NPR funding

Some Republicans have threatened to cut off public funding for public radio. I would be very surprised it this actually happened. They didn't do it when they controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress.

NPR is too useful to the business community because it's business slant is more subtle than FOX, and thus affects people who would not be fooled by FOX. The average person is not going to spend the amount of time necessary to see how slanted NPR is, because they have jobs and families and other interests.

Several years ago, I felt that NPR was avoiding mention of global warming. For about a year and a half, at a time when my schedule was such that I listened to Morning Edition almost every morning, to see if my perceptions were accurate, I kept a detailed record of how NPR covered topic to do with topics such as the environment and social justice. I found that I perceptions were accurate. There was a total blackout on any mention of anything that could even hint at the possibility of global warning, and any problems it might cause. Even in a program about hurricanes, when the researcher was asked about the cause of hurricanes. Anybody who knows anything about the subject knows that hurricanes are fueled by warm water, which is why they almost never occur in the winter. But there was no mention of this. Either the researcher was told he couldn't mention it, or it was cut out of the interview.

I also discovered something I hadn't noticed before. Almost always, when a topic was covered that might not be to the liking of big business or the ultra-rich, it was either during pledge week or just before. Which explained why so often, when I made a contribution, within a few days they would air something that made me wish I hadn't.

I notice that Living on Earth, which is carried by the Atlanta public radio station WABE 90.1 FM, does cover global warming fairly. But NPR rarely mentions it, and when they do, will likely say something about "some people" think it's happened. Yeah, like 98% of climate scientists. On news reports about the recent severe storms on the U.S. east and west coasts and in Europe, there was not mention of the fact that it is due to global warming having melted Arctic ice, and the warmer water affecting wind currents.

A few years ago, I heard an NPR program that was really inaccurate. (Can't remember the topic now). I wrote to them about it, including that I noticed the reporter sounded unhappy about having to present these falsehoods. Not long after, they put on the same program, with the same lies, but with a perky female announcer. I have noticed what sounds like the same person occasionally being the announcer when they are presenting lies. Don't know if it's the same person.

Tuesday of this week, Morning Edition had a program about EPA regulation of dioxin. It contained an implied criticism of EPA, noting that dioxin levels have been declining, and saying that the EPA wants to reduce acceptable levels, and that European regulations are less stringent. They mentioned that dioxin can cause cancer, but that it does not cause cancer below a certain threshold. There was no mention of the other health effects that it causes.

I suspect the timing of this program is related to the fact that the U.S. and Europe have just had severe, record-breaking storms, caused by the effects of global warming on wind patterns. I note that the fossil fuel industry is opposed to the EPA being able to regulate greenhouse gases. This smells like an attempt to influence the public against the EPA at the behest of some of NPR's contributors.


http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/

Key Facts
* Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that are persistent environmental pollutants.
* Dioxins are found throughout the world in the environment and they accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals.
* More than 90% of human exposure is through food, mainly meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish. Many national authorities have programmes in place to monitor the food supply.
* Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.
* Due to the omnipresence of dioxins, all people have background exposure, which is not expected to affect human health. However, due to the highly toxic potential of this class of compounds, efforts need to be undertaken to reduce current background exposure.
* Prevention or reduction of human exposure is best done via source-directed measures, i.e. strict control of industrial processes to reduce formation of dioxins as much as possible.



The latest list of donors on the NPR web site is for 2008:
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf

This includes oil companies, banks, and FOX. And of course "anonymous". I note that they have not updated this list for 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR

In 2009, NPR revenues totaled $164 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 40% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations to receive programming. Typically, NPR member stations raise funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, and grants from state governments, universities, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from direct government funding, 10% of their revenue from federal funding in the form of CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[14][15] NPR receives no direct funding from the federal government.[16] About 1.5% of NPR's revenues come from Corporation for Public Broadcasting grants.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. More money to fund the NPR network was raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.

In contrast with commercial radio, NPR does not carry traditional commercials, but has advertising in the form of brief statements from major donors, such as Allstate, Merck, and Archer Daniels Midland. These statements are called underwriting spots, not commercials, and, unlike commercials, are governed by FCC restrictions; they cannot advocate a product or contain any "call to action". In 2009, corporate sponsorship made up 26% of the NPR budget.


..