Court reaffirms CPB's independence

[boombox4]

It's been about a year since WCBS NewsRadio 88 shut down and its frequency became ESPN New York. It seems like every day I read posts here and on the dentist's board complaining about it, and demanding its return. This is in a city that has a virtual duplicate of the station on both AM & FM.

People want what they want. When their access to what they want is removed, they're upset. Sure there are other options for news and emergency information. But this is RADIO Discussions. We talk about radio here. If anyone on this board had the opportunity to vote to prevent iHeart from firing local staff or Audacy from flipping their favorite radio station to another format, WOULD YOU DO IT? That's what we're talking about. Congress didn't have to do this. They chose to do it. It may not affect your favorite station, but it affects the community of radio broadcasting. That's how I look at it, anyway. The community is under attack from a lot of places. Corporate greed. The music industry. The advertisers. You know all the enemies. That's what this is about. If you love radio, this is just one more nail in the coffin.

Agreed.

I said the same thing about the government pulling the plug on VOA and got a fair bit of pushback here (and elsewhere -- on other radio social media and forums) for it. If you support the AM in cars bill, you also get pushback from a fair number of Radio people.

If Radio people don't support all Radio, who else will?

 

[ted chittenden]

That view has also been taken by the music industry. They have a campaign called "Music Has Value." Yet most people believe music should be free, and seek out any way they can find to avoid paying for it...even if we're talking about music they claim to love.

People are cheap. That's what keeps broadcast radio in business. Otherwise everyone would subscribe to music services. But a lot of people get what they want for free by listening to broadcast radio. The problem public radio has is it can't put a paywall on public airwaves. That's really the only way to be sure people pay for what they enjoy. Otherwise, it's the honor system, and not everyone is honorable.

What we know is that on average, only about 7% of people who listen to public radio actually subscribe. If they can freeload, they will.

And not everyone who listens to public radio can *actually* afford to pay for it. Public radio, especially on the music side, was all about serving minority interests and those whose musical tastes couldn't be found elsewhere on the radio dial. The current executive branch leader had this done because he didn't like the perceived news bias against him on those stations; yet it will be morelikely than not that the news side of the public radio system will have the fewest injuries from these actions, and I daresay that some music-only and (mostly) music-only affiliates will turn to news and talk as a way of escaping payments required by the recording industry and others.

 

[TheBigA]

And not everyone who listens to public radio can *actually* afford to pay for it. Public radio, especially on the music side, was all about serving minority interests and those whose musical tastes couldn't be found elsewhere on the radio dial.

Correct. That's where the government money comes in. Congress knew when they started this thing that it wasn't going to be like commercial radio. The public broadcasting act says in it that it's an alternative to existing media choices. Therefore, it won't get the ratings, and it won't attract the money. Plus it has to be available to everyone for free. The concept of asking listeners to pay for it came later, after Reagan amended the law. Since then, the government money has only been a portion of the funding.

The other part of CPB is funding independent radio & TV producers. These are people who started a small business creating radio programs. People ask how do you get started in radio? The answer is someone has to believe in what you do, and is willing to pay you. At CPB, people could apply for grants to produce radio and TV programs. Once they were produced, they could be distributed to thousands of public radio stations on the public radio satellite system. This was completely independent of NPR, and often independent of radio stations. The idea was to give everyone access to creating radio, not just stations or NPR. This is the part of CPB that this funding cut will hurt the most. There will be no more program development. Ira Glass started This American Life with a CPB grant. Now it's a huge business that doesn't get federal funding anymore. There are lots of examples of small radio producers who received a CPB grant, created a radio program, and it's now heard across the country. This entire system will be wiped out by this cut. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money. But CPB was able to distribute that money to a lot of people, and those people created a lot of programming. It's not just NPR & PBS. It's now all gone.

Here are examples of all the programs funded by CPB. The budgets for both CPB and Ready To Learn were cut, so this won't be done anymore:

Programs and Projects | CPB

cpb.org

 

[ok walters]

Correct. That's where the government money comes in. Congress knew when they started this thing that it wasn't going to be like commercial radio. The public broadcasting act says in it that it's an alternative to existing media choices. Therefore, it won't get the ratings, and it won't attract the money. Plus it has to be available to everyone for free. The concept of asking listeners to pay for it came later, after Reagan amended the law. Since then, the government money has only been a portion of the funding.

The other part of CPB is funding independent radio & TV producers. These are people who started a small business creating radio programs. People ask how do you get started in radio? The answer is someone has to believe in what you do, and is willing to pay you. At CPB, people could apply for grants to produce radio and TV programs. Once they were produced, they could be distributed to thousands of public radio stations on the public radio satellite system. This was completely independent of NPR, and often independent of radio stations. The idea was to give everyone access to creating radio, not just stations or NPR. This is the part of CPB that this funding cut will hurt the most. There will be no more program development. Ira Glass started This American Life with a CPB grant. Now it's a huge business that doesn't get federal funding anymore. There are lots of examples of small radio producers who received a CPB grant, created a radio program, and it's now heard across the country. This entire system will be wiped out by this cut. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money. But CPB was able to distribute that money to a lot of people, and those people created a lot of programming. It's not just NPR & PBS. It's now all gone.

Why does producing programming for radio require government money? It may have made some sense - maybe - in 1967 when the internet didn’t exist and FM radio was in its infancy, but today the population has doubled and there are now literally millions of content producers and thousands of outlets for that content. If the content is worthwhile, someone will pay for it, and it needs to be remembered that building your entire business as you claim many people have around a government grant that has to be renewed every year is risky at best.

