• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

Well, I would think that since APR stations, or LINK is not generally seen, or heard outside a small number of markets, then obscure is completely appropriate.


NPR on the other hand is in ALL major markets.


So, it may be just a little more than disingenuous to infer that a LINK, or APR, or even PRI is as universally known, or should be to make your point. The overall consideration at least as I see it, is that the Government should have NO role in funding these sounding boards for liberal propaganda. These are my tax dollars as well, and if systems like NPR can't make it on their own, let them go.


j-mac


Yeah, you're also a little behind the time and a little short of facts.

They are now called American Public Media and they have a couple of shows they distribute that are on a regular basis to most public radio stations in most cities.

That is Marketplace and of course, Prairie Home Companion.

Oh, what the heck. Let's list the shows. I've heard quite a few of them on various public radio.


A Prairie Home Companion
The Writer's Almanac
The Splendid Table
Sound Opinions
Marketplace
Marketplace Morning Report
Marketplace Money
Speaking of Faith
American RadioWorks
The Story
As It Happens
Future Tense
Performance Today
SymphonyCast
Pidedreams
American Routes
MTT Files
Composers Datebook
Saint Paul Sunday



















“Blazing hot media.” —Los Angeles Times

As the second largest producer and distributer of public radio programming in the nation, American Public Media has won nearly 1,000 broadcasting and journalism awards, including seven George Foster Peabody Awards, six Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Awards, an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton Award and a GRAMMY Award.
American Public Media is also the largest producer and distributor of classical music programming in the country. We have a range of innovative music programming, from a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week classical music service to Performance Today, a daily two-hour classical music program, to weekly programs and specials that are mainstays of public radio. We also enjoy an exclusive partnership with the European Broadcasting Union, allowing us to broadcast special musical events like the popular Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols and a series of live broadcasts from the BBC Proms in London.
Our radio programming is complemented by a spectrum of new media content and platforms, including online Web streaming, podcasts, video, RSS feeds, interactive Web elements and extensive audio archives.
American Public Media has a partnership agreement with Gather.com, a social networking Web site that invites the public radio audience to share with others their observations, thoughts and perspectives.
News/Talk

Marketplace®

Hosted by Kai Ryssdal, award-winning Marketplace is public radio's daily magazine of business and economics. Airing weekday mornings and evenings, it boasts the largest audience for any business program in the U.S. on radio, cable or network television.
Web site»
Podcasts»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
RSS feeds»
Marketplace Morning Report®

Marketplace Morning Report is an eight-minute business news service airing weekday mornings, delivering a global business newscast and a special feature report, using the same confident, witty style that characterizes its parent program, Marketplace.
Web site»
Podcasts»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
RSS feeds»
Marketplace Money®

Each week on Marketplace Money, host Tess Vigeland looks at major national and international stories that impact the average listener's wallet. It's "the money show for the rest of us."
Web site»
Podcast»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
Speaking of Faith®

Peabody Award-winning Speaking of Faith is public radio's conversation about belief, meaning, ethics and ideas. Each week, host Krista Tippett focuses on a different theme, asking writers, thinkers and theologians to discuss how religion shapes everyday life.
Web site»
Podcast»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
American RadioWorks®

American RadioWorks is the highly acclaimed documentary unit of American Public Media, hosted by Stephen Smith. Its hour-long specials provide in-depth reporting on public affairs, social and cultural subjects and the 20th century experience.
Web site»
Podcast»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
The Story™

The Story with Dick Gordon brings the news home through first-person accounts. The live weekday program is passionate, personal, immediate and relevant to listeners, focusing on the news where it changes our lives, causes us to stop and rethink, inspires us.
Web site»
Podcast»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
As it Happens

Since 1968, this current affairs program has explored the heart of a story, whether it's happening in the streets of Belgrade, the dockyards of Vancouver, the boardrooms of Bay Street or the kitchens of Paris. Produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Web site»
Future Tense®

Produced and hosted by Jon Gordon, this daily "Journal of the Digital Age" keeps pace with the latest technology topics in daily five-minute capsules from electronic privacy and digital democracy to spam and computer worms.
Web site»
Podcast»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
RSS feed»
MUSIC

Performance Today®

Listeners experience the finest solo, chamber and symphonic works—not on CD, but in richly textured live performances recorded for broadcast. With host Fred Child.
Web site»
Podcast—Piano Puzzler»
SymphonyCast®

SymphonyCast, with Peabody Award-winning host Brian Newhouse, is a two-hour weekly radio program featuring a full-length concert by a national or international symphony orchestra.
Web site»
Pipedreams®

The eloquent and good-humored Michael Barone spotlights extraordinary instruments and performers playing awe-inspiring music as a part of Pipedreams.
Web site»
E-mail newsletter sign-up»
American Routes®

Hosted by Nick Spitzer, American Routes is a two-hour weekly excursion into American music, spanning eras and genres—roots rock and soul, blues and country, jazz, gospel and beyond.
Web site»
 
This was an extremely inaccurate statement. Public Radio is a lot like any nonprofits. Its hard work staying in business. Sometimes they have had to make cuts and they've done their share in the last 20 years.

