Tech Broiler

Jason Perlow and Scott Raymond

Internet killed the radio star: let NPR "go dark"

By | March 17, 2011, 10:59am PDT

Summary: National Public Radio is facing the threat of losing its federal funding and having member stations lose their programming. But would this really be a bad thing?

National Public Radio is facing the threat of losing its federal funding and having member stations lose their programming. But would this really be a bad thing?

Today, Republicans in the US House of Representatives are going to vote on the elimination of federal funding of National Public Radio as well as prohibit local public radio stations from using federal funds to pay NPR dues.

If you’re reading this article and you don’t know what NPR is, essentially it is the radio equivalent of PBS, the network of public television stations that carry popular public TV programs such as NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, Masterpiece TheaterAntiques Roadshow and Sesame Street.

In addition to its newscasts, NPR is probably best known for All Things Considered, a two-hour weekday program that covers a variety of news and cultural subjects that has been on the air since 1971.

Both of these systems were formed in the late 1960s and the early 1970s by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) which is a not for profit organization that is directly funded by the United States government.

CPB provides some funding to PBS and to NPR, but a substantial amount of funding to PBS and NPR also come from private sources via fundraising efforts and endowments by charitable organizations.

The Republicans in the House are livid and are on a de-funding warpath because of a release of a video last week where prominent fundraiser for NPR, Ron Schiller, was secretly taped making reportedly anti-conservative, anti-Republican, anti-Tea Party comments by political activist James O’Keefe during a private meeting with a fake front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, organized by O’Keefe.

[EDIT: Per reader requests, I am pointing to the unedited, uncut version of the O'Keefe video so readers can make up their own minds about the context of Ron Schiller's comments.]

To say that Schiller was “Punked” by O’Keefe is an understatement. There has been some concern that the video(s) which he has posted have been selectively edited in order to put the worst face on Schiller’s comments, which could be taken out of context.

Still. the fallout from the release of this video has been considerable. Schiller was fired. Shortly thereafter, the Board of Directors of NPR has also fired the not for profit’s Executive Director, Vivian Schiller (no relation).

That being said, I do not wish to get into the finer points of partisan politics. That’s not the role of this blog, which is to focus on technology. My own political leanings are what could be described as “Right Centrist Libertarian”. You can interpret that any way you like.

I call myself middle of the road, with very liberal social leanings — I’m pro gay marriage, pro-choice and pro marijuana legalization. I’m pretty much pro-everything that most conservatives and right-leaning politicians hate. On the other hand, I believe in having a very conservative economic policy (meaning we should be very careful how we spend government money) and a strong defense of our nation and our allies around the world.

At the same time I am also of the opinion that the government should be hands-off from just about everything as it concerns regulation and intervening with our capitalist system unless it becomes absolutely necessary to do so.

While I cannot say I am in general alignment with much of the legislation the Republicans and their Tea Party and other conservative-aligned supporters bring forth in the House and the Senate, I do have to agree that it probably no longer makes sense to spend federal money on supporting terrestrial radio broadcast infrastructure for NPR.

There are a number of reasons for this, but I’ll state this plain and simple — NPR should become an Internet-only radio station, where practical.

This morning, where I awoke to the news that NPR would be facing possible legislation in the House that could severely curtail funding from the federal government and prevent local radio stations from paying for NPR re-broadcast using government funds, the first thing I did was see if I could access NPR over the Internet.

More accurately, as I was lying in bed and watching CNN, what I actually did was grab my iPad 2 and go to the App Store to see if there was an iOS application to stream NPR from my device. There indeed is one, for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch, and as a matter of fact, it is an EXCELLENT application. Not only can you live stream NPR from dozens of radio station affiliates, but you can also listen to pre-recorded podcasts and view news stories.

On the Android platform, there is an equivalent application, and my wife installed it on her Droid and it works perfectly. It should also be noted that any PC or Mac (Including the Linux system I am writing this article from now) can listen to NPR via live stream using their web-based player application. If you don’t listen to NPR today via these mediums, I highly encourage you to do so.

Now, it could be argued that if NPR stops working with the large majority of public terrestrial radio stations who pay dues to carry their programming, it will lose a significant source of income. This is true.

Like PBS, NPR is a membership corporation, composed of public, non-commercial radio stations. As of 2009, NPR’s income was approximately $160 million, with most of its revenue coming from programming fees it charges to stations which carry its programming (roughly 40 percent of its income) grants, contributions and sponsorships.

On the average, member stations that carry NPR content derive about 10 percent of their revenue from federal government funding, which comes in the form of grants from the CPB. NPR itself does not receive direct funding from the federal government. Rather, in addition to the CPB providing funds to the member stations which pay dues to NPR, it also provides funds that equal approximately 1.5 percent of NPR’s revenues directly to the organization in the form of grants.

