David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

David wrote:

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

Right. Below is from http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html :

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues
and programming fees from over 780 independent radio stations,
sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from
the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small
percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget
-- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded
organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,
National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Published reports in Worth Magazine and Consumers Digest cited NPR as a
leading U.S. nonprofit charity because of the organization's program
spending efficiency, high level of private support, and outstanding
public service.

On average, public radio stations (including NPR Member stations)
receive the largest percentage of their revenue (34%) from listener
support, 25% from corporate underwriting and foundations, and 13% from
CPB allocations.*

(* These figures are derived from the most recent CPB data available,
FY02. The remaining average revenue breakdown is: 6% from local and
state governments, 15% from institutional support, and 7% from all
other sources.)

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:13:16 -0600, clifto wrote:

David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

That's not exactly true. Government largesse works in mysterious
ways.

Here's a civics lesson for you:

Advertising supported media is not free to tell you what you need to
hear. Too much conflict of interest.

David wrote:

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:13:16 -0600, clifto wrote:

David wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:48:20 -0600, clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

The government provides way less than half of NPR funding.

The government provides way less than zero conservative talk radio funding.

That's not exactly true. Government largesse works in mysterious
ways.

Here's a civics lesson for you:

Advertising supported media is not free to tell you what you need to
hear. Too much conflict of interest.

You're hardly qualified to give 'civics' lessons, 'tard boy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:31:45 -0500, dxAce
wrote:



You're hardly qualified to give 'civics' lessons, 'tard boy.

As it comes from a crazy man, I'll wear that as a badge of honor.

running dogg wrote:
John S. wrote:


Torinda de Algodon wrote:
wrote in news:12219-4379758A-1071@storefull-
3257.bay.webtv.net:

www.humaneventsonline.com

All of the talk radio shows around here are conservative.
cuhulin


Liberal mainstream media is dedicated to abortion, atheism, and sodomy.
This results in a large audience of conservatives who want an alternative.
Conservative talk radio fills that need while the liberals are content
with the mass media fare and don't need an alternative such as Air America.

Why is talk radio so conservative you ask?

Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR. Conservatives have been
unable to create a single network that can provide the quality of
programming and informative news that is available on NPR. Indeed the
polished presentation skills of NPR talk show hosts far outshines the
usual strident delivery of most conservative talk show personalities.
Consequently conservatives have decided to flood the AM airwaves with
ranting personalities like Rush Limbaugh spouting extremist gibberish
for hours on end.


Touche! Besides, without large numbers of conservative talk show
hosts, AM radio would have DIED an unholy death 20 years ago. All these
extremist ranting far right talk show hosts have kept AM radio in the US
from utter extinction. They're literally its bread and butter. The only
other significant formats on AM are evangelical preaching and Spanish
language formats meant for Mexicans who may not have cars with FM
radios, or who may not be familiar with FM (FM's limited distance makes
it impractical outside of major cities, and Latin America has a large
amount of sparsely populated jungle and desert). In major cities AM also
provides a home for other languages such as Asian tongues where there is
a demand for native language programming but the community doesn't have
a lot of money. AM provides cheap airtime. Outside of a) right wing
ranters b) preachers and c) foreign languages there is NOTHING on AM.
All the music is on FM, and satellite radio is just beginning to cut
into FM listenership. So basically, if you buy an old radio on Ebay and
it doesn't have FM and you need to test it out the right wing provides a
way to do that.

No doubt there is a preponderance of ranters and ravers on AM. But
there is still some good stuff om AM too. I've got two DX oldies
stations that pop into the east coast around 7:00PM. And the all news
stations are always good for a quick update and traffic report. And to
be honest I enjoy the mexican music when in California.

It's anyones guess as to where standard AM and FM broadcasting are
headed. If satellite radio takes off and one standard emerges then I
suspect that more quality programming will shift to that medium, but
how much is a guess. I think it will take a merger of the two
satellite radio providers before that will happen.

clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

NPR is not 100% funded by payments from the government - the proportion
of government payments is a very small portion of their budget.

NPR is successful in the sense that it has a large audience because it
offers a wide range of programming that it's listeners want to hear.

On 2 Feb 2006 07:04:20 -0800, "John S." wrote:


It's anyones guess as to where standard AM and FM broadcasting are
headed. If satellite radio takes off and one standard emerges then I
suspect that more quality programming will shift to that medium, but
how much is a guess. I think it will take a merger of the two
satellite radio providers before that will happen.

That will probably never happen. The Duopoly is mandated by the FCC.

More likely is a single receiver that seamlessly receives both
providers. Also mandated by the dreaded FCC.

On 2 Feb 2006 07:12:54 -0800, "John S." wrote:


clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

NPR is not 100% funded by payments from the government - the proportion
of government payments is a very small portion of their budget.

NPR is successful in the sense that it has a large audience because it
offers a wide range of programming that it's listeners want to hear.

And they are way more objective than an ad-supported company. My
Bircher Dad loved All Things Considered and Morning Edition. He was a
pretty fart smeller.

In article ,
David wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 07:12:54 -0800, "John S." wrote:


clifto wrote:
John S. wrote:
Well, maybe the conservatives are trying to play catchup with their
wildly successful liberal competition on NPR.

If NMPR is so successful, why is it that they need government funding for
100% of their operation? Contrast that to conservative talk radio, which
barely has enough time to fit in all the interested advertisers.

NPR is not 100% funded by payments from the government - the proportion
of government payments is a very small portion of their budget.

NPR is successful in the sense that it has a large audience because it
offers a wide range of programming that it's listeners want to hear.

And they are way more objective than an ad-supported company. My
Bircher Dad loved All Things Considered and Morning Edition. He was a
pretty fart smeller.



FYI: The John Birch Society has come put against the war in Iraq [3],
the Abramaff corruption [1], Bush's illegal wiretapping, the patriot
Act [4], and Bush's insistance on the legality of torture [2]


[1] http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...cle_3116.shtml

[2] http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...cle_3119.shtml

[3] http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...7-2003/war.htm

[4] http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...09_trading.htm

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.