122
Who should pay for public radio?
How do you think public media should be funded? Commentator Tucker Carlson says cut federal funding and let the listeners pitch in.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Curious to see exactly how public media gets its funding? View the infographic
One of the on-again off-again debates in Washington is who ought to pay for public broadcasting: The government, which helps support hundreds of public radio stations across the country, or us, listeners, who give millions of dollars every year that help shows like this one get on the air.
Commentator Tucker Carlson says listeners could -- and should -- pay more.
Tucker Carlson: I love public radio. I listen to it every day. But sometimes, as I drive to my white-collar job in my expensive foreign car, surrounded by fellow public radio listeners driving to their white-collar jobs in their expensive foreign cars, I feel a little guilty. All of us are pretty affluent, I think to myself. Do we really need a federal subsidy?
I live in Washington, D.C., but the scene would be familiar to anyone who lives in Winnetka, Ill., the North Shore of Boston or the westside of L.A.: In general, the richer the zip code, the more people tune into public radio. Public radio listeners tend to have a household income more than $30,000 above the national average. They're also whiter, better educated and more than twice as likely as ordinary Americans to work in top management. Not the profile of your average welfare recipient.
Yet that's in effect what we are. Public radio receives more than $100 million a year in tax dollars. Teenaged shift workers at McDonald's, every harried single moms emptying wastebaskets at a law firm, lettuce pickers in California are laboring so that you and I -- you in your Prius, me in my Saab -- can listen to a certain sort of educated news and opinion as we cruise in air conditioned comfort to the office each day. Has there ever been a more unfair tax?
Every few years somebody in Congress tries to kill it. Public radio executives never quite defend their subsidy -- that would be impossible to do with a straight face -- but instead they respond by pointing out that lots of people really, really like public radio. That's true. Of course you could say the same thing about the Rush Limbaugh Show. And that's the point: When people like something, they'll pay for it. Public radio listeners could certainly pay the whole tab for public radio. They just don't want to. Maybe, just to be decent, we should start.
Tucker Carlson is the editor-in-chief of The Daily Caller and a member of Maine Public Broadcasting.
Share your thoughts about this or anything else you hear on the program. Post a comment below or contact us by email.
Pages
Excellent comment We should also remember that without public radio, public libraries, and yes, public schools, there might be few avenues for intelligent people who happen to be born poor to rise out of their poverty. But then, perhaps that's become an undesirable goal among the favored few...let them eat Spam...
Carlson, you have just become a poster example of why the rich should pay their fair share of taxes to help support public services. And access to information is one of the most important services America has to offer. That is why I support local radio and approve the use of my (middle class) tax dollars nationally.
Tucker Carlson's commentary is a perfect example of the doublespeak those beings use to arouse those less clever who have not yet rubbed the scales from their eyes (or ears). Oh, it sounds reasonable and even logical to the sleeper, but the AWAKENED person recognizes it for the treachery that it is. Everyone who has commented previously has said it so well I won't continue on except to say that I find it amazing someone could (claim to) listen to NPR regularly and still be so dull minded and blind.
I regularly listen to NPR, and since our local affilate just ended a pledge drive last week - the question of funding is still on my mind. As I listen only to Morning Edition and All Things Considered on the car radio - I feel a annual contribution of 50$ adequate. What I dont understand is the many thinly veiled advertisers being called sponsors - why not call it advertising and accept it as such, I am sure NPR alone can raise millions, leave alone PBS and other programs.
I also love Public Radio, and have since its inception. I have supported it financially as I was able, and have been glad some of my tax money helped. I was furious when I heard this commentary today, and had to read it to make sure I heard it correctly. I am pleased that others had the same reaction. What a snob! Almost everyone I know listens to NPR; many of my friends are retired now, as am I. We were public welfare social workers, public school teachers, adjunct university instructors---in other words, we never saw as much as $50,000 per year in salary. Yes, we may have the education, and yes, we had white-collar jobs---but we are all solidly in the 99%. Our children are now in their 20's, with college educations, and many are unemployed---but they listen to NPR. My foreign car is a 7-year-old Camry; my previous Camry was 15 years old when I traded it in. Tucker Carlson needs to get a clue, and Marketplace needs to keep ALL listeners in mind.
Gee Tucker, maybe all you rich guys should just pay more taxes in general. I lost my job 5 months ago. Iam 62 and not able to find work. I am white, but otherwise don't match you public radio profile. I gave $35.00 at the last fund drive which I can ill afford. We live pay check to pay check and hope nothing unexpected comes up. Public radio is the only radio I listen to. Take off your bow tie and check out the real world.
Let me sum up Tucker Carlson's argument:
I'm rich and I like public radio.
All people who like public radio are rich.
Surely us rich people can pay for public radio.
True premises, valid argument, Mr. Carlson.
Not to mention, when we spend $100 million a day in Afghanistan, he's going to argue against $100 million a year that goes mostly to rural public radio stations that inform citizens and enrich our democracy?
Quick disclaimer, I earn a very modest income and contribute a total of $100 a year to my local station and favorite shows.
I've nothing different to add, but I had to respond to the 1st thing I've ever heard on NPR that made me feel insulted. How dare he assume that just because I drive to my moderate pay public-sector job in an 8yr-old hail-dented subcompact and don't have a penis that I have no interest in NPR, or that I didn't when I took the bus to my slightly-above minimum wage job? How dare he assume that only rich white men want thoughtful and thought-provoking radio? Statistics are tools that can be used in many ways. They are not to be confused with actual people.
Pages