So if the legislation by the Republicans in the House (and eventually the Senate) passes, these radio stations which receive government money will not be able to use it to pay for NPR programming. Additionally, the CPB itself will not be able to issue grants directly to NPR.

This does not mean that public radio stations will “Go Dark”. People will still be able to get local news, traffic, music, and other programming on those stations as they do now.

[NPR: Going the way of iTunes and Netflix?]»

Topics

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies.

Disclosure

Jason Perlow

My Full-Time Employer is IBM. I write as a freelancer for ZDNet.

Disclaimer: The postings and opinions on this blog are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions.

I own no investments or direct financial instruments in the companies I write about.

Biography

Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet is a technologist with over two decades of experience with integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. A long-time computer enthusiast starting the age of 13 with his first Apple ][ personal computer, he began his freelance writing career starting at ZD Sm@rt Reseller in 1996 and has since authored numerous guest columns for ZDNet Enterprise and Ziff-Davis Internet. Jason was previously Senior Technology Editor for Linux Magazine, where he wrote about Open Source issues from 1999 to 2008.

In his spare time, Jason is an avid amateur chef and food writer, where his work reviewing New Jersey restaurants has appeared in The New York Times. He is also the founder of the popular food web site eGullet and blogs about restaurants and cooking at OffTheBroiler.com.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
365
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

This can be a
donaldsjones 9th May
This can be a really great accessibility. Nowadays coming out of yahoo while looking that the same subject material. I really ate up the whole thing you were required to talk about. Maintain the fantastic complete!

reverse cell phone lookup
You said or make it seem that a main purpose of NPR is to provide information to people in rural areas. I believe that people in rural areas are less likely to have access to the internet and probably are less likely to be knowledgeable in streaming NPR and are probably very unlikely to know how to put NPR applications on their smart phones, if they even have one. Certainly some can and will but it just seems so unlikely.
0 Votes
+ -
specially in remote areas where cellphone coverage is bad or non existent.

So, even though most high urban areas will find it on the Internet after its gone. NPR is a radio many listen to while on the road on FM. Meanwhile alternatives are other talk shows that don't really have any cultural content.

NPR should be reprimanded in terms of its partisans view, this is definitely true, specially if its funded by the government. Having fired the main culprit, taking it off the air would be a huge cultural loss for America.

I disagree with your assessment.
0 Votes
+ -
Come on
Richard Flude 18th Mar 2011
The culture of bias infects these organizations to he core. Removing one man won't change it. Put these beast to sleep forever, but failing that taxpayers should be expected to foot the bill for such rubbish.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Uralbas The big problem is that the author of this article doesn't seem to comprehend the impact of his self centered nationalism. For example, he tells us that he believes in a "strong defense" while, at the same time, he thinks he's a libertarian. These two viewpoints can't coincide since militaries, of course, have their own agendas and those agendas have to be covered up by governmental propaganda; this isn't small government and that's why Eisenhower warned us about "the military industrial complex."

i.e., isn't it ironic that the moral imperative of our own military is to destroy other militaries?

And that's why I can't agree with Jason Perlow that politics and technology don't mix since we develop technology to mitigate our society's habits.

For example, we couldn't drive big cars and/or maintain big homes without a high tech military that secured energy resources around the world.

That said, those in the ivory tower, the folks that Ron Schiller calls "educated," have been on a losing streak lately.

i.e. their technology gave us the BP and Fukushima accidents and those events let us know that we're simply monkeys at a type writer.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
kinglittle@... 18th Mar 2011
I agree totaly!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
bob.klahn@... 18th Mar 2011
@Uralbas

Where is the culture of bias?

Other than Stephen Colbert's note that "Truth has a liberal bias."?
0 Votes
+ -
It's a civic investment...
voltrarian Updated - 18th Mar 2011
And therefore, rural areas are more likely to have limited options for a wide selection of independent information.
While NPR is a public news outlet, it does NOT have an ownership structure that may be dominated & controlled by one owner and his/her executive cronies making decisions in private (as in FOX news or even CNN for that matter) -- along with massive conflicts of interest with other businesses or agendas.

And while some media outlets may have liberal leanings, one thing makes liberal media more trustworthy than the right-wing alternative: Liberal media have been more than ready to question, disagree, criticize, and turn on their own (ie: even to the extent of lemming-herds of coverage about Bill Clinton's various pointlessly personal scandals.)

Liberal media is a vocal plurality of opinions, not a lockstep, top down agenda machine.

