LA Radio Stations Lose Money

[TheBigA]

Thursday night, Congress voted to rescind money that had been appropriated for the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. The congress was told by the white house that they were defunding NPR. In fact, they were defunding thousands of local radio stations, including several in LA: KCSN, KUSC, KPCC, and KCRW. How much will they lose? Here's a list:

About CPB

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was a private, nonprofit corporation established by Congress through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.As the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting, CPB became the largest single source of funding for public radio...

cpb.org

In addition to losing the funding, the stations will also have to pay for their music royalties. CPB used to negotiate and pay all music royalties for their stations. Not anymore.

Here's how KCSN responded to the announced cut in funding:

YOUR DONATION KEEPS US ON THE AIR

Los Angeles's public alternative rock radio. Discover new and timeless music, stream live, find SoCal music events, and support non-profit 88.5 FM.

www.thesocalsound.org

People complain about how commercial radio doesn't play what they want. That void is often made up by non-commercial stations. Congress considered that funding to be "waste, fraud, and abuse." So now those stations have a lot less money. Not because of advertising, not because of the demographics, but because of the government.

 

[Mediafrog+]

You can find funding allocations for other states on that CPB website as well.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

I have been reliably informed many times on this very site that federal government represents a very small percentage of NPR and their station's funding. That being the case, I am sure they can approach their larger private funders to make up the difference if indeed the cause is that important.

The Federal government should not be subsidizing radio, TV or other broadcasting outlets. If they cannot survive without the public teat, they've don't deserve to exist, and that includes stations such as KCSN that I personally quite like.

Today is a great day for both the government and the broadcasters. The broadcasters and stations that survive (which I assume will be the vast majority) will ultimately be stronger for being self-sufficient.

 

[Mediafrog+]

The Federal government should not be subsidizing radio, TV or other broadcasting outlets. If they cannot survive without the public teat, they've don't deserve to exist, and that includes stations such as KCSN that I personally quite like.

Perhaps the government should also not be giving tax breaks to non-commercial religious broadcasters. After all, tax exempt status is a form of subsidy. And much religious broadcasting is actually nothing more than right wing politics. Why aren’t they paying taxes the same way everyone else does?

 

[radiofan2023]

If they cannot survive without the public teat, they've don't deserve to exist, and that includes stations such as KCSN that I personally quite like.

So a station you like doesn't deserve to exist. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[davideduardo]

Perhaps the government should also not be giving tax breaks to non-commercial religious broadcasters. After all, tax exempt status is a form of subsidy. And much religious broadcasting is actually nothing more than right wing politics. Why aren’t they paying taxes the same way everyone else does?

Religious broadcasters that are incorporated as non-profits do not make a taxable profit!

How can you tax something that does not exist?

Everything from your church to the Red Cross to many hospitals are all non-profits. They either spend all their income or put some in reserve for future needs.

There is no "tax break" for non-commercial religious broadcasters. Any commercial entity that does not make a profit or is chartered as a non-profit does not pay taxes.

 

[101tm]

I have been reliably informed many times on this very site that federal government represents a very small percentage of NPR and their station's funding. That being the case, I am sure they can approach their larger private funders to make up the difference if indeed the cause is that important.

The Federal government should not be subsidizing radio, TV or other broadcasting outlets. If they cannot survive without the public teat, they've don't deserve to exist, and that includes stations such as KCSN that I personally quite like.

Today is a great day for both the government and the broadcasters. The broadcasters and stations that survive (which I assume will be the vast majority) will ultimately be stronger for being self-sufficient.

Thank you for the voice of reason.

 

[TheBigA]

I have been reliably informed many times on this very site that federal government funding represents a very small percentage of NPR and their station's funding. That being the case, I am sure they can approach their larger private funders to make up the difference if indeed the cause is that important.

You're correct. NPR receives 2% of its funding from CPB. Unfortunately the public radio interconnection system, operated by NPR, is funded by CPB. So starting in October, all public radio programmers (including American Public Media and PRX) will need to find a new way to pay for getting their shows to stations. There are things like music royalties that CPB negotiates and pays for.

