On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:19:56 -0800, running dogg wrote:

John S. wrote:

Well, here in Northern California the three formats I mentioned are the
preponderance of AM. There is one all news station, KCBS in San
Francisco, which only covers the Bay Area (of course, but useless if
you're in Sacramento). There are no oldies stations left on AM. There
used to be a big band station in Sacramento (KCTC, 1320) but they dumped
their format after determining that their listeners were all dead. (They
went to Air America, which probably caused some heart attacks among the
remaining members of the greatest generation.) Most stations that
advertise as being "oldies" in fact play a lot of hippie rock and 70s
stuff, not Elvis era stuff. AM simply isn't commercially viable outside
of a narrow range of listeners. Preachers like AM because it's cheap,
for the same reason that most domestic SW in the US is religious (and a
lot in Latin America too). Minority communities like AM because they can
serve their communities easily and cheaply. The rest of the stations
fight to survive by loading up on ranting Rushes.


KCBS covers the Western third of North America at night.

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.

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

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.

Is the Thistle and the Shamrock thingy still on NPR on Saturday
evenings?
cuhulin

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.

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.

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.

Negative funding? Are you talking about the taxes paid by the radio
stations, the taxes paid by the ranters, something else?

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.)

junius wrote:
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.

Well, hell, then they can do without that one percent and finance themselves,
can't they?

They repeat the bulls*it claim that only one or two percent of their funding
comes from Uncle Sam, but they scream like they've been tortured with
underwear on their heads if anyone tries to touch that money, saying they
can't live without it. That alone should tell even the weak-minded that
they're lying.

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

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.