Um, Bruce, you just supported your detractors and undermined your own position.
It says that 1% to 2% of NPR’s annual budget from federally funded organizationS, one of which is CPB.
I read from this that a very small part of NPR’s budget is acquired–competitively, mind you–from an organization that also, by implication, funds other such grant competitors. In order for your reading to be correct, the CPB would have to exist solely to provide its entire annual outlay to NPR, which just doesnt make any sense, from any angle.
The only link that would support your bizarre contention is a link that showed the breakdown of how CPB spends its money, and further showing that it spends ALL its money on NPR. Where’s THAT link?
Why can’t you just go, “whoops, you’re right, I misread it the first time”?
No one is OBLIGATED to give anything to NPR. My local station does work the guilt angle heavily, claiming that “if you are listening to this, you should be giving us money.”
they’re like some private org sending you a magazine for free through the mail that you never asked for, then telling you, “if you read this magazine at all, you should be giving us money.”
No, I shouldn’t. If you give out something for free, you should not be totally amazed and upset if people take it that way.
That’s my major problem with NPR’s begging tactics. FTR, I have donated to NPR, and probably will again, but I still don’t care for their tactics. Not that they give a rat’s ass, so long as they get the money.
I think your analogy is flawed, Evil Captor. It’s more like a private org putting a stack of magazines out for you to take, with a “donations requested” box beside it. After all, you don’t have to turn your dial to the NPR station. They’re not commandeering your radio.
I’m not fond of pledge drives myself. But they seem to be the most effective way for NPR stations to raise money. Even the people hosting the drives generally admit that they don’t really like doing them very much, and that listeners don’t like them. But they work – that’s what brings in the money.
What fundraising methods do you think would be more successful? I have noticed that KUOW, for one, now has a “pledge now” button on their homepage. I don’t know if they’ll leave it there all year, but it’s an easy way to bring in some extra money with little up-front costs. But seriously – if you had a more effective fundraising idea, I think many NPR member stations would be happy to ditch the pledge drive and take you up on it.
That said, I do agree that people taking stuff for free is a forseeable side effect of making it available for free. But ethically, I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t pay my public radio stations something, given how often I listen to them.
Heh, the only non-private stations worth donating to for me are College rock radio stations, and they never ask for money!
I don’t donate to my local radio/tv station (they are owned by the same non-profit company) for the simple reason that their music and TV programming sucks. Restricted range of classical on the radio (and what isnt restricted sucks, such as when they get oh so daring and play opera or 20th century piano :mad:), the TV seems to be the This Old Road Show Channel.
Plus, when I emailed the radio station to get into a healthy debate about the relative aesthetic and non-commercial merits of classical versus indie rock, they emailed back and said “we are a public radio station which plays Classical music.” Gee, I know what you are, but if you don’t know and care enough about music to have a discussion about it, you dont deserve my money!
You asked for a link showing that CPB and NPR are related. I did it. (Something about lime jello, IIRC)
As for detractions, when I first posted in this thread, I was under the incorrect assumption that NPR received the majority of it’s funding from the government. On that I stand corrected.
Not exactly. Magazines are tangible. If the stack of magazines runs out, they will have to pay to re-print and distribute them so that other potential paying readers will have access to it. Your taking a magazine would cause them a financial detriment.
The radio station, on the other hand, broadcasts their signal whether you are listening or not. Your listening to it will not impede other potential paying customers from also listening.
No, but non-supporting listeners do cost the local NPR stations money. The stations have to pay for programming based on their audiences as determined by whatever organization determines such things. (I presume the same companies that determine audience size for setting of advertising rates.) If you’re listening, you’re increasing the audience size, thus increasing the station’s cost. Thus, you’re a freeloader.
PunditLisa, it’s a fair point, but I’m not the one who introduced a magazine analogy in the first place. I just think mine’s a better mirror of the public radio situation than Evil Captor’s.
I don’t have any quarrel with people who listen to NPR and don’t pledge. I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that myself.
Amanita, this would make sense if there were some gauge to determine who is listening at any given time. There is none, I assure you. (As a person who works in advertising, I would also assure you that we would pay large American dollars for such a device.)
Perhaps you mean that that programs are priced based on market size – meaning that Cincinnati, being a medium sized market would be charged more for programs than, say, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Which would make sense. Or that perhaps they take a demographic sample of their broadcast range and determine what percentage would probably be listening? That makes sense.
Either way, to say that I am financially harming the station by listening to a freely broadcast program is kind of silly. Because if they’ve counted me in the demographic who is probably listening, they’re paying for me whether I actually listen or not.
This is bullshit. Your first post on the subject made it very clear that you believed they were one and the same thing; that if 8% of NPR’s budget came from CPB, then that 8% equalled 100% of CPB’s budget. No one has said they’re not “related,” although that word is kind of nonsensical in this context; they’ve only tried to point out that you’re wrong when you say they’re one and the same.
As has been pointed out, the magazine analogy is not particularly apt. Radio waves flow past me whether I listen to them or not, there’s no additional cost to NPR to see that I get them rather than Joe Schmo. Sure would be tasty from a broadcaster’s POV if everyone who listened to a radio station was morally obligated to donate to it. I’m sure they’d all love that. Gotta tell ya, it does zip for me. I don’t respect that position ethically or intellectually – it’s a tawdry bag of goods at best.
Now what DOES work for me is the notion that if I don’t support NPR and I really like it, I’m in no position to complain if it vanishes and leaves the evil bastids who run Clear Channel in total control of the airwaves. Simple self interest – if you like it, support it, because who else will?
I am no more morally obligated to pay for a freely broadcast radio station than I am morally obligated to toss in a buck to a dude who chooses to play his saxophone at my bus stop. The fact is that he is there of his own free will. He chooses to freely broadcast his performance to anyone within hearing shot. The fact that I happen to be standing there, maybe even enjoying his show, does not mean I OWE him anything.
Now, I may decide to toss a buck in his sax case to show my appreciation for the free concert. Good for me. However, that doesn’t mean that the people who DON’T throw in a buck are free-loading. Because they are not.
To put it another way, have you ever watched a firework display that your neighbor put on? If so, did you feel guilty? How would you react if he sent a flyer around the next day that read: “If you enjoyed my firework display last night, I am asking you to donate. It cost me a lot of money to put on that show and unless I receive $1500 in donations from you, I will have to cease my firework display next year.” Gee, I bet you’d be a bit miffed. Because it’s pretty nervy of him to put on a free show and then expect payment. It’s also nervy to put on a firework display where everyone could see it and then expect payment for it because they just happened to watch.
I used to be a public radio announcer; to be honest, pledge drives aren’t a helluva lot of fun for the radio stations either. They know full well it annoys their regular listeners to have their programming interrupted by begging messages every 20 minutes or whatever, but as people don’t seem to spontaneously phone in to pledge money without prompting, such interruptions are an unfortunate necessity.
Which is not to say they have to be obnoxious, and many local stations do make an effort to try and make the pledge drives interesting. The cheap gifts are not only an incentive to encourage people to give, they also provide a tangible return for the pledge (as opposed to just sending in the money and getting more radio) and serve as another reminder that continuing support is needed. If you don’t want or need the stuff, just say so.
Are people morally obliged to contribute if they listen regularly? I’d like to say “yes”, but frankly I don’t give people that much credit. It does public broadcasting no good to say “We told you so” after the fact when lack of funding forces them to cut programming, and so they remind you before it happens what the consequences will be if you don’t. Whether or not this prompts you to take the next step is entirely up to you.