To have no significant public/non-corporate owned radio alternatives in many parts of America will not be good. This is a case where a relatively small expenditure towards public radio journalism should be rightly understood as an important civic investment in democracy.
0 Votes
+ -
@voltrarian

Most intelligent comment in this thread I have read.
0 Votes
+ -
@voltrarian
Wow, really well put!
0 Votes
+ -
You must have mixed up conservative vs liberal. Conservative media are the ones who report the truth, whereas the liberal media nearly always put a spin on the political reporting to make it sound as palatable as possible.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
RE: It's a civic investment...
jimmlegs@... Updated - 18th Mar 2011
@voltrarian

Moreover broadband penetration in rural areas is weak at best and non-existent in many areas covered by terrestrial radio. Remove terrestrial transmission and these citizens may have one other news station and maybe a station or two that talks about God -- that's it.

Not to mention that rural areas are generally lower income than urban and suburban centers so the idea as JP has put forth is that Mr. Jones in Shreveport Louisiana who farms and pickles fiddleheads for a living has the disposable income for a PC/tablet or smartphone and is rolling in so much dough (he does live down the road from where the teachers and firefighters have settled so you know it's McMansion time) that he can afford a data plan or broadband connection.

So we go from free and independent news to a $200-$1000+ investment with a residual $40-$120/month for connectivity.

When this country needed to run "last mile" cabling for the power grid they ensured rural communities weren't left out by creating things like the Tennessee Valley Authority which -- as I am sure our author is quite against -- was Federally funded. Unfortunately we live in different times and things like connecting everyone in our country (which made it great in the first place: Electricity, phone, mail , interstate highways, etc.) together doesn't even make it into the public forum for debate.

I would recommend JP try and examine things through a critical lense as opposed to his gushy (and I'm assuming) and metro-centric focus. New York and LA will be fine, weather I agree with the hosts or not we've got tons of choices that do not exist once you get to the exurbs.

JP is suggesting something akin to requiring everyone to purchase a satellite radio subscription.

One last thing:

Why did the government build roads and bridges, etc.? It was because PRIVATE INDUSTRY WOULD NOT CONSIDER IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH PROFIT INVOLVED OR THE UP FRONT EXPENSES WOULD BE TOO GREAT. Once the infrastructure is built private industry cannot wait to ge their hands on them (think how ****** the rail lines are in this country)
0 Votes
+ -
@voltrarian Damn well said - Now I'll have to ante-up more on the pledge drives!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
bob.klahn@... 18th Mar 2011
@voltrarian
Notice how the one who disagrees does so on the Monty Python argument skit model. "No it isn't."
0 Votes
+ -
@voltrarian Well put.Your words make a great case for keeping NPR. Mr. Perlow's words provide an equally eloquent argument for doing exactly the same,however unintended on his part. The hypocrisy in the words middle of the road,left leaning Libertarian are evident. Selfish, nearsighted thinking in direct contrast with our history and democracy.
0 Votes
+ -
agree completely
kouzen Updated - 19th Mar 2011
@voltrarian

People wildly underestimate the value of publicly-owned independent broadcasting. I fear with great fears the day when only commercial broadcasting will be available, and the world will plummet into darkness; indeed, it will "go dark".

But to right wing conservatives this is all a political game, and since independent media are generally media with a good social conscience, and thus more often left wing liberally-inclined - these media have to go in their power struggle.
0 Votes
+ -
@voltrarian "Liberal media have been more than ready to...turn on their own"
So have conservative media...you must not watch closely. The Washington Times has ripped into conservatives that screwed up every bit as gleefully as they would have had it been liberal vermin instead; nor are they alone. They mainly want the big score, and as long as they can take someone down, it's not a big deal to them if it's someone they thought they could agree with.

Likewise, conservative media (such little as there is) is hardly in lockstep either. You have plenty of variation between libertarian vs social conservative; isolationist vs interventionist, etc. About the only thing there will be a little agreement on is keeping government's hand off of our wallets! You should see Stossel and O'Reilly go at it sometimes, it's downright funny.

A civic investment would be teaching school children that for the first 150 or so years of our country, the 10th Amendment was understood to mean that while states could do all sorts of silly things (and for quite a few years, states _could_ establish religions (denominations, actually), although Congress couldn't; but that was understood to be limited to ways that didn't deprive others of equal justice), the federal government wasn't supposed to do things that weren't either listed explicitly in the Constitution, or obviously implied by what was listed.

Throwing public money at liberal media is not a civic investment, it's just another incestuous relationship between government and what ought to be an independent body; worse where the press is involved, because the press should not be beholden to politicians of any stripe!

In fact, very little that government does is actually an investment. An investment is expected to produce a return; nobody puts money in something without a reasonable expectation of getting more back than they put in. But not the government; it throws money in useless rat-holes. Subsidize something: get more of it. Subsidize the poor, they just breed another generation of welfare queens. Subsidize schools, media, or anything else, and it will (as will any organization of more people than can each hold every another accountable) soon come to serve only its own continued existence.

Any voice that can't survive the marketplace isn't likely to be worth much in the marketplace of ideas, either.

