NPR and PBS Funding
Posted 12 February 2011 - 09:44 AM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 09:50 AM
And here's a CBS article that came out around the time Juan Williams was let go.
The, um, money quote:
Here's how Schiller breaks it down: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which covers both radio and television, gets $90 million per year in federal funding that goes to member public radio stations, not NPR itself. (This would be your local NPR affiliate.) She said any money NPR gets from the CPB comes via grants it has to apply for, and those grants only make up a tiny percentage of the overall NPR budget, which Schiller puts at $160 million per year.
From the number of pledge drives and sponsorships I've seen on PBS, I'm betting it's around the same thing for public television.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:30 AM
Somehow, I suspect they're using that 170 million figure loosely.
Edited by Persiflage, 12 February 2011 - 11:30 AM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:34 AM
Edited by NBooth, 12 February 2011 - 11:34 AM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 11:48 AM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:14 PM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:14 PM
Personally, I find the simpler arguments more persuasive. And generally, I think government funding of the news is just a bad idea, no matter what their politics are.
Edited by Persiflage, 12 February 2011 - 12:16 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:23 PM
CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. For fiscal year 2010, its appropriation was $422 million (including $2 million in interest earned). The distribution of these funds were as follows:
$25.2 million (a maximum of 6 percent of the total budget) for funds to support the Public Broadcasting Service generally, as opposed to specific stations.
$281.85 million (66.8 percent of the total budget) for public television, distributed as:
$210.26 million as grants to individual public television stations
$71.59 million for public television programming
$93.94 million (22.3 percent of total budget) for public radio, distributed as:
$65.41 million as grants to individual public radio stations
$21.74 million as grants for radio programming acquisition
$6.79 million for public radio programming
Edited by M. Leary, 12 February 2011 - 12:25 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:30 PM
I am not sure that the government funding news is any better or worse than a set of corporate entities funding the news. That may be worth discussing.
But I do like that fact that we have a federal grant based system for the production of public radio programming, which has over many years created radio events that help Americans understand each other and the world. I do actually want my tax dollars supporting these kinds of endeavors.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:00 PM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:21 PM
Probably. I know there is a wealth of recorded podcasts, lectures, etc... out there. But are there really comparable funding sources out there for the kind of programming NPR is characterized by? I am with you, Rich. A dedicated NPR listener just feeling my way through this current debate.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:26 PM
Personally, my POV bias starts with the fact that I dislike listening to NPR (stuffy) and I would rather my money went to programming of my choice. But I'm willing to hear the opposite reasoning.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:27 PM
Edited by Ryan H., 12 February 2011 - 01:38 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:53 PM
So, who among us -- advocates and opponents of government funding of public broadcasting -- is a current member of their local NPR station?
Edited by Christian, 12 February 2011 - 02:02 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:40 PM
Edited by Persiflage, 12 February 2011 - 02:40 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 04:23 PM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:03 PM
Most "corporate" news is also not under dictates from the owners as to what to broadcast. Most execs know enough about product quality to not interfere in substance. Budgeting might be another matter, but it is also another matter in the auto industry, for example. Compromises are always made based on budget. The Corvette's one failing as a potentially world class car is GM's insistance on going to the parts bin for interior pieces. It comes up in EVERY road test in almost all "buff books". Often, slower cars half again as costly come out ahead precisely because of this. As I say, compromises exist in all aspects of life, except maybe for Congressional expenditures.
The thing that bothers me most about NPR is the subtle philosophical bias towards rote acceptance of statist solutions. Under the present administration, it can look a little like a dictate. Little real questioning of the administration's POV on the healthcare debate, or the former Speaker's POV was heard. Opposing views were often aired, but pieces rarely questioned statist assumptions. Also, maybe red state NPR affiliates are completely different, but WDET was very willing to pile on this sort of thing rather heavily as well. In addition, the recent governor's race, the station practically cheerled for Bernero ("America's Angriest, or Best Mayor" depending on Ed Schultz's mood on a particular day). So far, WDET is not too rough on Snyder because he hasn't really shown his cards yet. Were WDET to go after Snyder's dreamy bromides from the election and the State of the State Address, they'd be exposed for not questioning Obama's cotton candy from 2008.
I listen because as Jonah Goldberg once said, "NPR is reliably liberal, but it IS reliable." I don't support it, except through tax dollars (cut the funding and I might change my mind regardless of my objections). I never turn away from objectionable or disagreeable views I hear on NPR because it is also a less excruciating method of "keeping my (political) enemies closer" than MSNBC, The Nation, Daily Kos, etc. It is also more plausible than the alternatives as well.
EDIT: I forgot. I once LOVED A Prairie Home Companion. In the last decade, Keillor has not been able to control a bitter political edge though. It's not like anybody was fooled into thinking he wasn't a Dem, or some such before the 2000 election. Afterwards, it tended to color otherwise good material on occasion, and corrupt other stuff on occasion as well. Sad. Peter Sagel seems to be able to cheerfully poke anybody who gets any attention of a particular week. Anymore, there's no comparison. Keillor doesn't seem to realize that his show isn't really about politics at all.
Edited by Rich Kennedy, 12 February 2011 - 07:14 PM.
Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:18 PM
Posted 12 February 2011 - 07:22 PM
PBS and NPR give us programs that there is a demand for. For example, I know I enjoy listening to A Prairie Home Companion on NPR, and I would very readily pay to listen to it if I had to.
However, cutting federal funding to CPB, PBS and NPR will help eliminate any influence the government may or will have on their programming. It will (along with the ton of other things our overspending government should stop paying money it doesn't have for) be more economical. It will force PBS and NPR to cater just a little bit more to the tastes of the consumers for whom they are supposed to be supplying their products. It will make PBS and NPR just a little less reluctant to criticize whatever government administration is currently in power (and holding their purse strings). And it will mean that we're not spending an extra $430 million per year that, in reality, we do not actually have right now.