I know many of you have justified issues with public broadcasting

[1gobluedem]

But four bills introduced in the House want to defund it completely, leaving all media in the hands of private corporations. It's politics; the $425 million allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting per year -- which primarily funds individual stations, not NPR and PBS -- is the equivalent to what it takes to pay for ten feet of an aircraft carrier. The cost of the AIG bailout could have funded public broadcasting for 155 years. This is barely a blip in the federal budget and the calls for defunding come from the GOP which has been trying to eliminate public broadcasting for years.

I ask you to please put your issues with public broadcasting aside during this fight and show your support for public broadcasting by visiting this site: www.170MillionAmericans.org

In the interest of full disclosure, I am the General Manager of a public radio station. But there is much more at stake here than a loss of our CPB grant.

Thanks.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. done

[sufrommich]

2. Done. They need a "share on Facebook" link.

That would help spread the word.

[1gobluedem]

3. I think they have one

If not, I'll suggest it.

Thanks!

[lukasahero]

5. They have a "connect" on facebook button.

from there you can "like" and share...

[sufrommich]

10. I just saw it. Please link to you facebook page everyone. nt

[philly_bob]

4. Done.

Every city I've ever lived in, the "hippest" independent music has been on public radio.

Plus, good news on All Things Considered & Morning Edition.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Many Are Having Their State & Local Funding Threatened...

I was just reading about a CPB station that's close to closing its doors. They've lost most of their state funding (that covered a lion's share of their $200g a year budget) and donations from the community have dried up. Right now they're relying on whatever they can from the CPB and some corporate underwriting...but even that is limited. This station features a jazz and classical format...no politics and has been around for nearly 50 years but it's finding the going real tough.

The CPB has long been a target of the right wing. One reason to see public stations go bankrupt is that those frequencies can then be taken over by religious broadcasters who have over-run the educational dial in many areas.

Public radio is a true asset...for information and music. In many areas its the only local voice on the airwaves.

Best of luck with your station...hopefully we're just seeing the usual GOTB chest thumping and they won't be able to get any traction in the Senate.

[1gobluedem]

8. Excellent point

"The CPB has long been a target of the right wing. One reason to see public stations go bankrupt is that those frequencies can then be taken over by religious broadcasters who have over-run the educational dial in many areas."

Thanks for the support.

[monmouth]

7. Done!

[stuntcat]

9. thank you

ty :thumbsup:

[LisaM]

11. The fact that it's the right wing who hates it so much

speaks volumes. One of the many things they don't like is that CPB listeners/watchers consistently turn up as the most informed news consumers. Can't have that!

[1gobluedem]

12. Exactly

Thanks!

[du_da]

14. It is statements like this

that make selling our views to the centrist so difficult. This is a baseless attack on them with no foundation in truth. They don't like CPB purely because it is funded at least in part with their tax dollars, that's it. This has nothing to do with station content.

We can certainly agree here that this is a worthwhile use of tax dollars and the argument we should be making is one of the importance of maintaining these aspects of our society even if they are less commercially applicable. However, all it does when you try to degrade the opposition is to push those on the fence toward their direction. You make it easy for people to empathize with them as a victim by making yourself the aggressor.

[1gobluedem]

15. It has a lot to do with station content

However, for every call/email I get accusing us of being too liberal, I get another accusing NPR of being too conservative. Which, I think, just shows how balanced the programming really is.

[du_da]

17. Two entirely different issues.

The conservatives certainly want you to be more conservative, that simply makes sense just as we would like you to be more liberal. However, the people who support ending the funding of CPB has nothing to do with your programming. That is about their views on the source of the funding and the use of it for providing the service in question, note that almost always those same discussions include a suggestion that the stations receiving that funding should instead be funded privately by the listeners. You almost never hear them say the station should be shut down or that if the station were to change content that public funding would be an acceptable method. These people simply don't want public funding methods utilized.

It is important that we understand the argument that they are making if we hope to illustrate the holes in that argument.

[1gobluedem]

20. If our content were only conservative we'd never hear a peep from the GOP

I'm sure of that and I've got twenty years of public radio experience to back me up. Conservatives have been after CPB funding almost since the moment that Lyndon Johnson created the CPB.

They've never gone after funding in totally Democratic administrations; only when there is some Republican power and they think they can get some traction.

[du_da]

22. You wouldn't hear complaints

about your content from them, that is true. If your funding is from the CPB though, you would still be included in the over arching goal of riding themselves of having to help fund this resource through a public source. The fact that you had conservative content would do nothing to save you, except that they may be more willing to help you directly through advertisement. But again, that is simply an implementation of their vision of a proper funding methodology for the service. If you didn't have conservative programing they would expect liberals to help you through advertisement.

As for going after funding under Republican administrations, you are wrong about that as your previous statement in that same post mentions conservatives have been going after the CPB since day one.


Keep in mind conservative \= Republican.

[1gobluedem]

27. I think you know perfectly well what I mean

Sure, conservatives have been against federal funding from the beginning. But it only comes up when they have some power and an axe to grind, like the Juan Williams firing which everyone, liberal and conservative, agrees was botched.

