So I was rattling around Ohio for the day on Thursday, tuning in the various local NPR stations in my rental car just for grins. Seems it is pledge week — or month, or year, or whatever; pledge week always seems to last longer than Black History Month, which, as Harry Stein once wrote, seems to last till June — and the local NPRers were bemoaning the House vote to cut their funding. It would mean a loss of $400,000 to one of the local stations I grabbed (Columbus, I think).
If this survives the Senate, a prediction: Their revenues will soar as they raise money hand over fist from guilt-tripped liberals (but I repeat myself), and NPR will lurch to much, much further to the left, becoming indistinguishable from a simulcast of MSNBC. Heck, it might even be the vehicle for an Olbermann broadcasting comeback.
Listening to the pledge drive in Chicago, I was baffled ad their ability to juxtapose their fund raising success and their de-funding plight in the same breath. They were crowing about how in recent years they've become so efficient at fund raising, that they've cut the number of pledge drives per year from 36 to 22. Then, literally 30 seconds later, that due to the GOP "attacking" NPR, it will be armageddon for their station.
Nobody on air even skipped a beat. It's too bad they don't have a call-in format, otherwise I would have called and asked them why they couldn't just increase the number of pledge days to 25 or 26--still far below the old "normal" thay they used to years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat bothers me about this whole debate is the broadbrush description of public radio stations coming mostly from those who criticize them.
If you travel around the country - or often just within your state - you discover that local public radio stations can vary their programming tremendously.
The station I listen to while commuting broadcasts mostly classical music - the real thing, as opposed to the classical Top-40 you hear on those few remaining commercial stations that dare play it. My station does the NPR news at prime time slots A.M./P.M. but I'm already at work or home by that time and rarely hear it.
I wouldn't pay money to support radio news but I'm glad to support the music. 60 miles away in the state capitol the station is predominantly jazz with various folk and ethnic music shows. When I drive 40 miles in the other direction to a friend's house on the weekend the station he gets in another state is likely to be playing bluegrass or western swing at night.
And yes in some places it's mostly news and talk - which isn't my thing but obviously appeals to others and may very well be the target of the critics.
I don't know all the economics of radio fundraising and subsidies but I know I'm able to hear music I enjoy without being blasted by commercials or excessive talk I don't want and I'm willing to pay my little bit for it.
I hope that survives whatever comes out of the current debate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe next step after pulling the federal funding is to change their tax status. Liberals shouldn't get a tax rebate for gifting NPR anymore than conservatives should for giving a donation to Fox News.
One step at a time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's my prediction (which is equally as valid since Hayward is just outwardly fantasizing outcomes :
If public finding is overturned by the Senate (highly unlikely), stations get an outpouring of contributions from both liberals and conservatives who realize the valuable and entertaining program provided was cut short by rabid politicians who used this "outcry" to grandstand for political reasons. Based, in part, on nothing more than the deceptive practices of a greedy foolhardy pawn who manipulated video for his own egotistical ends and who's repeatedly been exposed as a fraud. Not just "liberals" listen to NPR and to think so is ludicrous.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrank, I agree. Public radio leftwing news may be responsible for killing public radio culture. Not being a free market idealist, I don't think there is necessarily going to be an adequate free market solution.
I will say, however, that the reason we have oodles of rock, country and hip-hop stations is because listeners have to do a lotta bit for it, not just a little bit. That means listening to a lot of commercials, not just a few promos and a yearly fundraiser or two.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"NPR will lurch much, much further to the left"
Gee, maybe Janeane Garofalo and Randi Rhodes will "bring their talents" to NPR! Too bad Al Franken is otherwise occupied. Their magic touch would do wonders, no doubt!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@hughman - there really isn't much manipulation or "fraud" to be had, here, whatever you think of O'keiffe. I think it would be foolish to claim that NPR isn't incredibly liberal. So I think you miss the point. I don't think most conservatives would think that the government should be funding conservative radio, either. Yet that is essentially what you have here. Taxpayer dollars going to a company that actively supports some taxpayers, and very actively opposes others. However you cut it, conservatives shouldn't be forced to donate. I listen to lots of NPR programming, and like the classical music especially. But it should be listener supported, not taxpayer funded. If you have a problem with the programming, you should be able to choose not to donate. You're right that some conservatives listen - but you really miss the mark with your commenting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is exactly what the folks that work there have wanted for some time. And Shiller even said so...they want to NOT be beholden the the Feds at all. You will have NO SWAY with them at all once they are unshackled from the Federal teat. They will simply do as you state..become an even more radical entity with no response to anyone. A larger publica type Randi Rhodes and Olberman network. The Leftist will pour the money in in buckets. Likely even more than the Fed loss. Sort of a Soros Net.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans made two mistakes, in my opinion.
First, they should cut funding to CPB, not just NPR. By singling out NPR they enforce the impression that this was all about politics.
Second, CPB shouldn't be defunded based on it's political leanings. It should be defunded because the government, in the 21st century, doesn't need to be in the broadcasting business. Pure and simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey're liberal at NPR, but not completely stupid.
They've looked after their federal funds for a long time but they really do rely mostly on other sources.
