Peering into the Mouth of the Congressional Cannon

This is a continuation of the yesterday's post about H.R. 1076, the bill to kill NPR. Interestingly enough, the Republicans who rushed this to the floor broke one of their own promises (and on purpose, I suspect). Remember how they vowed that they would make the text of every bill public for three business days to allow public scrutiny and feedback? Why the rush, boys? I usually only skirt the rules if I know I'm doing something sketchy.

Despite not being available for public scrutiny for 72 hours, the text was finally posted today I had a chance to look at the actual bill and it's even stranger than I first thought. Here's the meat of it:

To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO AND RADIO CONTENT ACQUISITION

(a) IN GENERAL
- No Federal funds may be made
(1) to an organization that is incorporated as of the date of the enactment of this Act for each of the purposes described in subsection (c), or to any successor organization

(2) for payment of dues to an organization described in paragraph (1); or(3) for the acquisition of radio programs (including programs to be distributed or disseminated over the Internet) by or for the use of a radio broadcast station that is a public broadcast station (as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act)

b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
1) OTHER PURPOSES
- Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit the making available of Federal funds to any entity, including an entity that engages in the payment described in such paragraph (2) or the acquisition described in such paragraph (3), for purposes other than such payment or acquisition

(2) RADIO CONTENT ACQUISITION BY BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS OR DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY- Subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to apply to the acquisition of radio programs by the Broadcasting Board of Governors or the Defense Media Activity.

OK, so they plugged the Internet loophole I mentioned yesterday. But what if NPR switched to straight video/TV production? Not covered. Now the bill further defines what funds can't be used for, and do so by basically paraphrasing NPR's articles of incorporation! (Just so there's no confusion).

Now some analysists think that this bill specifically targets NPR while allowing funding to go to the other providers like PRI and APM. i think the reasoning is that the list of disallowed funding purposes "for each of the purposes described in subsection (c)." That could mean only organizations who do all of the proscribed activities, not just a few. But I'm not so sure. What if it's interpreted as "any?"

The disallowed activities, for example, include:

"To establish and maintain one or more service or services for the production, duplication, promotion and circulation of radio programs on tape, cassettes, records or any other means or mechanism suitable for noncommercial educational trnasmission and broadcast thereof."

That pretty much defines the activity of every syndicator and producer both large and small.

And what about this disallowed purpose for funding?

"To lease, purchase, acquire and own, to order, have, use and controct for, and to otherwise obtain, arrange for and provide technical equipment and facilities for the production, recording and distribution of radio programs for broadcast over noncommerical educational radio stations, networks and systems."

Well, parts of that cover every station in the system. So if Federal funding can't be used for program creation or acquisition, or equipment maintenance/upgrades, I guess that leaves only salaries. Does that mean public radio employees will be able to make a living wage thanks to an act of Congress?

Now there's an unintended consequence!

BTW - Section B, subsection 2 exempts Voice of America and military broadcast service from this ban. So does that mean VOA and the DoD would become NPR's biggest customers? Just wondering...

Hunting the NPR gnat with a Congressional cannon

My esteemed Representative Eric Cantor will be introducing a bill on the floor of the House tomorrow. In my opinion, it's a poorly written bill that's nothing more than a ham-handed attempt to kill off a perceived foe that will have dire and immediate consequences for many.

The Bill
H.R. 1076 - To prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content.

Right from the start, this bill is a mess. First of all, "National Public Radio" no longer exists. The organization made the change to "NPR" a while ago. Just like AT&T, the initials no longer stand for anything. It's the company name. So the leading luminaries who crafted this, Rep. Doug Lamborn and Rep. Eric Cantor don't even have the name of their target right. Isn't that type of detail important when crafting Federal law?

The Reason
Hard-core conservatives have hated NPR since the First Gulf War. That's when Newt Gingrich tried to kill the organization for not getting on board with the commercial news organizations and only reporting what the government wanted people to hear.

And that's not just my opinion. Bob Edwards in a recent interview said:

“The opponents of NPR are using a fiscal argument when they really want it off, they want it gone, just as Newt and company wanted it gone” when the Gingrich House zeroed out its funding. Why? “So the voices of Fox et al. can prevail,” says Edwards.

