Alaska What The CPB Funding Cut Would Mean To Rural Alaska

[TheBigA]

I really don't see public stations going dark or very much changing.

Depends on the station, but as I said, this isn't where it ends. The administration has other arrows to shoot. If you have ten sources of revenue and 8 of them are cut, that becomes a big problem.

States can fund stations and maybe that is where it should be.

They already do. About half of the states own public radio & TV stations, so those states will lose funding. The other half (Texas is one) own radio & TV stations through state colleges and universities, which are also losing federal education money. What is happening is the federal government wants to turn everything over to the states except the military. That will mean a drastic change in how we fund government. In the short term, the states won't have enough money to support all the services without federal help. So expect local taxes to go way up. I have property in several states, and all of them are raising local taxes.

Republican states are not what the left says they are. The state would get the money in the hands of the stations.

Several have already announced they're cutting funds to public radio. The most recent was Florida.

Florida Governor Cuts Nearly $6 Million In Public Media Funding.

As the U.S. Senate deliberates rescinding $1.1 billion in funding from the CPB, there’s more bad news for public media in Florida, as Gov. Ron DeSantis has cut nearly $6

www.insideradio.com

This isn't "fear mongering." This is real life.

 

[davideduardo]

If the stated reason for the defunding is because they don't agree with the speech, then it's a speech issue.

But the funding is ending. I am looking for a solution, not who to blame. The current administration did not want the government running electronic media in any form, and for whatever reason. So if that is the case, how do we (as in "we the people") keep such stations on the air without federal funding?

So Paul's budget is being cut because the party in power says NPR news is biased. That's a speech issue. The lawsuit will be based on free speech.

The people are still free to speak. However, the federal government will not pay for that. Again, what is the solution to keep those stations or services operating without federal aid?

 

[davideduardo]

alaska wont fund us, as i explained in my original post

If your own state will not provide funding, it would seem that it is hard to convince anyone in D.C. to pay the bills.

Is there any other funding alternative?

 

[TheBigA]

But the funding is ending. I am looking for a solution, not who to blame. The current administration did not want the government running electronic media in any form, and for whatever reason. So if that is the case, how do we (as in "we the people") keep such stations on the air without federal funding?

The way "we the people" do it is through the government. Otherwise, it's done by individuals. Public broadcasting is decentralized. There is no central power. It's all local stations with local money. It's the way broadcasting used to be done.

Again, what is the solution to keep those stations or services operating without federal aid?

It's up to the individual stations to figure out. Every station for themselves. The FCC is looking to make corporate funding illegal. That's the next step.

Carr says non-profit radio should not be crediting for-profit companies in any way. That's his interpretation of the law.

 

[radiofan2023]

In case anyone wants to look at KSKO’s membership levels & merch:

Home | 2026 Merchandise and Memberships

ksko.square.site

I’ve bought stuff from them before and it’s great quality! In fact I just decided to buy some more stuff and the shipping cost is really reasonable, under $10 for a couple shirts and stickers. Happy to support @SomeRadioGuy & the station.

 

[fybush]

Most of the funding "alternatives" are pretty well tapped out at this point. A lot of the programming on public TV in particular has been aided by funding from the NEA and NEH, which have been gutted now.

The foundations and philanthropies that have been staunch supporters of public media are also often supporters of a lot of other nonprofit endeavors that have also seen their funding slashed by this government. There's a huge amount of demand for philanthropic support right now, and not enough foundation money to go around.

I'm not optimistic about the survival rate of a lot of the many pieces that have made up our public media system over the last six decades. The system was never designed to be sustained entirely by audience support. That was one leg of a complex stool, and most of the legs of that stool have all been chopped down in just a few months.

Even the entities that "survive" will be deeply affected by all the cuts. As some of the smaller stations are slashed to the bone, they lose any ability to spend on programming, which means even the "strong" stations that produce a lot of that programming (GBH, WNET, WBUR, KCRW) get hit as a result. You can't successfully produce programming if nobody in the system can afford to buy it.

It's very bleak.

 

[davideduardo]

The way "we the people" do it is through the government. Otherwise, it's done by individuals. Public broadcasting is decentralized. There is no central power. It's all local stations with local money. It's the way broadcasting used to be done.

So then the most likely chance for local services to continue is to look for local funding. However, in the Alaskan case many of those stations serve areas where the residents are at a subsistence level and can not pay for such services.

It's up to the individual stations to figure out. Every station for themselves. The FCC is looking to make corporate funding illegal. That's the next step.

Where is corporate funding of non-commercial stations being made illegal? The most recent discussion is about what the content and nature of sponsorship mentions can be. Can they still show the cruise ships on the Danube and suggest what a nice vacation those cruises are? Or is that just disguised advertising.

But corporations can still donate to public media. They just might not be able to get actual advertising in exchange.

 

[TheBigA]

Where is corporate funding of non-commercial stations being made illegal?

Here's a quote from Carr's letter to NPR and PBS:

"For-profit entities that contribute funds to noncommercial educational stations may receive on-air acknowledgments, but the FCC has long held that these underwriting announcements are for identification purposes only.”

