A "highbrow" news organization -- possible?

[Pangloss]

Interesting argument for defunding NPR in today's Wall Street Journal:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568222953428174.html

 

In a nutshell, what he's saying is that NPR's existence as a government-sponsored "highbrow" news organization inhibits the potential for competition from other ventures into "highbrow" journalism. In other words, if someone wants to start a news organization that leverages a very high standard for journalism, they would have a hard time doing that because of the perception that that role is already taken up by NPR.

 

My quarrel with government subsidies to NPR—via grants from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting—is that they cast a chill over the markets in which private entrepreneurs seek to raise capital for what might be called highbrow journalism. It is hard to quantify this. But it is a conclusion that I have reached after more than two decades spent seeking to raise capital for privately-owned publications competing in this arena.

 

More than once I have been interrupted, while singing the song of quality journalism to a potential investor, to be asked, "Isn't this already being done by public broadcasting?"

 

IMO there's a good argument to be made that it's the government's protection that allows NPR to be a "highbrow" news organization, but I think recent events challenge that perception. If NPR is not representing the full spectrum of American politics then there's nothing highbrow about it -- it's just propaganda. I know some on the left argue that it's not entirely progressive (doesn't attack corporations enough, doesn't promote socialism enough, etc), but that just shows those people to be so far to the left that moderate progressives look conservative to them. Left is still left, and they'd like it even less if it were right of center.

 

But the part of his argument that says that companies don't want to start up because of NPR -- I'm not convinced of that one. I think he has a valid point, but if an entrepreneur were serious about starting up such an outfit they could certainly compete with NPR, and if they're good at it they could beat them and take their listeners away. They might not even want to compete with them directly -- they could focus on video, for example, which has much more appeal with modern audiences. (The other day I was trying to explain the concept of The Tragedy of the Commons to my just-out-of-high-school game design students, and not one of them could name a single local radio station in the town they grew up in!)

 

At any rate, we have plenty of evidence that a private corporation could produce a "highbrow" news outfit. After all, that's what ALL of them were, back in the days of Cronkite and Murrow. So I think in some ways it's a pretty good argument. Also, it raises the question in my mind of whether such competition might actually happen. While I don't really have a problem with Fox News, I do think that aside from their Web reporting, the TV side is pretty much down in the dirt with the other pigs from CNN and MSNBC. And the networks aren't a whole lot better.

 

The idea of a "highbrow" news organization is pretty compelling. I wonder not only whether it's possible, but whether the majority of Americans are capable of recognizing it if it were to happen. Perhaps they could run a program on this "highbrow" network that would compare quotes from Rachel Maddow calling them conservative with quotes from Sean Hannity calling them liberal, and tally up some kind of running count.

 

What do you all think?

[swansont]

I recognize that the percentage of NPR's funds coming from the taxpayers is but 1% or 2%, or between $1.5 million and $3 million.

 

That money comes indirectly, as well — not straight from the government.

 

 

I have to wonder if the WSJ itself has taken any federal money, ever, in any form.

 

Their owner has, in the form of loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

[padren]

Honestly, I think the biggest challenge to "highbrow" news is competing with "lowbrow" news, not NPR.

 

The "lowbrow model" is based on an exceptionally efficient and profitable set of parameters, from choosing a target demographic, finding out what they believe, and then telling them how everything in the world works to fit exactly with their beliefs, reinforcing their comfort zones and playing on their convictions and fears. Back in the days of Cronkite and Murrow, the news was not something people tuned into everyday, it wasn't always interesting enough to compete with exciting shows.

 

The "highbrow" model is based on the idea of putting trust and integrity over consistent popularity, and when big events do happen everyone quickly tunes into whomever in their mind wins the trust game to get the most reliable coverage.

 

 

I don't even know if highbrow can fit into the 24hr cycle and chase balloon boys with the rest of the pack offering real-time analysis (word salad) and retrospective insights every 5 minutes (popcorn word salad) but NPR isn't the obstacle. Personally, if I want to know more about something going on in the US I'll usually check the BBC's website as my first "highbrow" source. They may have a British twist, but it's not celebrity-chasing warped.

[Pangloss]

That money comes indirectly, as well — not straight from the government.

 

I have to wonder if the WSJ itself has taken any federal money, ever, in any form.

 

Their owner has, in the form of loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

 

Does Murdoch have an exclusive right to radio frequencies that he never has to pay for that could be sold to Google for billions of debt-reducing dollars? Just curious, as long as we're talking about "indirect" benefits.

[swansont]

Does Murdoch have an exclusive right to radio frequencies that he never has to pay for that could be sold to Google for billions of debt-reducing dollars? Just curious, as long as we're talking about "indirect" benefits.

 

Yes. Fox certainly has exclusive use of parts of the spectrum for their broadcasts. (NPR, as far as I understand, only provides content to radio stations, so it doesn't.)

 

It occurs to me that a call to cut funding to NPR (such as Rep Lamborn's) might be unconstitutional. You would have to tell corporate entities how to spend their money. But since corporations have been recognized to have a right to free speech, and money is speech, wouldn't those restrictions be a violation of the first amendment? The only way to do this would be to de-fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which, in essence, means Lamborn wants to kill Big Bird.

 

We can send him a Strangle-Me Elmo doll.

[Pangloss]

That's not the question I asked.

 

Does Murdoch have an exclusive right to radio frequencies that he never has to pay for, the way NPR does through the public radio stations?

[swansont]

That's not the question I asked.

 

Does Murdoch have an exclusive right to radio frequencies that he never has to pay for, the way NPR does through the public radio stations?

 

YES

[Pangloss]

Really? So you're saying that commercial radio and television stations don't pay for their air space? So why do they call them "licenses"? And why is google spending all this money on frequencies?

 

I thought that was how it worked, but if I'm wrong by all means please correct me.

[swansont]

Murdoch doesn't pay for a license, the company he runs does. They each don't pay for a license. NPR doesn't have a license, AFAIK, because they don't broadcast anything. The stations that subscribe to its content do.

 

What does this have to do with whether or not the WSJ has gotten federal money (and so would be hypocrites for whining about NPR getting some)?

[Pangloss]

Murdoch doesn't pay for a license, the company he runs does. They each don't pay for a license. NPR doesn't have a license, AFAIK, because they don't broadcast anything. The stations that subscribe to its content do.

 

What does this have to do with whether or not the WSJ has gotten federal money (and so would be hypocrites for whining about NPR getting some)?

 

You're splitting hairs that are not relevant to the discussion. Fox News Channel is part of a large vertical corporation that pays a licensing fee for its airspace. NPR broadcasts on free airspace that is potentially worth billions of dollars.

 

Regarding your question about federal money, many companies take money when it is offered to them without basing their business model around it. There is a huge difference between Ford taking the occasional R&D incentive and General Motors being bought out by the government. This author is not being hypocritical because he is not saying that a news organization should never take federal dollars for any purpose. He's saying that NPR's funding model is antithetical to competition in a specific manner.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not sure what hairs you think swansont is splitting. How much do you pay for the airspace that you broadcast in? You don't pay because you don't broadcast, you say? So does that make you subsidized by the federal government?

[swansont]

You're splitting hairs that are not relevant to the discussion. Fox News Channel is part of a large vertical corporation that pays a licensing fee for its airspace. NPR broadcasts on free airspace that is potentially worth billions of dollars.

 

I asked about the WSJ, not Fox.

 

Regarding your question about federal money, many companies take money when it is offered to them without basing their business model around it. There is a huge difference between Ford taking the occasional R&D incentive and General Motors being bought out by the government. This author is not being hypocritical because he is not saying that a news organization should never take federal dollars for any purpose. He's saying that NPR's funding model is antithetical to competition in a specific manner.

 

Again, NPR doesn't broadcast anything, and gets only a little of its money from the government, and all of that is indirect. What you would need to do is de-fund CPB, as I mentioned above. It's the radio stations that buy content from NPR, but they get content elsewhere, too. And putting restrictions on where they get content sounds like government censorship to me.

 

Do you really think that conservative programming is competing for viewers or listeners among people listening to NPR programs?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what hairs you think swansont is splitting. How much do you pay for the airspace that you broadcast in? You don't pay because you don't broadcast, you say? So does that make you subsidized by the federal government?

 

It's hair-splitting because it doesn't recognize the fact that if Fox News and the Wall Street Journal didn't bring Newscorp a profit they would cease to exist. The same is not true of NPR.

