Sender: -4.4 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <448F00CE.6060008 &AElig umich.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606130959440.5695 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606130959440.5695 &AElig kepler.eecs.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:15:42 -0400
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Matt Rudary <mrudary &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Save NPR and PBS (again) (fwd)
Status: O

This raises an interesting question -- is the public funding of NPR & 
PBS regressive? Take a look at the following statistics about NPR listeners:
http://www.pbcionline.org/gendemnpr.htm
http://www.pbcionline.org/gendempbs.htm
http://www.kwmu.org/Support/Underwriting/demographics.html

NPR listeners and PBS watchers are disproportionately wealthy. In 
addition, I note that fund drives are successful in raising operating 
costs from listeners (can't find numbers at the moment, but I understand 
that a large chunk, if not the majority, of a station's budget is raised 
in drives rather than gotten through taxes).

Now, I prefer that these stations continue to get financial support from 
the government for a purely selfish reason and for a less selfish one: 
First, I don't want pledge drives to last any longer than they currently 
do, and second, it would be a shame if stations in less wealthy areas of 
the country closed down for lack of funds. However, how do we justify 
continued funding of services used by (on the average) wealthy Americans 
while the deficit continues to grow and services for the poor are 
underfunded?

Matt

Kevin Lochner wrote:
> i think this one already went around, just making sure . . .
> 
> 
>       Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:46:53 -0400 (EDT)
> 
>       Hi,
> 
>       Everyone expected House Republicans to give up efforts to
>       kill NPR and PBS after a massive public outcry stopped them
>       last year. But they've just voted to eliminate funding for
>       NPR and PBS -- unbelievably, starting with programs like
>       "Sesame Street."
> 
>       Public broadcasting would lose nearly a quarter of its
>       federal funding this year. Even worse, all funding would be
>       eliminated in two years--threatening one of the last
>       remaining sources of watchdog journalism.
> 
>       Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS again
>       this year:
> 
>       http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
> 
>       Last year, millions of us took action to save NPR and PBS,
>       and Congress listened. We can do it again if enough of us
>       sign the petition in time.
> 
>       This would be the most severe cut in the history of public
>       broadcasting.  The Boston Globe reports the cuts "could force
>       the elimination of some popular PBS and NPR programs." NPR's
>       president expects rural public radio stations may be forced
>       to shut down.
> 
>       The House and Senate are deciding if public broadcasting will
>       survive, and they need to hear from viewers like you. Sign
>       the petition at:
> 
>       http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/
> 
>       Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
>       P.S. Read the Boston Globe story on the threat to NPR and PBS
>       at:
> 
>       http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1864
> 
> 
> 
>