[du_da]

38. It only comes to the forefront then

because that is when it is the most effective of them to do so. Remember, even when Republicans are in control the conservatives are not always the ones pulling the strings. The neo-cons for example barely gave them the time of day.

[1gobluedem]

42. It's a smokescreen

Differentiate if you want: Republicans, neo-cons, tea partiers, conservatives, WHATEVER. The majority of them, collectively, would like to make an example of federal funding for public broadcasting, making it political when it isn't. $425 million is a drop in the bucket and won't make one iota of difference to the deficit but it will have a gigantic negative impact on hundreds of local stations. Re: my quote from Boehner; it IS about left vs. right with them. You can talk all you want about 'it's just a tax funding issue' but it isn't. It's punishment for what they believe is a liberal bias.

[du_da]

43. Correction: making it political when it shouldn't be not isn't.

It is a difficult argument to make that it isn't political when the funding comes from taxes anything that is associated with taxes is political. We are better off making the argument that this is a social treasure to be protected even if it requires tax based funding to do so.

Being a drop in the bucket doesn't diminish it's relationship to the bucket. You are playing into their hands with that argument. In today's political climate we have to justify every drop and if we want to maintain any degree of balance we have to make them do the same. Whichever drops can't be justified are going to end up removed from the bucket. This has become too big of an issue for either side to protect their own sacred cows. This is illustrated by the conservatives' willingness to put military spending on the table.

As for being about left vs right, in their eyes tax base funding is the highest priority in battle of left vs right. Is there a degree of punishment for perceived liberal bias, for some individuals sure. 300 million people it takes all types. But that isn't the focus of their movement and if you want to attack the movement you have to focus on what the movement presents otherwise you are pushed to the side and ignored as a pointing out fringe examples, if an individual shows too many fringe examples they will just abandon him/her and keep going *cough* Michael Steele *cough*. Again, using your example if they didn't have the quick comeback of those stations can seek private funding and remain on the air then you would have a point. The key to all this though is they are going after the funding as a whole they are not being selective.

[MattBaggins]

28. Except that the arguement is a farce and one giant piece of baloney

They increased the amount of money given to religious organizations under Bush and to the very last man "conservatives" applauded it. They set up an entire office to dole out tax dollars and to pander for votes many of them want to give that office even more money.

They do not care one iota about the funding. They perceive it as liberal since the shows on most public stations; including "Sesame Street", are to complex for the average Fox viewer. They hate it for content not the funding. That argument is a BS cover.

[du_da]

37. It doesn't matter that they are disingenuous

in their argument what matters is that the endeavor to gain support from the fence sitters does not allow us the option to point that out because they have built in counters for doing so and we end up looking like the bad guys. This isn't about right or wrong, this is about understanding and countering your opponent. Let them continue putting forth false fronts, those become much more difficult for them to defend when questioned by the centrists without our involvement. Eventually they will collapse on themselves if they keep doing so.

Also, you again are confusing conservatives for Republicans. Contrary to what many of us like to think they are not the same thing. The Republicans are annoying but so long as they aren't being pushed can be counted on not to rock the boat too much, but it is the conservatives that are the true danger to progressive ideals.


Now if you think you can get them to admit to wanting to shut down big bird because his nest leans left then by all means. However, regardless of how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise they aren't that stupid.

[MattBaggins]

39. Arguing on their terms is an even faster way to letting them win

Why would you intentionally take on an argument you know is false and only being used to direct attention from the real one? Make them expose themselves and then redirect.

You point out just what I said and ask them if they will be de-funding their pet programs as well and watch them stammer over it; and then point out that they don't actually care about the money.

[du_da]

41. Because knowing it is false and proving it is false are two very different things.

You have to attack what they are saying not what you know to be in their hearts. Otherwise you lose the fence sitters who we have to have.

You can't make them redirect when they can just stay on message with the terms they are putting out there. You try to force them off message and you end up the bad guy.


You certainly can ask if they will de-fund the pet projects as well, which has been done recently. What was their answer, cut it all pet projects included. Now if you are dealing with a Republican who isn't necessarily a conservative then your idea might work. The reps are wishy washy enough to fall for that. The cons are the real threat though.

[LisaM]

16. Then why is it only the right wing who cares?

I hardly think you could call PBS or NPR aggressive. I think the stance the extreme right wing has taken against the CPB is very aggressive.

And the percentage of tax dollars that goes to CPB is very small - something like a nickel a person. But it's crucial to the survival of this precious resource.

I actually find NPR to be pretty centrist. They always represent multiple points of view.

[du_da]

19. In their minds a penny per person is too much

when it comes through public funding. They also don't view this as crucial to the survival of the resource. That later point being the most important aspect of the conversation from our perspective. We need to illustrate why this degree of public financing is is so crucial and how the resource is so precious.

Understanding these positions is key to combating their effectiveness.

