Our local "public" radio station just finished their spring fund raiser. I didn't contribute. For the same reasons I won't buy from organizations where I can't work (with a few legitimate exceptions), I won't contribute to organizations where I can't work. And it is simply a fact that KUOW does not have anyone on the air that shares my political views. In fact, I would go farther and say that their on-air employees come entirely from the left side of the poltical spectrum. In effect, two-thirds, or perhaps three quarters, of the American public has views that are too moderate, or too conservative. to be acceptable at KUOW. (Which is why I put "public" in quotation marks.)
Though conservatives and moderates are excluded from KUOW, those on the far left are not. KUOW gives an entire hour each week to Alternative Radio, the voice of what I call the Chomsky cult. Though — to put it mildly — the views on that program are debatable (and factual errors are common), to the best of my knowledge KUOW has never given any time to those who might disagree with the cult, or even to those who might want to make factual corrections.
KUOW's more mainstream programs often are heavily weighted toward the Democratic party. They often give time to Democratic officials — without giving equal time to their Republican opponents. Judging by the emailers and callers to their talk shows, Republicans know they are not welcome, because so few of them contact the programs. (That's not, by the way, because this area is completely Democratic. In the Seattle metropolitan area, broadly defined, Democrats have, at most, a three to two advantage over Republicans. And, of course, there are many, many independents in the area.)
The better commercial talk show hosts, for example, Michael Medved, or in this area, Dori Monson, provide the public a much wider spectrum of views. They often bring on guests with views that sharply contrast with their own, and they make a point of taking calls from those who disagree. Their shows are — and some might find this ironic — far more diverse than those on KUOW.
What is to be done? I see no solution other than ending the public subsidy to KUOW. (And tossing them off the University of Washington campus.) The station manager at KUOW is, in my experience, unresponsive to complaints from moderates or conservatives. The NPR ombudsman is, again in my experience, part of the problem. The prospects for reform in such a hardened bureaucracy are tiny. Best just to recognize that the experiment has failed and end the public label and the public subsidy.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(If you go to the KUOW web site, you'll see a picture of Mt. Rainier, briefly. Here's a better picture, taken from almost the same place, and here are four recent winter pictures.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 02, 2006 02:48 PM | Email ThisIt's true, there aint no political diversity on NPR (unless it's soft left vs hard left). The only time I ever heard anything like a conservative editorial on it was immediately after the 1994 election upset the 40-year Democratic control of Congress, and NPR ran scared for a few days in case anyone might challenge them on their partisanship.
There's no reason why any taxpayer funding should go to support this wholly partisan organization. It's a clique, almost a cult, and if any University funding (er, real estate, facilities and maintenance and salaries for starters) is devoted to it, shame on the University for its complicity in propping up such a non-inclusive organization.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on April 2, 2006 03:36 PMThe public knows more about the finances and governance of Microsoft, Starbucks etc etc than it knows about KUOW.
Even "simple" things -- uh... like core issues such as how KUOW chooses its shows -- are invisible.
KUOW needs some serious transparency.
Posted by: Seattle Man on April 2, 2006 07:02 PMYes, that would force everyone to watch FOX 24/7 I guess.
Posted by: Erik on April 2, 2006 09:12 PMSesame Street and Barney.
Licensing for those runs into the billions.
Where does the money go?
Posted by: JCM on April 2, 2006 09:40 PMLooks like WE'RE the ones who should be complaining about being "forced" to do something, right? Not you.
Posted by: Misty on April 2, 2006 09:56 PMNow all aside, most Public TV (KLVX, where I grew up) was not as unabashedly Marxist as this group is here. So as much as I would like to pull KUOW's funding, KLVX would also lose out.
Now this may be a mute point after the all digital signal program goes in to effect.
To be honest I do not know if KOUW is going digital. If not, then they would lose their frequency rights and be off the air anyway.
One can only hope.
Posted by: Mike P on April 2, 2006 10:52 PMLeftists can't sell their messages, they can't even give them away, because the average Joe knows that the ideas of the left have been exposed and they have failed many times over.
It will be a good day when NPR is dead and gone.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 2, 2006 11:38 PMI am a veteran of the *REAL* Public Radio scene since 1992, and have been a listener/contributor since 1989. I did music library and hosted a show at KRCL in Salt Lake City, was student program director and show host and music librarian at KSVR in Mt. Vernon, WA, and hosted a show at KSER in Everett, WA. Is Public Radio lefty? Oh yeah. Is it impossible for a real conservative to participate in Public Radio! NO!
The only reason Public Radio is not more representative of our politically-mixed culture is because very few Cons even bother to participate. Which is a shame because most mid to small Public stations are dying for volunteers of ANY political stripe. I know this because I have sat on the other side of the desk and trying to get quality, responsible volunteers at a truly Public station is a tough, thankless job. (KUOW and KPLU are P.I.N.O, or Public-In-Name-Only, in that they are as corporate and as closed broad public participation as any commercial station.)
Look, nobody seems to get very upset when the government spends billions propping up airline corporations or tossing money towards farm subsidies. If our gripe is only with how PBS "steals" money from the taxpayer without his or her consent, then PBS is actually pretty far down there in the pecking order at the government trough. Before we set the PBS charter on fire, let's examine how much money is wasted every year in foreign payouts to Egypt and other non-free, semi-thugocratic states, OK? There are far worse government-supported programs going on.
Besides, PBS does fill a niche, especially public radio, and especially mid and small public stations. They survive on listener support as much as taxpayer funding, and with how much money has been cut in the last few years, that's become more true than ever.
So feel free to bash KUOW or KPLU or the P.I.N.O. stations all you want. But the smaller stations deserve at least a little libertarian-minded support because they are one of the few places where an average joe can get on the air and do just about any kind of program he wants, political or otherwise.
