NPR, Public Goods, and the Longing for NQR
By John Baden, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, Guest Writer, 4-15-10
National Public Radio (NPR), a nonprofit 501 c-3 corporation, has 860 independent stations throughout America. I wouldn’t care to live in a place that didn’t have radio access. (Streaming it on the web is a poor substitute.) When traveling, I find the local station so not to miss “Morning Edition” and the evening program “All Things Considered.”
While I’m obviously a loyal listener, their biannual weeklong fund drives are things to endure. One suffers through them as a necessary nuisance, much like Montana’s spring mud season.
During the 30-plus years I taught university courses in political economy, NPR was one of my favorite examples of a “public good.” Like national defense, it is something that, if provided to anyone, is available to everyone. So, of course, are all radio stations. The difference is that explicit advertising for specific products supports commercial radio. NPR, in contrast, has mercifully brief underwriting. This source provides just over one-fifth of its revenue. Governments, mainly federal, provide 16 percent.
Roughly a third of NPR’s support comes from listeners’ contributions. This is why the fund drives are a necessary burden. Because listeners’ support is voluntary, there is a temptation to free ride on the contributions of others. Nationally, roughly 20 percent of listeners contribute an average of $75. (YPR tells us that here it’s about 10 percent.)
While I find our YPR’s fund drives less noxious than most, it’s unpleasant to be hectored for a week. Stations ratchet up the guilt of free riders and paying one’s contribution doesn’t halt the pain.
The intensity normally increases over the week as the contribution goal approaches. This is a lamentable, but predictable, consequence of providing a public good, especially one targeted to liberals and “progressives.” On average, these groups are less generous and charitable than conservatives and libertarians. Their “generosity” is most strongly expressed by using government to transfer wealth rather than relying on voluntary exchanges.
Many of my libertarian and conservative friends protest that NPR demonstrates a progressive or liberal bias. Of course it does. The percentage of college educated listeners equal those of the Atlantic and The New Yorker, just over half. NPR echoes, or perhaps leads, the political and social orientation of the mainstream media.
Whatever their leanings, the national programs of NPR are highly professional and well executed. It is no accident that according to Arbitron, the national radio rating company, its audience has increased by 50 percent in the last decade. “Morning Edition’s” audience is only slightly below Rush Limbaugh’s, some 7.6 million.
Yet, NPR has financial problems. In 2009 it had a budget gap, cut staff and programs, and suspended some retirement payments. This was projected to become worse. What are the causes of financial decline?
Surely part is due to the recession. Also, technology offers competition, such as YouTube. And young people prefer alternatives to NPR radio. There’s, however, another factor—political culture.
NPR gives only reluctant, occasional voice to principled, intelligent libertarians and conservatives, the numbers of whom will surely increase. And they notice the slight—and stop contributing. In a cultural conflict, only fools knowingly support their enemies. Unless NPR’s national programs become more balanced, its financial problems will become worse. And then what?
Here’s an idea from Chicago political thugs—tax talk radio. Arbitron supplies the listener numbers. Under some doctrine of “Fairness in Broadcasting” use the tax to subsidize NPR. Since conservative talk radio bests its liberal counterpart by more than ten to one, conservative listeners would fund their foes. Perfect no?
No, not really. There is a potential for policy entrepreneurs to launch a conservative/libertarian competitor to NPR, National Quality Radio (NQR). This nonprofit 501 c-3 corporation would provide a public good analogous to that of NPR’s, but with a philosophical counterweight.
Universities and think tanks have an immense amount of talent neglected, ignored, or ostracized by NPR. Much of it is readily available to provide content. The organizational and management prowess of the latter group is remarkably strong for they don’t rely on money taken by force or fraud; taxes don’t fund their operations so they must gather it from donors. None take corporate contracts.
Consider the capacity and intellectual heft of just the major players, AEI, CATO, Heartland, Heritage, Hoover, and NCPA to name a few. Also, many conservatives are naturally comfortable dealing with cultural classics, while libertarians such as Chris Buckley and P.J. O’Rourke excel with humor.
NPR’s mission is “to create a more informed public—one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.” Who could argue with that? However, given their underlying bias in implementing their mission, I have no doubt that the pieces are available to assemble such a venture as NQR.
Heritage has just launched a new advocacy organization, Heritage Action, to counter the liberal establishment. Its goal is to help build “an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.”
Other individuals and organizations disenchanted with NPR’s presentations, postures, and pretenses of impartiality share this vision. And while liberals and progressives specialize in crafting transfers from taxpayers to favored interests, conservatives and libertarians trump their entrepreneurial skills.
I have no idea if something like NQR will emerge but I am confident that people are seeking alternatives to the collectivist perspective that dominates NPR and the mainstream media more generally. Heritage Action is probably just the first of many. Meanwhile, we’ve put our usual NPR contribution into our charity escrow account.
John Baden is Chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment (FREE), based in Bozeman, MT. Email him at jbaden@free-eco.org.
NewWest.Net welcomes guest columns of all stripes. Submit yours to editor@newwest.net.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
"Heritage has just launched a new advocacy organization, Heritage Action, to counter the liberal establishment." The liberal establishment? Doesn't Baden mean simply "the establishment?" This country has a political class of which the mainstream media is a part. This includes the designated "conservatives" and "liberals" within the media and its pundicracy. Exactly how conservative does the establishment need to be for Baden? The political "center" in this country is far to the right of where it was 20 years ago.
