And I should add, I think VPR's goverment funding is less than 10%, last I heard - I can honestly say that the threat of loss of government funding is not an influence on content at VPR.
Asa On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Ken D'Ambrosio <[email protected]> wrote: > Point of order: no. 16% of NPR funding is through federal and state > governments; the rest is acquired elsewhere: > http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html > > Clearly, this didn't use to be the way things were (and will fluctuate a > bit on a station-by-station basis, due to state funding), but it's the > post-Reagan-era reality (for more details, see the NPR page on Wikipedia). > > -Ken > > On Fri, November 6, 2009 8:02 am, Paul Flint wrote: >> Dear Jonathan and Stan, >> >> >> The simple business truth is that VPR, WFCR, NPR etc. internally, and >> IBB, >> RFERL, RFA, OCB externally, are government radio. The checks that pay >> everyone are backed by Uncle Sam. Regardless of whether this is a good >> thing or a bad thing, if you are working in broadcast, you want to be >> working for these organizations, your future prospepcts, the welfare of >> you and your family are most assured. I will group these broadcast >> organizations under the title "Government Media" (GM). >> >> It is fun to watch Government Media try to reconcile the orientation of >> current US executive Administration, GM personnel and management with >> public trends and listen-ability, through good survey and media metrics >> they all do a fairly bang-up job. Thirty years ago when GM really >> started, a startup glitch - no one in commercial network media would >> touch it, spun GM into the "liberal" alternative. Ten years ago "Nightly >> Business Report" and it's ilk supplanted this initial bias and found the >> heart of Reagan country. While my words may sound harsh I do no condemn >> GM, which is the fun-house mirror of our country's outlook. >> >> >> Re: Can you be 'Open Source' and not release your source? >> >> >> I maintain that "Open Source" to the producers, writers and creative >> types at GM is merely a catchphrase, and a good one! Keep in mind that GM >> survives by "feeding the beast", that is the American public. If FOSS >> is what the beast is sniffing at than FOSS it shall have... Stark contrast >> applies to the program copyright messages - the heart of darkness for >> any project that wants to honestly use the term. However many lawyers you >> want to pile on top of this document of copyright, in this forum we all >> pretty much agree that the 4 RMS freedom elements must be present. As I >> understand it, these are: >> >> 1. You can compile it. >> 2. You can run it. >> 3. You can modify it. >> 4. You can distribute your patches for other people to use. >> >> >> However you slice it, American Public Radio Corporation, owner of >> "Prairie >> Home Companion" will be happy to seriously screw with you if you screw >> with their program, and that is fine, they own it. They have not licensed >> it under the GPL, but I still like Garrison! >> >> It really is unfair to compare the Public Radio movement, started in the >> "Great Society" era of LBJ's 1960's with the FOSS movement. they have >> nothing to do with each other. GM is about owning and controlling very >> large, expensive and relatively few antennas, transmitters, and >> transmission systems. These "destination gateways" are as past as movable >> type presses. They are prelude to open source programming at several >> levels, and it is this terrible and miraculous present where we are >> engaged. >> >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009, jonathan d p ferguson wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 5, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Stanley Brinkerhoff wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Its one thing to play fast and loose with broad definitions -- but to >>>> attempt to capture the good will of a development community, a >>>> philosophy, and an entire mantra is in poor taste. VPR may be >>>> community driven radio -- >>>> but to call it "Open Source" only serves to discredit VPR in the eyes >>>> of true FOSS developers, and to attempt to promote VPR in a capacity >>>> it is not. >>> >>> Broadcaster confusion about Free vs FOSS continues... At the risk of >>> promotion, see: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_(radio_show) >>> http://www.radioopensource.org/ >>> >>> >>> In addition to other experiments in open content: >>> >>> >>> http://www.kyouradio.com/ >>> >>> >>> Just in case you hadn't heard about these "Open Source" radio >>> projects... ;-) >>> >> >> Finally, I apologize to Jonathan, Stan and everyone else that we have >> merely scratched the surface with this topic so far. For the Lurkers who >> feel this off topic, I say fooey. Nothing could be more on topic. >> >> For fun, check out program licenses for IBB, BBC, CBC, or Pacifica. BTW >> my portions of this note are licensed under GPL II... >> >> How do you and Jonathan license, Stan? >> >> >> Kindest Regards, >> >> >> Paul Flint >> (802) 479-2360 >> >> >> >> /************************************ >> Based upon email reliability concerns, >> please send an acknowledgment in response to this note. >> >> Paul Flint >> Barre Open Systems Institute >> 17 Averill Street >> Barre, VT >> 05641 >> >> >> http://www.bosivt.org >> http://www.flint.com/home >> skype: flintinfotech >> Work: (202) 537-0480 >> >> >> Consilium _ >> gratuitum .~. ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) valet /V\ >> against HTML e-mail X quanti /( )\ www.asciiribbon.org / \ >> numerantur ^^-^^ >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. >> >> > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >
