Hot Stuff: NPR Funding Fight

[Smiley and West]

		Conservatives take aim at public radio in the federal budget Smiley: I hate to see these vicious attacks on public radio. West: It's part of Republican insecurity in terms of the low-quality of argument and truncated quality of vision.

[Wanda Renee]

Dr.  West is right because Republicans are insecure about the low support of their party; it has caused them to back up and their response is to pull back on funding venues such as this so they can further try to discombobulate the masses on what is truly happening with our nation.  Since FaceBook and other social networks are available please know this is a good avenue to consider getting your voice heard.  The advertising these networks receive may be a better way of the voices being heard on a broader scale.  With wealthy individuals like Bill Gates and other philanthropist who are looking to give their support; do not vacillate to ask them to contribute to the best and unbiased way of information to be broadcast to the masses.  Further the Repubs may be unhappy about the recent report about FOX NEWS losing support of viewership in recent months; this brings great joy to my solace because they were only a medium for untruth and poor decorum anyway…TRUTH!

[Penguin Board of Directors]

May be the NPR needs to do a better job of making its own case. For instance, how much is the money that NPR stands to lose if the de-funding eventually scales through all the legislative huddles; including a presidential veto? Some sources say only 3% of its funding will be affected. Others says it is a maximum of five. An account in HuffingtonPost paints the following financial picture of NPR from where readers can appreciate possible financial ramification of H. R. 1076 for public broadcasting.

"NPR says that of its $145.5 million in budgeted revenues in the fiscal year ending last September, only 1. 9 percent came from station dues. The biggest chunk, $63 million or 43 percent, came from station program fees. Another $36 million, or 24.7 percent, was derived from corporate sponsorships. About 3 percent came from grants from federally funded agencies such as the CPB and the National Endowment for the Arts."

Secondly, how does the NPR intend to chaperon the expression of personal opinions and political viewpoints of its operatives, so as not to be seen to be pandering to partisan political agenda? Whether we like or not, there is merit in the argument that an institution funded by tax dollars from all should not be used to prosecute the partisan agenda of only a part. This view is not necessarily an endorsement of the charge from any quarters that NPR has, or has not, been partisan. 

Should NPR not seriously regard autonomy from government as a sufficient incentive to rid itself of government funding? Whatever happened to the common saying that he who pays the piper dictates the tune? If NPR is to retain its independent voice, it should seriously consider shedding its reliance on government funding, if not in the course of this politically-hyped debate, then sooner than later. If the public sufficiently appreciates the value of NPR to its cause, it should respond morally and financially well enough to keep government off funding the organ. The fines paid by NBA players in a year for conduct adjudged unacceptable on the court trump government's total funding in dollar terms for same period. NPR should consider marketing those constituencies for some of the misapplied dollars. After all, basketball players are part and parcel of the public the NPR serves so diligently, right? 

There is no gainsaying that there is some subterranean political gamesmanship going on here. The easiest way to free the NPR and such other outfits of political meddling of this nature is for the listening public to buy such organs their much needed autonomy from government. Period. All other outfits similarly situated in and out of broadcasting should receive some exploratory scrutiny. Medicare and Medicaid were designed with the best of intentions, but became drainpipes for societal parasites. Some Wall Street firms were over-leveraged and poorly managed; they ended up holding the public to ransom. "We dare you to let us fail," they chorused. We gasped; then, we buckled. Tax dollars flowed to them in billions, with room enough for some underhand dealings. 

NPR is not Department of Defense or Homeland Security; eventually, it should pay its own way. The public constituency it serves should be able to contribute to shoring up its operation through voluntary donations. The management of the organ should also trim its overheads to fit its circumstance. There are many non-profit organizations surviving the hard times through prudently managing their balance sheets. My issue is not with more or less government in the fashion often politically bandied around. I just hate to see waste in either public or private business; and we already have our fair shares of waste in both. If the public feels bad enough about a successful H. R. 1076 (assuming it eventually becomes law), then, it should hold the backers on Capitol Hill to account, come election day. That is democracy. My take.  