"...I am confident that people are seeking alternatives to the collectivist perspective that dominates NPR and the mainstream media more generally." Collectivist? Like NBC owned by GE? Or ABC owned by Disney? Or Fox "News" owned by a single a man? What the hell is Baden writing about? NPR news has become continually more mainstream and more conservative since its inception. Indeed, local stations provide most of the "liberal" programming, usually based on feedback from listeners--sounds kind of democratic to me...
It's too bad that after 30 years of "teaching political economy" that Baden still has no historical acumen and merely bases his ideas of political economy on his hyper-libertarian ideology/theology--much like his idol: the mean-spirited, bloodthirsty, "malevolent dwarf", Milton Friedman.
John is right as rain here. NQR might just work.
The only contribution I have ever made to NPR or CPB programming is for the News Hour, and that was before Clinton was elected. But as I got older and knew more about the subject matter, I began to question the flavor of the coverage, the selection of "experts," and the trend has only worsened over time.
Not that I like Brand F, or MSNBC, or CNN, either. The "mainstream" is considerably to the left of the American centerline in general, and TV news lacks the depth that justifies sitting down and watching someone talk when you could be doing something else, like reading five to ten times as much content in the same time frame.
Just as not all liberals, despite their edjoocayshunal kwalifications, are geniuses, not all conservatives or libertarians are dropout morons. Many conservatives and libertarians of intellect would kill to have quality content in a TV or radio format, and many of the same would make good use of a platform where they can get their ideas out into the wider world. It would be a powerful thing...um, is that what upsets you so, Wasted?
The bottom line is, if there was an equivalent to NPR content, it would be supported. Good idea. Better than Air America, for sure.
As usual, you provide no coherent evidence or examples--just like the crap that Baden and Geddes regularly regurgitate.
Social Darwinism with a twist of Jim Crow was good enough for the Greatest Generation. It ought to be good enough for all the rest of us for all the rest of time.
How about if YOU come up with "coherent evidence" or "examples" of NPR's perfect, bias-free balance -- or even something along the lines of self-identified Americans, which breaks down as 40 percent conservative, 40 moderate and 20 progressive/liberal.
If I saw that kind of "slant" average in "mainstream" media, I'd be a much happier consumer. But I, and zillions of others, don't, which is why we choose other information pathways, and why the "mainstream" press is turning into a sideshow.
Further, this same trend is why the Left is trying to score a government mandate from the competition, the evil, capitalist, right-wing TALK RADIO purveyors who are fiscally successful in the evil right wing free market. It's a textbook case of the kind of politically-leveraged rent-seeking the Left scrabbles for in the name of "justice" and "fairness."
I'm a capitalist, a marketing major, so I understand yet loathe commercials. I would probably pay not to have to listen to endless credit card ads....and if so, would probably pay to have that from NPR and CPB if they gave the goods straight. But they don't.
And yeah, I'll confess. John, along with Richard Stroup, was the first economics professor I had who taught a class in econ that related to the real world. "Ah, HAH," said I, "THAT'S why the government can't run a surplus!"
As for you, Jay, I don't understand at all what Jim Crow has to do with this unless you are merely taking a gratituous anonymous swipe implying that free markets and their supporters are racist. Oh, that's right, you can't argue on the merits.
As for "Darwinism," I thought all you lefties believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, yet you demand that government be God and create a Garden of Eden, a paradise for you out of whole cloth confiscated from others?
Please, please, explain that gap in logic to me. Please, explain to all of us who enjoy New West why, if Darwinism is correct, social Darwinism is not?
I reckon I'll let you work out the reasons social darwinism and jim crow are not in the same intellectual ball game as general evolution.
I'm not the one who put Jim Crow and social Darwinism together. That was Jay's line. The reconciliation of social Darwinism versus scientific Darwinism and why one is correct and one is not in certain circles deserves an explanation. Is there an inconsistency there?
As for Massively Wasted, when it comes to sources, whyn'cha back up that grubby little assertion of yours that Baden has no "acumen" rather than just slag and generalize?
I mean, how would you know...did you flunk one of his classes or something?
I do, however, find it puzzling as heckfire that you chose to conflate Jim Crow laws with "social Darwinism." The only possible reason I can come up with for the gargantuan associational leap you made is because you were grasping for an excuse to sidestep the issue of whether Prof. Baden's premise is valid or not.
So, if you are not willing to directly address the NQR concept, pick it to shreds, I am forced to conclude that you're not as well-informed as you imply.
It is the concept of NQR directed by such anti-intellectuals which causes me to summon up a vision of Limbaughs, Coulters and Becks, interrupted briefly for reports of news from Hannity and Dobbs that causes my nightmares.
I am firmly convinced that central to all Rightwing thought is a Social Darwinist philosophy and Jim Crow politics.
Perhaps, as AN historian, you have written an article on this Crow Darwinism topic that you could perhaps share? I'm sure it would be fascinating.
We'll have to wait on the knuckledusting for a couple of weeks. Just did a number on my haymaker hand, what I call a "combo" injury involving instantaneous impact and associated lacerations. Trust me, the phrase "illegal operation and will be shut down" applies to table saws as well as computers. Thank God for blue shop towels, they don't fall apart when soaked.
I'm kinda happy as well because as near as I can remember the last fist-fight I was involved in took place in 1953; but I hope you lost no digits to the table saw (Brownie's helper); and will suffer no long term debilitation.