[Dialogue] Re Save NPR and PBS

Tue Feb 15 18:52:42 CST 2011

Colleagues, 

It is important to think about whether any particular program should be funded by the federal government, in the context of all the needs.  And as Marilyn suggests, in the context of the whole social process.  Just "support this - don't cut that - they do good for people" won't cut it.  So I am glad for this conversation.

Among the questions which may be relevant:  How does a given program affect the whole of our society, especially the most vulnerable?  How does it affect the future - not only of our economic competitiveness, but of local and global consciousness?  Does a particular program have any "whistle point" potential?

In our small city (and 21 surrounding counties) both PBS (televsion) and 2 NPR (radio) stations are part of the same station, and share administrative costs.  I worked for them for 17 years.  Some things I know about NPR and PBS:  Each station is local, and makes its own decisions about programming. Each station must meet the public service standards of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Each station pays for all the programs they carry - amounts based on the number of listeners/viewers they have.  Some public broadcasting stations are based on university campuses, with varying degrees of support from the university.  Others are governed - "owned" - by a community board (ours is in that category).  So there are several kinds of "charters".  Stations all make their own decisions about fund-raising drives.  They share ideas, and program providers furnish spots and special edition programs promoting local station funding.  

Re the differences between advertising on commercial networks and the sponsorship (underwriter) acknowledgements on public broadcasting:  One difference is the amount of time taken from programming.  Generally underwriters  are mentioned only at the beginning and the end of programs.  Programs are not interrupted every 10-15 minutes for a series of commercials.  Yes, major underwriters are given maybe 15 seconds to give it their best shot at presenting their product or service in the best possible light.  But there is not supposed to be a hard sell - a "call to action" -- buy this, or buy that.  

Re news coverage:  Do they cover the Middle East as well as Al Jazeera?  I would bet definitely not.  But I can't easily get Al Jazeera - could probably find it on my computer, but I get most of my news "on the go" from radio.  Perhaps you know that no major cable TV providers will carry Al Jazeera. The last I heard only 2 TV stations carry it - one in Ohio (Akron?) and one in Vermont, I think.  I suspect that NPR (radio)  has correspondents and "stringers" - adjunct journalists - in more places around the world than any other US news service.  Comparing CNN and MSNBC to PBS in coverage of Egypt:  PBS is not a 24 hour news network. They cannot easily pre-empt programming. It would be interesting to compare the size of the budget for CNN vs. PBS.  Yes, there are lots of sources of news these days - but boy is it spotty in terms of being factual and dealing with questions that I consider important.  Our local public radio stations carry such programs as Alternative Radio, with very progressive views, and lots of attention to "the most vulnerable" globally.  We get Amy Goodman's Democracy Now 5 days a week on one of our public radio stations.  Amy talked with Al Jazeera staff several times during their Egyptian coverage. (There has been a previous discussion of her program on this list serv - see Gordon Harper's comments.)  On the other hand, the PBS News Hour is much more conventional - more in-depth than the commercial networks but not ideal.  We also get BBC news on PBS - it's sometimes better.

Re how much influence a public broadcasting contributor has:  I was surprised, George Walters, that you seem to infer that individual stockholders in a corporation, because they "own" the company, have more voice than the individual contributor to public radio or TV.  How many times are stockholder's proposals voted on affirmatively at annual meetings - against the wishes of the corporation board?!  What I experience at our station is that the staff, who makes the programming decisions, do listen to individuals' comments.  It's true that if you want only your favorite programming all day every day you won't get it.  But well-reasoned arguments are taken very seriously by both the community board and the staff.  Staff pay attention to which programs attract the most contributions during fund drives and which get the most positive comments. People campaigned for the station to carry Democracy Now, for example, for several years before it was added to the schedule.  It is a controversial program, covering stories that affect the most vulnerable, and can upset various establishments.  They give voice to whistleblowers of all kinds - shed light on how systems impact people's lives -  invite people from all points of view to participate in the discussions.  

Finally, where are the most people apt to get the information they need to help them sort through how best to deal with all our challenges - including decisions about what programs the federal government should support?   More than half of all Americans listen or watch public broadcasting every week.  In some rural areas it is the only source of global news.  And arts programming!  The children's programs are the only TV programs for kids that are designed with input from educators - and the values they show are such things as honoring different cultures and settling arguments without violence.  The federal government now spends $1.35 per American each year to support public broadcasting.  That's $430 million a year.  (They spend $500 million a year on marching bands for the military.)  On average, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides just 14% of a station's funding - but stations use that to leverage other amounts.

So is it worth it?  

