In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:00:03 -0400, Martin Baxter said:

They do provide a refreshing alternative to Rupert's biased outlets.
Can you not see the benefits of a news service that is not at the mercy of advertisers nor driven by the corporate need to maximize profits?

Actually, my radio listening habits are generally restricted to NPR and WQXR
(the local classical station operated by the Times).

Dave, please don't lie. It makes you look sillly.

But to answer your question, while there are some advantages to a radio
network that feeds from the public trough, there are also risks when you let
that station be run by folks from a limited segment of the population with
some fairly specific agendas.

As though the others don't.

Of course if you've listened to NPR recently you'll realize that the
supposed absence of support from advertisers has been reduced to a complete
fiction, as the loophole allowing sponsors to use "tag lines" has grown
beyond all recognition. Today, the major difference between NPR and
commercial radio, aside from variety in commercial radio, is the identity,
not the presence, of advertisers.

Yeh, it's a sad state that they can't get enough funding through the
public.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."