On the whole, the news offerings of U. Explore the patterns and longitudinal data about public broadcasting below. Further data on podcasting is available in a separate fact sheet. This includes listeners of NPR programming as well as original or other syndicated content aired on these stations. About The NPR One app, which offers a stream of individual shows and podcasts, had a similar average number of total completed sessions in as in , depending upon the device.
A completed session is any instance in which a user starts and stops using the app. The NPR News app, which offers livestreams from individual stations and digital content, increased sharply in completed sessions among iPhone users.
Why does public broadcasting need federal funding? Does CPB take programming suggestions? How is CPB governed? Who pays for public media? Who creates the programs on public media? Who operates the stations? How many public media stations are there?
When does a program air? How can I get a program on the air? How can I support public media? What kind of programming does CPB fund?
How can I request grants or funding for programming? Can I request grants or funding for a radio station? Can I request grants or funding for a television station? CPB is the steward of the federal government's investment in public media and supports the operations of nearly 1, locally owned and operated public television and radio stations.
Learn more here. CPB is a private nonprofit corporation created and funded by the federal government and is the steward of federal funding for public media. CPB does not produce or distribute programs, nor does it own, control or operate any broadcast stations.
PBS is a private, nonprofit media enterprise owned by its member public television stations. PBS distributes programming to approximately locally controlled and operated public television stations across the country and is funded principally by these member stations, distribution and underwriting.
NPR is an independent nonprofit membership organization of separately licensed and operated public radio stations across the United States. PBS, Again. In a nutshell: with the exception of the working-class victims of the establishment interviewed by PBS journalists, about That is not balance or diversity.
How, exactly, are you news and commentary professionals to know what questions to ask of third generation factory workers and second generation homeless and hungry, after several years of higher education has programmed you to forget your roots, if you ever had any? I am disgusted with the continuing attacks on the integrity of your news broadcasts. I am so disappointed with what has happened to journalism today.
You bend over backwards to be fair. Please, continue what you are doing! You are needed! Hmmm, really confusing response from the ombud. The FAIR report refers to e. And the ombud seems annoyed that he has to respond because from what I can gather this same complaint was already made 4 years ago.
The responses from the individual programs are equally odd, talking about the unseen people off-camera who help make the shows. The point of the FAIR report, that you seemingly didn't understand or are otherwise pretending to understand, is that guests on these shows are overwhelmingly white and male, but this ombud column doesn't really address that imbalance, like, at all.
Really odd. Thank you for giving us a full go at the FAIR report. I agree with you about the numbers game. It doesn't always tell the true story.
Gwen Ifill! My Heavens. Washington, D. The center of politics. Even jumping Charlie Rose seemed, well, stupid. Maybe he is one you have to have a certain level of intelligence to listen to. I do admit to being an old in my 80's white lady who grew up back when June Cleaver was the model, not that daring reporter Martha Raddatz of whom I've long said, "If Martha said it, it must be true. Getler, I found your response to the FAIR report far more balanced, informative, and enlightening than that of the various newshows representatives.
They were predictably defensive. Not once did I see an acknowledgement of "we can do better" about a specific issue. I thought the FAIR report was fair. Liberal advocacy organization yes, but not an irrational off-the-wall one. Pretty much of a miracle in these contentious times. And it is why, as you say, Bill Moyers is so missed.
I can never easily find that sort of programming on GPB. This rigorous drive to self-improvement clearly transferred to the educational broadcasting stations.
It seemed natural that broadcasting stations would find their homes in institutions created by another Yankee, the famed Vermont Senator Justin Morrill, who wanted to bring education to the middle class. In , it set aside channels for such purposes. Soon afterward the Ford Foundation began to drift toward radical causes, which would have surprised Henry Ford, Sr.
However, a turning point came in a speech by Leonard H. Marks explained to Johnson, who had been a teacher in rural Texas, how the new technology would allow one teacher to reach thousands. Though the Act was a breakthrough in terms of getting lawmakers accustomed to the idea of using federal dollars to support educational television, it was too narrow to propel the Education Television project forward, since the money was aimed at creating facilities, not programming.
