CPB- PBS and Co. Cuts impact Rural voters the most.

[Garnier Fructis]

Depends entirely on the relationship.

I think that was covered by the 'almost universally' quantifier.

[Jun]

The notion that there is no media available in rural areas is so hilariously insane, I don't even know what to say. You know everyone has internet and cable TV, right?

Also, the notion that NPR goes over well in rural areas is also pretty fucking hilarious. Yeah, no. They don't listen to that crap.

I mean, what year do you think this is, that people "rely" on AM radio to get news?

Whatever will rural Americans do, when they turn off the propaganda machine that they didn't even know existed?

As a guy who sells TV's to folks that live in a rural area, I can tell you quite a few people do not have access to cable TV or Internet.

Some of them have internet through Verizon and the like, but most do not, either by signal or by choice.

As for TV broadcast, you can usually get an antennae signal, if your house is in a good location, but a fair number cannot even do that.

They come in to the store, asking how they can get a broadcast signal, or if it's worth it to get satellite Internet, or just come in and buy blu-ray players and discs and call it a day.

Hell, I've got 2 families that come in and just watch the TV's on display for news and shit several times a week.

So yeah, get off your high horse. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Tijuana]

As a guy who sells TV's to folks that live in a rural area, I can tell you quite a few people do not have access to cable TV or Internet.

Some of them have internet through Verizon and the like, but most do not, either by signal or by choice.

As for TV broadcast, you can usually get an antennae signal, if your house is in a good location, but a fair number cannot even do that.

They come in to the store, asking how they can get a broadcast signal, or if it's worth it to get satellite Internet, or just come in and buy blu-ray players and discs and call it a day.

Hell, I've got 2 families that come in and just watch the TV's on display for news and shit several times a week.

So yeah, get off your high horse. You don't know what you're talking about.

How does PBS penetrate these reception issues in ways that other media outlets don't?

Also, let's keep it civil. There is no need to get nasty. Having a different opinion from yours is not a crime of morality.

[Zan15]

Wow. Lots to read here. Lots to refute.

1. I support the defunding of NPR and PBS because I am against state ran media, for many reasons. Some of those reasons, are unfair competition, inappropriate use of public funds, and a preference for free press.

2. Just because the government pays people to do something, does not mean that job is needed. Some would argue those producers would just work at a different media outlet, were NPR to cease existing.

3. NPR will not cease to exist without government funding, as it only makes up a minor portion of their budget.

4. Even though NPR does not sell ads, the revenue from ads is based on ratings. When people listen to NRP, that takes ratings away from other outlets. Therefore, it's unfair competition. Clearly.

5. You are equating tax exempt status, with receiving actual government subsidies. NPR is BOTH tax exempt, and receives federal dollars. This is a really poor point you are making.

6. If people like NPR, that is fine. They can donate money to NPR, as that is in fact their primary source of income.

7. I like how your figures separate conservatives from Republicans. I agree they are not at all the same thing. I fail to see the relevance of the break down. What does it have to do with taking money from one media outlet, and giving it to another?

8. You are comparing weekly numbers of NPR, a fully fledged news agency, that broadcasts 24 hours a day, with the audience of a single talk radio show that airs for 15 hours a week. How the hell does that help your case? I would hope that, given 168 hours of broadcast time, they could out perform 15 hours of broadcast time.

9. If NPR is so wildly successful, as you claim, then surely they don't need funds taken from their competitors, in order to survive in the market.

10. Who cares if it's not the only outlet? Well, that is in fact the topic of this thread. I don't even...

11. Taking funds from an unfair, and frivolous use of public money, and then giving it to the very core mission of government sounds like a fantastic thing to do, imo. Obviously, you disagree.

12. How much did you donate this year to NPR or PBS? Link a photo of your tote, if you want to be believed.

1. i don't like conspiracy theories on state ran media. not going down that rabbit hole.


2. in an industry that is losing customers and listeners, there is really will be a problem for them to work at different media outlets.

3. They won't, the point was they will cease operating in area's where they cannot afford to without govt funding. Predominantly rural area, as was the point to the OP.

4. NPR is not included in a lot of the ratings services calculations since they do not sell ad time.
NPR stations generally do not subscribe to the Arbitron rating service and are not included in published ratings and rankings such as Radio & Records. However, NPR station listenership is measured by Arbitron in both Diary and PPM (people meter) markets. NPR stations are frequently not included in "summary level" diary data used by most advertising agencies for media planning.


5. Agreed, but still would require us to prevent other public and religious radio to cease operations since they unfairly compete with for profit radio.

6. If people like X, that's fine...they can donate money to X......imagine if we ran Govt like that for all services? If people like their public schools, that's fine they can donate money to their public schools, i have no kids why should i have to pay taxes to fund them?

7. The figures were to counter your argument regarding who listens and whom does not listen to NPR.

8. All those numbers are weekly numbers, broken down by show not the full station listeners. The NPR shows that have the same listeners as Rush are a few hours a day just like rush. Never compared their full 36 million number to any show. i compared show to show



All Things Considered NPR- MON-FRI4:00PM - 6:30PM 1 hour on Sat, Sunday. 13.3m listeners a week. about 14.5 hours a week
Rush Mon-Friday 3 hours a day 15 hours a week, 13.2m listeners a week.
Morning Edition NPR- 3 hours a day 15 hours a week, 13m listeners a week

9. they would have to change their entire scope of business and go for profit. This would drastically change the reason why people listen to them vs other stations. It's not as simple as it sounds.

Also you keep saying the are taking funds..what funds are they taking?

10. it's not the topic of the thread.
CPB- PBS and Co. Cuts impact Rural voters the most.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...defund-pbs-npr

You turned it into the discussion you wanted in the thread. The article speaks nothing to anyone being denied access to News or Programming if they are taken off the air because they are the only resource these people have. You are the only one whom keeps saying that.

Can they live without the NPR, sure. The whole country could live without any Radio or TV, but then what is really the point? How is this a counter argument. The country could live without Education too, but it does not make it right or preferred.

11. Yup, especially when they have more then enough money and waste to clean up to fund their operations.


12. Last time i donated to PBS was buying several Jackie Evanco CD's during their fund raising. Not sure what my donations have to do with proving anything? I support the cut, just not where they are sending the money. I don't even Listen to NPR never said i did. I don't watch PBS anymore, but did for about 8 years while my kid was growing up sometimes it was a lifesaver when i just needed a few minutes.....
If we are going to waste govt money i would rather have it going to NPR, PBS, etc then the military.

- - - Updated - - -

Why does it matter how a private entity spends their money? You are making the case that NPR is a government agency that provides benefits to citizens. It is not. It is a media outlet, just like any other. They can choose to spend their money, the majority of which doesn't come from government, in any way they see fit.

I keep asking, yet nobody responds: If NPR is so great, and it has so many listeners, why can't they simply sell ads like every other media outlet does? What benefit is provided to say, NBC news, by the existence of NPR? How does NBC benefit from money being taken from them, and then handed to their competitor?

9. they would have to change their entire scope of business and go for profit.

This would drastically change the reason why people listen to them vs other stations.

It's not as simple as it sounds.



Money is not being taken away from anyone. They do not compete for ad dollars and they are generally not included in advertising rating/dollars calcuations.



NPR stations generally do not subscribe to the Arbitron rating service and are not included in published ratings and rankings such as Radio & Records. However, NPR station listenership is measured by Arbitron in both Diary and PPM (people meter) markets. NPR stations are frequently not included in "summary level" diary data used by most advertising agencies for media planning.


At most there is an adverse effect that if NPR did not exist there would be a % of this population whom would go to station X, Y or Z.

One would expect the distribution of this population to be relatively equal across other stations. Not vastly changing the % ratings stations X, Y and Z are currently getting, thus not changing their ad rating amounts.

there have been no studies to support either side so this is my opinion vs your opinion at this point unless you have some citations to show these stations are losing ad revenue because of govt funding?