That's Carr's interpretation. But the fact is the FCC has long approved of "enhanced underwriting." That allows more than just the funder's name.

Another step Carr has discussed is eliminating NPR's tax-exempt status. So as I said, eliminating CPB is just the first step.

 

[davideduardo]

That's Carr's interpretation. But the fact is the FCC has long approved of "enhanced underwriting." That allows more than just the funder's name.

Another step Carr has discussed is eliminating NPR's tax-exempt status. So as I said, eliminating CPB is just the first step.

Neither step makes the "funding of NPR illegal".

 

[TheBigA]

Neither step makes the "funding of NPR illegal".

It would make the way it's being done now illegal. Because now, stations are using enhanced underwriting. He seeks to remove that.

 

[davideduardo]

It would make the way it's being done now illegal. Because now, stations are using enhanced underwriting. He seeks to remove that.

But companies can change how they do their underwriting announcements and continue to give money. Changing the rules at the FCC is hardly uncommon.

Example: several 50 kw AM stations around Chicago that have relocated their transmitters have had to comply with new interference rules and, thus, are running less than 50,000 watts. Running the full power would be, today, "illegal" but running the new level of power is not.

 

[radiofan2023]

Most of the funding "alternatives" are pretty well tapped out at this point. A lot of the programming on public TV in particular has been aided by funding from the NEA and NEH, which have been gutted now.

The foundations and philanthropies that have been staunch supporters of public media are also often supporters of a lot of other nonprofit endeavors that have also seen their funding slashed by this government. There's a huge amount of demand for philanthropic support right now, and not enough foundation money to go around.

I'm not optimistic about the survival rate of a lot of the many pieces that have made up our public media system over the last six decades. The system was never designed to be sustained entirely by audience support. That was one leg of a complex stool, and most of the legs of that stool have all been chopped down in just a few months.

Even the entities that "survive" will be deeply affected by all the cuts. As some of the smaller stations are slashed to the bone, they lose any ability to spend on programming, which means even the "strong" stations that produce a lot of that programming (GBH, WNET, WBUR, KCRW) get hit as a result. You can't successfully produce programming if nobody in the system can afford to buy it.

It's very bleak.

Also increasing the standard deduction for individual income taxes decreased the amount of charitable gifts people gave, because many people stopped itemizing their taxes:

Tax law change caused U.S. charitable giving to drop by about $20 billion, new study shows: 2024: News: News & Media: News & Events: Lilly Family School of Philanthropy: Indiana University Indianapolis

A $20 billion drop in charitable giving in the first year of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’s (TCJA) implementation was caused by the law’s change to the standard deduction for individual income taxes, a new study published today in NBER finds. The research provides the first available estimates...

philanthropy.indianapolis.iu.edu

 

[TheBigA]

But companies can change how they do their underwriting announcements and continue to give money. Changing the rules at the FCC is hardly uncommon.

The value of the announcement changes. If the value changes by 75%, that's a drop of 75% in funding. Based on the opinion of one man.

They can't just add more funding announcements to make up for the loss. That leads to the problem commercial radio has now.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

If your own state will not provide funding, it would seem that it is hard to convince anyone in D.C. to pay the bills.

Is there any other funding alternative?

and the problem, as state is, they previously gave $1 to 2 mil.. but spread that out to more then 2 dozen public stations in the state. doesnt go too too far but didnt help

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

So then the most likely chance for local services to continue is to look for local funding. However, in the Alaskan case many of those stations serve areas where the residents are at a subsistence level and can not pay for such services.

do you read my stuff in detail? youre repeating what ive said more than once.

 

[davideduardo]

do you read my stuff in detail? youre repeating what ive said more than once.

I was answering BigA, not you. He had apparently not seen or related to the prior comments about the nature of your market and listeners. You are in a unique situation that I only see mirrored in the Lower 48 on Indian Nation lands that have their own stations with a dependence like yours on federal funding.

 

[TheBigA]

I was answering BigA, not you. He had apparently not seen or related to the prior comments about the nature of your market and listeners.

I'm very aware of his situation. There are many similar stations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and other less populated states. They've all been abandoned by major commercial broadcasters because they're less populated areas. They're all going to be in trouble very soon.

 

[Larry]

Question - I may have missed the news but last I heard the House had approved Trump’s request to rescind funds from CPB but the Senate had not yet approved this rescinding of funds. Is this correct?

 

[TheBigA]

Question - I may have missed the news but last I heard the House had approved Trump’s request to rescind funds from CPB but the Senate had not yet approved this rescinding of funds. Is this correct?

Correct. They wanted to address the budget bill first. There have been senate committee meetings on the bill, but no action taken. I don't see that any vote has been scheduled. Deadline is next Tuesday.

 

[boombox4]

What does your state rep or state senator have to say about this? Has anyone in your community contacted them and educated them about the need? How about the leaders in the Legislature?

Has anyone contacted your governor about this issue, and educated them about the need?