Comments on: Public Broadcasting Subsidies: Welfare for the Rich and Well-Educated http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: derek lane http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-54346 derek lane Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:41:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-54346 <p><br>It may be worthwhile to split NPR (radio is cheap and NPR popular) from PBS (expensive and unpopular) for discussion. A rough guess for CPB funding of all types for radio is $100 M/year (CPB claims 25% of its budget goes to radio). NPR claims to be mostly independent of federal funding (~1%), but may potentially be supported indirectly from CPB support of radio stations. NPR also claims ~26M users/wk, up from ~2M/wk in the 80s. PBS seems to have 10x fewer viewers. This is a large difference.<br>These numbers may support criticism that NPR is crowding out commercial providers. Success has its problems.<br></p> <p><br>From my standpoint, my average funding for NPR is ~10x the $2/househould (50M households) or $5/user (~26M users) .<br>Compare this to the thousands I spend per year for federal taxes, much of goes to support things ($billions for various subsidies; stream of money required to keep the phone companies mollified as they prepare to snoop my conversations). I find it easy to support NPR given the much larger flows going to things of less direct benefit to me.<br></p> <p><br></p> <p><br>I agree that NPR is mostly about a privileged demographic, but disagree with arguments for cutting funding based indirectly on liberal guilt. The strongest argument I can adduce for cutting federal funding is allowing complete freedom from public overview for NPR. The standard argument for CPB support is concentrated on support in small markets. I am in a large market and am not in a position to decide what the trade-offs (freedom vs wider dissemination) are.<br></p>
It may be worthwhile to split NPR (radio is cheap and NPR popular) from PBS (expensive and unpopular) for discussion. A rough guess for CPB funding of all types for radio is $100 M/year (CPB claims 25% of its budget goes to radio). NPR claims to be mostly independent of federal funding (~1%), but may potentially be supported indirectly from CPB support of radio stations. NPR also claims ~26M users/wk, up from ~2M/wk in the 80s. PBS seems to have 10x fewer viewers. This is a large difference.
These numbers may support criticism that NPR is crowding out commercial providers. Success has its problems.


From my standpoint, my average funding for NPR is ~10x the $2/househould (50M households) or $5/user (~26M users) .
Compare this to the thousands I spend per year for federal taxes, much of goes to support things ($billions for various subsidies; stream of money required to keep the phone companies mollified as they prepare to snoop my conversations). I find it easy to support NPR given the much larger flows going to things of less direct benefit to me.



I agree that NPR is mostly about a privileged demographic, but disagree with arguments for cutting funding based indirectly on liberal guilt. The strongest argument I can adduce for cutting federal funding is allowing complete freedom from public overview for NPR. The standard argument for CPB support is concentrated on support in small markets. I am in a large market and am not in a position to decide what the trade-offs (freedom vs wider dissemination) are.

]]> By: derek lane http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-31473 derek lane Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:41:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-31473 <p> It may be worthwhile to split NPR (radio is cheap and NPR popular) from PBS (expensive and unpopular) for discussion. A rough guess for CPB funding of all types for radio is $100 M/year (CPB claims 25% of its budget goes to radio). NPR claims to be mostly independent of federal funding (~1%), but may potentially be supported indirectly from CPB support of radio stations. NPR also claims ~26M users/wk, up from ~2M/wk in the 80s. PBS seems to have 10x fewer viewers. This is a large difference. These numbers may support criticism that NPR is crowding out commercial providers. Success has its problems. </p> <p> From my standpoint, my average funding for NPR is ~10x the $2/househould (50M households) or $5/user (~26M users) . Compare this to the thousands I spend per year for federal taxes, much of goes to support things ($billions for various subsidies; stream of money required to keep the phone companies mollified as they prepare to snoop my conversations). I find it easy to support NPR given the much larger flows going to things of less direct benefit to me. </p> <p> I agree that NPR is mostly about a privileged demographic, but disagree with arguments for cutting funding based indirectly on liberal guilt. The strongest argument I can adduce for cutting federal funding is allowing complete freedom from public overview for NPR. The standard argument for CPB support is concentrated on support in small markets. I am in a large market and am not in a position to decide what the trade-offs (freedom vs wider dissemination) are. </p> It may be worthwhile to split NPR (radio is cheap and NPR popular) from PBS (expensive and unpopular) for discussion. A rough guess for CPB funding of all types for radio is $100 M/year (CPB claims 25% of its budget goes to radio). NPR claims to be mostly independent of federal funding (~1%), but may potentially be supported indirectly from CPB support of radio stations. NPR also claims ~26M users/wk, up from ~2M/wk in the 80s. PBS seems to have 10x fewer viewers. This is a large difference. These numbers may support criticism that NPR is crowding out commercial providers. Success has its problems.