Now...if I could donate to support _only_ the programming I liked, I just might donate to a non-profit (but not government funded) broadcaster. But not if I have to support all the liberal propaganda along with it!
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Churlish Updated - 27th Mar 2011
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
It's no investment at all
Get-Smart 23rd Mar 2011
@voltrarian While I can appreciate your wishful thinking, it just doesn't reflect reality. NPR isn't an investment, it's a liberal campaign. To help balance the budget, CPB deserves to be defunded.

"And while some media outlets may have liberal leanings, one thing makes liberal media more trustworthy than the right-wing alternative: Liberal media have been more than ready to question, disagree, criticize, and turn on their own (ie: even to the extent of lemming-herds of coverage about Bill Clinton's various pointlessly personal scandals.)"

In the past decade, the media, *has* become the ultra-liberal "lockstep, top down agenda machine", as you put it. Not trustworthy at all, if they ever really were. Most media sources ignore all the wrongdoings of their beloved liberal icons, but jump all over the slightest flub or comment made by any person or organization not leaning completely to the left.

NPR was a good outlet for getting more than sound bites out 20 years ago. Today they are one of the worst offenders of partisan propaganda.

They won't go out of business by losing federal funding, whether it's direct or indirect, though now I wish they would. Cut it and let them survive on their own, just like a respectable company must.
0 Votes
+ -
@ok2#sssw If you want to live in a rural area, then you have to accept the consequences of doing so. Municipal water, central sewage, cable TV, copper land lines, etc. are all in short or nonexistent supply in the hinterlands, and it's obvious to the most casual observer, so funding a national radio station solely for their benefit is not really justifiable.
0 Votes
+ -
@thetwonkey I'm sure you're thinking of the hinterlands as some mountain retreat or out in the flatlands of the midwest, a hundred miles from the nearest decent sized town. But in a state like West Virginia, "rural" often starts at the city limits, and the mountainous nature of the state means that cell signals and digital broadband wire may be nonexistent just across the hill or up the hollow. On the other hand, broadcast towers reach where digital, in the hands of COMMERCIAL owners, fears to tread.
0 Votes
+ -
holy cow
Eddy-ICUR12 18th Mar 2011
@thetwonkey

The people in most rural areas are stanch conservitives with nothing but contempt for NPR. They have better rural water and sewer systems than parts of the heavily populated state of Connecticut which have neither!

What a laugh!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
jimmlegs@... Updated - 18th Mar 2011
@thetwonkey
This is where conservatives miss the point, government exists to protect the country and govern in peoples collective interests. This means providing the services required where private industry doesn't want to go -- for whatever the reason. This includes providing services for people who live in hard to reach and unprofitable areas. (By the way, liberal states pretty much subsidize EVERY red state in the Union, have fun with this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html)

I find it somewhat humorous how confused conservatives are these days. I mean corporate welfare is fine, we can subsidize nuclear plants (the Federal government subsidizes ALL nuclear plants due to the fact that the industry is UNPROFITABLE without said subsidies) and we don't hear a peep. And now ok2 is towing the line of an incredibly huge form of government: move where you tell me.

Next thing you know they'll be telling us that the smallest form of government is to rule by fiat ala Michigan, no need for democracy over here -- our benevolent corporations will pick up any slack............ as long as you live in an area they deem worth their while and of course fees are required.

One last thought about taxes and fees. I prefer taxes because I can always vote bad politicians out of office however there is absolutely zero protection with corporations, look at any service agreement and it will contain a clause to the affect of "we can change the terms of this agreement with no notice and at any time". Look at Apple changing their subscription policy to 30% (please spare me the free market conversations/comments I understand all the arguments). Of course the Constitution clutching, tea-partying, Patriots riding in to save the country have such a command on the Constitution that they actually believe that the NPR/Juan Williams issue was a first amendment issue.

NOTE TO CONSERVATIVES:
The constitution only protects private entities against the government. Once the government is "small enough to drown in a bathtub" the people who will be in control will be those with the most money and the biggest guns.

Please save us all the headache and just move to Somalia where a libertarian society is in full-effect.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
You don't understand libertarianism
Michael Alan Goff Updated - 18th Mar 2011
The idea is that providing for the defense is one of the FEW things a government should do.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
bob.klahn@... 18th Mar 2011
@Jimmlegs

Someone flagged his response. Only reason I can see is it had such a great cite.

"(By the way, liberal states pretty much subsidize EVERY red state in the Union, have fun with this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html)"

This alone is worth while, but looking further on that site, just following links from that page, and it has a font of great info.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
bob.klahn@... 18th Mar 2011
@Eddy-ICUR12

"The people in most rural areas are stanch conservitives with nothing but contempt for NPR. They have better rural water and sewer systems than parts of the heavily populated state of Connecticut which have neither! "

I don't know what rural areas he is looking at, maybe the ones in the state of Connecticut. Yes, even the heavily populated states tend to have more rural areas than big city. And even heavily rural states tend to have a large percentage of their population in cities.

If they had such contempt for NPR they would not even have the stations. The heavily subsidized rural stations still raise a lot of their money form local supporters.
0 Votes
+ -
This is where conservatives miss the point, government exists to protect the country and govern in peoples collective interests.

The "federal" government exists to provide a common defense and to provide the infrastructure needed to ease commerce between the states and with foreign entities. It does not exist to "govern the people's interests". That last part is nowhere in the constitution.

This means providing the services required where private industry doesn't want to go -- for whatever the reason.

You're absolutely wrong there too.

The 10th amendment to the constitution specifically stated that, powers not specifically granted to the federal government, were to be assigned to the states and local levels/ and/or to the people. So, you have things completely azz-backwards.

This includes providing services for people who live in hard to reach and unprofitable areas.

Nope! Sorry!

That's the domain for local and state governments, and the feds are not to usurp any powers that belong at the local levels.

(By the way, liberal states pretty much subsidize EVERY red state in the Union, have fun with this: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html)

And, every blue, aks: liberal, state, is in the red as far as budgets go, with the states that don't have budget deficits being run by republicans. But, even the blue states are beginning to realize that the people are being taxed too much and that regulations are killing their economies.

You need to study up a lot more.

I find it somewhat humorous how confused conservatives are these days.

Actually, the confusion is on the liberal side of politics lately, with democrats losing control of congress and Obama running around not knowing what hit him back in November, and many states changing from democrat control to republican control. So, why are you confused about what's really happening out there.

I mean corporate welfare is fine,

Nope! Real republicans and real conservatives don't want handouts to corporations or even to people. Get your facts straight. You don't even know what you're talking about.

we can subsidize nuclear plants (the Federal government subsidizes ALL nuclear plants due to the fact that the industry is UNPROFITABLE without said subsidies) and we don't hear a peep.

Conservatives are true to their beliefs that, government has no function in the private sector, and that even goes for nuclear plant construction and maintenance. Since you don't hang around conservative circles, you wouldn't know where we stand on anything.

And now ok2 is towing the line of an incredibly huge form of government: move where you tell me.

Your full of BS!

Nobody is telling you where to go, and you're free to do with your life as you wish. Just don't impose your preferences and needs on the rest of the public. Learn to take care of yourself and don't become dependent upon government for anything, especially when it comes to government showing preferential treatment for a media outlet, like NPR.

Next thing you know they'll be telling us that the smallest form of government is to rule by fiat ala Michigan, no need for democracy over here

Michigan is a local government, and what happens in Michigan is not a business of the federal level. The state government has powers over the local governments, including cities, and sometimes, it's better for the local government to be managed by the state until the local can get back on its feet. Democrats have run the state and the local governments into the ground, and some drastic measures are oftentimes necessary, otherwise, you might as well kiss many of those local governments good-bye.
-- our benevolent corporations will pick up any slack............

That's so dumb!

Look, it's not about the corporations. It's about government intrusion into the private sector, especially federal level intrusion. Nobody in government should be determining who the winners or losers are in a society. Let society decide that by themselves.

as long as you live in an area they deem worth their while and of course fees are required.

You, again, have things completely in reverse.

Conservatives do not dictate or force people to live in designated areas, like the democrats seem to prefer. That's why most large cities are liberal leaning and the people are more easily controlled with government programs which then translate into liberal votes for liberal candidates.

One last thought about taxes and fees.

You've subjected us to a bunch of lies already, but what the heck, one more is just going to prove you much more clueless, so, go ahead...

I prefer taxes because I can always vote bad politicians out of office however there is absolutely zero protection with corporations,

I prefer low taxes, and term limits, which can keep the creeps out of government and we end up with more control of our own lives, and a lot fewer regulations which destroy economies and people's lives.

look at any service agreement and it will contain a clause to the affect of "we can change the terms of this agreement with no notice and at any time".

You don't have to accept any agreement for products or services, and you're exaggerating the situation completely. It's a heck of a lot easier to deal with a corporation than it is to deal with government, where you don't actually have any recourse. A company which doesn't serve the public in a conscientious manner, eventually dies because, word of mouth tends to deflate sales, and eventually, the corporation pays a very heavy price by being "pushed" out of business. A government, well, you're stuck with them, no matter how lousy the service.

Look at Apple changing their subscription policy to 30% (please spare me the free market conversations/comments I understand all the arguments).

That's another dumb observation.

You don't need to have Apple's subscription service, and you can get along without them. There are many alternatives, whereas with government, there really aren't any.

And, obviously, you don't really understand all the arguments, or even any of them. You are a socialist and you won't ever understand how the free market works.

Of course the Constitution clutching,

I love quoting and sticking by the constitution, and obviously, liberals hate it because, it works against them at almost everything they attempt.

tea-partying,

I'm not an official member (nobody is), but I sympathize with the movement.