 

If I were you two instead of splitting hairs about internal corporate financial practices I'd focus on how the loss of funding could just as effectively drive NPR out of business as if it were for-profit, and how that same dynamic causes them to be an efficient organization, theoretically undermining the WSJ author's argument that the arrangement is anti-competitive because he can't argue that a for-profit enterprise would be more efficient.

[swansont]

It's hair-splitting because it doesn't recognize the fact that if Fox News and the Wall Street Journal didn't bring Newscorp a profit they would cease to exist. The same is not true of NPR.

 

NPR is non-profit, so that's kind of a tautology. If Newscorp did not make a profit the shareholders would be unhappy, but they would not cease to exist. They simply wouldn't have any money left over after paying their expenses. Same as NPR. If either Fox or NPR does not bring in as much as they spend, they would eventually cease to be.

 

 

If I were you two instead of splitting hairs about internal corporate financial practices I'd focus on how the loss of funding could just as effectively drive NPR out of business as if it were for-profit, and how that same dynamic causes them to be an efficient organization, theoretically undermining the WSJ author's argument that the arrangement is anti-competitive because he can't argue that a for-profit enterprise would be more efficient.

 

AFAIK the idea behind public broadcasting is that for-profit enterprises will not broadcast material that will not bring in a profit, but these programs still have value to the public. So the government provides for it. Public broadcasting is bigger than NPR. The author is a hypocrite if he wants to suspend funding for speech he doesn't like, and yet have that right to speak, and also take federal money while doing so. (at the very least, libraries that get federal money subscribe to the WSJ)

[Pangloss]

NPR is non-profit, so that's kind of a tautology. If Newscorp did not make a profit the shareholders would be unhappy, but they would not cease to exist. They simply wouldn't have any money left over after paying their expenses. Same as NPR. If either Fox or NPR does not bring in as much as they spend, they would eventually cease to be.

 

Now we're talkin' -- you're welcome for the rope! Now, with all due respect, I'll attempt to hang you with it. ;-)

 

The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are competing in an established market (newspapers and 24-hour cable news). In neither of these markets does the government compete. Why not? Other governments do (BBC), and if these are valuable services for the public to receive, and the existence of NPR and public radio in general suggests that the government is interested in providing services like these, then perhaps the reason they don't provide this service is that there are plenty of companies already providing it.

 

If that's a valid argument then the obvious question arises of why there's no market for "highbrow media" to compete with NPR. The author attempts to validate this argument by first suggesting that interest in such a market exists, and second offering evidence that the special arrangement is hindering it. Neither of these offerings is scientifically valid (and therein lies the rub), but both are perfectly valid fodder for further investigation. Let's examine them briefly in more detail.

 

First, a validation that the market could exist is offered by the simple logic that people listen to NPR. If X number of people listen to NPR, is it logical that some of those people, and perhaps (with good marketing?) others, might be interested in listening to NPR's competition, if such existed? This is a reasonable question.

 

Second, a validation that competition is being hindered is offered by the statement that a common response to the question of whether a company could offer such a service is to ask whether NPR already provides it. The implication being that the market is saturated.

 

The author says that this informs us that NPR should stop receiving funding because it is hampering with potential competition. He's mistaken; we don't actually know that. It could be that such ventures would fail and nothing would be added to the public's information and insight.

 

He's lacking evidence. Not logic.

 

What I would suggest is that further investigation is validated by this logic, and evidence is called for. Action should not be taken until supporting evidence exists.

 

 

AFAIK the idea behind public broadcasting is that for-profit enterprises will not broadcast material that will not bring in a profit, but these programs still have value to the public. So the government provides for it. Public broadcasting is bigger than NPR. The author is a hypocrite if he wants to suspend funding for speech he doesn't like, and yet have that right to speak, and also take federal money while doing so. (at the very least, libraries that get federal money subscribe to the WSJ)

 

The argument is not hypocritical because it's not about all government payments. The argument is whether a major exception/protection/funding is needed in order to provide a service that is not otherwise available (e.g. "value to the public").

 

Furthermore, whether the author is a hypocrite has no bearing on whether his argument is true. Either the government's special provisions for NPR/public radio are valid, or they are not. What Newscorp does or does not receive is irrelevant to that question.