From my standpoint, my average funding for NPR is ~10x the $2/househould (50M households) or $5/user (~26M users) . Compare this to the thousands I spend per year for federal taxes, much of goes to support things ($billions for various subsidies; stream of money required to keep the phone companies mollified as they prepare to snoop my conversations). I find it easy to support NPR given the much larger flows going to things of less direct benefit to me.

I agree that NPR is mostly about a privileged demographic, but disagree with arguments for cutting funding based indirectly on liberal guilt. The strongest argument I can adduce for cutting federal funding is allowing complete freedom from public overview for NPR. The standard argument for CPB support is concentrated on support in small markets. I am in a large market and am not in a position to decide what the trade-offs (freedom vs wider dissemination) are.

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-54345 Adam Thierer Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:38:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-54345 <p>Mike... Thanks for your note. Regarding selling my "Media Myths" book... we're getting around to it but we've been in the middle of big office move and haven't had time to get it on B&N; or Amazon yet. Of course, selling the book isn't our first priority; getting it out to the public is. That's one reason we've put the PDF online for free downloading. Of course, if we could sell a few copies and help cover the printing costs, that would be nice! Finally, I like the idea of collabrative books too, but it takes a little work to make that happen. I might try to do that, however. Thanks again for your input and suggestions. - - AT</p> Mike… Thanks for your note. Regarding selling my “Media Myths” book… we’re getting around to it but we’ve been in the middle of big office move and haven’t had time to get it on B&N; or Amazon yet. Of course, selling the book isn’t our first priority; getting it out to the public is. That’s one reason we’ve put the PDF online for free downloading. Of course, if we could sell a few copies and help cover the printing costs, that would be nice! Finally, I like the idea of collabrative books too, but it takes a little work to make that happen. I might try to do that, however. Thanks again for your input and suggestions. – - AT

]]> By: Adam Thierer http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-31472 Adam Thierer Thu, 14 Jul 2005 02:38:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-31472 <p>Mike... Thanks for your note. Regarding selling my "Media Myths" book... we're getting around to it but we've been in the middle of big office move and haven't had time to get it on B&N or Amazon yet. Of course, selling the book isn't our first priority; getting it out to the public is. That's one reason we've put the PDF online for free downloading. Of course, if we could sell a few copies and help cover the printing costs, that would be nice! Finally, I like the idea of collabrative books too, but it takes a little work to make that happen. I might try to do that, however. Thanks again for your input and suggestions. - - AT</p> Mike… Thanks for your note. Regarding selling my “Media Myths” book… we’re getting around to it but we’ve been in the middle of big office move and haven’t had time to get it on B&N or Amazon yet. Of course, selling the book isn’t our first priority; getting it out to the public is. That’s one reason we’ve put the PDF online for free downloading. Of course, if we could sell a few copies and help cover the printing costs, that would be nice! Finally, I like the idea of collabrative books too, but it takes a little work to make that happen. I might try to do that, however. Thanks again for your input and suggestions. – - AT