Gill, I am not expecting you to know the full history. But your original statement does not reflect the reality of public radio.

I'm glad you listen too--it must have some value for you and its a barometer of intelligent thought going on.


So let me get this straight. Public radio operates as non profit, but accepts money from the Government in order to maintain its business. The reality is that by accepting Government funding, it is therefore beholden to Government. And, as history has shown with these types of format, they fail if left to have to market themselves. Why do they fail if in the real world? I say it is because of their slanted and biased coverage of events that they report on.

Consider this:

Executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News because of what they perceived as the network’s political bias, two sources familiar with the effort said.

According to a source, Liasson was summoned in early October by NPR’s executive editor for news, Dick Meyer, and the network’s supervising senior Washington editor, Ron Elving. The NPR executives said they had concerns that Fox’s programming had grown more partisan, and they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network.

At a follow-up meeting last month, Liasson reported that she’d seen no significant change in Fox’s programming and planned to continue appearing on the network, the source said.

NPR’s focus on Liasson’s work as a commentator on Fox’s “Special Report” and “Fox News Sunday” came at about the same time as a White House campaign launched in September to delegitimize the network by painting it as an extension of the Republican Party.

NPR reporter pressured over Fox role - - POLITICO.com


Coincidence? I think not.

In closing, your elitist statement about NPR hold some value exhibiting intelligence is over the top. It is snobbish, boorish commentary like that that inflame a topic instead of discuss it, and make the castigator, in this case you, look petty and intolerant. I am sure such an enlightened person such as yourself doesn't mean to come off that way do you?


j-mac
 
Well, I would think that since APR stations, or LINK is not generally seen, or heard outside a small number of markets, then obscure is completely appropriate.


NPR on the other hand is in ALL major markets.


So, it may be just a little more than disingenuous to infer that a LINK, or APR, or even PRI is as universally known, or should be to make your point. The overall consideration at least as I see it, is that the Government should have NO role in funding these sounding boards for liberal propaganda. These are my tax dollars as well, and if systems like NPR can't make it on their own, let them go.


j-mac

Amy Goodman show did not originate from LINK. Its from Pacifica:

Wiki said:
Pacifica Radio is the oldest public radio network in the United States. It is a network of over 100 affiliated stations and five independently operated, non-commercial, listener-supported radio stations that is known for its liberal and progressive political orientation. Many other U.S. and Canadian community radio stations also carry Pacifica on a program to program basis. The first public radio network in the United States, it is operated by the Pacifica Foundation, with national headquarters adjoining station KPFA in Berkeley, California. Programs such as Democracy Now! and Free Speech Radio News are some of its most popular productions.
The Pacifica Radio Archives, housed at station KPFK in Los Angeles, is the nation's oldest public radio archive, documenting more than five decades of grassroots political, cultural, and performing arts history. The archive includes original recordings of interviews with John Coltrane, James Baldwin, Lorraine Hansberry, and Langston Hughes, among many others.



Mind you, its your opinion that no tax dollars shouldn't go to fund rado and news sources. As a taxpayer I respectfully disagree and offer NPR as an example of a fine example of publicly financed programming.We are all better off for it.
 
Yeah, you're also a little behind the time and a little short of facts.

They are now called American Public Media and they have a couple of shows they distribute that are on a regular basis to most public radio stations in most cities.

That is Marketplace and of course, Prairie Home Companion.


Really? Who are their sponsors?


j-mac
 
So let me get this straight. Public radio operates as non profit, but accepts money from the Government in order to maintain its business. The reality is that by accepting Government funding, it is therefore beholden to Government. And, as history has shown with these types of format, they fail if left to have to market themselves. Why do they fail if in the real world? I say it is because of their slanted and biased coverage of events that they report on.

Consider this:




Coincidence? I think not.

In closing, your elitist statement about NPR hold some value exhibiting intelligence is over the top. It is snobbish, boorish commentary like that that inflame a topic instead of discuss it, and make the castigator, in this case you, look petty and intolerant. I am sure such an enlightened person such as yourself doesn't mean to come off that way do you?


j-mac


j-mac,

The key is becoming knowledgable. I think Jon Stewart said something to the effect that people sometimes see being elitist as someone who is educated and has actually got the facts about an issue.

