Monday, February 9, 2015

On Guiltlessly Refusing to Support NPR

I listen to NPR (National Public Radio) on my drive into work, sometimes. I listen to a show called Fresh Air on the way home sometimes, too. I grew up watching Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers -- both public TV shows. That is the extent of publicly funded broadcasting in my life.

Of late, over the past few years, I have been subjected to fundraising campaigns on the radio from our local station. They ask for money. When these come on, I usually guiltlessly change the channel. I say "guiltlessly" because I feel absolutely no obligation to donate to public radio. I suppose I just don't find it important enough. So sue me. If I am going to donate money, it is going to be to cancer research for children or to a local "soup kitchen" for the poor or to an arts fund. NPR is low on my list.

Me, on the left; NPR on the right. 
So, when I change the channel to avoid listening to the same speech about how they need money delivered seven different ways in one "break" I do so without any shame whatsoever. Then, I shamelessly go back to listening. I will listen, in my occasional way, until NPR folds and then, with not a tear shed, I will move on to some other form of automotive diversion; a book on tape, perhaps.

But now, I think the powers-that-be at NPR have decided that the time is right to start trying to make me (and all listeners, I am forced to admit through my lens of maniacal egocentrism) feel guilty for not supporting them with donations. They have never done this before -- not in all the years I have been listening. Why now?

One presenter is all about comparing Nation Public Radio to a buffet: "Would you take food from a buffet and run without paying?" Well, no I wouldn't. But that's the new theme: You owe us. If you listen to and enjoy our shows, pay up. Faulty comparisons are not going to work on me, though. Paying for a sandwich at a buffet is required. Donating to NPR is voluntary.

Again, I ask: "Why now?" Why is the time right, in the minds of the promo people at NPR to use this tactic? Why has it gone from purely, "We need you help -- we can't do it without you?" to "You owe us, so fork it over or you will have to live with yourself for stealing our services."

Tides, my friends, that's why. The ongoing shift to the irresistible power of the massive (but [purportedly] gentle) mob.

Somewhere in between "the buffet" and the kid who walks up to my house without my knowledge, washes my car and demands payment for it, lies NPR.

It ain't happening. On a list that contains clothing and feeding my kids; helping those in real need and nourishing my soul with music and books, NPR is not just low, it is a non-entity. The guilt just won't work. In fact, it pushes me even farther from wanting to help.

Thanks for some good programming, NPR, but if you fold tomorrow, I'll be okay. And you can take your increasingly pushy guilt campaign and shove it up your nose.


  1. I pay the odd fiver towards Wikipedia, but that's because the appeal is so cleverly worded and I really value advert-free sites. But if their fundraising became more aggressive, I'd feel the same way as you.

    On the subject of Mr Rogers, my wife and I were friends with his daughter for 15 years before we discovered that her father had presented a children's television show.

    After he died, she posted this lovely clip on YouTube:

    1. Steerforth -- somehow I am not surprised that the daughter of Fred Rogers wasn't one to brag about her celebrity father. He was quite a man. In anyone else, his demeanior and delivery would have been creepy, but there was a sincerity in him that made it all perfect.

      I have seen that clip. It always makes my eyes "itchy." One of my favorites has always been this (his address to the senate):

      His lessons still resonate with me. I'll always remember his advice -- that it was okay to be angry, but you have to be the "master of your mad." Big stuff for a six-year-old (witha temper).

    2. ...oh, and thre great thing about the clip I shared is how Rogers wins over the cocky senator.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. I've just checked my friend's Facebook page and I got it completely wrong - she isn't his daughter. That's why she didn't mention him very often! Her dad's also an actor called Rogers and they may be related - she did put a post about Fred Rogers and said how proud she was, but I probably just scanned it and put two and two together.

      The clip's great. I wish she was his daughter, but apparently he only had sons. Oh well...

    5. Haha -- sorry to have sent you down such a rabbit-hole. Let's just blame your friend for her name and for her shifty video-posting. I would have drawn the same conclusion. Either way, ol' Fred was a heck of a guy.

  2. One of the great problems with public broadcasting (although I'm apparently the only cranky soul to see it this way) is that it was supposed to bring culture, news, and the fine arts to minorities, the uneducated, and the poor. Instead, its audience is overwhelmingly white, educated, and wealthy; according to a 2009 survey, 80% of the listenership is white and their average household income is $93,000. It's not a subject that gets me particularly worked up, but it does strike me as a massive failure of public broadcasting's original mission.

    (There's also something highly unseemly about endless shelves of toys that bring in countless millions of dollars from their connection to public broadcasting, which was supposed to be a not-for-profit and altruistic enterprise.)

    1. A very interesting perspective, Jeff. I admit I never thought of it that way. It has come to feel a bit eletist, hasn't it? Should I go off on a(nother) rant about the inevitable corruption of "public" ventures? Nah... Later...