The Intended Consequences
It's not enough to just cut off Federal money to NPR. The bill goes further and disallows any Federal funds to be used to purchase radio content. The idea is that stations won't be able to use that money to pay for NPR programming, thereby eliminating any chance that NPR will even indirectly get those funds.

For most public radio stations, the biggest single expense in the programming, and the biggest single payment is to NPR. But there's a reason for that. Listeners expect to hear "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." They enjoy "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," "Car Talk," and "Fresh Air."


I suspect Cantor et al. aren't thinking much beyond the news programs. They want that damn liberal news organization shut down!

The Unintended Consequences
But by saying that NO Federal funds may be used to acquire radio programming, Cantor and Lamborn will be doing much more than just getting that pesky Linda Wertheimer off the air.

Many people (and I suspect our two legal eagles as well) have come to think of the terms "NPR" and "public radio" as one in the same. But they're not. The relationship between NPR and a local station is much like that between NBC and a local affiliate. The local station pays for the privilege of carrying the "Today Show," but has no control over what Matt Lauer says.

But there are several more providers of public radio content than just NPR. Like "Prairie Home Companion?" That's distributed by American Public Media. Ditto "Marketplace." The new law would not allow Federal funds to pay for those programs.

Like "This American Life" or the BBC Newshour? Those are provided by Public Radio International. They also couldn't be paid for by CPB grants under the new rule. It would also disallow programming from smaller distributors and content creators, such as the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts, StarDate, as well as programs produced by individual stations.

If you listen to public radio, pay close attention. Any program that has an end credit will be blocked from funding under this new law.

Further Unexpected Consequences
The law's being written with one goal in mind: kill NPR by blocking all funding to it. But that's not the way the law's written. Remember that name change I mentioned earlier? NPR changed its name because it's moving away from radio.  

The restriction applies to using Federal funds to acquire radio programming. But what about streaming audio, like the All Songs 24/7 Music Channel? If it's a feed created expressly for the Internet, then it's not a radio program, is it? What about podcasts? NPR produces several. They're not broadcast over the air, so they're not radio programs. What about Internet-only programs, like the Tiny Desk Concerts? They're not covered by this new law, either. What if NPR began producing video for public broadcasting? The law doesn't say anything about television programming.

The Bottom Line
HR 1076 will fail at its goal. NPR will not go away, nor will it wither that much. One of the reasons NPR hasn't allowed all of its programming to migrate to SIRIUS/XM is that the public radio system that they still rely on would be in open revolt. But if stations can't afford the programming anymore, that's where they'll go. And listeners will follow.

NPR will be just fine, but the local stations could suffer massive damage, as well the other syndicators and producers who never had a dog in this hunt. Even if there was a good reason to kill NPR, this bill is not the way to do it.

I've already asked Rep. Cantor to reconsider (like he ever listens to me). Now is not the time for complacency. If public radio (NOT necessarily NPR) is important to you, you need to speak up now, before we all have to pay for the consequences of this ill-written law that can't even get the name of its target right.

NPR, Juan Williams, and the collateral damage

I've had more than enough of the pundits nattering on about NPR's firing of Juan Williams. What hasn't been talked about, though, is the damage NPR did to their affiliate stations by this reactionary and ill-thought move.

A little background
These days, most people use the terms "NPR" and "public radio" interchangeably. But they're not. Each of the hunderds of radio stations across the public radio system is independently owned and operated -- many still primarily licensees of universities and colleges.

Each independant public radio station (just like your local TV station) runs a mixture of locally and nationally produced programming. NPR is a network similar to NBC or Fox. Your local TV station may identify itself as "Fox 19" or "NBC 12" to make that association stronger. For decades, NPR has been encouraging local stations to do that as well, and so effectively that many listeners think their local station IS NPR.

But just as there are many syndicators that provide programming to television stations (King Features, Viacomm, etc.) there are others that provide programming to public radio. People mistakenly say they like "A Prarie Home Companion" on NPR. Garrison Keillor's show is actually produced and provided by American Public Media (APM) -- not NPR. (APM also produces "Marketwatch.")

If you're hearing "This American Life" on your radio, you're not hearing it on NPR. That feed's coming from Public Radio International (PRI).

But the reality is that virtually all public stations carry NPR's "tentpole" programs -- "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered." They're called that because for many stations, their audiences dramatically spike when those two shows come on. And they bring in the most pledges from said audiences. Some stations raise three-quarters of their operating budget from pledges made during those shows.

Which is good -- because NPR programming is expensive. For some stations, carriage fees (primarily to NPR) can account for half their operating budget. But after two decades of careful brand placement, most stations are stuck. They don't dare drop NPR -- nothing from APM or PRI could possibly replace the audience and the cash (although their shows are significantly less expensive).

Left hand, meet right hand
Most public stations are in the middle of their fall fund drives. NPR puts out suggested dates for their affliates to do these drives. They provide special fund-raising breaks and mentions in thier programs to help the stations out (and to further cement the link in the audiences' minds that their local station IS NPR).

So this controversial firing happened in the middle of the mostly-NPR corodinated fund drives for public radio stations across the country. You would think someone at NPR would realise this was the wrong to time do such a thing. Especially because they made this mistake before. When NPR dismissed the popular Bob Edwards, it was also in the middle of an NPR-corodinated fund drive, and the reaction didn't really hurt NPR, but it hammered the member stations.

Killing the messenger
Remember: to most people, the local station IS NPR. So the local stations have been forced to bear the full fury of listeners (and Faux News dittoheads) calling and expressing their outrage at NPR's bone-headed move. It's tied up phone lines and interferred with the fund drives.

But it's done something more dangerous. Just like the Bob Edwards controversy, people are voting with their dollars. Pledges are being cancelled, underwriters are pulling their contracts, and as a result, some local stations are taking a serious financial hit.

And whether or not the station makes its goal, when that carriage fee bill comes from NPR it will need to be paid in ful -- or elsel. The local station, which has no input into what NPR does, will have to make due with less money. NPR will receive the same amount from the local station they always have.

The bottom line -- keep pledging!
So regardless of how you feel about Juan Williams and NPR, please support your local public radio station. It needs your help more than ever.

NPR -- who needs public radio?

The public radio world is currently in a firestorm of controversy. NPR wants to do a fund drive.

Now if your first reaction was "So what? They do a fund drive twice a year," then you are part of the problem -- the stations' problem that is. In a post around this time last year, "Non-NPR Public Radio," I explained the difference between NPR and public radio in depth. Here's the short version.

National Public Radio (NPR) is a producer of nationally syndicated radio programs. These programs are carried on public radio stations that have an affiliate agreement with NPR. It is possible for a public radio station to carry no NPR programming whatsoever. They could carry programs from Public Radio International (PRI), like "BBC World Service," or they could carry programs from American Public Media (APM) like "Prairie Home Companion" (you thought that was NPR, didn't you). Or they could just produce their own programming in house. Or any mix of the three.

As a way to establish prominence over their competing syndicators, NPR was very aggressive -- and very effective -- in promoting their brand. And they succeeded in making NPR synonymous with public radio. The stations helped in this endeavor. NPR programs such as "Morning Edition" (ME) and "All Things Considered" (ATC) became virtually required airing, and the stations benefited from the association.

But there's a dark side. NPR affiliate fees have continued to rise. And stations have found themselves in a bind. Each year ME, ATC and the other NPR programs have become increasingly expensive. So much so that the major part of a station's fundraising efforts goes towards covering those fees. At some smaller stations, the NPR affiliate fee may actually be the biggest line item in the budget. And yet there isn't a station that would dare drop ME or ATC. They bring in the audiences, and the perception is that a station that dropped the shows would be dropped by listeners.

That's why if there's two or more public radio stations in a market, they will all most likely air ME and ATC. They don't dare not to.

But the needs of NPR as a content provider have never been exactly the same as those of the member stations -- and as audiences move more to other sources of media, those needs are increasingly out of sync. Most listeners identify their public radio stations as "the NPR station." Many would be hard-pressed to name the actual call letters.

So as NPR moves more content online, and develops its own distribution hubs, listeners are starting to follow. After all, why listen to "Fresh Air" on that NPR radio station with the boring fund drives, when you can download it directly from NPR for free?

And now some at NPR want to do a direct appeal to listeners for funds. Not help the stations with their fund drives, but to ask the stations' listeners to send money directly to NPR.

For NPR, it's the next logical step. But for the member stations, it's another nail in the coffin. Not only do they have to scramble to raise funds to keep getting NPR content, but now the network wants to poach their donors as well!

It's causing quite a fuss, but I wonder if its too late for the stations. They cast their lot with NPR, letting their own individual identities atrophy in the process. And NPR is transitioning to a place where the member stations -- many of which are little more than middlemen -- are no longer necessary. Will affiliate stations begin to bail? Will they recognise that it might be time to part ways?

I remember something a program director observed years ago at a public radio conference we attended. "I'm not surprised when pubradio shoots itself in the foot," he said, talking about a recent contratemps, "but I'm always amazed at how fast it can reload."

- Ralph

Radio stations reap the wind

Robert Conrad of WCLV is leading the charge to get the government to not enact the “Performance Rights Act” H.R 848, which would require terrestrial broadcasters to pay additional money for the music they air. Here’s his plea:

WCLV needs your help. And we need it now.
I’m Robert Conrad, president of WCLV. The House Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on the newly reintroduced “Performance Rights Act” (H.R. 848), otherwise known as the “Performance Tax”. If enacted, the bill would require WCLV and other broadcasters to pay a royalty for all the recorded music we play on the radio. This money would go the record companies, most of whom are foreign owned. This would be in addition to the royalty payments we already pay to composers and publishers and to record companies for the right to broadcast our music on the Internet. The financial impact of this performance tax could be financially devastating at a time when the advertising that supports WCLV and its classical music programming is at an all time low due to the recession.
We ask you to write your representative in support of an opposing resolution, the “Local Radio Freedom Act” (HCR 49), was introduced recently. You’ll find a sample letter on our website. Click on the banner on the home page or on the links on every page at wclv.com. Help WCLV and other broadcasters. Express your support of the Local Radio Freedom Act. And please - do it today. Thank you.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Conrad. He’s accurately called many trends in the broadcasting and has made WCLV the strong station it is today. In this case, though, he’s having to pay for the incompetence of others, and I’m not sure it’s a battle he can win.

A little background. When the idea of charging radio stations for the music they used first came about, there was (naturally) resistance from the broadcasters. Most stations had their own house orchestras, or featured a lot of live music (this was the 1920's), and so the primary rights issues were with the composers. ASCAP (the American Society of Composers and Publishers) was formed to collectively negotiate fees and collect royalties from various performing venues. They determined that radio stations constituted a public performance and demanded their fees.

When ASCAP double their fees in the 1940's broadcasters responded by allowing their orchestras to only play public domain works (that’s why we have Glen Miller’s big band arrangement of “Little Brown Jug”). They then created their own composer’s organization, BMI (Broadcast Music, Incorporated) to offer much more favorable rates to the stations.

In time, everyone came to terms, and things were fine. When broadcasters started using recordings rather than live musicians in the 1950's, though, the question of paying the record labels for the use of the material came up. Eventually, it was agreed that the publicity radio play – and resulting record sales – far outweighed any fee the labels might collect, and so artist fees never got off the ground.

In the 21^st Century, things got ugly. When satellite radio started negotiating fees, in 2004, the record labels weighed in again. It was a new media and the old rules didn’t apply, they argued. They wanted XM and SIRIUS to pay artist fees along with the ASCAP/BMI royalties. And terrestrial radio stations sat on the sidelines and egged the labels on.

Broadcasters were terrified of satellite radio and were hoping that these additional fees would help kill the fledgling industry. There were some NAB members – like NPR – that tried to get their colleagues to see that this was a dangerous precedent to set, but no dice.

In 2007 when Internet radio stations had to negotiate their fees with the SoundExchange (founded by the RIAA), they too had to pay artist as well as publishing royalties. Again, NPR and a few others tried to get the NAB to weigh in, but to no avail. Terrestrial radio stations, for the most part, didn’t stream and wanted these upstart Internet radio stations to be driven out of business by these fees that they didn’t have to pay.

In the end, artist royalties were levied with very little effort. And the primary reason was because satellite radio was already paying these fees. The precedent had been set.

And now the spotlight’s turned to terrestrial broadcasters. If every other broadcaster has to pay artist fees, why not them? And it’s now being argued that over-the-air radio is no longer the place where new music’s discovered – the Internet’s taken that role over. So if the publicity value isn’t there anymore, why should terrestrial radio be the exception?

Why, indeed? This isn’t something that’s come out of the blue. Digital broadcasters have been fighting this battle for the past five years, with terrestrial radio rooting for the other side. And now it's their turn. It's unfortunate that stations like WCLV are getting caught in the crossfire, but I think we’re just seeing an industry reaping what it’s sown.

- Ralph

Podcast Review: Inside Europe

I like to stay informed -- which means I usually have to travel beyond the bounds of mainstream media. Fortunately, with podcasting this isn't hard to do.

One of my primary sources for European news is "Inside Europe" from Deutsche Welle (DW), the international broadcast service of Germany, tasked with providing news and information about Germany and Europe throughout the world.

Some public radio stations in this country carried some Deutsche Welle programs, but with NPR's plethora of news programming, it was often difficult to find room for any other news source in the schedule. Enter podcasting.

DW produces the one-hour "Inside Europe" program once a week, which makes it a perfect anthology of the top European news stories for American listeners. The format is very similar to "Morning Edition" or "All Things Considered" -- long-form stories with background sounds, lots of actualities (interviewees), and well-reasoned, informative reporting.

And "Inside Europe" is just that -- a news program about Europe. German stories don't get prominence, and I have yet to hear any particular bias in the reporting. Germany isn't favorably pictured -- the bad gets reported with the good. And there isn't a pro- or anti- U.S. slant, either. American actions are reported, but only as they affect Europe.

Virtually every "breaking" news story from Europe breathlessly reported on MSNBC or CNN I already heard about the week, or sometimes several weeks, before on "Inside Europe."

That dust-up between Georgia and Russia? Not a surprise to anyone following the posturing that's been going on between the countries for some time. None of that made the news here -- but it certainly did in Europe. The French immigration riots, the Turkish political crises, the problem of English farmers competing against European imports, the events leading up to Kosovo's bid for independence, all of these stories (and more) have been brought to my attention thanks to "Inside Europe," and they're keeping me up to date on their developments.

"Inside Europe" is a remarkable news program, and one I find invaluable as a global citizen. (And if you don't think you're a global citizen, then you're just not living with reality.)

Remember, you don't need an iPod to listen to a podcast. Just download to your computer and enjoy.

- Ralph

Day 208 of the WJMA Web Watch. (The relaunch of the WJMA website? Now that would be news!)

Another view of the Rowling Harvard speech

NPR recently ran a story on J. K. Rowling's commencement speech at Harvard. Apparently, some of the graduating seniors were less than enthusiastic about the choice of speakers. Taken at face value, the comments of the graduates may seem like those of callow youth (or the excessive snobbiness of newly-minted Harvard alumni).

"I think we could have done better," shrugged computer science major Kevin Bombino. He says Rowling lacks the gravitas a Harvard commencement speaker should have.

"You know, we're Harvard. We're like the most prominent national institution. And I think we should be entitled to … we should be able to get anyone. And in my opinion, we're settling here. "

I think there's something else going on here, though. I've noticed an increasing preference among my colleagues to read non-fiction rather than fiction. Alex Lindsay, host of "This Week in Media" has said several times that he reads for information, and watches video for entertainment.

While I can't find any specific citations for it, my perception is that fiction is considered inferior, and perhaps irrelevant to today's society. After all -- it's just made up stuff, not concrete information that has practical value.

Look again at the quote above -- and the major of the speaker.

"It's definitely the 'A' list, and I wouldn't ever associate J.K. Rowling with the people on that list," says senior Andy Vaz. "From the moment we walk through the gates of Harvard Yard, they constantly emphasize that we are the leaders of tomorrow. They should have picked a leader to speak at commencement. Not a children's writer. What does that say to the class of 2008? Are we the joke class?"

For Mr. Vaz, et al. that "A" list would include political leaders, captains of industry and perhaps a Nobel prize winner or two (there's some overlap with the first two groups). It's not a unique viewpoint.

It's funny that I should get this story from NPR. Over the past decade, public radio has been abandoning music for increased news/talk programming, catering to the audience's preference for facts over fiction -- or rather the creative. NPR itself has undergone quite a transformation. At one time it produced many quality music and arts programs. Those departments have long been dismantled, the programs canceled or handed off to other companies.

