Peter Harzem wrote:

>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?

I don't see how my suggestion of removing their tax exempt status is "by
definition" not constructive.  I think it is a reflection of the direction
they have been taking for many years.  It might help them improve in those
areas which are economically viable.  From my perspective they do little
that is not economically viable.

As for corporate contributors...interesting point.  It is my understanding
that an organizations "contribution" can be tax deductable, however, some
of that money often comes from the advertizing budgets of organizations.
A case in point...our classical station (Non-NPR) gets money from Wells
Fargo.  Three different parts of that organization support us.  One agency
"donates" from its advertizing budget.  We have no idea if indeed they
claim that as a charitable contribution or not.  However, it would seem
that depending on the on air or program book recognition, a reasonable
claim could be made that they are getting a tangible return for their
"contribution" and would need to deduct the value of that return from
the total amount of the "contribution."

Karl