One more note: I am truly surprised at how PINO dominates the Seattle market. There really is no such thing as a Public station in Seattle. Not on a scale like KRCL anyway, which is explicitly NOT joined at the hip to a college.
If anything, it's the college connection which drives so much of the Puget Sound's ever-leftward public radio journey. Without that, I am not so sure our local public stations wouldn't grate so badly on the conservative ear, because the management and staffing and content decisions wouldn't be made by people so thoroughly infatuated with the Worker's Paradise paradigm and all the noxious political rubric that goes with it.
OK, I have had my say. Just had to get it out, since I am a usually the lone conservative who actively defends PBS in these kinds of conversations.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 3, 2006 04:08 AM"(KUOW and KPLU are P.I.N.O, or Public-In-Name-Only, in that they are as corporate and as closed broad public participation as any commercial station.)"
So even a public radio liberal would admit that? That's a hopeful sign...If that is at all a widely-held view then I suspect that the station will, frankly, be changing quite a bit in the next year or two.
I had an exchange by email several weeks ago with one of their hosts (Moe) and while I was initially over-the-line in terms of basic verbal style and politeness, as soon as I finally (and politely by then) mentioned something substantial like governance and finance he quit the conversation in a huff. I could tell governance & finance is NOT something that want to talk about over at KUOW.
"Public-In-Name-Only" -- that's a good phrase.
Posted by: Seattle Man on April 3, 2006 06:57 AMErik - no one is forced to watch/listen to anything, but I am forced to pay for a radio station. And I do listen to NPR just to see what their perspective is. I have found that I have not heard anything on NPR that wasn't reported on FOX. Unfortunately I cannot say the opposite is true.
Posted by: Fred on April 3, 2006 08:26 AMDo you know how you pay? Even very roughly? How much comes from public subsidy and how much from listener-donations?
I don't know and I am asking sincerely.
Posted by: Seattle Man on April 3, 2006 08:42 AMNPR should stand on its own without any governemnt help.
Posted by: Liberarian on April 3, 2006 08:49 AMThe KUOW all digital streams are already on the air. they are located on the same frequency and you can hear them now if you were to acquire a digital tuner. There are 3 streams, one dupilicates analog programming, two is a combination of repeats of analog program and other (even more liberal) NPR/APR/KPFA content which the main program does not have scheduled. three is a live feed of BBC world news.
Posted by: dave on April 3, 2006 08:57 AMThe problem is that the staff and the listeners HATE advertising.
They prefer begging.
Posted by: Seattle Man on April 3, 2006 08:58 AMLook, nobody seems to get very upset when the government spends billions propping up airline corporations or tossing money towards farm subsidies.
I think you need to get out more.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on April 3, 2006 09:37 AM
All I know is that it is greater than $0. With all the other priorities in this country I find it hard to understand why that one nudges out other things for money. But unfortunately it probably doesn't really nudge other things out, it just adds to the deficit.
It could probably be argued that none of our taxes go to NPR, as all the money spent on NPR is borrowed. Our taxes go to high priority things, frivilous things are bought on borrowed money.
Posted by: Fred on April 3, 2006 11:29 AMBTW Steve Donegal. Air America needs some money too. George Sorros is getting tired of writing so many checks to successful liberal talk radio that does NOT have public funding!
Posted by: Fred on April 3, 2006 12:40 PMI think some high-roller from Real Networks is now footing the bill for Air America. Soros got tired of putting $$$ into a dry hole. Anyway, Air America will probably disappear for good after the 2008 elelctions.
Posted by: Libertarian on April 3, 2006 12:45 PMI know, I know, fact-checking would actually take work.
Posted by: Willis on April 3, 2006 01:10 PMSo here we are, having lavished US taxpayer money, and also wads of State money that was meant to fund educational institutions like 'Universities', to create the space-age capital facilities that operate from University real estate on University funds.
And what do we get? A broadcast bureau that can barely be distinguished from all the other mainstream media - CBS, ABC, NBC, LAT, WaPo et al - spewing the same old same old conventional wisdom and editorial positions as laid out by the New York Times. And excluding the same news.
Yes, NPR's visits to romantic revolutionaries in the jungle come with genuine high-fidelity jungle noises, but they don't ever seem to visit King County's rural property owners to anxiously detail their opression by the political cabal in Seattle.
And their commercials, and fund-raising pitches, are as horrible as any found on the MSM. Worse - that cultivated holier-than-thou tone can't match the humor of today's business commercials.
Privatize them. Turn them loose financially to compete with Air America or Fox News or whoever - but first, make them pay back the taxpayers and Universities and other unseen public agencies whose funding was diverted to establish and maintain them. And let them rent their own digs, and justify to their investors the astronomical salaries of their executives.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on April 3, 2006 01:18 PMEver hear of an organization who gets public funding saying, 'that's okay, we've got enough'? I haven't. They will find something to do with whatever money they get, public or private.
Posted by: Palouse on April 3, 2006 01:59 PM
They do not want to here a point of view different from their own. I have tried many times and all I ever get from the screeners is “That Interesting, ““Please Hold”. I once called in when they were talking about Organic Farming and how the government should give farmers more price supports…I was on hold over 90 minutes, several times they asked for callers on the subject and had to stretch the conversation.
F.U.B.U, on you!!!
Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on April 3, 2006 06:51 PMAnd I'm supposed to be fooled by that?
Posted by: steve miller on April 3, 2006 09:03 PMAgain, KUOW and KPLU are P.I.N.O. (Public-In-Name-Only) and operate quite differently from genuine Public radio stations like KSER, which is not affiliated with any college and relies on listener support far more than other Western Washington public stations.
Posted by: Brad R. Torgersen on April 4, 2006 01:48 PM