]]> By: Mike Liveright http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-54344 Mike Liveright Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:53:24 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-54344 <p>I have two sets of thought/questions.<br></p> <p><br>1) Re: Your point -- Yes the numbers show that PBS viewers are richer than the population, but:<br></p> <p><br>1.1) I also suspect that the Tax payers are richer than the population. Thus though PBS may be viewed by the richer, it is paid for by the richer?<br></p> <p><br>1.2) Only 15-25% of the PBS budget comes from the Federal Government, The other comes from other sources, so perhaps this also changes who pays for it.<br></p> <p><br>1.3) I suspect that other public services, Libraries, Schools, etc. also are more used by the richer...<br></p> <p><br>1.4) Finally, even if the richer view more, the poorer do also view and so it may still be a social good to have the PBS programming available as a different style of programming for all of the population.<br></p> <p></p> <p><br>Personally, I do agree with you that the Federal Funding should be eliminated, as it is a smaller part of the PBS funding, as should the Federal control of PBS as the members, localities, and businesses support most of the PBS costs.<br></p> <p><br>===================================<br></p> <p><br><br>The other area (Delete if appropriate) is you book. "Media Myths". I am interested in the concept of Open Source content. I note that the book is available as a PDF file, via your link, but does not seem to be able to be ordered from Barns and Noble <br>. <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn;=1930865716&popup;=0">http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isb...</a> </br><br>(yet), I wonder what you experience is with respect to making the book available.<br></br></p> <p><br>2.1) Do you or your publisher feel that you are loseing many sales by linking to a PDF file?<br></p> <p><br>2.2) Have you thought about also linking to <a href="http://lulu.com">lulu.com</a> to allow those of us who might want a copy, less professionally published, but available, to get a copy? (at least until it is published)<br></p> <p><br>2.4) Finally? have you thought about setting up anchors in you PDF file and a discussion group, forum... so that as people felt they agreed/disagreed... with specific topics they could comment on them?<br></p> <p></p> <p><br>Personally, I am interested in the concept of open source content, Collaborative Books, <a href="http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook">http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook</a>, and am trying to understand if authors and publishers are also supportive of such mixed distribution models.<br></p> <p><br>P.S. I have added your PDF file into this section, but if you request, I'll remove it.<br></p> <p><br>Thanks...</p> I have two sets of thought/questions.


1) Re: Your point — Yes the numbers show that PBS viewers are richer than the population, but:


1.1) I also suspect that the Tax payers are richer than the population. Thus though PBS may be viewed by the richer, it is paid for by the richer?


1.2) Only 15-25% of the PBS budget comes from the Federal Government, The other comes from other sources, so perhaps this also changes who pays for it.


1.3) I suspect that other public services, Libraries, Schools, etc. also are more used by the richer…


1.4) Finally, even if the richer view more, the poorer do also view and so it may still be a social good to have the PBS programming available as a different style of programming for all of the population.


Personally, I do agree with you that the Federal Funding should be eliminated, as it is a smaller part of the PBS funding, as should the Federal control of PBS as the members, localities, and businesses support most of the PBS costs.


===================================



The other area (Delete if appropriate) is you book. “Media Myths”. I am interested in the concept of Open Source content. I note that the book is available as a PDF file, via your link, but does not seem to be able to be ordered from Barns and Noble
. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isb…
(yet), I wonder what you experience is with respect to making the book available.


2.1) Do you or your publisher feel that you are loseing many sales by linking to a PDF file?


2.2) Have you thought about also linking to lulu.com to allow those of us who might want a copy, less professionally published, but available, to get a copy? (at least until it is published)


2.4) Finally? have you thought about setting up anchors in you PDF file and a discussion group, forum… so that as people felt they agreed/disagreed… with specific topics they could comment on them?


Personally, I am interested in the concept of open source content, Collaborative Books, http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook, and am trying to understand if authors and publishers are also supportive of such mixed distribution models.


P.S. I have added your PDF file into this section, but if you request, I’ll remove it.