At that time, yet another philanthropic organization, the Carnegie Corporation, entered the fray. Eventually, the commission proposed by Lowell became the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television, and this entity recommended what became the Public Broadcasting Act and specifically called for the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In a letter supporting the idea of a commission, President Johnson wrote:. From our beginning as a nation we have recognized that our security depends upon the enlightenment of our people; that our freedom depends on the communication of many ideas through many channels.
I believe that educational television has an important future. Carnegie set the promotion of culture on a new pedestal. And not only imposed but paid for in major part by everyone.
White, the renowned New Yorker essayist who helped the commission with its work, captured the essence of the moment in a letter to the Commission, a passage of which read:. Non-commercial TV should address itself to the ideal of excellence, not the idea of acceptability — which is what keeps commercial TV from climbing the staircase. I think TV should be providing the visual counterpart of the literary essay, should arouse our dreams, satisfy our hunger for beauty, take us on journeys, enable us to participate in events, present great drama and music, explore the sea and the sky and the woods and the hills.
The spell was cast. Public affairs programming, educational programming and the culture of the s. A significant parallel development was taking place at the time. National Educational Television which the Ford Foundation had set up had begun to experiment with documentaries, panel discussions and other public affairs programs that it distributed to the stations. At this point, ETRC was officially renamed NET, and we first see the full metamorphosis from educational television to something altogether different: news.
The reason for this change from educational programming to news was simple. Educational programming was not retaining viewers; in order to survive, changes would have to be made to appeal to a larger audience. Kennedy and later for Johnson, who by had become head of the Ford Foundation.
It was the first time such a thing had been done, and it drew rave reviews from critics. The Associated Press reported it thus on Jan. Charles Ponce de Leon writes:.
More than any other television program at the time, PBL provided a platform for dissenting political views and controversial artistic projects … Not surprisingly, Westin and his fellow producers were assailed by conservatives.
They were also condemned by many station managers, who were uncomfortable broadcasting a program so clearly informed by the political and cultural radicalism of the era; a number of stations, mostly in the South, refused to air several controversial episodes. But Friendly stood behind Westin. The NET vision was in reality hostile to what Johnson had had in mind. Everything possible, however, was done in the debates, hearings and writing of the report to ensure that editorializing and opinion-making would not be part of the broadcasts.
Johnson and the congressmen who supported the bill wanted it funded from general tax revenue through appropriations, while Friendly fiercely opposed the idea of funding that had to be approved by the federal government. He thought that requiring approval would be at odds with the public affairs programming that he insisted should be included.
He told the Senate Subcommittee:. There will be — there should be — times when every man in politics — including you — will wish that it had never been created. But public television should not have to stand the test of political popularity at any point in time. Its most precious right will be the right to rock the boat. The idea was rejected in by the Federal Communications Commission and Congress.
After the bill was referred to the more conservative House on March 22, Representative Hastings Keith of Massachusetts raised concerns about the political dangers inherent in a government-supported broadcasting system.
In nine days of hearings by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, concerns about possible political interference were allayed by the introduction of an amendment that determined no more than eight of the 15 board members could come from the same political party.
Dean Coston, Deputy Under Secretary at the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare, who was among the opponents of excluding editorializing, worked closely with Johnson during the original drafting of the bill and fought hard to get public radio included.
He did not mind banning the endorsement of candidates and requiring balance, but he insisted that editorializing by radio and TV presenters be permitted. Springer, however, held his ground. It thus made it to the final bill signed into law. Critics who held that Section violated the First Amendment kept fighting it and eventually won in court.
In , in Federal Communications Commission v. The House passed the bill on Sept. Some flexibility was allowed: Each program in a series would not have to meet this standard, but a series of programs as a whole would. The House approved the conference report on Oct. Of the three, the Ford Foundation was to have the decisive impact. If public television is to fulfill our hopes, then the Corporation must be representative, it must be responsible, and it must be long on enlightened leadership.
Richard Milhous Nixon was elected president a year later and entered the White House with a team full of hope. That optimism extended to public broadcasting. Nixon intuitively understood the new medium. In fact, his career highlight the Checkers Speech and low point the debate with John F. Kennedy were televised events. The CPB may have been established under the Johnson Administration, but Nixon was clearly going to put his imprint on the experiment, or so his administration thought.
Nixon and his team quickly realized to their dismay that educational and cultural broadcasting would soon also include public affairs programming to be presented by liberals.
0コメント