Man, it's worse in Canada! Y'all should count yourself lucky y'all don't have CBC. The CBC is about 69% government-funded. A few years ago, hwhen Elon Musk took over Twitter, they briefly-labeled the CBC as "government-funded media". CBC responded that they are only 69% government-funded. (They run ads on CBC TV.) Then, Twitter labeled them as "69% Government-funded media". But they got all in a hissy-fit about it and I think they boycotted Twitter/X for several months because they felt that that label "mislead" the public into thinking they were biased and/or would obfuscate or distort the truth for political reasons ... But that's exactly hwhat they were trying to do! Obfuscate the truth that they are 69% government-funded for political reasons!
That being said, they have some good shows like Air Farce (a sketch show like SNL but taped, primetime and more family-friendly) and 22 Minutes (A News parody show kinda like the Daily Show) and About That with Andrew Chang (a series of explainer videos hwhich are surprisingly fair and balanced, given that they are produced by the CBC. Although I wish they'd do one about defunding the CBC! Ha! You can find them on YouTube. I am confident Andrew Chang can find employment after the CBC is privatized.)
I also realize that even if the government stops funding them, tomorrow, they've benefitted from years of funding which should have allowed them to accumulate significant capital unlike their private-sector competitors. That being said, I am willing to compromise! I am happy to see all future funding cut-off without expecting them to sell their assets!
I honestly think they can survive without future government funding but without having to payy back this "endowment", cutting back on stations in small towns and French stations outside Quebec, continuing running ads on CBC TV as well as Canadian Hit Music shows during morning and evening rush hours (prime time for radio! With a "loose" definition of what counts as "Canadian") but otherwise, pretty much staying the course: Same boring ad-free boomer-oriented programming outside of primetime, etc. and thus still kinda keep up their mission of promoting Canadian culture or hwhatever.
I also am not necessarily against the idea of the government having and expressing "opinions". I think, if we're gonna have a government, there should, at least, be a government website and social media channels, hwhere the government can talk about what it's doing and the government's positions on matters. But not to the tune of $1.4 Billion CAD per year!
I'm left but staunchly opposed to public media. That said, you overlooked the best argument for why the government funding argument is misleading: they want that small bit of funding so that they can claim the imprimatur of "government speech." To do so lets PBS engage in prudish gatekeeping and improperly influence the public discourse. They use the cloak of the government to engage in question begging--Masterpiece Theater is more socially valuable than hardcore pornography because we're the government and we speak with the pocketbook and bully pulpit.
Doesn't matter how you define government speech. There are a whole lot of people who believe PBS only because it gets government support, and think its shows are worth more, culturally, for the same reason.
How is it not? The federal government funds a federal government entity (the CPB), which then decides, through NPR and PBS, what broadcasts are worthy of the government's largesse.
I'm sure I've listened to some NPR over the years, but not in a very long time. The only thing I can actually remember from NPR right now is that they were really against fracking and I remember listening to some piece on it maybe two decades ago.
I think there's one decent argument for keeping federal funding for NPR. It's the same argument for keeping funding for the Postal Service. Many parts of the country with fairly low population density have very few choices for their media. The same places are not well served to buy the private carriers like UPS and Federal Express thus the need to keep the postal service. These are not economically advantageous notions but I think they are socially advantageous. And yes I know they can get media through the internet but a lot of people just don't do that for whatever reason.
That said, I have to admit I really did get sick of the Stakhanovian propaganda they were putting out daily for several years and maybe still do but I don't listen to it anymore.
I never understood that argument either. I also never understood how it could be true. As you map points out, most of these broadcasters are deeply reliant on government largesse and the 'argument' invariably comes from people in Chicago, DC, Boston, etc. who have multiple mega-foundations and highly engaged public bolstering the network.
The thing is, I feel like having government supported radio in Juno or Bismark is ok...I like the idea of cementing the remote areas of our nation with public media and my experience is the remote public radio/tv has a lot of space for local issues and interests. Rather than dousing public media, I'd prefer to have an NPR/PBS that isn't insane.
Man, it's worse in Canada! Y'all should count yourself lucky y'all don't have CBC. The CBC is about 69% government-funded. A few years ago, hwhen Elon Musk took over Twitter, they briefly-labeled the CBC as "government-funded media". CBC responded that they are only 69% government-funded. (They run ads on CBC TV.) Then, Twitter labeled them as "69% Government-funded media". But they got all in a hissy-fit about it and I think they boycotted Twitter/X for several months because they felt that that label "mislead" the public into thinking they were biased and/or would obfuscate or distort the truth for political reasons ... But that's exactly hwhat they were trying to do! Obfuscate the truth that they are 69% government-funded for political reasons!
That being said, they have some good shows like Air Farce (a sketch show like SNL but taped, primetime and more family-friendly) and 22 Minutes (A News parody show kinda like the Daily Show) and About That with Andrew Chang (a series of explainer videos hwhich are surprisingly fair and balanced, given that they are produced by the CBC. Although I wish they'd do one about defunding the CBC! Ha! You can find them on YouTube. I am confident Andrew Chang can find employment after the CBC is privatized.)
I also realize that even if the government stops funding them, tomorrow, they've benefitted from years of funding which should have allowed them to accumulate significant capital unlike their private-sector competitors. That being said, I am willing to compromise! I am happy to see all future funding cut-off without expecting them to sell their assets!
I honestly think they can survive without future government funding but without having to payy back this "endowment", cutting back on stations in small towns and French stations outside Quebec, continuing running ads on CBC TV as well as Canadian Hit Music shows during morning and evening rush hours (prime time for radio! With a "loose" definition of what counts as "Canadian") but otherwise, pretty much staying the course: Same boring ad-free boomer-oriented programming outside of primetime, etc. and thus still kinda keep up their mission of promoting Canadian culture or hwhatever.
I also am not necessarily against the idea of the government having and expressing "opinions". I think, if we're gonna have a government, there should, at least, be a government website and social media channels, hwhere the government can talk about what it's doing and the government's positions on matters. But not to the tune of $1.4 Billion CAD per year!
HWhat's wrong with your keyboard?
I'm left but staunchly opposed to public media. That said, you overlooked the best argument for why the government funding argument is misleading: they want that small bit of funding so that they can claim the imprimatur of "government speech." To do so lets PBS engage in prudish gatekeeping and improperly influence the public discourse. They use the cloak of the government to engage in question begging--Masterpiece Theater is more socially valuable than hardcore pornography because we're the government and we speak with the pocketbook and bully pulpit.
Ya thats not what government speech is or means
Doesn't matter how you define government speech. There are a whole lot of people who believe PBS only because it gets government support, and think its shows are worth more, culturally, for the same reason.
How is it not? The federal government funds a federal government entity (the CPB), which then decides, through NPR and PBS, what broadcasts are worthy of the government's largesse.
I like NPR, but I tend to agree with this. They should also just run ads.
They already do, they just call them "supported by".
“Few modern dictatorships would air content that so relentlessly takes a sectarian worldview for granted.” You deny that’s hyperbole?
I would think it's on-par for dictators to air content that takes a sectarian worldview benefitting them obviously.
Stakhanovite. There you go, sending me to Google again. :-)
Stakhanov was my champion of Soviet economic heroism. From (my) childhood (in the US).
I'm sure I've listened to some NPR over the years, but not in a very long time. The only thing I can actually remember from NPR right now is that they were really against fracking and I remember listening to some piece on it maybe two decades ago.
I think there's one decent argument for keeping federal funding for NPR. It's the same argument for keeping funding for the Postal Service. Many parts of the country with fairly low population density have very few choices for their media. The same places are not well served to buy the private carriers like UPS and Federal Express thus the need to keep the postal service. These are not economically advantageous notions but I think they are socially advantageous. And yes I know they can get media through the internet but a lot of people just don't do that for whatever reason.
That said, I have to admit I really did get sick of the Stakhanovian propaganda they were putting out daily for several years and maybe still do but I don't listen to it anymore.
I never understood that argument either. I also never understood how it could be true. As you map points out, most of these broadcasters are deeply reliant on government largesse and the 'argument' invariably comes from people in Chicago, DC, Boston, etc. who have multiple mega-foundations and highly engaged public bolstering the network.
The thing is, I feel like having government supported radio in Juno or Bismark is ok...I like the idea of cementing the remote areas of our nation with public media and my experience is the remote public radio/tv has a lot of space for local issues and interests. Rather than dousing public media, I'd prefer to have an NPR/PBS that isn't insane.