Comment by tptacek

> Right, but drastically fewer people are consuming linear NPR/PBS content. My guess is that at this point most NPR consumption occurs via podcasts (maybe 60/40? there's still a big drive-time component, but podcasts eat into drive-time too!), and presumably an even sharper shift to the PBS streaming site.

Is the source of that 60/40 more substantial than any part of your anatomy?

> Like, for elderly viewers, availability of linear media still matters (something I've learned tediously through serving on a local commission managing our cable franchise). But... that's basically it?

Ok so you hear from elderly viewers that they care about this content and because you don’t hear from anyone else you assume they don’t exist? Are you really satisfied with that conclusion? Is it possible other listeners just have less time to be involved? Have you reached out to get their thoughts? Why are you so willing to dismiss the elderly?

> So, back to: this is not an existential threat to PBS or NPR. I think people think I'm being glib when I say the Internet is a bigger threat to PBS (as an institution called "PBS") than this funding cut. I'm not being glib.

I do think you are being glib. I don’t care about the comparison you’re making and I think it’s incredibly shallow. By your own estimate this will negatively impact 40% of NPR listeners. The existence of a larger threat is no consolation.

Why do PBS and NPR need to compete with anything? This is a public good, not a competitive business. That’s the entire point.

Does this funding cut somehow help NPR and PBS generate non-linear programming or online content? Of course it doesn’t. This is a bad thing for NPR and PBS even if they continue operating in spite of it.