 

[Deborah White]

If people really believe that NPR is a valuable broadcasting organization the one of the best ways to show that is to donate money to the local stations. My hometown station, WCBE operates with a staff of 11 people period. The station is located in a modest space and they do an incredible job of providing local, national and international programming to the listening public. The people who listen to NPR on a regular basis should at least consider sending in a one time donation during funding drives. This would help to keep things going. We can give Congress the blues about the proposal to cut the funding but while they are catching reasons to sing them, the stations needs our monentary support.

 

 I would rather fund NPR with my tax dollars than any more military interventions or support for businesses that do not pay any taxes. At least my tax dollars would go to providing some form of information or entertainment that is worth listening to.

 

 

[Penguin Board of Directors]

Correct typo. in previous post to read "Others say..." not "Others says...."

[safirah chinwe]

please sign following petition to block this attack. thanks.

http://pol.moveon.org/nprpbs/?4

[Bennetta]

Safirah - THANK YOU for proactively sharing this most important petition as it is my honor to sign.

Deborah - I concur with you 100%!!!

 

The unjustifiable and unwarrantable actions of Congress to NOT ONLY REDUCE but 100% DEFUND prior federal-allotted funding for Public Media budget was an outright ATTACK ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION AND MUST BE DECISIVELY AND STRATEGICALLY CHALLENGED.  Public Media provides a Public Service of Public Information and Education to the PUBLIC and therefore it is appropriate that it receives Public Funding.  Any attempts to compare such a Public Service-Providing organization with a publicly traded stockholding corporation of any kind is illogical.  Public Media (both Radio and TV) is the consummate choice for independent access to information and education and ultimately the best bet for most Minority communities to receive accurate, reliable, timely and trusted information that's relevant to THEIR communities.  However, as has already been stated, viewers and listeners who find much value in Public Media (Radio and TV) must commit themselves to financially supporting such organizations to the best of their ability in order to offset such threats as those posed by Congress today.

 

Attached is a very insightful and 'common sense' perspective written by Faral Chideya on the importance of Saving Public Media for ourselves and our communities which I hope you find useful:

http://www.faraichideya.com/why-to-save-public-media-for-you/

[kansasblues]

 The argument is really quite simmple, [in my humble opinion] commercial vs non-commercial M.S.M.  Imagine any daily newspaper you read [for those of you who still read an actual newspaper] that newspaper in your hands is an example of commercial media. Now strip all the ads out and replace them with cultural and human interest stories less 5% for fundraising. 

Grab your remote and find the channels who's mission statement is to inform and enlighten it's viewers and listeners as opposed to dumbing down or simply entertain us.  Not only do the entertainment channels vastly out-number the information channels but they get more eyeballs too.  But that is a different story.

KansasBlues 

[Timothy O'Hara]

Only $1.35 of our tax dollars goes to support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).  That's less than a coffee.  It's less than a Sunday Washington Post or New York Times and we get thousands of hours of commercial-free radio and television for that $1.35.  I would pay $1.35 daily to be able to watch the PBS News Hour; the only news program left on television that can actually boast "journalist integrity".  I have watched the News Hour on a regular basis for about two years now and I can honestly say that I cannot figure out the political leanings of any of the correspondents in any of the segments.  It is one of the few programs that has in-depth discussions from true experts on the daily news.  $1.35 for quality news all year round is a small sacrifice to make, and one that I will continue to make.

 

The best thing we can all do is to write to our Senators to ensure that they keep funding for Public Broadcasting alive.  We could pay for CPB for years to come if we scrapped 10 fighter jets.