And the focus of NPR news has shifted as well. Arts coverage continues to decrease, while political and business coverage expands. Don't blame NPR -- it's what the audience wants.

So I wonder if the reactions of the Harvard students was just another example how we value (or don't) the creative. It's pretty cavalier to dismiss J. K. Rowling as just "a children's writer." She's sold over 400 million books worldwide and went from poverty to amassing a personal fortune of about 1.1 billion dollars purely on her skill at her profession. If that's not "A" list material, then I don't know who (outside of God) would make the cut.

And the importance of the creative in one's life was at the core of Rowling's address.

And many prefer not to exercise their imaginations at all. They choose to remain comfortably within the bounds of their own experience, never troubling to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are. They can refuse to hear screams or to peer inside cages; they can close their minds and hearts to any suffering that does not touch them personally; they can refuse to know.

I wonder if Kevin Bombino and Andy Vaz chose to listen.

- Ralph

Day 16 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Non-NPR Public Radio

Yes, there is such a thing. Around the time I began attending public radio conferences regularly, National Public Radio began their push to solidify their brand. "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" were already the "tent poles" of most public radio station listening (that is, the two places where audience -- and pledging -- peaked).

NPR started by pushing stations to have their announcers emulate the NPR style of delivery, providing a seamless transition from the national feed to the local news segments and back again. Stations were glad to ride the NPR bandwagon. NPR programs brought in the big pledge dollars, and it was easier to schedule a syndicated program with high production values rather than trying to put together something on their own.

Affiliate stations always assumed that NPR's goals were identical with theirs. But different organizations, like individuals, by definition have different goals. In time the blending of local station with national network became complete. Many people today use the terms "NPR" and "public radio" interchangeably -- NPR's branding mission is now complete.

Folks will talk about NPR's "A Prairie Home Companion" -- a program produced and distributed by American Public Media (not NPR), or talk about a classical music selection Seth Williamson played on NPR (Seth's the local host of mid-day classics at WVTF, and his program is not distributed by NPR).

The first hint of trouble with this close association came when NPR fired popular "Morning Edition" host Bob Edwards. Listeners responded with howls of protests -- ire aimed squarely at the local affiliates. For most of the public, the local station was NPR, and many canceled their pledges in protest. That lost revenue hurt the local stations, which meant they had less money to meet their budget (a good chunk of which were NPR carriage fees -- according to Time Magazine, as much as $1.3 million). As for NPR, no station dropped "Morning Edition," and they collected the same rates from the affiliates they always did while the controversy raged on. In the end, Bob Edwards went to XM, some listeners went away, and NPR continued business as usual.

NPR has been moving more and more content onto satellite radio, into podcasts, and finally onto their own audio server. For this organization that derives revenue from the programs it produces, the moves make sense -- this is where the audience is going, and that's where they need to be.

For the radio stations, though, it's a disaster. If you contribute to your local station to support "Fresh Air," why would you continue to do so once you realize you can get it free as a podcast? Stations with strong local content have very good reasons for their listeners to support them. Those who rely almost exclusively on NPR are in for a tough time.

The recent firing of Ken Stern can be seen as an attempt to put the brakes on NPR's abandonment of its affiliates. But it's a temporary slowing, at best. Listening patterns are changing, and eventually NPR and public radio stations may come to a serious parting of the ways.

Here in Charlottesville, Virginia we have four non-commercial radio stations. Two are NPR affiliates, which means you can often hear the same programs on two different stations. Two run local programming almost exclusively.

Coincidentally, both of these stations (WNRN and WTJU) are currently in the midst of their spring fund drives. While WVTF and WMRA run "Morning Edition," WNRN gives its listeners "Acoustic Sunrise," which airs acoustic folk and Americana music. WTJU has classical programming in the morning, locally (and sometimes eccentrically) hosted. WNRN plays a healthy dose of local music throughout the day, while WTJU airs genres (serious classical and jazz, folk, world, non-Top 40 rock) other stations never touch.

All non-commercial radio station depend on some measure of direct public support. In two cases, a bulk of that support will be turned over to NPR to pay for programming, In the other two, the money stays "in house."

Which station is worthy of your support? Whichever one you listen to on a regular basis. Just remember that when you make your pledge, you're supporting the station, not NPR (at least not directly).

- Ralph