If you listen to NPR programming, one of the things they do is try to discuss an issue in more than a sound byte. They allow both sides to talk. So you come away from an NPR show hearing both sides tell their points of an issue. This is sadly lacking from most programs. They don't give it the time. At one time, they did.

If you think you get the same knowledge about an issue from listening to most radio programming, I would be greatly surprised. However, I am open to examples of better radio networks in the US that can do this that were produced by the "market." Please share all of these sources so that I too can have knowledge of these sources that do at least as good as or better a job of producing information about current events like NPR.

Go ahead.

PS-Care to give evidence where NPR held back from criticizing the government.
 
Amy Goodman show did not originate from LINK. Its from Pacifica:



:doh Damn, I knew that also. Pacifica, a self identified "Progressive" outlet, is biased to the point of never having opposing viewpoint on (At least what little I have heard from them)....Amy Goodman the same.


Mind you, its your opinion that no tax dollars shouldn't go to fund rado and news sources.


Ofcourse it is my opinion, just as your opinion is to fund news outlets with tax dollars. What is the difference? You think your opinion is more valid than mine?


As a taxpayer I respectfully disagree and offer NPR as an example of a fine example of publicly financed programming.We are all better off for it.


Their educational programming I have little problem with, it is their overt bias whenever injected that concerns me as a listener. All I am saying is that if their programming is so all fired important to the country, then it would make it on its own, with sponsors. Why do you suppose they have to rely so heavily on the government for its very existence?


j-mac
 
Their educational programming I have little problem with, it is their overt bias whenever injected that concerns me as a listener. All I am saying is that if their programming is so all fired important to the country, then it would make it on its own, with sponsors. Why do you suppose they have to rely so heavily on the government for its very existence?


j-mac

I've found that this argument for the likes of NPR to be rather foolish. If NPR is such a boon, and worth the listening, then it should be spun off and allowed to work in the market. This would save taxpayers money.

But we all know what would happen if NPR lost the Government teat from which it exists.
 
j-mac,

The key is becoming knowledgable. I think Jon Stewart said something to the effect that people sometimes see being elitist as someone who is educated and has actually got the facts about an issue.


Oh no you didn't....You mean that world renowned scholar, and thinker Jon Stewart? Give me a break!



If you listen to NPR programming, one of the things they do is try to discuss an issue in more than a sound byte. They allow both sides to talk. So you come away from an NPR show hearing both sides tell their points of an issue. This is sadly lacking from most programs. They don't give it the time. At one time, they did.


Is that so? so when Amy Goodman gets on and devotes an entire show to how American troops in Afghanistan promoted Genocide and then stood by and watched, to denigrate our mission there that was presenting both sides? Really?


If you think you get the same knowledge about an issue from listening to most radio programming, I would be greatly surprised. However, I am open to examples of better radio networks in the US that can do this that were produced by the "market." Please share all of these sources so that I too can have knowledge of these sources that do at least as good as or better a job of producing information about current events like NPR.

Go ahead.


Talk Radio Network is doing some good work in this area.


PS-Care to give evidence where NPR held back from criticizing the government.


I wasn't aware that we were only to be valid if we could provide concrete documented evidence of bias. In that case then claims of FOX News bias is moot then too right? See, this is where the liberal elitist goes off the rails. We went from having a discussion to you trying to dismiss my point of view based on some BS about wanting me to waste my afternoon searching for examples so that you can turn and dismiss them too....Sorry Pal, I don't play that game.


j-mac
 
:doh Damn, I knew that also. Pacifica, a self identified "Progressive" outlet, is biased to the point of never having opposing viewpoint on (At least what little I have heard from them)....Amy Goodman the same.





Ofcourse it is my opinion, just as your opinion is to fund news outlets with tax dollars. What is the difference? You think your opinion is more valid than mine?





Their educational programming I have little problem with, it is their overt bias whenever injected that concerns me as a listener. All I am saying is that if their programming is so all fired important to the country, then it would make it on its own, with sponsors. Why do you suppose they have to rely so heavily on the government for its very existence?


j-mac

I will acknowledge that Pacifica is a left ward leaning public network. No argument on that! :lol:

I don't think my opinion by itself is more valid. I just want the facts out there when making a decision. I think some people really believe NPR is totally funded by the government. True at one point, not now and by being a long time fan, I've witnessed their struggles.

