouldn't (with a straight face) link to Al Franken and say "here's your proof." I suggest you stop trying to pull the same on me.
Taft
Note, I wouldn't put all content behind a wall of membership. I'd still want NPR to make many or perhaps all podcasts available for no fee after a reasonable period of time. For some shows that might be later in the same day or week while for others perhaps a month is long enough. Some shows, like All Songs Considered would be good candidates for immediate availability because they're not already covered by subscriptions or they're offered as a public service.
On a related note, I'd gladly pay a low annual fee to the BBC to have the same access to all online content those in the UK have. Another option would be for the BBC and NPR to create some sharing agreements where US citizens can access some or all BBC content from the NPR site and vice versa. (Other public systems could also join in.)
"Our aim is not to get stuck in a place where we're saying, 'Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God.'"
How about they sell the episodes, a la iTunes, and a portion of the fee chanrged goes to the registrant's affiliate. NPR wins, the affiliate wins, and the listener has a new way to consume the programming.
What I don't see them saying is that perhaps they have to simply compete, like the rest of radio, in the marketplace.
I mean, does ANYONE see any difference between their "underwriters" and plain-old "advertisers"?
Stop what's left of the government subsidy, and stop the charade - they are a commercial entity that needs to compete like one. If their 'model' is begging rather than commerical breaks, hey, whatever works (or doesn't).
Further, their comments at least recognize what the rest of the marketing business world seems to be in deep denial about: that timeshifting has/will annihilate the typical 'free broadcast' TV and radio models, with shuddering ramifications up and down the media stream. I congratulate them for their perspicacity.
-Styopa
Wait a minute...which speech was this? The State of the Union?! Are you sure it was an "opinion?" I would appreciate the ongoing commentary while listening to that speech (or any such speech) on the radio to know who's clapping and who isn't: it's like listening to a baseball game (and there's probably more nuance to the SOTU) because I want to know where someone hit a fly ball or who he grounded out to! If only the Republican side of the aisle clapped, I would want to know! You don't think that's important?! You get that tidbit from watching the SOTU, but not on the radio, and I'm glad NPR would add such commentary to the SOTU .
So NPR & iTunes should show the way. Here's how it's done. Everyone and anyone can subscribe to a low-bitrate podcast distributed via rss & bit-torrent for free. Sure, it sounds a little baffled, and it has the Lexus commercials at the beginning and end, and bit-torrent is probably blocked and or frowned upon by your network administrator at work. It's inconvinient, but freely available to the public and at low distribution cost. The for-pay feed is high quality, and has 'bonus material' and no 'underwritted by pseudo-advertisements. Also, its distributed through someone like iTunes, who already has the infrastructure to deal with payments, authentication and bandwidth). iTunes or whoever can take a skim off the top of the subscription fees to cover administration costs, or they can donate their services for a huge tax writeoff, and community goodwill for showing the rest of the community how to propperly make money of this thing we call podcasting. win-win-win. Can some jackass snag the for-pay feed and re-distribute for free? Sure, but there will always be some number of people who find it better/easier/nicer to just subscribe (as long as the price-point is reasonable). Maybe they get a coffee mug or a tote bag or something. It's always been that way with NPR though, the responsible few subsidize the freeloading many. As well, it should be ;-)
Yeh, but still ... slightly right wing is still OK to listen to in the car.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
From what I've seen the Washington level bureaucracy is just as beloved of the Right as of the Left. These days, rather more so with big corporations really raking in the monies.
Come on, don't be a dittohead - read about some of the problems and why those organizations are there and what kinds of monies they are getting and make up your own mind.
Ok. I am a selfconfessed NPR junkie. I will commute to work longer if only I get to listen to it more often. My aboslute favourites are CarTalk, MarketPlace and Morning Edition.y Id=1459090)
When I first stumbled across NPR few years back, I was abolutely amazed that something of this quality could exist just on the voluntary donations from the listening public.(Ok they do get some money from the govenrment but thats a small fraction). Its a miracle really. The only other organization that comes close is the BBC, but then BBC collects its funds from the License fees it charges from its users. Now that is coerced. But it also leads to great programming cause you are independent from the government and the corporations.
