United Liberty
Public Radio Done Right
Sun, 01/25/2009 - 10:22am | posted by Michael Orion Powell
I was a little perturbed by some of the comments to my NPR piece. Many seemed to think that I was coming from a position of “blind libertarianism,” desiring to axe National Public Radio because it was public. Apparently many of the commentators had not read the entire article.
As a follow up, I thought I would list some efforts in public radio that I believe are deserving of public funding, as they manage to appeal to the broader population of taxpayers instead of to stodgy academics. Here they are:
It’s All Politics - This 15 minute podcast exemplifies horse race political coverage, running through all the fools that made the news in the last week and lighting a fire under their ass. There’s a healthy dose of everyman humor here. I don’t feel like I need to be a resident of Lake Wobegon to get the jokes.
Mark Kemode and Simon Mayo’s Film Reviews - This is the sort of thing that’s almost unthinkable to envision occurring on American public radio. Witty talk about popular cinema, covering the spectrum from Slumdog Millionaire to Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. The hosts aren’t testosterone deficient, either, so they may never be allowed on PRI or NPR.
A Point of View - The opinion pieces here come from a scholarly internationalist perspective I would liken to that of Christopher Hitchens. Issues are usually explored in all of their aspects, instead of relishing in predictable self-righteous liberalism. I actually learn from it.
The Thomas Jefferson Hour - This program is produced independently and distributed to public radio stations. While I have my own differences with the host Clay Jenkinson’s views (I both laughed and grimaced when he described Barack Obama as a “Christ figure” in the most recent episode), he does provide a great deal of historical clarity in relation to the Founding Generation.
Try to take away “Car Talk” and “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me” and you and me are gonna have words… :)
Michael,
I see you followed-up on my comment on the original post, and rather than follow-up there I’d like to bring those comments into this one.
First, good picks — though of course how much of this is your taste vs. groundbreaking media is a point of debate. What I do think is significant is that radio, by its nature, has only a finite amount of programming — i.e. there are only 24 hours in a day and you can only be playing one show at a time. That’s why the web is so damn cool - a theoretically unlimited amount of programming available on-demand, a concept which the traditional media are still reeling with…
Before we had a point about Iraq journalism, and you pointed out that there are indeed independent journalists over there. While I don’t doubt it (and heartily cheer the efforts of them as well as programming by, say, Amy Goodman) the real point is that this kind of programming costs money. Way more money than an individual or even a small organization can raise. So maybe some amount of money offered from public resources is worth it, since we’re getting a product that it may be hard for smaller groups to do.
Of course, the model that is emerging which I happen to like even better is people-powered media. I.e. Say you like those shows above? Well why not directly support them in the form of a subscription fee or donation? If you look at some of the numbers of local NPR affiliates, upwards of 60-70% of their programming actually comes from individuals. Which is what miffs me to no end when they play such a “conservative” regime of programming — I’m part of the station, dammit, and you’re playing crap I don’t like! I should be able to directly support Car Talk, and if I’m paying for that pleasure, I don’t want to hear your stupid pledge drives.
Part of the problem is that broadcasting on the radio is so expensive, but we can blame the FCC for that. Another problem is that people are, well, cheap, and the radio by its nature is always given away for free. So people are happy to enjoy the programming without supporting its creation, completely oblivious of the hidden cost of their enjoyment (i.e. government bloat, homogeneous sound and a horrible commercial-music industry complex).
More indie radio stations, more locally-owned community stations, more journalists even if it means operating on a shoe-string. I could dig that!
People have actually been tortured with some of the “music” that is played on commercial radio. It’s really quite sad how regulated radio has become, when the medium was created with hopes of making news and information more readily available and free.
On The Monocle Weekly show, which you’d really like, Fred, one of the hosts espoused the greatness of Santa Monica’s KCRW, noting that NPR seems to be on the wain. We seem to be getting alot of grassroots public radio popping out and filling in the void of creativity that NPR has left open.
Of course you’re right that much of my argument comes down to taste. My taste is pretty warped and distorted as well so it’d be wise to take what I saw with a grain of salt.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
I’m confused. This is unitedLIBERTY.org right?
So how do you justify forcing people, at the barrel of a gun or threat of imprisonment, to pay money to the government for a service that is not in the Constitution?
How can you say, well, sure some people don’t listen or reap the benefits of the public money, but I do! So it’s ok because I’m helped!
With that utilitarian argument, anything is justifiable.
I’m totally in favor of voluntary taxation. If people want to opt out of taxes, that’s fine with me. As quid pro quo, however, those that opt out would not be able to use public services. No guns or prisons needed.
And before you dismiss that, I have known people (who shall remain nameless) that have lived effectively off the grid. It’s possible though in this digital age it would be extremely difficult.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Thus the disclaimer at the bottom of each page-
“The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.”
As editors, we allow a certain amount of leeway to the authors to express their views and opinions. If you’ll read the comments for Michael’s first NPR article, which he links at the beginning of this one, you’ll find at least two anti-statist dissenting opinions from two of our own authors.
Post new comment