If your fear is that being funded by the government can cause censorship, don't forget that advertisers also have the same power. Of course the push on both sides is that you will lose some viewers and listeners if you are found to be dishonest. (but only if you're open to the truth.)

The problem is that the market expands to serve the lowest common denominator and that doesn't help the knowledge area. Market is sometimes ok, but isn't the cure all to everything. While we are a country of individuals, we also have a duty to look out for each other and be the best country we can be. Market decisions are not the best for all decisions made in the common good.
 
Oh no you didn't....You mean that world renowned scholar, and thinker Jon Stewart? Give me a break!

And comedian, don't forget that. :lol:






Is that so? so when Amy Goodman gets on and devotes an entire show to how American troops in Afghanistan promoted Genocide and then stood by and watched, to denigrate our mission there that was presenting both sides? Really?





Talk Radio Network is doing some good work in this area.





I wasn't aware that we were only to be valid if we could provide concrete documented evidence of bias. In that case then claims of FOX News bias is moot then too right? See, this is where the liberal elitist goes off the rails. We went from having a discussion to you trying to dismiss my point of view based on some BS about wanting me to waste my afternoon searching for examples so that you can turn and dismiss them too....Sorry Pal, I don't play that game.

j-mac


Biases occur all over the map. But my real fear of media is not being biased. I think they work too hard to get the biggest amount of viewers what they want. So we end up with 24 hours of Michael Jackson for a few weeks. Not because they're biased--so they get the highest ratings for the advertisers to sell cars or i-pods or whatever. Ok if you want to sell I-Pods. Not so good if your goal is to produce an educated public.
 
I will acknowledge that Pacifica is a left ward leaning public network. No argument on that! :lol:

I don't think my opinion by itself is more valid. I just want the facts out there when making a decision. I think some people really believe NPR is totally funded by the government. True at one point, not now and by being a long time fan, I've witnessed their struggles.

If your fear is that being funded by the government can cause censorship, don't forget that advertisers also have the same power. Of course the push on both sides is that you will lose some viewers and listeners if you are found to be dishonest. (but only if you're open to the truth.)

The problem is that the market expands to serve the lowest common denominator and that doesn't help the knowledge area. Market is sometimes ok, but isn't the cure all to everything. While we are a country of individuals, we also have a duty to look out for each other and be the best country we can be. Market decisions are not the best for all decisions made in the common good.


You may have a point here, but only as far as the market not necessarily driving the national interests at all times. But then again, neither does an entity that not only takes in government money, but then relies heavily on such underwriters as the Carnegie Foundation, or the Ford Foundation. Two heavily leftist groups that have in the past been accused of working against American interests.

If you want truly independent broadcasts then you have to take all money out of the formula, and we both know that will NEVER happen.


j-mac
 
I've found that this argument for the likes of NPR to be rather foolish. If NPR is such a boon, and worth the listening, then it should be spun off and allowed to work in the market. This would save taxpayers money.

But we all know what would happen if NPR lost the Government teat from which it exists.


Yes, NPR would have an extremely uneven presense and their original goal to serve communites that are under represented will be lost. If you look at NPR's financials, they make that point. Stations like Chicago, Louisville and I'm sure LA or New York are not struggling.

There are public radio stations that exist strongly on their own and neither are affiliated or broadcast NPR programs. Even those affiliated take sponsorship. Really, its close to commercials. Not really that far off.

The key to public radio is not profit, but in the quality of their broadcasts. Whats wrong with that?

If NPR folded, we would be poorer for it.
 
Last edited:
You may have a point here, but only as far as the market not necessarily driving the national interests at all times. But then again, neither does an entity that not only takes in government money, but then relies heavily on such underwriters as the Carnegie Foundation, or the Ford Foundation. Two heavily leftist groups that have in the past been accused of working against American interests.

If you want truly independent broadcasts then you have to take all money out of the formula, and we both know that will NEVER happen.


j-mac


I can't argue with that.
 
I don't consider it conjecture when the dinosaur media have been unable to charge for their content.

The NY Times has tried twice and failed miserably each time. The WSJ has a flourishing online subscription business.

Failed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html

They made money off it. What the NYT did was change their revenue system to one that favored ad based revenue.

“The business model for advertising revenue, versus subscriber revenue, is so much more attractive,” he said. “The hybrid model has some potential, but in the long run, the advertising side will dominate.”

I think any reasonable person would admit that the WSJ has content worth paying for, while the NY Times does not.

Perhaps you should learn what actually happened rather then just assume what you wish to be true?

They went where the money was.

Do you have an example of where a newspaper charged solely online and failed because of it?