In the non-profit world, all money received must be spent. So this money that has been cut has already been budgeted two years in advance. Those expenses now have to be cut.

The thing to know is that federal funding was just the first target. The next one is those corporate funders. Then they will target tax-exempt status. So this doesn't end with cutting federal funding.

The Federal government should not be subsidizing radio, TV or other broadcasting outlets.

They still do. Today I received orders for commercials from NHTSA and the Department of Education. In that way, the government is subsidizing radio. But this vote wasn't about subsidizing radio. It was about NPR news. Unfortunately the funding cut will affect a lot of stations that don't carry NPR News. In the meantime, NPR news received very little federal funding. So it doesn't affect them.

The fact is the government subsidizes a lot of things. They subsidize tobacco. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. They subsidize Elon Musk's car and solar companies. Is that good? You tell me. My view is if we don't believe the government should be subsidizing private business, then we should be fair about it, and drop ALL government subsidies. Not just the one that conservatives don't like.

Today is a great day for both the government and the broadcasters. The broadcasters and stations that survive (which I assume will be the vast majority) will ultimately be stronger for being self-sufficient.

It depends. When Reagan changed the funding system in 1983, that was good for NPR. It developed funding outside of the government. The problem with some stations is they're in areas that don't have access to population or private funding. Just people living in a remote area. They will lose. In the short term, it will be tough for all stations. They budgeted for money they won't be receiving. As far as commercial stations, they now will have even more competition for the shrinking advertiser pool. NPR stations are no longer bound by the threat of having their funding cut by politicians. That card has been played. So NPR is now free to editorialize just like commercial radio. So we'll see what happens.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

Perhaps the government should also not be giving tax breaks to non-commercial religious broadcasters. After all, tax exempt status is a form of subsidy. And much religious broadcasting is actually nothing more than right wing politics. Why aren’t they paying taxes the same way everyone else does?

This is really an apples and oranges comparison. NPR gets direct funding (yes, I know, it has this convoluted pass through scheme, but in the end it is effectively directly funded) and you are talking about the tax status of religious organizations that own radio stations. There are rules in place that if the radio station they own generates unrelated business income, it is taxed at full corporate rates.

A big issue I forsee emerging is the recent relaxation of the rules prohibiting religious organizations from making political endorsements. If a large church owns a station that gets behind a candidate and uses their airwaves to support them, I am not sure if or how that is "fair" and what sort of limitations may be appropriate. I don't know what the optimal solution is, but I am pretty sure that the Trump administration has not thought through the issue fully before releasing their recent IRS guidance on it.

 

[Mediafrog+]

Religious broadcasters that are incorporated as non-profits do not make a taxable profit!

How can you tax something that does not exist?

Everything from your church to the Red Cross to many hospitals are all non-profits. They either spend all their income or put some in reserve for future needs.

There is no "tax break" for non-commercial religious broadcasters. Any commercial entity that does not make a profit or is chartered as a non-profit does not pay taxes.

There are huge amounts of money sloshing around with religious broadcasters. And many of their leaders appear to be living quite large for being in charge of a non-commercial entity. And when many of them are merely propaganda mouthpieces for far-right politics, you have to question that tax exempt status.

 

[davideduardo]

There are huge amounts of money sloshing around with religious broadcasters. And many of their leaders appear to be living quite large for being in charge of a non-commercial entity. And when many of them are merely propaganda mouthpieces for far-right politics, you have to question that tax exempt status.

As to "large salaries" we can see the same at almost any non-profit that demands constant fund-raising. Executives that generate revenue are in high demand, whether in non-profit hospitals, the Visiting Nurse Association, the Red Cross or thousands of other entities all looking for donations.

 

[Mediafrog+]

The fact is the government subsidizes a lot of things. They subsidize tobacco. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. They subsidize Elon Musk's car and solar companies. Is that good? You tell me. My view is if we don't believe the government should be subsidizing private business, then we should be fair about it, and drop ALL government subsidies. Not just the one that conservatives don't like.