Janice Ulangca

More information:  http://www.170millionamericans.org/why-public-broadcasting

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: M. George Walters 
  To: 'Colleague Dialogue' 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 8:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Re Save NPR and PBS

  In the world of “who pays for it (NPR/PBS)?” I think sponsors (government or non-profit) have more of a say in content and are less concerned with coverage unless it’s not getting them enough positive credit and kudos. Advertisers have more concern with coverage for their products in targeted audiences and take less interest in content unless it becomes negative to their business.

  What NPR can and cannot do in these complex fiscal waters is governed by their charter and who actually owns them. Individuals who give their money are not like investors who buy stock. They have no control but are just registering their like or dislike.

  With the options for real-time news, communications, organizing and entertainment on the internet growing, these enterprises like NPR may need a major overhaul, especially in the context of more urgent needs. It was interesting to watch MSNBC and CNN as events unfolded in Egypt divert to showing live feeds from Al Jazeera (live feed from the internet which I was watching on my laptop)  when their own coverage failed and NPR/PBS totally failed to keep up even though their post-event commentary was more neutral.

  With kindest regards.

  M. George Walters

  Resurgence Publishing Corporation

  4240 Sandy Shores Dr

  Lutz, FL 33558

  USA

  Tel: +1 (813) 948-7267

  Fax: +1 (813) 333-1787

  Mob: +1 (813) 505-9041

  URL: www.ResurgencePublishing.com 

  Professional Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgwalters

  From: dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of James Wiegel
  Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 20:59
  To: Colleague Dialogue
  Cc: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
  Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Re Save NPR and PBS

        Of course, the question would be whether having the cultural (NPR) continue to be dependent for much funding from the collapsed political (in the federal budget) is an important relationship to maintain.

        Here in Arizona, both public radio and tv are having almost constant fund drives on the air, and I can't quite see the difference between the sponsorship recognitions (the IF in the midst of life -- MetLife) and straight out advertising

        Jim Wiegel

        You think that because you understand ONE, you understand TWO; because one and one make two. But you must understand AND. Sufi Proverb

        401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
        +1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel
        jfwiegel at yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com

        UPCOMING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FROM PARTNERS IN PARTICIPATION
        ToP Facilitation Methods, Feb 15-16, May 17-18, Sept 20-21, 2011
        Facilitation Graphics, Mar 15, 2011
        ToP Strategic Planning, Nov 8-9, 2011
        The AZ Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Jan 7, 2011
        Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2011-12. Program begins on Oct 12-14, 2011. See our website for further details.

        --- On Mon, 2/14/11, marilyncrocker at juno.com <marilyncrocker at juno.com> wrote:

        From: marilyncrocker at juno.com <marilyncrocker at juno.com>
        Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Re Save NPR and PBS
        To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
        Cc: dialogue at wedgeblade.net
        Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 5:53 PM

        Hi Randy (and others),

        Given our recent conversations about the SP triangles and how they have informed us at various times during and since our OE days, I'm guessing that NPR and PBS are prime examples of the "cultural pole."  If, indeed, simplistically, the "tyrant" remains the economic, and the political the "ally", we know empowering the cultural ("the meaning giving pole"), in as many ways as possible, with creativity, care, consciousness,and (hopefully?) corporateness -- is a strategy for rebalancing what will perhaps but for a time become balanced, but in the context of change will forever be dynamically unbalanced.

        I'm not interested in choosing "either/or", but would opt for thinking about NPR and PBS as being part of the mix with other dear to my heart programs for which I have advocated long and hard and continue to -- such as Head Start, job training and tuition loans.  For me, these latter enumerated programs are part of a constellation of cultural efforts that together hold promise re: effecting a re-balance, often because of their dynamical relationships (creates, limits, sustains) to the whole (E-P-C).

        Anyway, thank you Jan for your "nudge" to get us thinking deeply, and recognizing the "almost free stuff" that we are nurtured upon every day, no matter what city, no matter what time, 24/7.

        Grace and peace,

        Marilyn

        On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:53:31 -0800 (PST) R Williams <rcwmbw at yahoo.com> writes:

                Colleagues,

                Let me share a concern, and let me begin by saying I'm a fan and supporter of NPR and PBS.  I listen and watch regularly and contribute on occasion.  We know we are in a time of serious belt tightening and cuts to many areas of the federal budget are inevitable (as well as state and local budgets) and hard choices are having to be made.  I wish the lion's share, if not all of it, could be taken from the defense budget, but the reality is otherwise.  So here's my problem.  When I put NPR and PBS up beside proposed cuts to WIC, Headstart, job training, tuition loans, Bread for the World, and the myriad of other programs whose demise will most directly impact those who are least able to afford it, I'm having a real problem putting NPR and PBS at the top of the list of priorities.  If I'm missing the point, please tell me where.  I'm open.

                Repectfully,

                Randy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Dialogue mailing list
  Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20110215/74aff93e/attachment-0001.html>