[1gobluedem]

21. Then it's because they don't want to

Because all of the material put out by 170Million Americans AND member stations makes it abundantly clear that it is the individual stations that will suffer catastrophically if this funding is eliminiated. In my station's case, we would lose one full time position and would have to wipe out all local programming on weekend and evenings just to survive, thereby eliminating what makes us unique in the market. But for many smaller stations, these grants represent more than 50-75% of their budgets. They would go under, hundreds of people would lose their jobs, and hundreds of thousands would be left with no local source of news, information, and cultural programming.

[du_da]

24. From their perspective the fact that you couldn't fund yourself

as in the market through advertisements or private grants means the service in question doesn't warrant existence. The same is true in how they view the stations that would go under. Illustrating how shortsighted and destructive this vision might be is our job.

What is key for us though is making sure we understand just what we are fighting. If we focus on the wrong message such as saying they just don't like you because they dislike your material then they simply say then let the people who want that material pay for it. In the minds of those on the fence, that makes a lot of sense and in that scenario we just lost the argument by not realizing the point they were making.

One of the biggest problems we have is that we are so convinced that they are evil that we assume their intentions are based on hate when in reality nearly all of their objectives can be summed up in the difference between collectivism and individualism. Once we stop trying to turn them into the bogey man and realize we are dealing with an ideological difference in the role of government then the sooner we can make progress in convincing the fence sitters that we are right. When we try to make them the bogey man all we are doing is turning them into the victim and that makes it easier for others to empathize with them.

[1gobluedem]

26. Then please explain this to me

"It's reasonable to ask why Congress is spending taxpayers' money to support a left-wing radio network," Speaker of the House John Boehner told the National Review. "And in the wake of Juan Williams' firing, it's clearer than ever that's what NPR is," he added, referring to the former public radio analyst's dismissal after making Islamophobic statements as a guest on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor."

Furthermore, public broadcasting cannot legally accept advertising. It was created specifically to remain free of commercial and special interests.

[du_da]

31. Seems pretty obvious

that Boehner was playing to his base and using the outrage about Williams being let go to do so, particularly effective considering how much the public seems to dislike political correctness and their willingness to associate William's termination with PC gone wild. This isn't about Republicans this is about conservatives. These people want to do away with public broadcasting period, they see the very existence as an overreach of government authority. In their eyes any media that comes from government either directly or indirectly is propaganda.

What we have to do is to show why they are wrong and why this is a worthwhile endeavor that must be funded through public mechanisms.

[1gobluedem]

33. And that's what the 170Million Americans site does

Seems as though we've come full circle.

[1gobluedem]

30. I guess they should stop funding the military, then

It doesn't even TRY to get its own money. Public broadcasting generates $6 for every $1 of federal funds invested in it.

[du_da]

40. That would require

changing the Constitution. From their perspective the role of government is limited to protecting the rights of individuals and states but does not include government involvement in maintaining a balance of power between said individuals within society, except of course in so far as the makeup of the governing body itself.

However, if you are paying attention you may have noticed that the cons realized the double standard and the negative effect it will have on their hope to remain influential and recently have been showing willingness to make cuts in the military as well all in the name of reducing the federal government to what they view as its appropriate role. They don't want to cut military as we want, but hay you get what you can sometimes.

[MattBaggins]

23. You are completely and utterly wrong

They couldn't care less that it is has a small percentage of costs covered by the Government. They do not care one iota about religious organizations getting federal dollars. They very much hate that public TV and radio are fact based and actually educate their viewers. They want people to be like Fox viewers who consistently get abysmal scores on tests about current events.

[du_da]

25. As long as we keep thinking like that

we have no chance of turning this country from its rightward bound direction. We don't get to define them just as they don't get to define us.

Take your example of religious organizations getting federal dollars. Pay attention and go review the debate. These people have no problems with those organizations not getting federal money so long as no one else is either. However, as others are getting federal money then they are smart enough to put their hands in pot too and don't want the organizations they favor to be left out. Their logic being that if those funds weren't being collected by government in the first place they believe that the funds they approve of would still be funded through private sources using that money that didn't end up going to the government.

[WhiteTara]

13. kicking for the afternoon shift.

:kick:

[Hannah Bell]

18. kr

[Divine Discontent]

29. it's always the smaller things & social needs programs that get cut, meanwhile the giant war-machine

gets a snip....

[robcon]

32. The government has NO business collecting or disseminating news. NONE.

n/t

[1gobluedem]

34. The government doesn't

Neither does CPB. That's what the networks and individual stations do and they are not government agencies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Done, and you are evil making me do MATH!

The horror.

tsk, tsk, tsk.

[yellowwood]

36. Fox Would Love

To see public broadcasting defunded.

[beac]

44. K&R. n/t

[KamaAina]

45. I had no idea you were such a big shot!

It's amazing, the amount of talent we find within DU.

I can't imagine the pledge drives or coroprate underwriting are breaking any records up there, either. :scared:

[1gobluedem]

48. We had a record fundraising year last year

And our corporate support is up too. But we still need that federal grant.

[progressoid]

46. Done.

I have issues with NPR but it's the best we got at the moment.

[Starry Messenger]

47. k&r