[Machismo]

Why does it matter how a private entity spends their money? You are making the case that NPR is a government agency that provides benefits to citizens. It is not. It is a media outlet, just like any other. They can choose to spend their money, the majority of which doesn't come from government, in any way they see fit.

I keep asking, yet nobody responds: If NPR is so great, and it has so many listeners, why can't they simply sell ads like every other media outlet does? What benefit is provided to say, NBC news, by the existence of NPR? How does NBC benefit from money being taken from them, and then handed to their competitor?

- - - Updated - - -



I don't really count that though. He is a military buff; this is his hobby. However, I stand corrected. I will amend my statement. I have never seen him take a conservative position that wasn't military related.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, yes. The political spectrum in the US is more narrow than the global scale. You make this point in every thread on US politics. Every. Single. One.

This phenomena is also true of every nation on earth, incidentally. No nation on earth has significant support for every single extreme that can be found on the spectrum.

You should count that, because that is a large part of what he talks about on these threads.

[Tijuana]

1. i don't like conspiracy theories on state ran media. not going down that rabbit hole.


2. in an industry that is losing customers and listeners, there is really will be a problem for them to work at different media outlets.

3. They won't, the point was they will cease operating in area's where they cannot afford to without govt funding. Predominantly rural area, as was the point to the OP.

4. NPR is not included in a lot of the ratings services calculations since they do not sell ad time.
NPR stations generally do not subscribe to the Arbitron rating service and are not included in published ratings and rankings such as Radio & Records. However, NPR station listenership is measured by Arbitron in both Diary and PPM (people meter) markets. NPR stations are frequently not included in "summary level" diary data used by most advertising agencies for media planning.


5. Agreed, but still would require us to prevent other public and religious radio to cease operations since they unfairly compete with for profit radio.

6. If people like X, that's fine...they can donate money to X......imagine if we ran Govt like that for all services? If people like their public schools, that's fine they can donate money to their public schools, i have no kids why should i have to pay taxes to fund them?

7. The figures were to counter your argument regarding who listens and whom does not listen to NPR.

8. All those numbers are weekly numbers, broken down by show not the full station listeners. The NPR shows that have the same listeners as Rush are a few hours a day just like rush. Never compared their full 36 million number to any show. i compared show to show



All Things Considered NPR- MON-FRI4:00PM - 6:30PM 1 hour on Sat, Sunday. 13.3m listeners a week. about 14.5 hours a week
Rush Mon-Friday 3 hours a day 15 hours a week, 13.2m listeners a week.
Morning Edition NPR- 3 hours a day 15 hours a week, 13m listeners a week

9. they would have to change their entire scope of business and go for profit. This would drastically change the reason why people listen to them vs other stations. It's not as simple as it sounds.

Also you keep saying the are taking funds..what funds are they taking?

10. it's not the topic of the thread.
CPB- PBS and Co. Cuts impact Rural voters the most.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...defund-pbs-npr

You turned it into the discussion you wanted in the thread. The article speaks nothing to anyone being denied access to News or Programming if they are taken off the air because they are the only resource these people have. You are the only one whom keeps saying that.

Can they live without the NPR, sure. The whole country could live without any Radio or TV, but then what is really the point? How is this a counter argument. The country could live without Education too, but it does not make it right or preferred.

11. Yup, especially when they have more then enough money and waste to clean up to fund their operations.


12. Last time i donated to PBS was buying several Jackie Evanco CD's during their fund raising. Not sure what my donations have to do with proving anything? I support the cut, just not where they are sending the money. I don't even Listen to NPR never said i did. I don't watch PBS anymore, but did for about 8 years while my kid was growing up sometimes it was a lifesaver when i just needed a few minutes.....
If we are going to waste govt money i would rather have it going to NPR, PBS, etc then the military.

- - - Updated - - -



9. they would have to change their entire scope of business and go for profit.

This would drastically change the reason why people listen to them vs other stations.

It's not as simple as it sounds.



Money is not being taken away from anyone. They do not compete for ad dollars and they are generally not included in advertising rating/dollars calcuations.



NPR stations generally do not subscribe to the Arbitron rating service and are not included in published ratings and rankings such as Radio & Records. However, NPR station listenership is measured by Arbitron in both Diary and PPM (people meter) markets. NPR stations are frequently not included in "summary level" diary data used by most advertising agencies for media planning.


At most there is an adverse effect that if NPR did not exist there would be a % of this population whom would go to station X, Y or Z.

One would expect the distribution of this population to be relatively equal across other stations. Not vastly changing the % ratings stations X, Y and Z are currently getting, thus not changing their ad rating amounts.

there have been no studies to support either side so this is my opinion vs your opinion at this point unless you have some citations to show these stations are losing ad revenue because of govt funding?

Of all the responses, I found this to be the most amusing. They take money from the other companies via TAXES guy. The taxes that are paid by NBC, are then taken and redistributed to a competitor. In addition, since NPR pays no taxes, there are TWO ways that NPRs competitors are forced to subsidize them.

Furthermore, of course NPR doesn't need ratings, since competitor's profits are what pays for NPR. That in NO WAY changes the fact that the other networks DO have to get ratings, and those ratings are diminished by an unfairly competing adversary.

The

[Brubear]

There are factually zero markets in this galaxy, where NRP or PBS are the only media outlets.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for the well thought out post. Most of them here consist of "no u", and for some reason that passes as discussion.

The partisanship of NPR is plain to anyone who listens, imo. I doubt I would convert a hard core liberal convert such as yourself, however.

However, the key detail is the morality of the existence of state ran media. How is it fair to say, ABC Radio, that their tax dollars are given to a competitor?

I'm not sure what the point is of your diatribe about the history of Liberalism. I mean, what is the point of all that, to this topic? It's also laughably inaccurate. You are putting forth the notion that there has been no movement among Republicans that had an impact on the platform? Are you serious? Are you legit unaware of the Tea Party movement that lead to hundreds of Republicans losing their seats in primaries? I don't even....

Please name me any conservatives at NPR and MSNBC. And don't say Scarborough; I watch that show and I can't recall a single time where he took a conservative position on an issue, or sided with a Republican who was not named John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or Mitch McConnell (also not conservatives).

- - - Updated - - -



Fair point.

You're arguing a point that I and most of the other people didn't even argue. I didn't say they're the only option. Hell even the article didn't make that claim (yet that's all you've been harping on from the very first page). However, NPR and PBS is quite often the only public broadcasting option (as in public access where just about anyone can pay to have something aired at a fairly reasonable cost), especially in rural areas. That's the whole point, that the people who will be hit hardest by defunded these stations are the rural areas because, unlike the larger metropolitan areas that have a large enough donor base to keep these stations afloat without federal funding, rural areas lack that. So if you remove the federal funding, then basically all of the NPR and PBS stations in rural areas (which, again, isn't strictly a liberal station showing Masterpiece Theater), will go off air since they don't have that donor base.

Yes, there are other radio and TV stations in rural areas, yet the vast majority of them aren't public access channels like PBS and NPR, which despite what you've somehow convinced yourself of isn't strictly some "liberal propaganda machine" when most of what's aired on PBS are a) Educational kids shows like Arthur, Sesame Street reruns and the like (which, again, is usually the only cheap option for educational shows in rural areas since you don't need a cable or satiate service. B) Things like the Antiques Roadshow, Lawrence Welk, Masterpiece Theater, The Red and Green show, and the like. You know, things watched by senior citizens (both liberal and conservative) who quite often don't have cable or satellite. C) Concerts/shows like opera, symphonies, old band shows from the 40s/50s/60s/70s/etc or D) BBC/PBS news hours. Here's a sample broadcast schedule. Just look at all of that propaganda like "Antiques Roadshow", "Dinosaur Train", "daniel Tiger's Neighborhood", and "Rick Steves' Most romantic European Adventures"!

Also, it's state-funded != state-run. State funded means they get funding from the state, but what is aired on those stations is controlled by the local workers and community. State run means the state itself has an active role in the decision of what is aired. It's like saying stockholders are the same as the board of directors, yes they both provide funding to a company, but only one of those groups has a real say in how the company is run.

And lol at calling @Skroe a liberal.

- - - Updated - - -

Cheating on your spouse is almost universally recognized as a failure morally.

So you hold that against Trump for doing it multiple times (every cheated on his first and second wife with his second and third wife, respectively)?

[Tijuana]

You're arguing a point that I and most of the other people didn't even argue. I didn't say they're the only option. Hell even the article didn't make that claim (yet that's all you've been harping on from the very first page). However, NPR and PBS is quite often the only public broadcasting option (as in public access where just about anyone can pay to have something aired at a fairly reasonable cost), especially in rural areas. That's the whole point, that the people who will be hit hardest by defunded these stations are the rural areas because, unlike the larger metropolitan areas that have a large enough donor base to keep these stations afloat without federal funding, rural areas lack that. So if you remove the federal funding, then basically all of the NPR and PBS stations in rural areas (which, again, isn't strictly a liberal station showing Masterpiece Theater), will go off air since they don't have that donor base.

Yes, there are other radio and TV stations in rural areas, yet the vast majority of them aren't public access channels like PBS and NPR, which despite what you've somehow convinced yourself of isn't strictly some "liberal propaganda machine" when most of what's aired on PBS are a) Educational kids shows like Arthur, Sesame Street reruns and the like (which, again, is usually the only cheap option for educational shows in rural areas since you don't need a cable or satiate service. B) Things like the Antiques Roadshow, Lawrence Welk, Masterpiece Theater, The Red and Green show, and the like. You know, things watched by senior citizens (both liberal and conservative) who quite often don't have cable or satellite. C) Concerts/shows like opera, symphonies, old band shows from the 40s/50s/60s/70s/etc or D) BBC/PBS news hours. Here's a sample broadcast schedule. Just look at all of that propaganda like "Antiques Roadshow", "Dinosaur Train", "daniel Tiger's Neighborhood", and "Rick Steves' Most romantic European Adventures"!

Also, it's state-funded != state-run. State funded means they get funding from the state, but what is aired on those stations is controlled by the local workers and community. State run means the state itself has an active role in the decision of what is aired. It's like saying stockholders are the same as the board of directors, yes they both provide funding to a company, but only one of those groups has a real say in how the company is run.

And lol at calling @Skroe a liberal.

You went a long way to refute me, without addressing my two key points, in any way:

1. It's unfair competition to take money from one media outlet, and give it to another.
2. It's an unwise expenditure of public funds, and outside the core mission of government to establish a state ran media that competes against the free press.

[Zan15]

Of all the responses, I found this to be the most amusing. They take money from the other companies via TAXES guy. The taxes that are paid by NBC, are then taken and redistributed to a competitor. In addition, since NPR pays no taxes, there are TWO ways that NPRs competitors are forced to subsidize them.

Furthermore, of course NPR doesn't need ratings, since competitor's profits are what pays for NPR. That in NO WAY changes the fact that the other networks DO have to get ratings, and those ratings are diminished by an unfairly competing adversary.

The

Still going to go with the unfair competition thing huh?

Taxes are paid by "nbc" and redistributed to many different things, including funding CPB. So lets take a look at the unfair competition impact.



$22.84M for grants for radio programming and national program production and acquisition;
$22.25M for CPB administrative costs;
$7.00M for the Radio Program Fund.

total tax dollars given for radio. Lets assume 50% of the admin goes to NPR

23+11+7= 41 million dollars.

Now i am not sure why you keep talking about NBC i believe they no longer own any radio stations so i will replace them with someone else, lets say iHeartMedia the top radio company. CBS Radio#2 and Cumulus Media #3



Cumulus had major losses the last two years so they had a tax benefit of $26m & 45m. so they did not fund NPR

Iheart had major losses in 2016 and some profit in 2015 so they had a tax benefit of 50m and a tax payment of 86m.

CBS sold their stations this year, but still reported. 2016 they had paid 88m and 2015 they had a benefit of 89m


So at best they are hardly paying taxes but lets take the years they are paying taxes.

Out of a total of 6 reports they paid 174m in taxes and got 210m in benefits, but we are going to ignore that since they got more write offs and did not have to actually pay taxes to benefit and fund their competitor over at the NPR.

86m
88m

Congress allocated $1.11 trillion in discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015.
CPB got 41 million dollars for radio.

that's .0037% of the total budget


so out of $174m in taxes they paid $6,438.00 towards funding NPR. NPR has 900 stations so each station would get $7.15.
But in reality, in the past two years the top 3 radio companies paid 0 towards funding NPR.



now my math sucks total ass, so correct me if i am wrong anywhere but it won't be that astronomically off i hope



also i still don't think you understand how radio ratings work and how NPR is not included in the ratings and calculations when it comes time for advertisement companies to determine rates.

[Brubear]

You went a long way to refute me, without addressing my two key points, in any way:

1. It's unfair competition to take money from one media outlet, and give it to another.
2. It's an unwise expenditure of public funds, and outside the core mission of government to establish a state ran media that competes against the free press.

First, if those are your two main points, why didn't you lead with those points instead of trying to argue that "it's silly to think that there's no other media in rural areas" and that they're not popular in rural areas? If that was your main points, maybe mention them when you start a discussion instead of arguing something else then changing your argument?

Second, NPR/PBS aren't direct competitors of Fox, ABC, NBC, though. That's like saying Goodwill and Salvation Army are direct competitors of Nordstroms, IKEA, and Pier 49. Their may be some intersection between their consumer base, but they are built for and target different markets. Again, the bulk of PBS programming is educational children's shows or informative/event broadcasts like Antiques Roadshow, or Julia Child cooking shows. The majority of ABC broadcasts are sports, talk shows, soap operas, reality tv/court tv, and sitcoms/dramas/etc. Man, I bet ABC is REALLY trying to compete with all the Sesame Street and Curious George viewers at PBS by airing The View and the Harry Connick, Jr. Show

As for it being an unwise expenditure of public funds, while that's a moral argument that is pretty subjective, lets run with it. They're not a state-run media (something I mentioned which you totally brushed over). It is state funded, meaning the government helps pay their bills but leads the management and broadcast decisions to the people actually running the station (you know, the community?). If it were state-run then why would they spend all their time airing children's educational shows like Sesame Street and travel/info shows like Julia Child and Antiques Roadshow (you know, 70+% of their programming)? That makes it about as effective of a state-run propaganda channel as Cartoon Network. So not only is your premise wrong (it's a state-run media competing against the free press), but your argument that it's a waste of funds is also based on a personal assumption. Just because you don't see the merit of having educational children's programming available to the public for nothing but the cost of a tv/antenna doesn't somehow make it worthless.

So tell me, now how have I refused to address your two key points that you only even bring up half the time?

[Masark]

It was a Roman salute before it was adopted by others in the 20th century.

There is zero evidence that that salute was ever used by the Romans.

The suggestion that it was Roman was pushed by pre-WW2 propaganda from the Italian fascists under Mussolini.

[Wyrt]

They won't. Many will benefit from the improved job market. Who most could not care less if there is no PBS. :P

You mean the job market that was improving for years under Obama? The one Trump just tried to claim credit for even though he's done fuck all for it? That one?

[Masark]

Uh-huh. Weird I see evidence of it in the 18th century...

How does that contradict what I said? Unless you're claiming the Roman empire still existed in the 18th century.

I didn't claim the fascists invented the gesture or invented its roman links, they just picked those up from slightly older (but still non-Roman) sources and pushed the salute as part of their "make Italy great again" propaganda.

[JohnBrown1917]

And lol at calling @Skroe a liberal.

Everybody who disagrees = liberal. No matter how far right or left you are.

[Stormspark]

Trump and his supporters are suffering from a disease called fecal encephalopathy.

[Zan15]

AWWHH he got banned, i was enjoying this banter