[Bennetta]

ALL fyi

In reference to this discussion's topic, please see attached press release for upcoming 2011 National Conference on Public Media Reform which is expected to include PMR's formal Response to recent federal funding attacks with a forum that will include members of Congress and selected Public Media leaders and community advocates.  However, I was both surprised and disappointed that Tavis Smiley was not included on this discussion panel but perhaps it was unavoidable.  Anyhow if you live in or near Boston, thought you might be interested in checking this out April 8-10.

http://conference.freepress.net/session/409/public-media-under-atta...

http://conference.freepress.net/home

[Penguin Board of Directors]

Tim,

This is a reasonable argument I can buy. Thanks for sharing it. I am not really troubled by any precision in the $1.35 statistic. That does it for this part of the contribution. 

Ultimately, I shall like to see the government completely taken off funding public broadcasting. The listening public should be able to finance an outfit that can so generously justify its investment. My issue with government involvement is that he who pays the piper dictates the tune. Let us (the public) pay this piper so that we (instead of government) can dictate the tune for once. It is about the only asset we might be able to influence or control. After all, corporate lobbyists and vested interests have proven their competence in continuing to hijack our elected representatives. 

For now, I resolve the political tussle surrounding the subject in favor of retaining federal funding, just so the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can buy more time to strategize on wresting its autonomy from government. 

[Timothy O'Hara]

Yomi,

 

Ideally we the people would be able to influence control over valuable public assets like NPR and PBS, but at the end of the day, the government still controls the airwaves.  If there were to be a network that was paid for and run by citizens, how could we get the message out to those unable to afford cable or satellite and therefore access to the People's Channel?  Your vision is certainly one to which we can all aspire but politics is the realm of the possible.  It is possible for us to pressure our Senators to keep public television alive so that quality news can be given to Americans living out in rural areas or who cannot afford cable or satellite television and radio.

[Penguin Board of Directors]

Tim,

I do not doubt the enormity of the organizational resources needed to run such an outfit. However, the total federal dollar we are talking of replacing here is just $430 million. Even at $1 a day coming from only 100 million of our people, we will raise $100 million per day for public broadcasting. That amounts to 36.5 billion in a year! Now, drop the scale right down to the shop-floor and say we raise the $1 per month and not per day from 100 million Americans. The revised annual contribution is about $1.2 billion! Replacing the funding from government is not as daunting as it seems. Two ingredients are lacking on our part; the will and the organizational ability. Neither of the two is insurmountable. 

It is fairly easier to execute this option than to keep dreaming of recovering our elected representatives lost to corporate America. When campaigning for our votes, they are our servants; once they win elections, they become our masters. The only other beneficiaries are their families, friends and cronies.

From various accounts floating around, with greater or less veracity, about 400 people control more than 85% of the wealth of America. By July 2011 projection, America's estimated population will be about 313 million (Central Intelligence Agency, 2011). No sane society can hope to achieve any imaginary dream of egalitarianism with such an obscene lopsidedness in wealth distribution. Even if that were possible, I was not about recommending seizing such monies and re-distributing the wealth among the citizenry. It will be audacious to argue that this lopsidedness was achieved purely from the hard work of the minority and the sheer mediocrity of the whopping majority. There are many usurper-incumbents of high corporate and government offices in America at the expense of their superior peers sitting on the fringes. The disadvantaged individuals lose, but America loses far more. Read the following from Archon Vernon Jordan of the Boule;

"In the keynote address, Archon Vernon Jordan Jr. presented a 12-point program for personal and collective renewal, saying, among other things, that "we must create a new sense of community among our own ... bridge the growing economic gap within the Black community [and] re-Brown Brown to counter the long slide back into de facto segregation." We must also, he said, "constantly remind the new entrants into the Talented Tenth that their exciting jobs in corporate America and investment banking and in law firms are not the result of their grades and their ability and their school all by themselves. They did not get there by themselves ... and they have to know it." How is that for truth!

The relevant link is http://newssearchservices.blogspot.com/2010/09/boule-at-100-sigma-p...