United Liberty

Just so you know, Luke Burbank said the other night on TBTL that he thought the Bryant Park Project “stunk on ice.”

Content issues aside, you write “it’s worth asking whether NPR is really worth the public dollars it receives” … implying that the “partially publicly funded” NPR gets quite a lot of taxpayer money. A common misconception, and one that NPR debunks on its web site: http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html
Indeed, the fact that NPR gets so little public money (one to two percent of its operating budget) and so much from corporate sponsors is one reason for its recent program cancellations and staff downsizing.

The TV stations and commercial radio broadcasters were also allocated a fraction of the spectrum, a **PUBLIC RESOURCE**. The regulation of the spectrum is necessary to prevent a tragedy of the commons, one of the things that can happen when a free market fails. You see, markets are only free when everyone can play. If one person or group rises to the top, it is no longer free. That might seem great, a triumph of liberty, in the short term, right up until the whole thing gets handed over to a bumbling successor who then starts doing things that get little people like you killed or maimed in industrial accidents and all of a sudden you have no recourse when Aunt Emma eats your thumb as part of her bologna sandwich.

In fact, the commercial broadcasters were granted spectrum only with the provision that they would serve the common good. Fat lot of good they’ve done us. The journalists suck up to the lying politicians who hand out subsidies to argicorporations who spend advertizing dollars (oh, those were your dollars) on advertisements in between the “news” segments to sell your kids Fritos.

NPR is the only meaningful, useful broadcaster in existence. Last I checked, I haven’t heard a lot of brilliant English-language podcasts from private individuals coming out of Iraq. If there is a success story in the blighted nation, it’s NPR.

Tell me, what do you do with that hat? Did you wear it to keep the sun off while you helped GW clear brush while he sent my buddies too Iraq on a revenge mission?

As for the tempestuous sea of liberty: the founding fathers also said that the government has oversight of interstate commerce. Because markets must be regulated if they are to function smoothly.

I’m all for podcasts. And NPR. I’m dead against blind libertarianism. It is a slippery slope to fascism.

It is immoral for any public funding to be directed there. What’s worse though is the FCC which grants the licenses. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee us “freedom of the press” which means that each of us has the right to create our own newspaper, radio show, TV show etc and should not require any permission to do this.

The courts could easily sort out frequency disputes. Ban the FCC and all public funding (including to the Ad council) and the offline media would look a whole lot more like the internet than it does today.

I agree, Rick. There is no need to take taxpayer dollars to fund any sort of media enterprise. NPR has some ok programming, but it should be able to function much like CSPAN via corporate funding and donations.

I agree with Rick too, NPR shouldn’t exist at all. The FCC has made television and radio a one way street that robs people of their ability to create and broadcast their own content, unlike the internet. I actually love much of the programming on NPR. This American Life is my favorite program, radio or tv. Regardless of the quality of the content though, there is no justifying charging every taxpayer in America to fund programming that a small population of brainy university types listen to. NPR couldn’t possibly create content more contrary to what the general public is interested in, but the general public pays for it to be broadcast nonetheless.

Lars, your point about NPR only receiving a small portion of their funds through public monies is well taken, but it just shows how much more effective private funding is. The small group of people that enjoy public radio keep it afloat with their pledges, much like any private subscription service. The rest of the work is done, like you said, through sponsorship, just like any other private media outlet.

Niels Olson, you ought to be ashamed. Before you begin to insult people, (for wearing hats? wtf?) perhaps you should consider learning at least some cursory information about their views. For starters, where did you gather that libertarians, a group of people who’s entire philosophy revolves around the non-initiation of force, supported Bush or the Iraq war? Another logical fallacy in your post can be found in your first sentence. You state that “The TV stations and commercial radio broadcasters were also allocated a fraction of the spectrum, a **PUBLIC RESOURCE**.” Your entire conception of the proper use of the broadcast spectrum is based on the assumption that the US government had the authority to allocate parts of it in the first place. This is called censorship. Again, I’ll refer to Rick’s comment on the fact that radio and television communication could have been a lot like the internet (user-driven content) had the government not seized control so early on. If you are interested in exploring this idea any further I suggest you take a few minutes to read The Spectrum Swindle by Tim Swanson…

http://www.mises.org/story/2815

I’ll give you a teaser if you don’t think it will be worth your time…”According to the FCC Spectrum Task Force Report most spectrum goes unused the majority of time. In fact, even under their antiquated classical model, at any given time roughly 5% of it is actually being used.”

Thank God we don’t have public internet yet.

Michael,

Good food for thought — and what a great discussion it’s turned into. And let me expand upon my comments. I do indeed feel NPR’s programming is extremely conservative (ironically enough) but I don’t feel that means we should abolish it. At least not without a plan for revamping the entire system.

