vision2020
RE: All Taxpayers - Raise your Hands!
As it was I who made the post that was misattributed to Greg, let me
clarify. I was raising the question that perhaps judging the worth of a
show based on the amount of money pledged to it is an assumption that
privileges people who have more disposable income, thus allowing a sort of
upperclass to determine the programming content. I did not say that
NWPR/NPR was for an upperclass. To rephrase: I think the assumption that
pledges indicate the worth of a show is a biased assumption that should be
avoided in "public" radio. It allows that PORTION of the listeners who are
upperclass to have more input into the programming.
Personally, I can't stand NPR and its affiliates and never listen. To me
the programming does stink of middle-to-upperclass attitudes. Ask yourself
a couple questions: why are the bulk of music shows on N"PUBLIC"R easy
listening, classical, folk, jazz? Where is the rap and rock and roll?
Where is the electronica? Today's important music styles are vastly
underrepresented on NPR. Obviously NPR is targeting a certain audience,
which happens to be the middle-to-upperclass who have more money to donate
to "PUBLIC" radio. So I think you can argue that NPR is "for" an
upperclass. BUT, that's not what I said in my earlier post at all.
P.S. The talk radio programming is marginally better, and I did actually
like TBOOK a lot.
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, G M wrote:
> --- "Jerry L. Schutz" <jschutz@moscow.com>
> wrote:(snip)
> > "Greg. as far as NWPR being a privileged "upper"
> > class thing..."
>
> Sorry Jerry. You got the wrong guy. I didn't say
> this. (It was from another post.) I in fact do not
> believe NWPR is a "privileged upper class thing". I
> listen to NWPR regularly and I certainly am neither
> privileged or upper class.
>
> Greg
>
-------------------------------------
Robert Anton-Erik
anton933@uidaho.edu
http://www.ets.uidaho.edu/rob/
"The medium is not the message,
the message is the message."
-------------------------------------
Back to TOC