Court reaffirms CPB's independence

[TheBigA]

The laws relating to a ban of advertising and attempting to get around that with going beyond simply noting a donor as a source but promoting the source.

You asked if it was an "attack," and I used that word with journalistic integrity. I also referenced the FCC investigation. Those are different parts of my post. I'll address the FCC investigation. The letters were written to NPR and PBS, as though they are responsible for the way all non-commercial stations acknowledge their sponsors. I agree with all of the issues Oxenford brings up, such as the letter lacked specifics or examples, and wasn't based on any complaints or other typical communication. I've addressed his letter in multiple other posts on this board.

NPR's response was that they have always consulted the FCC in the way they handle funding credits. They're always pre-recorded, and the language has been gone over by lawyers to ensure they comply with the law. But how all the local stations handle THEIR funding credits is a completely different matter. Public broadcasting is not a centralized, top-down bureaucracy run by NPR and PBS. Instead you have hundreds of independent local stations that all follow their own rules. Is it possible that some of the local stations have gone beyond the law in funding credits? Sure. The FCC fined WBAI last year for this exact thing. However, WBAI is not affiliated with NPR nor does it accept federal funds. The other examples I'm aware of were either religious stations or LPFMs. But Carr's letter was aimed only at NPR and PBS. So it's hard to know what he's talking about. That's why Gomez called it a fishing expedition.

The other curious part of Carr's letter was the concluding paragraph, where he gives his personal opinion about federal funding. This has nothing to do with following applicable laws. It's strictly his opinion. If he was concerned about following applicable laws, he might start with the preamble to the public broadcasting act, that states clearly that "It is in the public interest" that the federal government support public broadcasting. There is also the last paragraph, that prohibits any government employee from interfering in public broadcasting programming. That's why I say it's not up to the president to decide if NPR News is biased.

Going back to Oxenford's article, he points out that any abrogation from the funding announcement laws would be met with a fine. That's how the FCC has addressed this in the past. But Carr's inclusion of his opinions on federal funding implies that he believes the penalty in this case should be the total cutting of federal funding. That's way beyond anything the FCC has done before, and brings up the recent Supreme Court Chevron ruling about how far an agency can go in its penalties.

How do you figure that recission doesn't apply here? The funds are part of the budget that a President signs into law.

So is the funding for the courts and the congress. The president can't just rescind funding for co-equal branches of government. He also can't rescind funding for independent agencies. It's not his money, and the budget isn't under his branch. The role of the president and CPB is at the core of pending litigation, so congress really can't take this action until that litigation is complete. Further, rescinding the advance funding of public broadcasting breaks other laws that address how congress funds public broadcasting. Those will likely be addressed if the senate passes the house version of the bill.

 

[TheBigA]

Not a surprise given her viewpoint. Her personal assessment of the investigation as such doesn't make it factual.

However the fact that the other republican commissioner didn't write a supporting opinion, and hasn't addressed any of the various investigations in his interviews or public appearances tells me that Chairman Carr had no support among the other commissioners. Of course right now, the commission can't even meet a quorum, so there can't be any action taken.

 

[ted chittenden]

First, a question: Why do you oppose the growth of religious broadcasting?

Second, an observation: most stations converting to religion in the last decade or so have done so because no commercial broadcaster wanted to buy the station when it was for sale.

I wasn't sure I was allowed to in this forum but since you asked the question, I'm an atheist, and I have a hard time personally supporting radio stations that either delete or misrepresent facts in the name of religious dogma.

 

[boombox4]

If you are asking for my viewpoint, I really don't believe that the growth of religious broadcasters, no matter which religion and no matter which language, should be supported.

Your opinion and viewpoint were already apparent, Ted, and you have a right to that opinion.

That said, I disagree with your opinion. Religious broadcasters have as much right to use the public airwaves as commercial and other, non-religious broadcasters. The First Amendment applies, for one thing. For another -- Equal rights and protections under the law also applies. The FCC can't prohibit religious organizations from having radio stations. And what if there were Muslim or Sikh broadcasters on the air? Wouldn't they also have a right to an FM or AM station?

Most nights I can hear Sikh prayer music and chanting (prayers, actually) on the AM band, usually on Punjabi stations, where the Sikhs buy overnight time (because their prayer times are generally early morning activities). They are religious. Shouldn't they also have a right to the airwaves?

If a non-comm FM'er goes dark because of lack of funding, dwindling numbers of listeners, or lack of student or volunteer interest, why shouldn't a religious organization be allowed to buy the station or that frequency slot in a market? No one is forcing you or anyone else to listen. For every religious station in a market, there are probably 20-30 non-religious stations on the air. That's the way it is in my metro. The only times I hear a religious station in my market is if I actually tune the radio to that station.

The religious stations are very easy to avoid and ignore.

 

[ted chittenden]

Your opinion and viewpoint were already apparent, Ted, and you have a right to that opinion.

That said, I disagree with your opinion. Religious broadcasters have as much right to use the public airwaves as commercial and other, non-religious broadcasters. The First Amendment applies, for one thing. For another -- Equal rights and protections under the law also applies. The FCC can't prohibit religious organizations from having radio stations. And what if there were Muslim or Sikh broadcasters on the air? Wouldn't they also have a right to an FM or AM station?

Most nights I can hear Sikh prayer music and chanting (prayers, actually) on the AM band, usually on Punjabi stations, where the Sikhs buy overnight time (because their prayer times are generally early morning activities). They are religious. Shouldn't they also have a right to the airwaves?

If a non-comm FM'er goes dark because of lack of funding, dwindling numbers of listeners, or lack of student or volunteer interest, why shouldn't a religious organization be allowed to buy the station or that frequency slot in a market? No one is forcing you or anyone else to listen. For every religious station in a market, there are probably 20-30 non-religious stations on the air. That's the way it is in my metro. The only times I hear a religious station in my market is if I actually tune the radio to that station.

The religious stations are very easy to avoid and ignore.

I think your analysis is a good one and that you are correct about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That said, if I ruled the world (which I don't and never will), I would place limits on both the numbers of religious broadcasters in a given market and the content of their broadcasts. With regard to the content, I'd probably reinstitute the fairness doctrine so that listeners would have the chance at least to hear both sides of the issues that ministers are hawking about. With regard to the number of broadcasters, I'd probably limit that to two or three stations per market with the exception that if a minority religious community were involved (such as the Sikhs you cited in your example) that an additional channel in whichever market wanted for that religious minority would be granted.

With regard to your point about turnin off or tuning out the station when you hear content you don't like or agree with, I would point out two things: first, there are markets, mostly in Alaska and rural parts of some western states, where that option is not available. Second, a lot of people, especially young people, will listen to and immediately support comments they hear over the air before ever examining, if they do, the other side. I know I did thiswith Alan (or was it Allen) Stang, Cal Thomas, and others when I was younger, and it took me a lifetime of learning to realize how and why they were wrong.

Of course, I don't rule the world and I don't expect any of these changes but I can tell you that we are sure witnessing the negative results in real time from the number of (mainly) Christian hucksters currently on the air in the good old USA.

 

[TheBigA]

Religious broadcasters have as much right to use the public airwaves as commercial and other, non-religious broadcasters. The First Amendment applies, for one thing. For another -- Equal rights and protections under the law also applies.

Yet at the same time, we have an administration that is challenging the existence of NPR because they say it provides "biased" news. They're going after its funding, its tax-exempt status, and its usage of the NCE band. Meanwhile VCY is using its religious status to push far right political viewpoints, even telling its listeners who to vote for.

 

[umfan]

Yet at the same time, we have an administration that is challenging the existence of NPR because they say it provides "biased" news. They're going after its funding, its tax-exempt status, and its usage of the NCE band. Meanwhile VCY is using its religious status to push far right political viewpoints, even telling its listeners who to vote for.

Religious broadcasters don't receive federal funding. If complaints are received about them potentially not complying with no advertising, they can be submitted and acted upon. The two items are not related. NPR will likely have greater freedom to convey any desired viewpoint once they no longer are feeding at the federal funding trough.

 

[TheBigA]

Religious broadcasters don't receive federal funding.

As I said, the targets of the government are more than federal funding. Once they've banned federal funding, they plan to go after other funding sources and tax exempt status. That's what Brendan Carr has said he will do. His investigation isn't based on a complaint.

NPR will likely have greater freedom to convey any desired viewpoint once they no longer are feeding at the federal funding trough.

The public broadcasting act very clearly says the government can't interfere in programming. Plus the government hasn't demonstrated that any of the federal money in fact goes to NPR News. What we know is that over 75% of it goes to local radio stations, that use the money to hire local staff. If the current rescission plan goes through, those stations will lose funding, not NPR.

 

[umfan]

No one is interfering in programming.

Please source where Carr stated what you assert he did. I don't believe you'll be able to do so.

As I wrote, one has nothing to do with the other. Determining not to provide public funding to CPB is not interfering in programming. The programming presented may lead the legislative and executive branches to consider if providing funding is in hte public interest, but that is not interference. No one is interfering with programming.

NPR does get some funding covered by the rescission package under consideration, but it's not much to them directly. They get some of those funds indirectly from what their affiliates pay them for the programming.

So, to recap, choosing to not fund something is NOT interfering in what programming airs.

 

[TheBigA]

No one is interfering in programming.

The entire predicate for the cutting of federal funding to CPB is based on NPR news coverage. That was the thrust of the house hearings, that is stated in the president's EO, and it's in the rescission letter. Here's a link to the EO. What does the title of it say?

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ends the Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media

ENDING TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZATION OF BIASED MEDIA: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order ending the taxpayer subsidization of National

www.whitehouse.gov

The president doesn't decide if media is biased. There should be no quid pro quo between the news coverage and funding for public broadcasting. The funding itself is based on the amount of local money stations raise. It's a grant application. They have met that obligation. So the stations should receive the funding.

NPR does get some funding covered by the rescission package under consideration, but it's not much to them directly. They get some of those funds indirectly from what their affiliates pay them for the programming.

The direct funding is for infrastructure, not news coverage. The infrastructure funding is based on statute in the PBA. Nobody knows if the money affiliates pay for programming comes from local money or federal money. The house had the president of NPR in for hearings and never asked about that. The main focus was on news coverage.

As the title of the thread indicates, CPB is an independent corporation. It isn't subject to executive orders or recommendations made by the president. So both the EO and the rescission letter are null and void.

So, to recap, choosing to not fund something is NOT interfering in what programming airs.

It is when the entire basis for the funding cut is the programming.

 

[boombox4]

Yet at the same time, we have an administration that is challenging the existence of NPR because they say it provides "biased" news. They're going after its funding, its tax-exempt status, and its usage of the NCE band. Meanwhile VCY is using its religious status to push far right political viewpoints, even telling its listeners who to vote for.

If the present administration tries to remove NPR and other public radio stations from the airwaves because of their content, there will undoubtedly be a Federal court case which the government will lose. And NPR will be able to drum up enough support from its wealthy audience to support the attorneys to fight such a court battle.

I'm not saying I agree with the Administration's stance against NPR -- I do not agree with it at all. Just stating the facts. The public airwaves are like the public street corner. You can't have the government suppressing freedom of speech. The government can't be forced to monetarily support speech, but it also can't suppress it, either.

[Edited a typo, for clarity]

 

[boombox4]

I think your analysis is a good one and that you are correct about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That said, if I ruled the world (which I don't and never will), I would place limits on both the numbers of religious broadcasters in a given market and the content of their broadcasts. With regard to the content, I'd probably reinstitute the fairness doctrine so that listeners would have the chance at least to hear both sides of the issues that ministers are hawking about. With regard to the number of broadcasters, I'd probably limit that to two or three stations per market with the exception that if a minority religious community were involved (such as the Sikhs you cited in your example) that an additional channel in whichever market wanted for that religious minority would be granted.

With regard to your point about turnin off or tuning out the station when you hear content you don't like or agree with, I would point out two things: first, there are markets, mostly in Alaska and rural parts of some western states, where that option is not available. Second, a lot of people, especially young people, will listen to and immediately support comments they hear over the air before ever examining, if they do, the other side. I know I did thiswith Alan (or was it Allen) Stang, Cal Thomas, and others when I was younger, and it took me a lifetime of learning to realize how and why they were wrong.

Of course, I don't rule the world and I don't expect any of these changes but I can tell you that we are sure witnessing the negative results in real time from the number of (mainly) Christian hucksters currently on the air in the good old USA.

Mr. Chittenden, I understand your opinion, although I do not agree with it. The First Amendment is there for a reason -- we all know that. It also is often said that freedom of speech can be ugly. William O. Douglas said as much in the 1960's when ruling on a First Amendment case. He, along with one of his predecessors, Justice Brandeis, believed that the solution for bad speech is more good speech, not the banning of speech one doesn't like or agree with.

As for the state of the country today, Christian broadcasters have little, if any, influence over the vast majority of the public when compared to secular radio, secular TV, and the thousands of internet websites and social media. For one thing, increasing numbers of Americans are NOT religious. For another thing, Oprah probably has held more influence over the American public than Christian broadcasters, even if there are a handful of Christian stations in most major metros. Look at their ratings -- that is, if the stations even subscribe to the ratings.

One could point to Christian cable TV networks as being influential. Perhaps they held influence in the 1980's and 1990's, but not so much today. The internet has diluted any influence they once had.

As for your assertion that in parts of rural Western America the Christian broadcasters have some sort of extraordinary influence, actually, the reverse is true. I live in the Western US and am aware of the number of stations in rural areas in my state, Washington, and in Oregon and Idaho, and the number of religious broadcasters compared to other broadcasters is minimal. Even Alaska doesn't have that many religious radio stations.

We're both pounding this subject into the ground. I appreciate your reply though. I understand your position, I just don't agree with a lot of it. You make good points, even if I do not agree with some of them. Peace.

 

[TheBigA]

The government can't be forced to monetarily support speech, but it also can't suppress it, either.

The way congress set this up, it actually isn't the government that is supporting speech. It's CPB. CPB is independent of the government. In the same way, the government can't use that money as a weapon against their news coverage. Or threaten to rescind that money because of the news coverage. It's all independent of the government, once the appropriation is made. That's why both the EO and the rescission are null & void.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR has filed for an injunction on the president's EO:

NPR Moves for Permanent Injunction To Protect Public Media Federal Funding.

