NPR losing federal funding a good thing?

[Jack J Ward]

That's a decent argument. I guess my thought is always the plurality of voices which are being removed in the United States right now.
When you strip public radio like CBC, BBC, and NPR of operating funding you're producing a reliance on highly corporatised networks like MSNBC and Fox to be your "voices" for difference and news.

Actual journalism has taken a back seat in the US because of it. Cutting down the pieces of pie is not going to produce better journalism, not going to give you more indepth reporting. It's going to limit the ability to do the work.
So you don't have reporters being sent to Rwanda to see if the "uprising" is actually a "coup".

When people think of the last bastions of fair journalism, BBC and CBC tend to be on everyone's lips because they are some of the few places that have the funding that is not dependent on corporate or private donations.

Let me give you an example. Let's say Camblos Soup decides to execute all workers who show up late to work.
They also decide to advertise on the main four networks. Can you honestly see the Camblos Soup story running in the news cast if the network depends on that kind of funding?

No. So its left to news organizations that are not dependent on corporate dollars or to begging in the streets for hand outs.
You starve the beast of public funding, you get crappy shows.

There was a subscription based audio drama production, btw.. it was called Sonic Gold. We're really grateful to those who participated.
But it wasn't self sustainable. And that's the problem.

People have less and less disposable income because wages have fallen since the seventies. And instead of identifying why wages have not kept pace with the standard of living, instead of asking why there have been steady outsourcing of American jobs, instead of asking why 400 Americans represent 50% of the wealth of that nation, we're looking at cutting back on some of the few alternatives offered to the poor and recommending THEY pay for it.

Something is definitely off kilter in my mind. But then, again, I'm a Canadian.
I'm probably missing something there,

J

[Icebox]

	Quote:	Jbpatton
	.The point is, the audio folks at NPR get paid to produce a highly polished, highly enjoyable product for free. Audio Drama folks don’t get paid at all to produce some pretty good quality stuff for free. Something’s wrong.

It's interesting to look at this situation like an economist. We can talk until we're blue in the face about what people "Should" be paying for a product, but the reality is, moral concepts like "should" do not determine the price of any product. Economic concepts like supply and demand determine price. That's why podcasts are free: incredibly huge supply, limited demand, and the supply we do have is dominated by free product.

This year, we started offering memberships at Icebox Radio. And there are a couple of people online I thought would sign up right away. But they didn't . The reason most often stated, "Gee, Jeff, money's tight right now." Memberships, I should point out, start at $10 per year: PER YEAR. Why would a personal friend who listened to, and supported, my programs not part with a few pennies to aid it? It's because market forces effect our perceptions whether we like it or not, and only by consciously facing down those perceptions can we change our own behavior. That's what pledge drives are all about: making people stop and think" "How much is this really worth to me?"

Changing a market is hard. But you can change individuals in that market, and I think that's all we can do at this point. So what I'm really trying to say is, "Join the Icebox Radio Theater!"

[Michael McAfee]

Another economic question to ask is, "Who is the customer?" For artistic productions, part of the answer is the artist.

Example: I decide that there needs to be a book about, say, chimneys. I write that book, and let's say I do a fantastic job, but it cost me some money to travel for research or to join a subscription-based research web site. But I have written a fantastic book, and I feel justified in the expense.

So far, I am the only customer of that book, because it was done for my interest and no one else's. Notice I didn't say I first researched what people want, or lined up another party (say, a book publisher) who were also interested in a book about chimneys. If I had, then from the beginning I would have had a more solid source of income. Most likely, I wouldn't have made a great profit, but I wouldn't be as much in the hole either.

Similarly, if you want to make money with audio theater, find specific customers and figure out how the projects you want to make meet their desires, and how much they're willing to pay for the result. You probably won't make a career out of it, but you might cover your expenses. This is where networking skills come in handy.

I recommend Hollywood Secrets of Project Management Success by James R. Persse. I learned a lot about the Hollywood production system, and how it works, and why it isn't concerned about art yet provides an opportunity for artistic results. I'm currently trying to adapt its points to audio theater production.

--Michael McAfee

[Neil]

As another Canadian, I have the opposite view of Mr. Ward. I think it's in the best interest for the government to have nothing to do with public broadcasting. Mr. Ward said:

	Quote:
	Let me give you an example. Let's say Camblos Soup decides to execute all workers who show up late to work. They also decide to advertise on the main four networks. Can you honestly see the Camblos Soup story running in the news cast if the network depends on that kind of funding? No. So its left to news organizations that are not dependent on corporate dollars or to begging in the streets for hand outs. You starve the beast of public funding, you get crappy shows.

You don't get rid of problems with public funding, you just get a completely different set of ones. Imagine you have different political parties campaigning for some upcoming election. You have one party that talks about the need for increasing public funding for NPR or CBC or some other news organization, while at the same time another party is talking about the need to cut back on this type of spending.

Do you honestly believe that a news organization that is dependent on government dollars to operate is going to be unbiased regarding it's reporting, or is it going to lean towards the political party that will benefit it the most or is similar in ideology?

When the government is out of the business of supplying news, we are free to support or not support whatever organization we want.

I probably should tie this back into radio drama somehow...um....give me a sec.



I've heard some absolutely fabulous radio dramas produced by the members of this site that is equal to the stuff I've heard done by the professionals. While it would suck to see others making a living at doing what you do for love, taking money by force through taxation is not the right way to go. If audio drama is to survive, then we have to convince non-listeners to give it a try.

Neil