THIS is why PBS and NPR need govt funding and not private and donor funding. This is why they need to not be politicized and in jeopardy of funding. I've not seen the film and it could be a steaming pile of crap, but still NPR and PBS should not have to feel threatened by financial interests. They're all we have left.
It seems more complex than that. Just as it would be unwise to put all of your retirement into one form of investment, it's unwise to depend on one large source (or even a few sizable sources) to fund public broadcasting. Letting everyone donate means the money can go toward creativity without letting any donor (private or public) have too large a vote. Then again, this also assumes that the monolithic PBS and NPR approaches should be the only outlets for long-form expression. PBS stations play Lawrence Welk reruns for the elderly then ask for money... to replay a show hosted by a man long dead. NPR (and flagship Boston station WBUR in particular) was the most active group lobbying against Microchannel FM stations for a decade. Jane Christo, head of WBUR for a long time, felt they were all anyone needed for public radio, that they should get a monopoly on the noncommercial end of the FM spectrum (88.1 through 91.9 FM). She actively worked to kill Allston-Brighton Free Radio because they were literally down the street (well, down Comm to Packard's Corner, then straight on Brighton along the old A line and then a sharp right on Cambridge, but still about 1.5 miles) and she wanted dibs. Multiple funding sources for multiple project entities, multiple ways to get your story out, is what freedom and open finance should be about. We all have our goals, and we all have stories to tell but not necessarily the cash to tell everyone. Why beg some billionaire not to be angry with the tote-bag guys at channel 13? It only makes that one person more powerful than his largesse.
This is exactly why NPR and PBS need to choose their business model - captive media for the government or commercial voice for whatever they want to be. This halfway straddle where they'll take Home Depot ads but not XYZ is stupid. It's also stupid that they are "non profit." They make enough money to pay their executive team >$1M/year in salary, so they aren't poor. -XC PS - "all you have left" of what, exactly?
All we have left of a non-profit driven media source. btw, I couldn't agree more that they need to pick a path. I wish it were more heavily govt funded and didn't need to rely on corporate sponsorship at all.
Government funding that wasn't up for debate or review every 2-4 years. @ cliffelam As for MSNBC, this is off-topic but if I had to watch either MS or Fox, I'd pick fox. Why? Because they make no bones about being biased and having an agenda while MSNBC seems to attempt to try and pretend otherwise. From what I've seen, and it's been a while, they both suck.Why do you think that the Ford Foundation or the UNC Board is somehow less political than the Disney board?
Never said I did.Quite an advantage.
Yes, it would certainly be an advantage, but to who's benefit? I'd say to the kid that can't get many channels but thankfully has sesame street, nova etc. I'd have no problem with them being much more heavily funded/subsidized/advantage-given.
I would note that MSNBC isn't apparently profit driven.... -XC PS - Why do you think that the Ford Foundation or the UNC Board is somehow less political than the Disney board? I'd probably argue that the Disney guys are a zillion times more accountable and approachable. PPS - It's already heavily gov't supported because of it's non-profit status. It's guaranteed license renewal for cable and TV bandwidth and an automatic inclusion into all tiers of cable and directTV. Quite an advantage.