NPR and three member stations are seeking summary judgment and a permanent injunction against an executive order by President Trump that cuts off federal funding. They argue the order is

www.insideradio.com

 

[umfan]

"

It is when the entire basis for the funding cut is the programming.

But it's not. The biggest part is needing to cut the budget as there is a deficit.

 

[umfan]

NPR has filed for an injunction on the president's EO:

NPR Moves for Permanent Injunction To Protect Public Media Federal Funding.

NPR and three member stations are seeking summary judgment and a permanent injunction against an executive order by President Trump that cuts off federal funding. They argue the order is

www.insideradio.com

Even if they win, the funding will soon be eliminated in the Recission Bill. That NPR has resources to pay law firms for this only bolsters the case that they don't need a taxpayer subsidy.

 

[umfan]

The way congress set this up, it actually isn't the government that is supporting speech. It's CPB. CPB is independent of the government. In the same way, the government can't use that money as a weapon against their news coverage. Or threaten to rescind that money because of the news coverage. It's all independent of the government, once the appropriation is made. That's why both the EO and the rescission are null & void.

Neither is null and void. CPB has no entitlement to a taxpayer subsidy. The law allows for recissions of any appropriated funding, which would include that provided to CPB. You have zero basis to support your assertion in this regard.

 

[TheBigA]

Neither is null and void. CPB has no entitlement to a taxpayer subsidy. The law allows for recissions of any appropriated funding, which would include that provided to CPB. You have zero basis to support your assertion in this regard.

First of all it's not a "taxpayer subsidy." That's not the way the law presents it. There are laws that govern that specific fund to prevent political interference. This will be litigated if the senate approves the rescission bill. It will be up to the courts.

Even if they win, the funding will soon be eliminated in the Recission Bill. That NPR has resources to pay law firms for this only bolsters the case that they don't need a taxpayer subsidy.

NPR has already said this is not about the money. As everyone knows, federal funding is just a small part of their revenue. That's why the letter saying the rescissions bill defunds NPR and PBS is a lie. It doesn't. It defunds CPB and local stations. They're the ones that will be hurt.

But it's not. The biggest part is needing to cut the budget as there is a deficit.

That's a fake argument. Cutting $1 billion while enlarging the debt by $3 trillion doesn't cut the budget. The main part of the letter has to do with "biased reporting." The CPB money doesn't fund the news department.

 

[TheBigA]

First of all it's not a "taxpayer subsidy." That's not the way the law presents it.

To further explain, CPB was created by an act of congress. In that act, it was meant to be fully funded by congressional appropriation. For almost 60 years, that's happened on a bi-partisan basis. The question is what happens if the federal money disappears. There is no other funding source for CPB. Currently it can't raise money from the public or from corporations. But the congressional mission remains because the law hasn't been repealed or amended. Could CPB amend its own bylaws to permit other funding? I don't know. But that's why this sort of half-assed attempt at defunding NPR by instead defunding CPB creates more legal problems that it solves. Should the states that voted to rescind funding for CPB be barred from receiving funds from a new non-governmental entity? Could this new funding system only fund independent stations not owned by state governments? These are just a few of the issues created by this defunding process.

 

[umfan]

To further explain, CPB was created by an act of congress. In that act, it was meant to be fully funded by congressional appropriation. For almost 60 years, that's happened on a bi-partisan basis. The question is what happens if the federal money disappears. There is no other funding source for CPB. Currently it can't raise money from the public or from corporations. But the congressional mission remains because the law hasn't been repealed or amended. Could CPB amend its own bylaws to permit other funding? I don't know. But that's why this sort of half-assed attempt at defunding NPR by instead defunding CPB creates more legal problems that it solves. Should the states that voted to rescind funding for CPB be barred from receiving funds from a new non-governmental entity? Could this new funding system only fund independent stations not owned by state governments? These are just a few of the issues created by this defunding process.

You keep restating the same thing as if CPB is some sacrosanct entity that is somehow shielded from its funding being removed.

Yes, once funding is terminated that would leave the question of if the law that enabled CPB needed to be repealed or not. That's down the road. The recission can, and likely will, pass removing the current funding. Nothing in law precludes that and, by your own comment quoted here, makes clear there is more consideration than just being upset with NPR. CPB may just have to effectively dissolve without funding. In such an instance, a very minimal appropriation might be made to keep a single nominal administrator in place while the assets of the entity are liquidated or it's converted to a traditional non-profit entity. Point is, that doesn't matter right now. Once the recission is made, that can be considered, but they won't stop the process.

The EO might well not survive a court challenge, but it's likely once it gets to SCOTUS, which is where it would ultimately head, the recission will already have taken place making any action against it meaningless.