If they lurch badly left -- and yes, there's lots of room between them and MSNBC right now -- they surely know they'd drive off some number of people who've tolerated their current position but won't tolerate one further left. (Me, for one.)
I think that would hurt them lots more than the loss of federal funding, and I have no reason to think they're too stupid to figure that out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@remcp
You are wrong about O'Keefe. He manipulates all his videos and has been caught doing so, even by Glen Beck's website! This isn't a debate.
And no, NPR can't capitulate to all viewpoints. However why should I be "forced" to pay to government programs that support viewpoints that are anti-choice or anti-marriage equality? i do because i realize in a free country all viewpoints are worthy of support. we don't get to choose who we want to contribute to when we pay taxes. that's the way it's set up. you claim you're a listener but yet you don't, as a taxpayer, want to support it? your logic makes no sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost likely it won't drift to the left. You're missing the local part of the picture. Local stations are more important to NPR than they are to any commercial network, and they will become even more important if the fed subsidy drops. Most local sponsors are businesses like insurance agents and doctors. Those sponsors won't go along with an Air America format. (Except in places like Berkeley, but those won't change either because they're already hard left.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen NPR is free of my wallet, and the pretense of non-partisanship, they can lurch whatever direction they want - I don't care. NPR does have some very good programming and will get advertising sufficient to keep them alive. In doing so, I say, good for them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNPR cannot lurch any farther to the left. It is a monolithic white liberal culture. Period. BUT..ahah..In my view NPR is political stealth tactics on steriods. They have all read their Alinsky. I view their reporting and programming as biased, and that is the way they like it. So, federal money is a cushy way to do what the left likes best: get taxpayers to pay for their schemes and projects. The reason they fear defunding is ultimately that they agree with Hayward's point. If defunded, there will be bigtime pressure to just come out of the closet and be all you can be. And, according to J. Williams, they would not have to hire a single soul to do that. But that is terrifying since they also are afraid they would become Air America and die since only a small portion of America really ever buys straight honest left wing ideology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt would seem that if Republicans were serious about defunding NPR they would have rolled it into the contnuing resolution so that the Democrats would have to either shut down the government or defund NPR. I think they would not have risked the political fallout over NPR. The same can be said for the much more important issues of defunding Obamacare, Planned Parenthood and EPA cap and trade funding. The Republicans have had a leverage tool here, the Continuing Resolution, and they have refused to use it. Now it is doubtful is any of these measure, as stand alone bills, will ever survive the Senate. Republicans have gone out of their way to not force Democrats into any difficult positions and as a result all we have are budget cuts Democrats would have agreed to anyway. Can anyone tell me why this has been a brilliant strategy? How can the world ever be changed without a modicum of boldness, strategy, or the wits to use the opportunities that are placed in front of you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have a legitimate concept. A lot of the these wealthy NPR listeners are also beneficiaries of the 'tax cuts for the rich' that have been the mantra for the last ten years. Why doesn't NPR set up something on their website for that category of the people to determine how much they have unfairly taken from the taxpayers and give that to NPR. They would be able to say the put their money were the mouths are, be become even more smug, and keep NPR going.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...NPR will lurch to much, much further to the left..."
How?
Will NPR commentators despise Americans and our military more than they already do?
Will they become even more indifferent to their Palestinian favorites decapitating babies?
Will they become even more passionate while insisting that the only religious people who are not dangerous are jihadists?
Will they equate all dissent with racism more frequently than they do now?
The folks at NPR are ideological zealots who despise the United States and Judeo-Christian culture. They sincerely believe that America is the catalyst for world evil, and that people who believe in the bible are depraved superstitious primitives.
In other words, they are liberals.
That will never change, so defund NPR and let it be subsidized by like-minded "progressives" rather than having conservatives who pay most of the federal tax bill continue to underwrite this vile sewage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseContributions may spike in the short term, but it will quickly recede. Liberals are not known to be very charitable unless they can use other people's money. Besides, NPR is just one of many, many left-wing media outlets.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You are wrong about O'Keefe. He manipulates all his videos and has been caught doing so, even by Glen Beck's website! This isn't a debate. "
You gotta love people like hughman - if you repeat an assertion, it must obviously be true. What was part of the scene was manipulated by O'Keefe? What added context made the NPR Executive's comments less offensive? And don't just say some other website said so, make your own case.
By the way, is there some sort of statement you're making by refusing to properly capitalize in your second paragraph? Is that some sort of hip, post-modern expression of your open-mindedness?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy thoughts:
1. I quit giving to NPR back in 2000. Have not listened to it since then.
2. Glenn Beck's thoughts on the NPR video are of no interest to me - none of his thoughts interest me since he opined that the disasters to hit Japan could be God's punishment.
3. The Federal Government has absolutely no business being in the broadcasting business. Especially news broadcasting like NPR and PBS.
4. If you love classical music, get an I-pod and go to I-Tunes and buy all the tracks you love and listen to that - absolutely no commercials -on your way to work.
5. PBS needs to be completely defunded, also. Those shows that are beloved, like Sesame Street, are not going to die - they bring in millions of dollars and they will be picked up quickly by network or cable stations.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse