NPR & The Modern Media Distribution 272
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."
This American Life & Car Talk (Score:5, Interesting)
Two of my absolute favorites were This American Life [thislife.org] and Car Talk [cartalk.com]. Oftentimes, I would find myself in a parking lot listening to Ira Glass [wikipedia.org] 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 [highcriteria.com] 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 [thislife.org] and it's sequel [thislife.org]. 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.
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Why is it that some people feel that considering themselves to be a "poor college student" is a justification to violate copyrights? "Being poor" is not a justification for violating copyrights. The copyright holder SELLS CDs so that you can "listen to it time after time".
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:4, Interesting)
It's sad to see the changes. When I was a teen, everybody taped their favorite music on cassette (legally), traded them, etc. The RIAA wants to take that right away from us. Doesn't that bother you? Is it really so different that the broadcast was realaudio and the cassette recorder was a computer?
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Do you pay taxes?
Then you've already paid for it.
Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2, Informative)
"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.*
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Oh. So this whole "let's vote to continue funding NPR" [cato.org] 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
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
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 in
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2)
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!
NPR's conservative bias (Score:5, Informative)
There's some evidence that NPR has a conservative bias. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [fair.org] periodically studies the NPR guestlist [fair.org] 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 [fair.org] 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." [npr.org]
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 [fcc.gov]. 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 [npr.org], I gave up on them entirely. I turned to Democracy Now [democracynow.org], 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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 lu
Re:Taxation? What are you talking about? (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:3, Interesting)
1) NPR isn't funded by the government, though they do apply and compete for the occasional grant.
2) That said, many local non-commercial radio stations which carry NPR content do qualify for and take government funding. Sometimes that funnels into NPR, sometimes it doesn't, but ultimately it's the radio station that makes the decision.
So, if you're so libertarian that you can't stand the idea of government-assisted community radio, I suggest that you call your local station and make the
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:3, Insightful)
>. 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.
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Oh, until I read your statement, I didn't realize that CPB PAID taxes as well as received taxpayer monies!
(Oh, wait, you didn't mean that, did you? The fact that the government TAKES your money, then gives you a smaller amount in return doesn't really register with you, does it?)
Hey, here's a thought: Let's cut taxes, cut the budget, and cut out the middle-man. Let's let people KEEP their mo
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2)
Or maybe I'm wrong and there is?
Re:This American Life & Car Talk (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:2)
I think that there clearly are, especially when you read the article. They talk about how on average only 8% of listeners are members of their local NPR stations. I mean think about that, that is huge.
Here in Austin, the local station touts around 200,000 listeners. They also talk about how they need around $800,000 semi-annually to maintain operating costs. That would come up to $4 a listener. Clearly they don't get that, because t
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:2)
I personally find it isn't that hard to listen to other things for those 3 weeks and then enjoy 49 weeks of pledge drive free content the rest of the year.
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:3, Interesting)
Occasionally, they let listeners know that, for every $75K raised before the spring pledge drive, they'll shorten the spring pledge drive by a day.
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:2)
NPR does accept donations directly, but as far as I know a large chunk of their revenue comes from member stations who pay for access to the shows.
Re:Marathons on podcasts (Score:2)
Science Teacher (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Science Teacher (Score:2)
business models (Score:2, Insightful)
Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2, Insightful)
P.S. Frank DeFord had a great segment about A-Rod today. [npr.org]
Re:Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2)
True, everyone hates advertising, but you can always skip over it in a podcast.
Re:Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2)
I think it was marked redundant because I didnt read CRCulver's post above mine, which said put the marathon at the beginning of each podcast. I think that a shorter commercial would be better, we'll just have to wait and see what NPR decides to do.
Thanks for your support though. I will happily take any donations you would like to make, and will send you a mug and a t-shirt if you give me at least $120 (which you can easily spread
Re:Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2)
Re:Solution: Put a 5 second Ad on the Podcast (Score:2)
Putting a very short advertisement at the beginning of the Podcast is an obvious solution to this problem.
Additional points on this:
1. These ads would not have to pretend not to be ads, because they would not be airing on NCE-licenced stations
2. There would be a positive, specific number of listeners that NPR would be able to report back to the advertisers.... no guessing, estimating or extrapolating involved.
A better funding model (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A better funding model (Score:2)
Sucks to the RIAA's assmar
-l
NPR and advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
charge for it (Score:3, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
(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.
Numbers behind the FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Numbers behind the FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Numbers behind the FUD (Score:2)
NPR will continue to purchase this excellent content from it's producers and affiliates that can offer this type of local programming will still be able to attract listeners whether it be via airwaves, podcast or technology X. It's the affiliates that do nothing but redistribute the content created by others that would be doomed.
Re:Numbers behind the FUD (Score:2)
I think a dynamic new synergy will need to be developed by thinking outside the box in order to take a proactive approach to redefining the core competencies of the company's mission in order to accomplish this "paradigm shift" and leverage these "internet initiatives" in this "new era".
I'll have those TPS reports for you in a minute, Mr. PHB.
Their fundraising must not be very effective (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Their fundraising must not be very effective (Score:2)
Re:Their fundraising must not be very effective (Score:2)
As has been pointed out here [slashdot.org] already NPR receives very little gov't funding. And what they do receive is through competitive grants that they must work for, competing with other orginizations going after the same funding.
