On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:48:38 -0000, iaamoac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This article is long, but is extremely well worth it - especially
> along the lines of the long-running NPR discussions here.
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/184u
> adtr.asp
>
> The overall theme of the article is the basic truism that economics
> are inescapable - even for public radio. Among the most facinating
> tidbits is that your taxpayer dollars are helping subsidize the #2
> and #3 most popular syndicated radio programs in the USA.
>
> Its definitely time to cut NPR loose as a fully-privatized entity.
>
> JDG
The argument for public radio was that corporate voices have their
say, should there be a media place for the public citizen not
connected to corporate interests?
This article is classic Ferguson, starting out about the disappearance
of classical music from public radio, and then making a slashing right
turn to skewering NPR for being so commercial that it actually listens
to what its listeners wants. (Here in Houston the disappearance of
classical music was noticeable enough that there is now a commercial
classical music station. )
I'll digest some relevant sections for those not wanting the whole thing.
"Music--not merely classical but also jazz, folk, blues, and
bluegrass, once staples of public radio programming--is slowly being
withdrawn from the public airwaves. According to data from the trade
group M Street Group, the number of noncommercial stations identified
as "classical" has been cut in half since 1993, while the number of
noncommercial news-talk stations has tripled. "
"Government radio is here to stay. If the budget pinchers under Ronald
Reagan couldn't privatize public radio, and the ideologues of the
Gingrich Revolution couldn't do it a decade later, we ought to get
used to it, and perhaps survey the larger spectacle of its astonishing
growth from a remote outpost in radio Siberia to a colossus of the
nation's media landscape. From its 3 million listeners in the early
1970s to the 29 million it claims today, public radio has come to be,
as its own promotional materials immodestly say, "a dominant
intellectual force in American life." The interesting questions
nowadays are, What does public radio, in its present incarnation, say
about the public it appeals to? What does it tell us about the
cultural elite whose instrument it has become? If public radio is here
to stay, what kind of radio will it be?
"Over the past ten years, the LABs ('Liberal Affluent Boomers') who
run the country's cultural institutions have given their answer: Cut
the boring music. Let's talk.
"The mission of public broadcasting, according to its founders, was
"public service": more particularly, to provide cultural programming
that commercial broadcasters, under pressure to acquire the maximum
number of listeners in order to make the maximum amount of money,
could not. It's an odd task public broadcasting was given, needless to
say--offering a service precisely because it's not terribly popular.
But for more than a decade it seemed to suit the programmers of public
radio just fine. And classical music fit the bill: a public service
everyone knew to be elevated and worthy, an art form that was good for
the polity and good for the soul."
"Alert readers will notice that public radio's [current] methods of
getting money--soliciting ads, designing programs to appeal to more
listeners, and jollying up big corporations--are conspicuously similar
to the methods used by commercial stations in their quest to survive
and dominate in the marketplace. Yet it's a funny thing about LABs:
Methods that might have seemed crass and excessive when pursued by
earlier generations are, in their hands, transformed into something
noble. This has proved true in fields ranging from sex to real
estate--why not public broadcasting? Thus the techniques of
commercialization, reviled when used by commercial radio, were
suddenly seen as indispensable tools in advancing public radio's
essential mission of 'public service.' "
And yet, proving once against he is the intellectual among the big
three editors at the new conservative Bible - The Weekly Standard, in
many ways I agree with Andrew Ferguson. Since Reagan public radio has
clearly embraced commercialism under another name - "underwriting."
With the Weekly Standard I would look for agendas - in his case two.
One is to feed taxpayer discontent - why should we support the #2 and
#3 radio shows in the country for a radio network that is becoming
hard to tell from commercial. Two - he is pushing back against
moderate news-talk radio in favor of the non-political music shows.
Now a liberal solution might be to revisit and restrict what passes
for underwriting on public broadcasting while perhaps opening up more
channels for them - public music/ public learning/ public news & talk
all seem different functions. The Weekly Standard would be more in
favor of making NPR non-public supported or to push back its subject
matter to music or both.
It is interesting that he recycles that hoary "liberal cultural elite"
meme too, although he attributes it to anonymous public radio
researchers. I can't find any of that "research" except from supposed
studies of media by conservatives. As if the major conservative
figures aren't cultural elitists.
I might be open to a debate about the commercialization of public
media but I am sure those wanting the debate are just wanting a way to
shut down real "fair and balanced" voices.
Gary Denton
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be
ruled by evil men."
--Plato (427?-347 B.C.)
Notebook - http://elemming.blogspot.com
Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
#1 on google for liberal news
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