So again, all you have right now is conjecture, but worse because you don't look at the facts. You just assume what you wish to be true.
 
HAHAHAHA.

No, you didn't.

So you are saying I never discussed it when I talked about how general content providers were dealing with problems of online subscriptions?

Oh, you think I never dealt with it because you never read my posts!

That's called "Free markets" dear. If you have a product worth paying for, they will come. What you are basically saying is many of these papers lack a quality product to draw enough subscribers to continue! Isn't that amazing?

And once again, Mr. V goes out of his way to ignore what people write.
 
Why is the Wall Street Journal circulation so much higher???

Because they report online subscriptions as subscriptions. As I noted before, and as Mr. V totally screwed up in an epic way, NYT has huge amount of unique IDs and page hits but doesn't count those as circulation.

Mr. V made a truly rookie epic fail when did not notice his own graph stated that the statistical inclusion was different for WSJ compared to others.
 
So you are saying I never discussed it when I talked about how general content providers were dealing with problems of online subscriptions?

Oh, you think I never dealt with it because you never read my posts!



And once again, Mr. V goes out of his way to ignore what people write.

No, I read what you wrote. You are stuck on the Content Delivery Failure of the new market. My answer is... so what?

Times change. Adapt or fail, that's life.
 
All I know is that I need newspapers to pack boxes with so if Waxman wants to save them, them do it.

If I didn't have newspapers I would have to use a different type of packing material and I don't like change.
 
They made money off it. What the NYT did was change their revenue system to one that favored ad based revenue.

Exactly. Thanks for checking the facts instead of just mindlessly accepting them. You'd make a good print journalist.
 
Failed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html

They made money off it. What the NYT did was change their revenue system to one that favored ad based revenue.
Perhaps you should learn what actually happened rather then just assume what you wish to be true?

They went where the money was.

Do you have an example of where a newspaper charged solely online and failed because of it?

So again, all you have right now is conjecture, but worse because you don't look at the facts. You just assume what you wish to be true.

Does the NYT charge a subscription fee for its online newspaper???

No, didn't think so.

The WSJ DOES charge a subscription fee AND gets ad revenue from their online newspaper. Appears to most reasonable people that the public would not pay to read the NYT online paper.

Because they report online subscriptions as subscriptions. As I noted before, and as Mr. V totally screwed up in an epic way, NYT has huge amount of unique IDs and page hits but doesn't count those as circulation.

If the WSJ charges $50/year (made up amount) for its online subscription and the NYT charges $0/year, then yes I would expect the WSJ to include online subscriptions in its numbers since they are PAID subscriptions.

Seems pretty elementary to me. Both circulation numbers include PAID subscriptions. Freebie online subscriptions don't count. If I printed 10 million newspapers and handed them all out on the street for free, could I claim I that have ten million subscribers??
 
Last edited:
Does the NYT charge a subscription fee for its online newspaper???

No, didn't think so.

The WSJ DOES charge a subscription fee AND gets ad revenue from their online newspaper. Appears to most reasonable people that the public would not pay to read the NYT online paper.

So everything that is free is worth less and makes less money than things that are paid for? Hmmm. Does that mean most internet news sites and blogs, and all broadcast TV and radio stations are worthless too? :roll:

Seems pretty elementary to me. Both circulation numbers include PAID subscriptions. Freebie online subscriptions don't count. If I printed 10 million newspapers and handed them all out on the street for free, could I claim I that have ten million subscribers??

No, but you could claim to have 10 million readers, and sell ads against that. Happens all the time.

Paid subscriptions are not an indicator of financial success or quality in the media world. It's a small part of revenue for most publications, probably including the WSJ website.
 
Paid subscriptions are not an indicator of financial success or quality in the media world. It's a small part of revenue for most publications, probably including the WSJ website.

Really?? Want to compare the financial status of the NYT to the WSJ??

I didn't think so.
 
Really?? Want to compare the financial status of the NYT to the WSJ??

I didn't think so.

I repeat, subscriptions are not an indicator of financial success. I didn't say the NYT wasn't in trouble, I said it had nothing to do with online subscriptions.
 
I repeat, subscriptions are not an indicator of financial success. I didn't say the NYT wasn't in trouble, I said it had nothing to do with online subscriptions.

Newspaper Economics 101:

1. Newspapers get their revenue primarily from ads.

2. Ad revenue is based on circulation numbers.

3. The lower the circulation, the lower the income from advertising.

4. The lower the income from advertising, the lower the financial success.

Bottom line: the lower the circulation, the lower the financial success.
 
Back
Top Bottom