Patriots riding in to save the country have such a command on the Constitution that they actually believe that the NPR/Juan Williams issue was a first amendment issue.

I'm a patriot, and I believe in the constitution and our bill of rights. I believe in separation of powers amongst the three branches at the federal level, and at the different levels of government (federal, state, and local).

To me, the NPR issue is not totally separate from the Juan Williams firing. Mr Williams was fired because he dared go out of the "reservation" and utter something that NPR executives disagreed with. That's liberal bias at the most egregious level. The secondary issue, that being NPR's funding by the federal government, to me, is about intrusion into the freedom of the press, and any kind of government infusion of money into any media outlet, is a violation of the freedom of the press guarantees.

It actually shouldn't be that hard to understand when you apply some common sense or a bit of logic into the issue. Are you capable of doing that? Apparently not.
NOTE TO CONSERVATIVES:

Oh, stop the lecturing! You're ill-equipped and very ignorant to be lecturing anybody.

The constitution only protects private entities against the government.

Another very ignorant statement.

Look, government was meant to serve the people, not the other way around. Why is that so difficult to understand by a liberal mind?

Once the government is "small enough to drown in a bathtub"

I can only wish that they'd get that small.

But, nobody is calling for government to disappear. That's where liberal have it all wrong.

We want small government, like originally intended by the founding fathers, and as described under the constitution and the amendments to the constitution. The totality of government can be large when one includes the federal and state and local governments. But, the biggest issue for republicans is the federal level, which was intended to have the fewest powers when it came to local issues and personal issues.

So, now do you understand? (I highly doubt it because, you sound too committed to your socialism, and you don't really have an understanding of the constitution and the separation of powers).

Believe it or not, I used to be a big government proponent like you, and perhaps I was even worse than you in my liberal beliefs. But, with more knowledge, and more experience, and more wisdom, I realized that, big government and big taxation and heavy government regulations, were actually destroying the country.

You still have a long way before you can grasp any of those lessons.

the people who will be in control will be those with the most money and the biggest guns.

You sound so simple-minded that you've taken many of the liberal talking points and the liberal demonization of republicans to heart.

The people with the money are, indeed, the ones that make any economy hum. Without the rich and the well-off, we'd end up with a third-rate economy, and one resembling what Cuba and Venezuela have become. Take away the people with the money and the know-how to create wealth, and you end up with an African country, or a Haiti or a Cuba.

Please save us all the headache and just move to Somalia where a libertarian society is in full-effect.

You, again, don't know what you're talking about.

The opposite of big government is not "Somalia". Liberals like to toss out that Somalia analogy without realizing that, Somalia is what would result if the country carried on with its big government social policies that are destroying the economy. We already are headed that way if we don't control the spending and the heavy taxation and the over-regulatory mindset that has us having to ship out our businesses and jobs to other countries.

You might like the Somalia analogy, but, in reality, it's the democrats who should be moving elsewhere, where our constitution won't be getting in their way. Somalia doesn't have a strong constitution, so, perhaps that's were YOU and the rest of liberals belong. Me, and my fellow conservatives, well, we love this country too much to let it get destroyed by liberals such as you.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
ParrotHead_FL 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw I live in one of those rural areas. I can assure you that there are very few NPR listeners here.

Personally, I love NPR--while acknowledging that it leans to the political left of me. I just don't want to be forced to pay for it in the form of taxes.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
trust2112@... 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw I grew up in a "Rural Missouri" setting. Trust me, NPR has no effect on farming communities. They are so far stuck up Republicans butts, instead of calling them constituents, they call them hemorrhoids.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
GunbladeAddict 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw Wow! Did you really just say that? I work for a managed IT firm that is in a town with less than 3,000 residents (we service a much wider area) and I have yet to see another business owner, or adult resident for that matter, that doesn't know about NPR or have the mental skills to properly utilize an app on their smart phone. Thanks for asinine stereotyping of us tech-unsavvy, computer illiterate, backwoods, Slingblade retards.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
markbothwell 18th Mar 2011
@GunbladeAddict Sorry that you took the stereotyping personally, but I live in a backwoods town with about 3000 residents, where only 300 have smartphones. Furthermore, even though I live within 15 miles of the Microsoft campus and just 1 mile from a major state highway, my home is beyond the reach of either DSL or Cable internet service. Obviously a company that does managed IT would locate itself in a small town with good internet infrastructure. Face it, your town is different from the majority of small towns.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
Masari.Jones 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw

The Government should not be in the radio business or use tax payer money to fund any industry with a viable commercial market or alternative. With that said, I say eliminate CPB as well, and lets start paying down our national debt, which is out of control!
0 Votes
+ -
@Masari.Jones You want to balance the budget, cut the military. They get $800B which is more than all other countries combined. Cut $100B and see who will invade us...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
business@... 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw. You mean we can't stream via two tin cans and fiber optics. Guess I'll just have to go milk the goat more often.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
nickdangerthirdi@... 18th Mar 2011
@ok2#sssw I agree with you, while the author does make a valid point about going all internet, there are lots of people who are regular listeners now who wont be able to listen if they go this route, the conservatives are all mad because NPR hired a liberal, who said some stupid things to a stupid person while being video taped, all that okeefe has proved in any of his videos is there are stupid people everywhere, who dont always make the best choices, when McChrystal bad mouthed the president the democrats didnt threaten to defund the military, (for obvious reasons) they just fired him, same thing NPR did, and even though NPR does have some liberal tendancies, I feel like I get much more of both sides of the story from NPR than I do from Fox MSNBC or any of the other mainstream sources, Its a republican witch hunt pure and simple... we have peter king accusing the muslims of "not doing enough to stop terrorism" the Reps trying to defund everything from education to NPR, its like the McCarthy era is starting over again..
0 Votes
+ -
Hey, doofus, it's not just about the liberal bias,
adornoe@... Updated - 20th Mar 2011
it's more than anything, about the intrusion of the government into our freedom of the press. Government has no business supporting any part of the media, especially when the constitution has a guaranteed right of "freedom of the press". Get it? Freedom of the Press? That means, not government infusion of cash, and no government intervention whatsoever. Get it?

Do at least a little bit of thinking before you jump into a discussion completely ignorant about what the real issues are.

And, btw, NPR didn't hire just a few liberals; they hire mostly liberals, and their "news" and "opinion" completely reflect that bias.
0 Votes
+ -
@ok2#sssw Yeah! Everybody knows those rubes are stupid.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you; liberals are so stupid.
adornoe@... 20th Mar 2011
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
@ok2#sssw
It's not even their internet savviness. (I actually think the people who make a living away from urban areas are quite smart and resourceful.)

It's that the data resources are less built-out because the return on investment is too low.

Even though NPR provides national programming to rural stations, there is still local content, which if one checks the rural commercial stations has been lessening over the years, after the FCC relaxed regulations and cross-ownership and station ownership rules.

Oh, and make no mistake about it, this is not about Juan Williams or the Schillers, this is the politics of power, this is about defunding the left. The Republicans come into town in full alarm that the buildings are on fire and proceed to put out some candles.
who think like you out there.

Oh, and make no mistake about it,

Thus far, you're the one with the mistakes in your post so far.

this is not about Juan Williams or the Schillers,

It's about Juan and the executives in the video and the liberals at NPR. Juan was fired because he dared to go "off the reservation" and uttered something that the liberal NPR powers disagreed with. That's very blatant bias. The people in the video were also only displaying the mindset of the people at NPR; as go the executives, so go the employees, including reporters and opinion writers. That bias is evident from top to bottom at NPR.

this is the politics of power,

That's the way the democrats in congress want to paint it and you're unthinkingly swallowing the lie.

this is about defunding the left.

That's total garbage!

NPR can stay open and alive. What republicans have been asking to do, for decades now, is to remove any public funding from a news and information outlet, no matter what the political persuasion. Get it? Is that too difficult for you to understand?

It's about "freedom of the press"? Ever heard of that? It's one of our guaranteed freedoms, and any time government intrudes, with funding or whatever, it's a violation of that right.

The Republicans come into town in full alarm that the buildings are on fire and proceed to put out some candles.

That's a pretty stupid analogy, especially considering you don't understand the real issue with NPR and public funding.

If you don't believe that our freedoms should be protected, then you don't believe in the constitution and you would be better off in a country such as Cuba or Venezuela or China. You don't belong here.
0 Votes
+ -
Disagree completely
JohnVoter 17th Mar 2011
I view the Republican jihad against NPR as just part of their war against western civilization. If you look at their attacks on science (including, but not limited to climate science), education, and the last great news organization in the United States, you might just see a pattern here.

You also miss the mark with regard to the importance of mobile access to NPR, and all the entire radio industry. Nobody listens to radio at home any more. Radio lives in the car. So when you downplay the impact of the loss of terrestrial radio on NPR, and the impact of lossing NPR on mobile listeners, you come off as uninformed. At the very least, it will be ten years, probably twenty, before cars are routinely fitted with 3G or 4G based radio.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
betelgeuse68 Updated - 17th Mar 2011
@JohnVoter

I wouldn't count "education" in there. The biggest reason our school system sucks is the Teacher's Union. New York State spends $100 million/year on teachers who sit idle because they aren't allowed in classrooms because their performance sucks but can't be fired. Instead they go to "purgatory" (show up to special offices) sit around play cards, read the newspaper, browse the Net - all while collecting a full salary.