A thousand 👍for that. If you want to be fair, then the government needs to end ALL subsidies. And no more bailouts to businesses in trouble. I remember all the billionaires crying before Congress during the 2008 financial meltdown that they needed bailouts to deal with the problems they themselves caused. That still steams me to this day almost 20 years later.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

The fact is the government subsidizes a lot of things. They subsidize tobacco. Is that a good thing? I don't think so. They subsidize Elon Musk's car and solar companies. Is that good? You tell me. My view is if we don't believe the government should be subsidizing private business, then we should be fair about it, and drop ALL government subsidies. Not just the one that conservatives don't like.

Yes!!! A thousand times yes!

And who said they have to spend all of the funds they receive? They do not. If the funds aren't needed they can absolutely return them to the donor or subsidizing federal agency.

 

[davideduardo]

A thousand 👍for that. If you want to be fair, then the government needs to end ALL subsidies. And no more bailouts to businesses in trouble. I remember all the billionaires crying before Congress during the 2008 financial meltdown that they needed bailouts to deal with the problems they themselves caused. That still steams me to this day almost 20 years later.

The auto industry bailouts in the 2008 recession were intended to avoid an even higher cost of having hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, along with a loss of tax revenue where closed factories would occur... and the move of more of the industry overseas.

Many subsidies are done to keep American business viable. Again, the logic is to prevent job losses and the departure of even more industries from the U.S.

 

[TheBigA]

And who said they have to spend all of the funds they receive? They do not. If the funds aren't needed they can absolutely return the funds to the donor or subsidizing federal agency.

It goes back to how they apply for these grants. It's not welfare. They have certain work requirements and certain goals they have to achieve in order to QUALIFY for this funding. These stations did all that, jumped through all the government hoops, filled out all the government paperwork, and now had that funding that they deserve taken away. Who do they sue over that?

If there's money left over, that gets reported to the funder. If it's the government, it's up to them to decide what the station does with the money. Everything must be accounted for, and in the case of government funding, the government is informed how its money was spent.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

So a station you like doesn't deserve to exist. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Some things are more important than the station I like.

 

[TheBigA]

Many subsidies are done to keep American business viable. Again, the logic is to prevent job losses and the departure of even more industries from the U.S.

That was a big part of the public radio funding, but also for commercial radio stations. If local stations have to fire staff, those people will apply to their states for unemployment. So something that was paid for by the feds will now have to be paid for by the states. That additional cost will be born by local taxpayers in property or other taxes.

 

[ChannelFlipper]

It goes back to how they apply for these grants. It's not welfare. They have certain work requirements and certain goals they have to achieve in order to QUALIFY for this funding. These stations did all that, jumped through all the government hoops, filled out all the government paperwork, and now had that funding that they deserve taken away. Who do they sue over that?

I would like to be sympathetic to this issue (which is legitimate, not trying to minimize) but I just can't. I work with a lot of organizations that receive federal dollars and they can and do get screwed for a whole host of reasons.

Any organization has to be very careful when accepting federal funds. They come with many strings (often unknown to the recipient organization), many reporting and audit requirements, and as you eventually learn, the government is not always the best business partner. They can and will leave you high and dry if that is their desire. These risks and requirements must always be considered before accepting the "free" money.

 

[radiofan2023]

Some things are more important than the station I like.

Alrighty then

 

[davideduardo]

That was a big part of the public radio funding, but also for commercial radio stations.

There is a difference between the auto and steel industries and radio, whether public or private. The former are vital to both the economy and the United States' position in the world; the employ directly or indirectly close to a million people. Public radio is a tiny part of a larger sector, and its fate will not affect the economy signficantly.

If local stations have to fire staff, those people will apply to their states for unemployment.

Walgreens is closing many stores in California. The number of unemployed at just a handful of those stores is greater than the total staff numbers of all Public Radio stations in the state.

So something that was paid for by the feds will now have to be paid for by the states. That additional cost will be born by local taxpayers in property or other taxes.

Or, like any other closing of a small business, the staff will seek employment elsewhere.