The point being that we need media that is independent both from the government and the coporations who may pull their advertisements out cause they didn't like your reporting. Most of the media outlets that depend of advertising, may pretend that they have complete editorial control. But they don't.
For me NPR is truely "Fair and Balanced". Its an absolute antidote to the partisan propaganda of Fox TV. For me one of the joyous moments was the unraveling of Mr Oreilly on Fresh AIR ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
It's my sick-nature you know !! http://techrc.blogspot.com
NPR doesn't have a problem with money, content or media distribution. Their money problems would disappear if they would stick to content and stay out of politics. They have a fabulous product but I won't contribute or listen anymore since they took sides on the war, the president and the party in power. It spoils everything good that they do. If I want politics, I listen to AM radio.
NPR hasn't been NPR for a LONG time, nor has PBS been PBS for a long time. The reason? Their "business models" failed long ago and they've maintained a facade ever since -- I'm amazed the public has been taken in for so long.
I think some of the very best programming available has been some of the show both on NPR and PBS. And, for the longest time I was always willing and happy to fund them with donations, etc.
But about 10-15 years ago the openings and closings of their shows attributions to "funding" started sounding more and more like commercials and not attributions. I'd be hard pressed today to discern a PBS or NPR "attribution" from any other genuine ad from commercial radio or television.
While I found that to be annoying I figure it was a price to pay to have the quality and availability of "public" media.
But the other more disturbing trend I found with NPR and PBS was the direct relationship between the high-octane shows (Les Mis, e.g.) and the membership drives. I found that the likelihood my local affiliate was mid-membership drive directly correlated to the popularity of the programming.
Okay, that might be okay, but what they affiliates have done is hook the viewer, then insert 20 minutes (I timed one interval... on the Seattle affiliate) of barking for money. And, on top of that, they would so badly maul the programming schedule that I could no longer reliably tivo the shows and not risk getting a 20 minutes "non-commercial" interruption, sans conclusion of the program.... Shazbot!
You know what? What the final result is is something worse than commercial television! Or, at least something far more annoying. I find the approach of NPR and PBS today to be intellectually dishonest.... it isn't commercial-free and it isn't even the best television around anymore!
I'll take commercial television any day -- at least it's a known quantity, and is candid about being a whore.
I've long since abandoned that (sinking) ship!
These days I listen almost exclusively to specific programs by independent public radio stations.
- WAMU's Diane Rehm is simply excellent
- KCRW's To The Point, Minding the Media, etc.
- CSPAN's Daily Coverage of House/Senate
- WNYC's Leonard Lopate is good occasionally, etc.
- Democracy Now (can be a bit... left for me, but
is an interesting alternative)
I also have on-line subscriptions to newspapers which have serious investigative journalism; the Independent, for example. There are a few others, but I only read particular authors that tend to provide me raw data and summaries rather than spin-doctored pre-digested sound bytes. The American Prospect, Economist, and Weekly Standard are also pretty good reads.
Occasionally NPR, PBS, the Washington Post or NY Times have good content, but they are very conservative (for the last 6 years they've collectively been, by and large, a Bush cheer leader). Shame that people refer to them as liberal... it permits severe right-wing wackos to be "conservative" when in-fact, they are anything but.
"I'd happily pay $1 or $2 per show for some NPR shows"
You can't mean that. I can't think of any radio show worth that.
Maybe you meant $1-2 per *month*?
I mean, it's $13/month for Satellite radio, but that includes 150 channels.
Frankly, Talk of the Nation (of which Science Friday is their Friday program) is just crap. They are conservative biased pieces of work. I stopped listening to this program in 2001 when Warren verbally assaulted a book store owner for having a book on how pedophiles operate. He asserted that it would "help a pedophile"; the book owner said that those who buy the book are parents who want to protect their children. Warren then, on the air, called him some pretty nasty names and terminated the interview. At that point I stopped listening to NPR. Absolutely no respect for free speech.
Hi, Poor Graduate Student here,
I absolutely agree that the defense in question does not in any way shape or form absolve someone from wrongdoing. However, in this case you just latched onto a catchphrase, and continued to decry the defense, disregarding the fact that the original poster--as well as several other people--explain that no defense is necessary, as the above was a moral, and not legal, defense. If you're not committing a crime of some sort but feel like you're causing someone else harm or slighting someone, there's no law that requires you to feel guilty; nevertheless, this guy does. That's why he was justifying.