-M
0 Votes
+ -
No they don't...
olePigeon 17th Mar 2011
No they don't. First, it was $30 million, not $100 million. Still an unacceptable amount, by the way. For a little background on the situation, these were teachers awaiting hearings for their possible dismissal.

Secondly, it's been nearly a year and that process has changed. There is now a maximum of 60 days before a teacher is reassigned to administrative duties or put on leave without pay.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Internet killed the radio star: let NPR
man_strosity 17th Mar 2011
@betelgeuse68

Just as it is incontrovertible truth that private industry must be regulated, it seems someone fell asleep at the wheel in regulating the teacher's union in New York for granting them the right to do as you have stated.

The biggest reason why our school system sucks is because we do not place incentives on high performance, rather, we threaten to pull funding for lack of performance.

Our approach to education: the stick, not the carrot.
0 Votes
+ -
@betelgeuse68

Another person who never taught and doesn't really understand the process - perhaps you shouuld have paid more attention in school. Teachers are underpaid, overstressed and are always a whipping boy for right wing demagogues who delight in destruction.
0 Votes
+ -
@tonymsc depending on the jurisdiction teachers are well compensated. I know because, I have several family members who teach. I know the trials and tribulations our educators go through. However they have a 10 month work year, with numerous breaks and professional days. In addition their benefit plans are tremendous, with generous heatlth care and retirement pensions. They receive training at no cost. On top of that they have a very strong union which makes it very difficult to fire those individuals for not performing. In short teachers, are compesated very well, and deservedly so.
The teaching perfession needs to stop whining about compensation, start self policing it's union members who the profession a bad name. $90K for a kindergarten teacher is a lot of money and we should expect great things from that teacher. I am proud say that I am related to one who exceeds in her job and earns her wage plus some.
0 Votes
+ -
@man_strosity "The biggest reason why our school system sucks is because we do not place incentives on high performance, rather, we threaten to pull funding for lack of performance."

You need to spend a little time in a classroom. The biggest reason why our school system sucks is because parents don't parent anymore. I am not a teacher but I was on a local school board for a short time and a very large part of the problem is parents that would rather yell (literally) and blame the school/teacher for their kid being disruptive and not performing at school. I asked one parent how much time they spent to make sure "their little angel Johnny" got his homework done. Their answer . . . that is the teacher job to should make sure "Johnny" get his homework done. Good luck teaching the kids of parents like that . . .
0 Votes
+ -
@jhuddle

"However they have a 10 month work year, with numerous breaks and professional days."

Yes except they only get paid for those 10 months. I work for a school district we all get paid for how many days you are on campus, you do get holiday pay, meaning christmas vacation we do not get paid for, spring break or summer. tell me do you get paid for christmas day? We don't. Teachers here are on a 187 day contract. Which happens to be the total number of days they are on school grounds. Everyone makes it sound like you get all this paid time off. You don't.

"In addition their benefit plans are tremendous, with generous heatlth care and retirement pensions. They receive training at no cost." I pay 50% of my health care and 100% of my retirement, my school district doesnt contribute to that at all. If we have a workshop we not only have to pay for it but also pay the school back for the substitute they have to get to replace us that day. We are allowed 3 sick days, if we are out more then that then they dock our pay.

"On top of that they have a very strong union which makes it very difficult to fire those individuals for not performing." So not true, the problem is its hard to judge a performing teacher and a teacher that isn't performing. Every student is different and learns different. Their is not a subjective way to judge them all. It is not like who can paint a car faster.

"In short teachers, are compesated very well, and deservedly so." I guess for the number of days they work, but no holiday pay, 3 sick days per 12 months, and 50% health coverage and 0% retirement coverage. I can argue differently.

"The teaching perfession needs to stop whining about compensation," Are we are asking for is not another cut. We have not gotten a raise in 6 years. Instead our salaries have gone down 8%.

We are here because we love what we do, we like investing in the future of our kids and citizens. It is to bad that the government and the citizens do not believe the same, and think we are only here because we cannot succeed other places.
Look, if a public school teacher gets paid $60,000 or $80,000 a year and benefits on top of that, with a guaranteed job after tenure is reached, that's a heck of a lot more than someone else in the "private" sector with similar skills and a similar job. That a teacher gets paid for 9 months a year is a total lie. The teacher's pay is for the entire year, with 3 months off. It's up to the teacher to manage that compensation as if they were busy the entire year. And, a teacher still has the option to work summers for even more compensation. That would be adding to their entire yearly compensation package.

It's like having a job where the entire compensation is for the year, but you don't have to work the entire year, and if you could get the entire year's work done in one day, you're still guaranteed the entire year's compensation.

Good spinning, though.
0 Votes
+ -
This can be a
donaldsjones 9th May
This can be a really great accessibility. Nowadays coming out of yahoo while looking that the same subject material. I really ate up the whole thing you were required to talk about. Maintain the fantastic complete!

reverse cell phone lookup

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix