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."
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?
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
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..
Yeah, that is a bad analogy. Why is it that people automatically assume intellectual==liberal? Does this mean that Entertainment Tonight is only for conservatives? Seriously, does being informed about things in the world outside of my own personal interests automatically make me a liberal, with all the poisoned connotations that word has aquired? Am I required to be oblivious to the rest of the world outside of my local 6:00 newscast to be a proper American?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
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).
The beg-a-thons are so irritating that I don't listen to public radio while they're going on. I once emailed my local station and suggested that they have a separate Internet feed for people who have given money. That would be the reward for donating: a beg-a-thon free version.
Penny - plain text accounting
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
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.
You are in the minority. There are more people in this country who don't own MP3 players than people that do. Radio will be around for a long time to come.
I don't care how valuable NPR is or thinks it is -- as long as they are funded through coercion (taxation), then I will treat them as an organization which is funded through coercion. That is, I will never so much as consider helping them, no matter how much they need it.
What a dick. Do you have any idea just how many organizations, profit and non, receive some funds somehow through the government? I wish this argument worked for my college tuition... since I pay taxes, and some portion of that goes to financial aid, which goes to my college, I should be able to go to college for free.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
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 wish this argument worked for my college tuition... since I pay taxes, and some portion of that goes to financial aid, which goes to my college, I should be able to go to college for free.
No, but if you go to an in state college you pay a lower tuition rate than someone from out of state. So, your argument does work. Congrats.
Yeah, the business world would never think about getting help from the government to stay afloat (airlines, agriculture, Amtrack, ...).
And, although people can't seem to read financial statements, NPR is not a direct recipient of any Federal budget. The "tax" money that they receive is in the form of grants or fees charged to the local affiliates that are somewhat government funded. But, it the audience shifts from the radio to the internet, the affiliates will have no reason to pay for the programs.
Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
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.
Given that Liberalism is Enlightenment rationality applied to political processes, intellectual usually does walk hand in hand with Liberal. As for the poisoned connotations, these are attacks by those who seek to disingenuously protect their ideas from rational criticism. So yes, according to certain intellectually dishonest groups, like the GOP, you must ignore the rest of the world and rational criticism to be a proper American.
Of course the GOP view completely ignores the fact that the entire group of Founding Fathers were a bunch of self-proclaimed raging Liberals and that making America not-Liberal would destroy the US. My readings of the various writings of the time show that a 'proper American' would need to be a Liberal with a dedication to applying rational criticism to the political process.
As far as Entertainment Tonight goes, I figure the intellectually lazy Left might enjoy it as much as the intellectually lazy Right or a Liberal who has turned off there intellect. Couldn't really say though, I didn't even know that show was still on.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
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.
Recording a radio broadcast is not stealing at all. If that is not stealing, then why would recording a rebroadcast of the same show from a computer be stealling?
The only reason the latter is considered stealing is because the MPAA folks have tried (fairly successfully) to brainwash the public into thinking it is. Why do they take this position? Because recording from the Net is relatively easy, can be done unattended, and produces a high quality copy.
Media Publishers' marketing woes aside, I don't think recording a broadcast is stealing, legally or morally.
And anything that promotes understanding of anyone or anything outside your own narrow experience is "liberal bias", right? If Mom didn't serve it, it ain't food. Give me some specific examples of what you consider to be liberal bias on NPR, and I'll bet that's exactly what it boils down to.
So you're not going to fund them, which means they'll need more government help, which means you won't fund them. Nice vicious circle you have going there.
You already have free access to the content - it's broadcast from your local station. Assuming we take radios for granted (who doesn't have one?) the access is free. Time shifting is your problem - buy a tape recorder if you want to listen to a program at some time other than when it's broadcast.
Wake up, contribute, become a part of the community, then voice your opinions.
When a bomb goes off somewhere, I want justice, but I also want an explanation. Who were the bombers? Why did they do it? If we need to interview their families to find out, so be it.
Being concerned with why things like terrorist attacks happen has nothing to do with guilting anyone into anything, and it certainly doesn't imply a lack of interest in fixing problems.
That's why most of the "unbiased" mass media in the U.S. has devolved into little more than uncritical "he says / she says" reportage that conveys no real understanding of what's going on, or how it reflects a bigger picture. If you want a deeper understanding, it's surely better to sample the different interpretations (biases) you can find and synthesize something out of that.
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.
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.
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.
If public broadcasting did not exist, would the Vacuum for unbiased news be filled by private industry, Yes I believe it would.
You'd be wrong. Very wrong. Look at every other news medium. What dominates? The Lowest Common Denominator.
Rupert Murdoch understands that he who wins the race to the bottom, wins the media war. Most people will eagerly devour celebrity gossip, page three girls, sports news, jingoistic propaganda and biased news. The rational, responsible journalists who work for the likes of the broadsheets or bbc news simply cannot, ever compete with headlines like "GOTCHA". It can't be done.
And even if one headline goes over the top and arouses public revultion, like say "Bonkers Bruno...", the public will easily be lured back with another lurid sex scandel frontpage.
Left entirely to private industry, the news media would degenerate into the information ages version of the medieval catholic church. A hysterical, backward, reactionary, jingoistic and largely self serving monopoly would steer public opinion in any direction it so chose.
Take a look at the tone of news media in the US, and then take a look at the media in the UK. Bottom line; the BBC existance has kept the bar from being lowered to rock bottom. Without a professional, impartial, responsible public news outlet, prime times news quickly becomes sensationalist, biased tripe with a horrifically inappropriate sound track edited into stories, all followed by the sports news.
May the Maths Be with you!
>>which goes to my college, I should be able to go to college for free.
>. So, your argument does work. Congrats.
No it doesn't. Hes asking for free tution. Not to mention he pays federal taxes yet only gets a 'discount' for being in state. Federal does not equal state.
If they want me to not record their program, they should not broadcast it on "my" airwaves.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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 .
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.