And watching the commercials doesn't exactly qualify as support. How many do you skip while you make a sandwich or use the bathroom? How many do you react to and buy products based on seeing them? Do you tell the vendor that you bou
Re:Their fundraising must not be very effective (Score:2)
> since the 1970s, when most of their funding came from our tax
> dollars.
Perhaps that's not too unfortunate. I'm a big-government liberal and I'd love for my tax dollars to go to funding public broadcasting, but compared to PBS, NPR has been largely unbothered by conservative executive appointees at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The CPB gives NPR much less funding than it gives PBS, and so it has been unable to influence
It's not the cost, stupid (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's not the cost, stupid (Score:2, Informative)
Which brings up an interesting point - there is no standard model for NPR shows. Some of the local stations just publish directly in mp3 (kuow.org [kuow.org]), other NPR shows are just on their website [npr.org], and others (like previously mentioned) show up on Audible.
I would like
Re:It's not the cost, stupid (Score:2)
I dislike the "lock up the archives" business model. It encourages people to download and horde stuff before it disappears, makes links to the content in question disappear, or at least blocked behind a coin-lock, and generally breaks the web.
I much prefer the "archives over X weeks old are free, but you have to pay for current content" system, where impatien
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actually... (Score:2)
No, rather they spend all their time going to Congress for more funding.
What is this? (Score:2, Interesting)
A content provider in this day & age not trying to screw their end customer? That's inconceivable!
Local affiliates, meet Dodo Bird (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Local affiliates, meet Dodo Bird (Score:2)
Because your affilate pays the producing affilate hundreds of dollars per episode for the right to air that show! Morning Edition, according to the pledge-a-thons costs my local npr station $600/hr to broadcast.. On top of thoose costs, radio towers don't power themselves, microphones aren't free and you gotta heat the place...
Quality radio costs money and its worth every penny.
Re:Local affiliates, meet Dodo Bird (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Local affiliates, meet Dodo Bird (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't get an internet feed in my car. I have a radio. I'm not paying $XX/month for a satellite.
I like my local station, http://www.wumb.org./ [www.wumb.org] I listen mostly in my car but occasionally on the internet feed at work or the Tivo at home via Shoutcast (the air signal doesn't work in the house too well).
Yes, I am a member. If you like folk music, it's the only station in the country doing folk 24hrs a day.
Re:Local affiliates, meet Dodo Bird (Score:2)
Then why not just phase out local affliates altogether? Lose all the local sudios and just buy local transmitter time or go to a satellite/internet-only format. It would save a lot of public $$.
-Eric
Bad programming in Pittsburgh (Score:2)
Unnecessary Locals? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [riaa.com] should be removed because they're also no longer providing value?
Try really being listener-supported? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Try really being listener-supported? (Score:2)
If you also refuse to pay for cable/dish television, then I applaud you, sir, for sticking by your principles. Most NPR stations use the advertising euphemism of "underwriting". At least in WI, the underwriting spots consist of brief 5-second bits like, "Support for this program has been provided by Foo Corporation, [slogan]Foo for you,
Re:Try really being listener-supported? (Score:2)
And that is partly because having to pay for content with commercials did tick me off when when I had cable. But don't take your hat off to me, because I'd be lying if I said that's the only reason, or even the main reason.
And, yeah, I do go to movie theatres. I get hot under the collar when they run commercials, but I still go. To tell the truth I only object to the motion-picture or video commercials that have sound. The silent slide-shows
Just like the RIAA (Score:2)
Yes, some NPR content is still great, but they've succumbed to two deadly temptations:
Why NOT listen to podcasts? (Score:2)
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 bene
sponsorships (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Anybody mentioned the $200 million? (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me... (Score:2)
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.
They should charge for online content. (Score:2)
Part of the problem is Audible.com (Score:2)
"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.
Re:FRIST POST (Score:2, Funny)
Too late, they already left, and they wanted me to tell you, "So long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the GOP view completely ignores the fact that the entire group of F
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:2)
I can see from your ID number that you're an old fart too. I've loved (and frequently used) the line you use for your sig since I first read
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:2)
Hehe, that's some very nice trolling there. By asking questions rather than ma
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:NPR is good stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:4, Informative)
For the record, a whopping 2% of NPR's budget comes from government sources. That money is not given to NPR -- it comes by way of competetive grants that they apply for. My local stations get 0% of their opperating budget from government sources.
Apparently you don't know the difference between the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (government funded), the Public Broadcasting System (government funded) and National Public Radio (not government funded).
Congrats! You now score as high as Rush Limbaugh on the Accuracy of Research scale. Now go spend three minutes on Google before posting again.
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:2)
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:3, Informative)
That's from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. There's a handy pie chart available on NPR's own financial disclosure [npr.org] as well.
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/06/09/AR2005060902283_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
Personally, I like the pay-for-play model so I donate to both NPR and PBS every year. Programming like Cartalk for me and Arthur/Cyberchase for my kid are well worth the dollars. If Congress succeeds in shutting down funding then I'll double the donation and hope that there are enough other people in my financial situation to do the same.
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:2)
Nowhere is it written that it's a matter of "oh, poor things." NPR has to adapt or die just like the commercial stations. The difference here is, NPR acknowledges that fact rather than ignoring it entriely or suing the world for not keeping its ancient business model going.
Re:Public broadcasting's business model... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Times have changed.... (Score:2)
I would also like to point out that competition in a market is only one of several ways in which people make collec
Re:Times have changed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why most of the "unbiased" mass media in the U.S. has devolv
Re:Times have changed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b