[swansont]

The logical flaw is the continuing mistake of equating NPR with public broadcasting. The author says he is targeting NPR ("These are questions for Congress to explore when it looks into whether to continue funding for NPR.") NPR is one source of programming, which takes no direct government money, and is being singled out by people who don't like the speech that comes from it. This is made clear in the first couple of paragraphs of the article. The only way to stop money going to NPR is to put restrictions on it. So whether or not Newscorp gets indirect government money is relevant, owing to government censorship issues. "Censor them but not me" is hypocrisy.

 

The author also sins by omission, because he later expands his argument to all public broadcasting; if the stations that broadcast NPR were to suddenly take advertising dollars and be in direct competition with commercial media, commercial media would suffer. Advertising budgets would not magically expand; the same pie would likely be just cut into smaller pieces and all commercial broadcast companies would see their profits go down. The perceived inability for that programming to compete in the 1960's has melted away in the era of cable TV. It's really not a stretch to think that they could be one more competitor, taking that much money away from Fox, et al., if their funding got cut off.

[Pangloss]

The logical flaw is the continuing mistake of equating NPR with public broadcasting.

 

Then you should have no trouble with NPR being forced to sell its product on the open market and compete with private companies.

 

 

"Censor them but not me" is hypocrisy.

 

He didn't say that. Not once in that article did he say the government should continue giving money to private companies.

 

In fact, according to his Wikipedia bio, he considers Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Milton Friedman amongst his "intellectual and ideological heroes". Hm, what do you think his opinion about the federal government giving money to private enterprises is?

 

In fact he speaks out directly against government money going to news organizations:

 

The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, has emerged as a leading voice for pouring more government money into news gathering. How badly would that chill the capital markets for those who dream of privately funded news gathering, completely independent of oversight by Congress? My guess is that the effect would be a great deal more significant than those who have not been out trying to raise such capital might imagine.

 

That would be entirely consonant with the school of economics known as public choice theory, which views the government as having its own economic interests and the state as not a protector but a competitor of private enterprise.

 

Gee.

 

 

Advertising budgets would not magically expand; the same pie would likely be just cut into smaller pieces and all commercial broadcast companies would see their profits go down.

 

It's possible.

 

 

The perceived inability for that programming to compete in the 1960's has melted away in the era of cable TV. It's really not a stretch to think that they could be one more competitor, taking that much money away from Fox, et al., if their funding got cut off.

 

I think that's a fabulous idea! Let them switch their model to advertising, which is hardly that different from the corporate sponsorships that comprise most of their present income anyway, take away their free access to airwaves and buy a license like anybody else, and then absolutely, by all means, let them compete. Sounds like a great plan you have there!

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that's a fabulous idea! Let them switch their model to advertising, which is hardly that different from the corporate sponsorships that comprise most of their present income anyway, take away their free access to airwaves and buy a license like anybody else, and then absolutely, by all means, let them compete. Sounds like a great plan you have there!

 

What you have suggested is impossible, and most likely means you have not been reading what we have been saying.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Mostly because NPR doesn't have any access to airwaves at all, because it doesn't broadcast. They don't need licenses to not broadcast.

[Pangloss]

Mostly because NPR doesn't have any access to airwaves at all, because it doesn't broadcast. They don't need licenses to not broadcast.

 

Exactly -- it's part of the government's protected model. Just like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are part of Newscorp's commercial model.

 

--------

 

This author is suggesting that we strip away that protection and create a market for NPR-like news broadcasting, with high ethical standards. He thinks that market could grow and help us deal with the problem of lowbrow, focus-on-sensationalism outfits like Fox News and CNN. I think he has an excellent point.

 

But I'm not convinced that he has made his case regarding competition. It seems to me such a company could start right now if they really wanted to. If the people at NPR are sincerely dedicated to the news they should welcome the additional outlet, and if the commercial outlet is successful it will be able to entice more talent with better money and win over market share just fine.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

NRP isn't a broadcaster. They do not operate radio stations. They do not operate television stations. They do not operate print media. They are not like Fox News or the WSJ.

 

Lipsky's article focuses solely on the money NPR gets from the CPB. NPR affiliates (i.e. radio stations that buy content from NPR) get free radio broadcast licenses from the FCC, but they are not NPR. They just purchase its content.

