Talk:WETS-FM

Public radio funding edit war

Please stop reverting each others' edits and discuss it here. Personally, I think that this whole funding issue is better dealt with in another article instead of on this page for a single NPR station -- Foetusized (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that since this station broadcasts with my federal and state tax dollars and it claims to be a "public" station, the issue is relevant to those in this community and state and thus relevant to this article. Also, many other "public" radio stations do not broadcast the far-left Democracy Now! program like WETS does.--Drrll (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then please provide sources for statements regarding the funding of this particular station. Also, implicit in your edits and comments is a value judgment that there is something wrong about a public radio station airing programs such as Democracy Now! If you don't like programs that your public radio station airs, then let them know about it. Wikipedia is not the forum for such matters. older ≠ wiser 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A station in a community as small as the Tri-Cities will never garner that kind of news coverage with scrutiny. Thus, sources that cover similar things (NPR member stations) need to be consulted. The source I reference specifically uses WAMU as an example, not as some kind of unique case: "take WAMU". WAMU, like WETS, is a member NPR station that receives CPB funding, as well as university funding. If WETS made available its budget on its website, like WAMU does, the whole issue of sources would be moot. The type of programming that airs on the station is relevant to the article, as well as the station's funding.--Drrll (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Making the comparison between stations and drawing the inference that the sources of funding are similar is original research. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While the source uses WAMU as an example, it also speaks broadly about ALL member stations:

The fees and dues paid by member stations comprise more than half of NPR's budget. Where does that money come from? In large part, from the federal government.--Drrll (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That more deductive reasoning (OR). Yes stations pay dues to NPR and that is a major portion of NPR's budget, but each station's sources of funding will vary. older ≠ wiser 02:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Each station's sources of funding will vary"--yes, but the generic wording I added to the article is still correct: "WETS receives significant combined public funding from federal, state, and goverment-funded university sources." My citation references the federal portion of this funding from all member stations. I'll add a source that also indicates that there is state and university funding to member stations.--Drrll (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement you added to the article was not generic: "despite the fact that WETS receives significant combined public funding from federal, state, and goverment-funded university sources, as well as a free FM broadcast license." To make an assertion like that you would need to cite a source specifically about WETS funding. Even if the statement were entirely generic, then the problem becomes one of relevance. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wayne Winkler could clear up all the specifics on exactly how much federal, state, and university funding is in their budget.--Drrll (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The compound sentence in question still doesn't flow well; the "despite" between the two clauses doesn't scan for me. I guess I fail to see the implied conflict. You do realize that I edited out the "far left" POV gunk from the first half of that a week or so back? -- Foetusized (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how it should be worded? The "despite" is there because of the lack of significant ideological range (one-sided) between the news/discussion programs aired by WETS. Yes, I realize that you edited out "far left" even though DN! is widely regarded that way (just look at the feedback included on wets.org [feedback I sent about a year ago was not printed]).--Drrll (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

After thinking about it overnight, I have to agree with Bkonrad that the "despite" is original research (WP:OR). While both halves of the compound sentence are verifiable (the first half from the station's online program guide, the second half has collected three citations), the idea that there is some sort of contrast or discrepancy between the two is not from any source.

I think that the second half of the sentence in question should be removed from the second paragraph, so the paragraph can go back to being just about station programming. If you have a reliable source (something better than the station's feedback form on their website, like a news story) for issues with WETS-FM airing Democracy Now! then that could be added to that paragraph. A quick Google search only turned up results related to people and groups appreciative of the program airing on the station, both with quotes from Winkler, but not from reliable sources: [1] [2]. It does sound like they are getting good donations from DN! fans.

There's already a vague sentence about the station's funding in the first paragraph; the more detailed information (with citation) could be moved there. I don't see discussing the station's funding in two different places -- Foetusized (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I still think that the issue of WETS being a publicly-funded public radio station representing only a narrow segment of the public deserves mentioning in the article. I certainly don't expect mention of this issue as specifically related to WETS to be found in a reliable source any time soon--the community is too small (a total of 2 articles regarding anything related to WETS came up in a search of the hometown newspaper, the Johnson City Press). Perhaps I'll find a source in the future generic enough about the airing of DN! on public radio stations without a program to balance it out. In the meantime, I'll move the funding wording to the first paragraph.--Drrll (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your last edits still combine sources to draw a conclusion that is original research. The most that can be accurately stated about WETS funding is what was in the WETS page (8% comes from CPB and 52% from listeners). older ≠ wiser 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're in the minority regarding that opinion. I removed "state" from the funding sources as it is not clear that the state of Tennessee directly contributes to their budget. It's self-evident that WETS receives funding from a university, as WETS is actually a part of ETSU, and WETS states on its website and on-air that it is "operated as a partnership between East Tennessee State University and the station’s listeners."--Drrll (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what minority or majority you are referring to. In any case, combining sources in the way you are doing to draw a conclusion that is not explicit in any of the sources is contrary to WP:OR. older ≠ wiser 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the minority view that the sentence is OR. You believe it is; Foetusized (by comments above), Gamaliel (by what was edited and what was not), and I don't see it that way. The funding of WETS by being a part of ETSU + the 8% CPB funding is clearly "significant."--Drrll (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that Foetusized's comment indicate what you say. I'm not sure what Gamaliel's intentions were. Quite apart from from OR, your edit is biased in that there is no context. Your edit says blandly that the station receives "significant combined public funding from federal and goverment-funded university sources", yet the only source specifically about WETS indicates only 8% of the budget comes from the CPB, while 52% comes from listeners.

Foetusized: "both halves of the compound sentence are verifiable (the first half from the station's online program guide, the second half has collected three citations)". Do you actually want a reference to the "operated as a partnership between East Tennessee State University and the station's listeners" (already right before my sentence in the article)?--Drrll (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't draft me as a supporter. Not editing means I hadn't considered the issue yet. After reading the comments here, I concur with Bkonrad. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite your edit summary, I don't believe you've fully addressed the concerns expressed here regarding OR and the sources you've employed. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that the sentence is OR. I think that the fact that the station states on its website that it is "operated as a partnership between East Tennessee State University and the station's listeners" (with WETS actually being a part of ETSU) requires substantial funding from ETSU. That's without counting the 8% federal CPB funding. I'll replace the "NPR Responds" source with another reference to the WETS website referring to the partnership, even though it seems somewhat unnecessary.--Drrll (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Combining the factual statements in the way that you are doing to draw an inference that is not explicit about WETS is original research. And even assuming that sources could be found, the statement is phrased in a biased way to place undue emphasis on the public sector funding, even though the only verifiable figure is 8% plus some indeterminate presumed amount of support from the university. You do not mention that the largest single source of funding, 52%, comes from listener contributions. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I could change "significant" to "substantial", then add that 52% is from listeners.--Drrll (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say the station receives a small portion of overall funding from public sources. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)