Karl Miller wrote:

>I believe that quality programming does not necessarily require "quality"
>budgets.
>
>On the other hand, I just don't see a place for classical music on NPR.
>NPR has evolved a long way from those notions of educational broadcasting.
>If responding to listener's "wants" is the point...then I don't see that
>it should qualify for tax exempt status.

Certainly there is room, much room, for criticisms of NPR, for pressing
for improvements to programming, for objecting to the insidious invasion
of advertising, and so on.  This can and should be done'from within,'
that is, from a stance of wanting improvements, deploring what one sees
as regressive decisions, etc and pressing for improvements.  But the 'off
with their heads' attitude (which is what removal of tax-exemption) amounts
to is not, by definition, constructive and not helpful to what has been
a valuable service to many, and continues to be such despite its
retrogressive steps and irritating sell-outs to advertising.  I, for one,
am for supporting and seeking to improve NPR rather than killing it.  There
is, by the way, and interesting point here that is worth inquiring about:
Do the corporate contributors get tax advantage even though they,
presumably, demand and get (some) advertising?

Peter Harzem