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."
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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.