Quit it.
--- What
Don't forget, you can pick up a lot of these PBS stations via iTunes.
<guilt trip>
I too have found myself "switching channels" when the bag-a-thons come on.
</guilt trip>
Some NPR content definitely is biased. For example, on my local NPR station a while back they ran a piece on the WalMart controversy, which consisted mostly of WalMart employees calling in and griping about how anti-union, low-paying, and morally corrupt WalMart is. Point: The last group of people you'd use to create a non-biased show on WalMart would be disgruntled WalMart employees, wouldn't it?
As for "deeper understanding" == "liberal bias", bull. Nobody suggests that stories about migrant farm workers or families lacking insurance are automatically biased - they get pegged as "biased" when they advocate blanket amnesty and a socialist national healthcare system.
Generally, NPR does do a good job of keeping impartial. Understandably, people get touchy when it airs segments (like the little WalMart broadcast) that are litle more than propaganda AND is partially subsidized by federal funds. But, the real crime is when people are unable to see bias for what it is when that bias is friendly to their point of view.
DATABASE WOW WOW
I live in West Hollywood and so I get excellent reception of the Santa Monica CC based KCRW [kcrw.com], mentioned in the article. KCRW is fairly lucky in that it's flagship show, Morning Becomes Eclectic [kcrw.com], has become one of the most influential music programs in Los Angeles in terms of generating buzz for unsigned or independent artists. If you're looking for some of the best in new talent, for something different and something very much eclectic than MBE at KCRW is one of the best places to turn to when you're in Los Angeles. As such, KCRW is very much in the thick of things in terms of the current artistic scene in the Southland and they get tickets to literally everything.
As part of their pledge drive they offer quite a few things to new and returning donors. Among these are tickets to normally sold out shows at places like the Whiskey A Go-Go, the Viper Room and the House of Blues. The minimum level of donation is $25 and for that you are eligible for a free pair of tickets every ninety days; if you're at all into sampling the local and not so local music scene becoming a member of KCRW is a no-brainer. As an added bonus, each session has a target goal and when certain numbers have been reached (100, half the target goal, the goal itself, etc.) they give away iPods, travel packages and pretty damn good CD or ticket packages.
The constant interruption in programming is still pretty annoying but KCRW does a great job of keeping you listening by dangling shiny, shiny things in front of you. I'm not saying the Eu Claire affiliate can do the same thing, but I am saying that pledge drives don't have to be the kind of thing that makes you turn the radio off.
Finally, I've found that those who donated to KCRW do so equally for the goods as well as for their genuine love of the content. My opinion is that while podcasting may potentially damage some of the business model, people are still going to donate even if they can listen at their leisure at their computers. Tickets are sweet but I donated because I cared to do so; KCRW has made my morning commutes (somewhat) bearable and you can't put a price ($25) on that.
I listen to NPR because they are one of the few media agencies (or organizations) that is capable of having an open constructive debate where all point of views are treated with respect. This is dramatically opposite the political cock-fighting you see on major networks such as CNN, Fox News, etc. Sure it takes longer for NPR to cover the issues but that is because they actual COVER THEM instead of touch only on portions that will incite a purely emotional response from their guests and viewers.
There is an experiment that is almost comical (and saddening) to try out. Watch 1 or 2 news agencies, such as MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc, cover a currently hot topic in society. Notice the disregard they treat those with different viewpoints and how they favor the guest who is the most emotional and vocal about their position. Then listen to (pod cast or radio) NPR cover the same topic and you'll notice a HUGE difference as well as actually understand how complex the topic is and why it isn't so black and white.
Thank you NPR for giving me faith that we can still hold this Republic together.
Mod this as biased if you want, it still does change the fact that CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. can't even hold a candle to NPR.
You may mod it as "off topic" since this doesn't really cover "Media Distribution". I just wanted to give MHO about NPR in general.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I would argue that if NPR can deliver no more than vague, "backhanded" commentary after a Bush speech (out of fear of criticism by conservatives), then they are effectively closer to a conservative than a liberal bias.
