Forum - View topic

NEWS: National Public Radio Profiles Death Note

It's a luxury, pure and simple. I know plenty of people who still don't have cable, including in my extended family, some of whom are teachers and former teachers who have very little discretionary income they can afford to put towards something like a cable subscription. The teachers I know who are still working are trying desperately to save enough to live through their future retirement and those who have already retired are still working full time jobs just to make ends meet.

jsevakis wrote:

Actually, public radio isn't really in much danger. More of their funding already comes from private funds and businesses these days...

At which point it ceases to be "public" radio striving to represent the "public" interest.

With respect, that's hog-wash.

You won't get rich teaching, but you won't exactly starve either.

Most folks live in two income families these days

and with median teaching incomes (with some years of experience) of about 50-60,000 that represents a pretty comfortable living.

Teachers also importantly receive a pension upon retirement (which relatively few Americans do), so while a teacher may wish to still open some additional savings, retirement in a way is much more comfortable for them then the typical American worker; being they have not had to put aside a portion of their income into a 401k, like most.

You will also find very few people who regard basic cable as an unaffordable luxury (which is different then luxury of choice), that argument strikes me as a little tin-eared college freshman-ish. American poor are largely defined by lack of quality services (health care, education, retirement planning, etc.), not lack of standard consumer goods.

The rest of your post doesn't really rebut the points of funding for PBS/NPR, you just take things into 'Democratic Underground' territory. There's a difference between practical observation on media outlets and looking through the spectrum of ideological preference. Again, OT, and don't want to drift the conversation off current.

Just wanted to point out that, like my local NPR broadcaster tells us repeatedly during the semiannual fund drives, the biggest chunk of public radio funding still comes from listeners (you know... the public).

Typically, NPR member stations raise about one-third of their budget through on-air pledge drives, one-third from corporate underwriting, and one-third from grants from state governments, university grants, and grants from the CPB itself. Over the years, the portion of the total NPR budget that comes from government has been decreasing. During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were being taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations, and less from the federal government.

Also, it's not like businesses, be they small or large, can't contribute to public radio without it becoming some kind of slanted mouthpiece for corporate interests... :/

Also, Goodpenguin: thank you for responding to daxomni with a logical, well constructed argument. It really helps your case that you don't sound like an extremist jumping on a soap box when you write

He referred to my comments as being part of the “Democratic Underground” and then he bailed. What is “Democratic Underground” anyway? Is that some codeword only conspiracy theorists can understand? It honestly sounds a little extremist to my ears, but maybe he’ll come back to explain how his shadowy vision of the “Democratic Underworld” works for us laymen.

'Democratic Underground' is a popular, heavily left-wing internet forum of somewhat militant view, as I'm sure you well know.

jsevakis wrote:

Actually, public radio isn't really in much danger. More of their funding already comes from private funds and businesses these days...

At which point it ceases to be "public" radio striving to represent the "public" interest.

With respect, that's hog-wash. I started a High-School teacher, and I've got 7 teachers in my family. You won't get rich teaching, but you won't exactly starve either. Most folks live in two income families these days, and with median teaching incomes (with some years of experience) of about 50-60,000 that represents a pretty comfortable living. Teachers also importantly receive a pension upon retirement (which relatively few Americans do), so while a teacher may wish to still open some additional savings, retirement in a way is much more comfortable for them then the typical American worker; being they have not had to put aside a portion of their income into a 401k, like most. You will also find very few people who regard basic cable as an unaffordable luxury (which is different then luxury of choice), that argument strikes me as a little tin-eared college freshman-ish. American poor are largely defined by lack of quality services (health care, education, retirement planning, etc.), not lack of standard consumer goods.


The rest of your post doesn't really rebut the points of funding for PBS/NPR, you just take things into 'Democratic Underground' territory. There's a difference between practical observation on media outlets and looking through the spectrum of ideological preference. Again, OT, and don't want to drift the conversation off current.

You know, high speed internet is a luxury for a lot of people too. Do you know anyone who still has dialup? Well guess what, a huge amount of people still do

I live in one of the richest areas of the U.S., and I know people who don't have basic cable. And quite frankly, I think that PBS is one of the most important things on television, and also that a lot of people can't afford or aren't in cable.

I'm finding myself frightened that Goodpenguin and I agree on something, lol, but I have to completely agree. I think PBS is no longer needed.

I grew up in a single parent family, we had no difficulty having basic cable. No doubt in some areas this might be harder due to higher costs of housing/etc, but it'd be a rarity and I think the last concern should be making sure they have PBS (which 90% of them will probably have no interest in it's programming).

I personally think we'd be better off spending that money broadening what educational material is freely available (and making sure more people have access to it in libraries/on the internet/etc).

I ... feel the PBS corporation makes a lot of it's own PR/perception problems by being stubborn with political programming.