Thanks…

]]> By: Mike Liveright http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/comment-page-1/#comment-31471 Mike Liveright Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:53:24 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2005/07/12/public-broadcasting-subsidies-welfare-for-the-rich-and-well-educated/#comment-31471 <p>I have two sets of thought/questions.</p> <p> 1) Re: Your point -- Yes the numbers show that PBS viewers are richer than the population, but: <p> 1.1) I also suspect that the Tax payers are richer than the population. Thus though PBS may be viewed by the richer, it is paid for by the richer? <p> 1.2) Only 15-25% of the PBS budget comes from the Federal Government, The other comes from other sources, so perhaps this also changes who pays for it. <p> 1.3) I suspect that other public services, Libraries, Schools, etc. also are more used by the richer... <p> 1.4) Finally, even if the richer view more, the poorer do also view and so it may still be a social good to have the PBS programming available as a different style of programming for all of the population. <p><p> Personally, I do agree with you that the Federal Funding should be eliminated, as it is a smaller part of the PBS funding, as should the Federal control of PBS as the members, localities, and businesses support most of the PBS costs. <p> =================================== <p> The other area (Delete if appropriate) is you book. "Media Myths". I am interested in the concept of Open Source content. I note that the book is available as a PDF file, via your link, but does not seem to be able to be ordered from Barns and Noble <br />. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=1930865716&popup=0 <br />(yet), I wonder what you experience is with respect to making the book available. <p> 2.1) Do you or your publisher feel that you are loseing many sales by linking to a PDF file? <p> 2.2) Have you thought about also linking to lulu.com to allow those of us who might want a copy, less professionally published, but available, to get a copy? (at least until it is published) <p> 2.4) Finally? have you thought about setting up anchors in you PDF file and a discussion group, forum... so that as people felt they agreed/disagreed... with specific topics they could comment on them? <p><p> Personally, I am interested in the concept of open source content, Collaborative Books, http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook, and am trying to understand if authors and publishers are also supportive of such mixed distribution models. <p> P.S. I have added your PDF file into this section, but if you request, I'll remove it. <p> Thanks...</p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p> I have two sets of thought/questions.

1) Re: Your point — Yes the numbers show that PBS viewers are richer than the population, but:

1.1) I also suspect that the Tax payers are richer than the population. Thus though PBS may be viewed by the richer, it is paid for by the richer?

1.2) Only 15-25% of the PBS budget comes from the Federal Government, The other comes from other sources, so perhaps this also changes who pays for it.

1.3) I suspect that other public services, Libraries, Schools, etc. also are more used by the richer…

1.4) Finally, even if the richer view more, the poorer do also view and so it may still be a social good to have the PBS programming available as a different style of programming for all of the population.

Personally, I do agree with you that the Federal Funding should be eliminated, as it is a smaller part of the PBS funding, as should the Federal control of PBS as the members, localities, and businesses support most of the PBS costs.

===================================

The other area (Delete if appropriate) is you book. “Media Myths”. I am interested in the concept of Open Source content. I note that the book is available as a PDF file, via your link, but does not seem to be able to be ordered from Barns and Noble
. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=1930865716&popup=0
(yet), I wonder what you experience is with respect to making the book available.

2.1) Do you or your publisher feel that you are loseing many sales by linking to a PDF file?

2.2) Have you thought about also linking to lulu.com to allow those of us who might want a copy, less professionally published, but available, to get a copy? (at least until it is published)

2.4) Finally? have you thought about setting up anchors in you PDF file and a discussion group, forum… so that as people felt they agreed/disagreed… with specific topics they could comment on them?

Personally, I am interested in the concept of open source content, Collaborative Books, http://www.wematter.com/links.htm#collbook, and am trying to understand if authors and publishers are also supportive of such mixed distribution models.

P.S. I have added your PDF file into this section, but if you request, I’ll remove it.

Thanks…

]]>