Got that right. The morning MPR hosted a military professor on the topic of "Socrates, the Soldiering Years" while Bush was on the drumbeat toward Iraq was the moment I knew it'd be a cold day in hell when they saw my money. Public radio is propaganda too. Apparently, sometimes even more ludicrous propaganda in its amusing attempts at subtlety than commercial channels.
I listen to NPR a lot. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. However, I definitely recognize a strong bias in everything NPR has. For instance, today, they were talking about why the Democratic Party is losing, and it was obvious they wanted the Democratic Party to win. I could say a lot about why the Dems are losing, but won't go into that here.
In any case, it's obvious that most media are liberal Dems, and they are strongly biased. I'd prefer no bias at all, but maybe that's too much to ask for.
You're just in agreement with theirs.
It's not just local NPR stations that are at risk. EVERY local radio station is becoming obsolete. And the future is more centralized, internet-based content. NPR is right about this one, push podcasts and get on with the future. People in the local stations will find that they need to find new jobs, big whoop-de-doo. They should wake up and find their listening audience had their jobs outsourced, too, over the last 10 years. The world has changed. Time to wake up.
Don't forget also that some of the larger stations use their own feed and commentators rather than going with the NPR feed. The occasional "bias" I've heard on NPR stations (both liberal and conservative) comes from the local station staff and not NPR.
So you changed from an actual news organization to a liberal mouthpiece because NPR wasn't outrageously critical of Bush? How very fair and balanced of you.
You're calling for research, and the citing wikipedia? Here, let me edit it to my pov...
But seriously, the point has already been made that it's the member stations who receive the public funding that THEN ENDS UP at NPR.
The "membership dues and programming fees from over 780 independent radio stations" of course come from member stations that receive Community Service Grants from CPB...plus stations get Department of Commerce PTFP Grants, and states support state networks and university stations. So it isn't really correct to say "not a goddamn red cent comes from your taxes." But yes, there is a lot of corporate and individual money coming into public broadcasting.
"A content provider in this day & age not trying to screw their end customer? That's inconceivable!"
The sex industry would be out of business if their customers didn't get screwed.
was it for me.
>This is a common charge coming from conservatives, and I've always been puzzled by it.
I think this has played a large role in why liberals have been losing elections - they are so out of touch with the perceived differences between "liberal" and "conservative" that they don't realize how liberal they are really being perceived as being.
I consider myself a conservative, and I purposely listen to NPR every day to and from work to hear what "the other side" thinks.
If you can't sense the definite overall liberal bent to NPR perhaps you have been sheltering yourself from more conservative viewpoints.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
If you start charging for Podcasts they will instantly be availble for free elsewhere.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The reason for that is that liberals and milquetoasts who don't care what station they're listening to are the only people who listen to NPR.
KCRW also produces The Business, To The Point, Left Right and Center, and manyo ther good news shows that I never get the chance to hear on the air but love to podcast.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
I think they'll have to add a subscription fee in the long run or access to the feed comes from being a registered giver. Of course there should be a trial period. The great thing about these podcasts is that people who ordinarily wouldn't listen to them may stumble into them (I'm one but I am a PBS watcher so maybe I don't count in this category). The d/load would still be able to be spread across p2p networks of course but by and large i wager most will get it as a subscriber. The problem of course is this adds another layer of administrative costs on, handling the auto-billing and unsubscribing, sending the right amounts to the proper stations etc... these administrative costs is what would probably drive the cost up for the subscription to where people won'tbother to get it.
Ahh one of the old standards of the Republicans, the "liberal media" myth.
Here's the fact. There's never was, there definately isn't now, a "liberal media." How do we know this? The Republican strategists that invented the myth, have admitted it.
Rich Bond, 1992 Chairman of the GOP, famously said, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Former Reagan Chief of Staff, GHWB Secretary of State, and head of GWB's recount team, said of the media, "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer.
Nixon speechwriter, now professional fringe pundit, Pat Buchanan, said of the coverage of his 1996 presidential run, "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that."
Finally, Weekly Standard founder, and chief neo-con, William Kristol, said most damningly of all "I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
You've been played, and lose by the most powerful schoolyard rule of all. Your own guy said so.
[references]