18-49 demo and NPR is too liberal doesn't play it down the middle there demo is 55 & over liberals maybe some conservatives listen to NPR just my opinion.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Should NPR seek a broader audience?
- Thread starter JM Dempsey
- Start date
18-49 demo and NPR is too liberal doesn't play it down the middle there demo is 55 & over liberals maybe some conservatives listen to NPR just my opinion.
I don't know how you come up with that, since most of their news is international, not politics. But I agree that the talk demo is older. I can tell you that a lot of very conservative Congressmen keep NPR on in their Cap Hill office all day. Maybe they're the ones who vote for the funding every year.
Yes I've spent some time on the Hill. And no question that Republicans support continued CPB funding, as indicated earlier in this thread.
FreddyE1977
Star Participant
SOME Republicans. Not this one.
The Conservative side of the party would have zeroed out NPR years ago.
Not exactly true. First of all, NPR doesn't receive a direct federal appropriation. There is no "NPR" line item in the budget. Nothing for them to zero out.
Second, only the extreme tea party would have zeroed out CPB. They don't have enough votes to even control the appropriations committee, much less the Congress as a whole. That's why CPB has continued to receive full funding year after year, regardless of the fact that Republicans have run the House for years. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the House recently announced it will fund CPB again this year.
I don't really understand all this discussion about NPR. They are only one of several major public media program suppliers whose programming is paid for with CPB funding. Prairie Home Companion, Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, and This American Life all receive CPB funding too. As I've said before, the local radio stations receive the federal funds, and use it to purchase programming for their local audiences. Some choose NPR shows, some don't. That's how funding of NPR works. The members of Congress who were vocal about NPR a few years ago were educated about how funding works, and they aren't opposing this funding any more.
I've spent some time on the Hill myself. Therefore, I'll offer that no GOP offices are tuned into NPR. Accurate, I don't know, but likely equally so to your assertion on this regard.
In any case, to get the topic back on track, NPRs existence is predicated upon the health of its member stations. The programming they offer is likely influenced by what their member stations ask them to provide. Only so much 'broadening' can occur without alienating current listeners. As they don't sell advertising they don't need to chase demos the way their commercial counterparts do, but they need to try to remain relevant. So, yes, they should broaden their audience, to a point.
In any case, to get the topic back on track, NPRs existence is predicated upon the health of its member stations. The programming they offer is likely influenced by what their member stations ask them to provide. Only so much 'broadening' can occur without alienating current listeners. As they don't sell advertising they don't need to chase demos the way their commercial counterparts do, but they need to try to remain relevant. So, yes, they should broaden their audience, to a point.
FreddyE1977
Star Participant
I will clarify....Most Republicans would have zeroed-out the Federal contribution
to CPB (and, by extension, NPR) years ago. Due to a handful of moderate Republicans
who disagreed they have never had the votes.
Ideologically most Conservatives believe that subsidizing a broadcast network
is not a proper role of Government.
to CPB (and, by extension, NPR) years ago. Due to a handful of moderate Republicans
who disagreed they have never had the votes.
Ideologically most Conservatives believe that subsidizing a broadcast network
is not a proper role of Government.
FreddyE1977
Star Participant
Which reinforces my point that they can't broaden their audience because the people
who are actively taking part in pledge drives want to hear Liberal political red meat.
Put on anything else and they get upset that they aren't getting what they paid for.
Last edited:
Based on nothing. The truth is the reason Congressmen listen to NPR is a lot of them love classical music. The only station in Washington that plays classical music is WETA, the NPR station in Washington. In addition, the classical music is uninterrupted by loud commercials which would disrupt the workplace. So it's very popular on Capitol Hill.
That's not what CPB does, and that's why conservatives changed their tune. CPB funds local non-commercial radio stations. Not all of them carry NPR programming. Conservatives believe in giving federal money to the states to spend on local projects. Public broadcasting is just one of those things. It's very similar to the concept conservatives have for health care, giving block grants to states, and letting them decide how the money is spent. Same with education. A lot of the states have Republican governors, and they need the federal money to keep their state-owned public broadcasting stations alive.
If that's what they want, they're not getting it from NPR. Once again, public radio stations run a lot of shows that don't come from NPR. They might carry Democracy Now, which IS liberal red meat. But that's not an NPR show. They might be supporting a local talk show with a liberal host. But that's not coming from NPR. They might be supporting classical music, but that's not coming from NPR. So this isn't as simple as you make it. If it was, then it would be easier for NPR to broaden its audience.
JM Dempsey
New Participating Member
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 states that its purpose is to address “the needs of unserved and underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities.” NPR’s own promotional materials proclaim: “On air and online, the NPR audience is influential, affluent and curious. … NPR listeners are 133% more likely to be top management and 148% more likely to be C-suite executives … NPR listeners are 74% more likely to earn $100,000+ in household income …"
Y2kTheNewOldies
Walk of Fame Participant
Well local PBS Affiliates and NPR affiliates do fill the needs of underserved communities but the criteria for that to be done in some parts of the country is via News segments/talk show segments where the topic is about underserved communities affected by gentrification in San Francisco or when children are part of the topic it's about the educational quality in their local school districts and how it stacks up with test scores all over the world.
vchimpanzee
Walk of Fame Participant
Don't liberals avoid red meat and eat mostly vegetables?
Fascinating juxtaposition there.
It stands to reason that NPR's programming would cater to the people that probably pay most of the donations during membership drives.
Except that NPR doesn't receive the money directly from those people, so it has no idea how to "cater" to them.
NPR's money comes from the stations that carry its programs. Therefore it caters to the stations and what they say they want.
I hear what you're saying, but isn't it the same thing? The stations themselves respond to the listeners -- especially those listeners who donate and let the stations know which programs they prefer (when I was at a community station that ran mostly on donations and was associated with a local NPR station, we knew which programs were most popular via the listeners' input during pledge drives); the stations, in turn, either take the NPR programs they want or they don't.
The money still drives the programming one way or another, doesn't it?
EDIT: the station I volunteered at ran on pledge/donations, some underwriting, and some CPB funds, and I think the NPR station was involved somehow -- but I wasn't involved in the financial aspect of the station enough to know the ins and outs of it.
Last edited:
FreddyE1977
Star Participant
You've just made the Conservative case that they don't need taxpayer subsidies.
In terms of paying the bills, sure. But that's about it. No real connection between the money and the programming. And BTW that was the intent of the Public Broadcasting Act, to take money out of the equation in terms of programming.
Consider that there are many kinds of stations that carry NPR programming. Some play classical music all day, with a couple hours in the morning and afternoon for news. Some are all news 24/7. Some are block programming, with a patchwork of programs that cover a wide range of interests. Some stations are owned by community groups, some are owned by state governments, and some are owned by colleges. No real direction in programming there.
The fact that the audience is smart or rich doesn't mean they donate. And once again those demographics are for NPR, while the federal funds are for the stations. Two different things. And as I've said, the bulk of the federal funds doesn't go to NPR. They stay in the states for local operations and community applications.
Also, conservatives, as we've seen, are not all of one mind. Rand Paul might agree with you. But Susan Collins might not. This idea that all conservatives think alike doesn't really exist any more.
Last edited:
- Status