 

So, if the government withdrew its support for NPR, very little would change. If the CPB ceased to exist, very little would change. NPR would charge a little bit more for its content and its clients would raise a little bit more money in fund drives.

 

Now, if we want to talk about things Lipsky didn't mention, then sure, if public radio broadcasters had to pay for their broadcast licenses, public broadcasters would have less motivation to buy their content solely from NPR. With no motivation to choose public radio producers like NPR over commercial sources, they may just choose to syndicate other content. But this isn't what Lipsky is talking about.

[Pangloss]

I understand that NPR doesn't operate radio stations.

 

If the stations had to pay for their licenses they wouldn't have as much money to pay NPR. NPR has no other outlets. Therefore NPR is part of a vertical integration. This is analogous to the commercial model. If those licenses were no longer free (and maybe moved above the protected 92 mhz line, allowing us to sell 88-92mhz to Google or AT&T for billions), the stations would have to sell commercial air time. In order to sell that commercial air time, its product has to be good. That would force NPR to compete with other products the station could be selling. One of those products could be a commercial NPR-like news service.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Indeed, but again, this isn't what Lipsky was talking about. But it's much more interesting than what he was talking about, so let's run with it.

 

What other competitors are there at the moment? I seem to recall CNN operating (or providing content for) AM radio stations, and it seems they do satellite radio now as well. There are some shortwave competitors as well: Voice of America (though it's federally run), the BBC World Service, Radio Netherlands, and so on. (I've listened to each via shortwave at some point or another.) Interestingly, all are publicly funded one way or another...

 

If competition with NPR were more viable, each of these services could likely sell its content more easily. And everyone who broadcasts on Sirius or XM for news (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) could presumably adapt their satellite radio lineup to be syndicated by broadcast radio stations.

 

It would be interesting. The mainstream television channels could move in to radio syndication, should they deem it profitable, and NPR would hit serious competition. But is the audience big enough to motivate the big channels to do it? Does NPR have a big enough fan base to prevent it?

 

This reminds me, I ought to dig out the shortwave radio again and listen to some Radio Netherlands...

[Pangloss]

Interesting points.

[swansont]

Then you should have no trouble with NPR being forced to sell its product on the open market and compete with private companies.

 

NPR does compete, though it's with other nonprofits (American Public Media, Public Radio International and Public Radio Exchange) and with locally produced content. I don't see why another nonprofit could not be created to compete with NPR. But that doesn't seem to be the author's intent — doesn't just want to provide content, he wants to make a buck at it, above and beyond a salary he'd draw, and I do have a problem with that. It says that all speech that is broadcast has to be commercial. It says "if what you say can't draw a large enough paying audience, screw you. You have to pay if you want the first amendment." What do you tell the students at your local college radio station, when the school decides that tuition and fees are already too high, and a commercial broadcast license isn't in the cards? "You aren't worthy of the right to free speech. It's only for the rich, or at least people with jobs."

 

Once speech is a commercial commodity, what then? This ties directly into net neutrality, too. If you can pay, your message gets out there faster. If you can't, slower or perhaps not at all.

 

 

He didn't say that. Not once in that article did he say the government should continue giving money to private companies.

 

He didn't call for them to stop, and he did call for the cessation of money to NPR.

 

 

In fact, according to his Wikipedia bio, he considers Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Milton Friedman amongst his "intellectual and ideological heroes". Hm, what do you think his opinion about the federal government giving money to private enterprises is?

 

In fact he speaks out directly against government money going to news organizations:

 

 

 

Gee.

 

Why is this surprising to you? He doesn't want government money subsidizing broadcasting, period.

 

 

If the stations had to pay for their licenses they wouldn't have as much money to pay NPR. NPR has no other outlets. Therefore NPR is part of a vertical integration. This is analogous to the commercial model. If those licenses were no longer free (and maybe moved above the protected 92 mhz line, allowing us to sell 88-92mhz to Google or AT&T for billions), the stations would have to sell commercial air time. In order to sell that commercial air time, its product has to be good. That would force NPR to compete with other products the station could be selling. One of those products could be a commercial NPR-like news service.

 

While we're at it let's make radio astronomers pay for their spectrum, too, or auction it off if they can't ante up.