There are a lot of people much more qualified to speak on this topic than I, but my basic understanding is that much of NPR’s vitality has withered since the Reagan era due in large part BECAUSE of a drop in public funds and the replacement of that income stream with corporate interests. Grants for independent producers to make experimental work has dried up, and local outlets are for whatever reasons so hooked on national programming that there’s no room for emerging stars to try out a show in local markets.

NPR has fallen into the “we gotta have ratings” trap just like commercial radio, so rather than expanding on the possibilities of what they can accomplish with sound or serving the communities they operate in, local stations play the same predictable programming with the same predictable results (which is all going to go downhill when the listeners grow old and die or Garrison Keillor gets too old to put on his gig).

Part of this dire situation is NPR’s own doing (or un-doing) though as other people have stated, the FCC is much to blame as well. The privatization of the airwaves has made it extremely expensive to operate a radio station, so a station needs gallons of funding, whether it from public or corporate coffers, just to keep alive. And of course the first thing that happens when funding gets tight is the axing of controversial, niche, or unpopular shows.

Does that mean we should ditch NPR? No! I listen to it all the time. Many programs are irreplaceable and extremely valuable. Again, as someone else said, where else are you going to find news coverage of Iraq, Palestine, or the Ivory Coast? News programming is by far the most expensive media to make and I imagine where NPR puts most of its cash. And it will be truly a sad day when the only source of this news is some guy ranting on his podcast from the middle of Indiana, a paper that has fired all of its reporters, and CNN.

The whole system, like so many in our society, needs a complete overhaul, and we may see that soon as the commercial radio industry hits the brick wall they’ve been aiming themselves at for years. The internet has proven that people’s tastes are more sophisticated (and bizarre) than the handful of consolidated outfits have given us credit for, and the thing I wish beyond all things to happen is for the current structuring of the airwaves to fall to pieces and for more licenses to be offered to smaller outfits for a reduced cost. Though I sincerely doubt this will happen so in the meantime thank goodness we’ve got cheap microphones and Audacity.

Again, thanks for putting this issue on the table. It may still be hard to swallow NPR with all of its shortcomings, but I’ll take it over the alternatives (for now).

Though libertarian as hell and believing full well in only as much government as strictly necessary, minute public funding for NPR on privately-owned stations just doesn’t bother me. We aren’t talking about a road to serfdom here, after all, who complains about public funding for libraries? They’re the only stations that can, from city to city, offer consistently good programming.

Also, can we also dispel this blue-state-latte-BMW-driving-liberal fallacy? In my observation, almost every demographic listens to NPR. It’s like saying every libertarian is an avid Alex Jones fan.

I will let others debunk your stats on NPR’s audience and finances - and its value.
Having worked in DC on Capitol Hill for over 30 years, I can tell that you do not understand how the federal government works. There is no such thing as a free market. I am so sure of it that I know you cannot prove to me that one exists in the USA. Corporations and other vested interests use their campaign funding dollars and associated influence to make sure that there is no free market either of ideas or of products and services.

WITH ALL THAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD, WHY WASTE TIME TALKING ABOUT AN ENTITY THAT IS BENEFICIAL, TALK ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS SIGNED BY THE MOST EVIL PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY, AND THE DAMAGE THAT THEY HAVE DONE TO OUR LIBERTY

NPR=GARBAGE

Their is absolutely no reason for taxpayers to pay for anything on radio or TV….or for HDTV boxes that are just another multibillion dollar scam of the taxpayer

What nonesense. Utter nonesese from a frightened Jesus freak who loves the War as much as he loves praying in the front pew, I’m betting.

NPR is excellent. It provides a speicific perspective on the news. Fair and balanced in the true sense of the phrase. Second day lead stories are rare these days. NPR provides it.

Whether you agree with its perspective or not is the topic for another day.

Free adviced, you frightened Old man: Get used to disappointment. NPR is here to stay. Nothing you say or do will change any of that. BTW, genius: donations are driven on a local perspective, not national.

If you’re looking for Threat Level Alerts, tune into Fox news.

You’ve had your day in the Sun. You screwed the pooch, fella.

Now, it’s our turn. You can ask Jesus how it turns out. My guess is you won’t be around for the next term, old man. You’re ticker probably won’t be able to handle it.

So stay quiet, and out of the way..

Shocking. It amazes me that anyone could spend 3 minutes on this site and somehow get the impression that any of the writers are even remotely supportive of any of the current aggressions America is involved with.

It also amazes me that anyone leaves a comment without actually reading the article. If you had read the article, you’d know that the author didn’t demand that funding be cut off for NPR, but suggested that it’s current content is out of touch with young listeners and that if it is going to be funded by tax dollars, perhaps it should attempt for a broader appeal, instead of focusing on a narrow audience that could probably afford to pay for it’s continued existence out of their own pocket.

What say you, Mr. Powell? Are you indeed a Jesus freak as the close-minded and poor-spelling “Anonymous” above suggests? And are you an “Old Man”? In your picture you look rather young.

Nice hat.