NPR: We Are Not 'Tax-Payer Funded'

April 29, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (23)

The entire premise of [Doug Heye's blog post, "Tax Payer Funded NPR Brings Rock Stars to Swanky Washington Party"] is simply misinformed.

Our guests are paying their own way. And our tables were made possible by a generous donor to NPR who felt it was important for NPR to have a visible presence at this major event.

NPR is also not “tax-payer funded,” despite the rhetoric and misinformation perpetuated by some.

First, NPR receives no direct appropriation from the federal government. Less than 2 percent of our annual operating budget (approximately $2 million in a budget of $160 million) comes from competitive grants sought from federally-funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts. Those grant funds aren’t appropriated to NPR by Congress, nor are they used to support NPR’s general operations. NPR must apply and compete for the grants, and use the funds only for the specific project covered by each grant.

Federal funding from the CPB goes directly to local stations to serve local communities, NOT to NPR. Stations on average receive approximately 10 percent of their budgets from grants from the CPB.

When Heye writes that he’s “seen little from NPR” in the past few months, he must have missed the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, the tsunami in Japan, the one year anniversary of the deadly explosion at Upper Big Branch mine, the battle for soldiers with traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder to get adequate treatment—and the countless other events and stories NPR alone manages to extensively cover day in and day out. It’s this work that was recognized for several Peabody Awards earlier this month. And that a growing audience of 27 million tunes to each week.

Anna Christopher
Director, Media Relations, NPR

Tags:
NPR,
media

Reader Comments Read all comments (23)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I regularly listen to NPR; my other source of news is the internet and a daily newspaper, which I subscribe to because I want to support local news coverage and investigative journalism. There isn't another station I've found that equals the news coverage on NPR. And I'm tired of reading the misrepresentations about its funding. If they were getting all their money from govt. funding, they wouldn't have to hold those on-air fundraisers, would they? But I contribute because they're the best option out there.

Mary O. of MA 10:14AM November 15, 2011

Vivian Schiller resigned....who will be your liberal left wing voice now..how will you override these biases or is this just a little road bump? I have never in my life been so outraged by someone (Vivian Schiller) making a inappropriate remark/comment. I have been a very long & faithful listener & $upporter of NPR for over 35 years. Never again will I send them another penny. They lost my trust but, I've been seeing this organization (which started out left wing) veer more & more to the left for as long as I have been a supporter and with this lastest slander from someone who should have been just alittle bit wiser in her choice of opinion, I have closed the book on my affiliation with NPR.

Tim of IN 12:10PM July 22, 2011

Mik and Bob need to check their eyesite and their facts,

1) NPR and PBS DO NOT receive the vast majority of funds under attack. It is the community broadcasters that carry their content that need this support ot exist, with a far greater need in rural areas. These parts of our country do not have inexpensive cable and satellite options, and their impovershed populations cannot affor them anyway. This is just like any other subsidy (roads, military defense, schools) that can never be born equally by all citizens.

2) Good programming can find other homes. Really? I haven't seen quality educational programs for kids available on any FREE broadcast network station. How about local classical concerts and theater performances? Nope. Their isn't a commercial market for these programs because the less affluent populations that consume them (children, young families, elderly) aren't attractive targets for the market economy. Cable or satellite providers that do have a couple offerings like this are far too expensive for those living paycheck to paycheck. or correctly rural to a much greater degree People that oppose this essential funding should also oppose public schooling on principle.

3) Federal dollars that do support public broadcasters are poorly invested. With the exception of NASA, there are very few federal dollars that see exponential growth through additional funding by individuals, grants, local businesses and supporting of state and local budgets. In essence, CPB grants are proven stimulus for the creation and maintenance of jobs, and other economic growth.

Simply put, you need to find better arguments if you truly want to attack the support of public broadcasting in our country. Better scrutiny would be placed on corporate tax loopholes (GE paid no tax in the US for 2010), subsidies for energy companies (oil companies really need financial support for oil exploration?) and examination of our bloated military industrial complex (expensive weapons programs for cold war enemies). Even reform of Social Security of Medicare would be better use of Republicans' majorities. Small changes in any of these examples would result in billions and trillions of dollars, which dwarf the savings of eliminating CPB funding - which means this is no more than unproductive party grandstanding, not trying to really accomplish their claimed objectives.

Bob Tauber of FL 3:16PM May 06, 2011

Letters and Comments

Welcome to the U.S. News Readers' Letters and Comments blog. Positive or negative, reader feedback provides added perspective to any story. New letters and comments will be posted here regularly. Thank you for your submission.

advertisement

advertisement