The rural radio discussion is the same argument. When you choose to live in a remote, low population area like the Alaska wilderness, you understand that life will be more difficult, inconvenient, and expensive. Areas like that can’t support traditional media outlets due to population count alone, and as SRG said, even basic utilities like phone service can be sketchy. None of this is a surprise yet the overall opinion on this board is that the taxpayers should fund media services for people who chose to live where traditional media can’t survive. If you are going to fund communication services for remote areas, why aren’t we spending that money on more modern technology like satellite internet? Local radio has one channel - the internet has millions - so why keep funding technology that is inferior and has only one voice?

The bottom line is personal responsibility - if you chose to live in a town of 300 people that is the largest town for hundreds of miles in any direction with absolutely nothing in between, you have made a choice that doesn’t include all of the conveniences of other less remote places. Do you expect the government/taxpayers to keep you informed, or do you understand that it is your responsibility to keep yourself informed even if it isn’t free?

 

[101tm]

The bottom line is personal responsibility - if you chose to live in a town of 300 people that is the largest town for hundreds of miles in any direction with absolutely nothing in between, you have made a choice that doesn’t include all of the conveniences of other less remote places. Do you expect the government/taxpayers to keep you informed, or do you understand that it is your responsibility to keep yourself informed even if it isn’t free?

How dare you say those two words — personal responsibility.

</sarcasm>

Excellently said.

 

[TheBigA]

Why does producing programming for radio require government money?

Somebody has to invest. At one time, radio companies invested in their product. They don't have that luxury anymore. They can barely keep the lights on. They're firing all their staff, eliminating unique programming, and just becoming jukeboxes. That's happening right now, not only in 1967. That's why public broadcasting was started. Because the corporate broadcasting people were only interested in one thing: Profit. This is what happens when those people are put in charge of the government.

The bottom line is personal responsibility

The other side of that is serving the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I thought broadcasting was about public service? No? Is it all just about profits and quarterly reports? OK, fine. Shut down the FCC, and leave it all to private industry to run. Personal responsibility. How responsible was iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy to drive themselves into bankruptcy? People aren't responsible. They do completely irresponsible things every day. That's why we have laws to rein them in.

 

[gr8oldies]

Somebody has to invest. At one time, radio companies invested in their product. They don't have that luxury anymore. They can barely keep the lights on. They're firing all their staff, eliminating unique programming, and just becoming jukeboxes. That's why public broadcasting was started. Because the corporate broadcasting people were only interested in one thing: Profit. This is what happens when those people are put in charge of the government.



The other side of that is serving the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I thought broadcasting was about public service? No? Is it all just about profits and quarterly reports? OK, fine. Shut down the FCC, and leave it all to private industry to run. Personal responsibility. How responsible was iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy to drive themselves into bankruptcy?

So I live in a remote part of a red state, it's up to me to buy a subscription to something to hear any coverage of the Supermajority, let alone any voice that might criticize it. Interesting take.

 

[TheBigA]

Local radio has one channel - the internet has millions - so why keep funding technology that is inferior and has only one voice?

Absolutely. You're right. Let's shut down this obsolete thing called radio. It's a total waste of time and money.

Look: Your side won. There won't be any more government money being spent on public radio. Hooray for you. You should be celebrating instead of lecturing me on how obsolete my line of work is. I work in radio. I know all the negatives about it. I hear about it every day. Radio is a bad investment. I had a whole thread on that subject.

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/more-consolidation-is-not-the-answer-to-poor-business-decisions.775355/

Personal responsibility: How many idiots thought Citadel buying ABC Radio was a good idea? Anyone who invests in broadcasting is making a poor business decision.

 

[ok walters]

Absolutely. You're right. Let's shut down this obsolete thing called radio. It's a total waste of time and money.

Look: Your side won. There won't be any more government money being spent on public radio. Hooray for you. You should be celebrating instead of lecturing me on how obsolete my line of work is. I work in radio. I know all the negatives about it. I hear about it every day. Radio is a bad investment. I had a whole thread on that subject.

https://radiodiscussions.com/threads/more-consolidation-is-not-the-answer-to-poor-business-decisions.775355/

Personal responsibility: How many idiots thought Citadel buying ABC Radio was a good idea? Anyone who invests in broadcasting is making a poor business decision.

Nobody won except the taxpayers. The CPB was formed to provide “objective and balanced” programming almost sixty years ago. You can argue about whether that is really what has happened all you want, but the bottom line is times have changed significantly and technology is constantly being replaced. Taxpayer funding of any radio or TV service at this point is a poor investment when superior technology is available, and can overcome the physical limitations of radio and TV coverage.

In 1990, there were pay phones on every corner. Now they only exist in airports and a few urban areas. What happened? Everyone has a phone in their hand now despite it costing far more than a pay phone call. Same thing goes for pagers, table top radios, cameras, and home telephones - all pretty much gone due to a hand held do it all on demand device. Most small and medium sized newspapers are now online only or are gone, and AM radio is in trouble for sure. You can fight it, deny it, and get mad about it - or you can adapt and adjust just like all of the people who worked in those now gone industries have. Radio is just one of many choices, and one that by your own admission is in decline. Many of us are in love with a memory of what radio used to be but that time has passed and we need to adapt or fade away.

 

[TheBigA]

Nobody won except the taxpayers.

At no time has anyone in the government promised to use the billion dollars to either pay down the debt or give back to taxpayers. If they set up a rebate system where all taxpayers got a portion of the public radio money, I'd agree with you. But that money just goes into the general treasury to be spent on more opulence for big government. More diet coke in the white house. The recent budget bill is adding trillions to the debt. Taxpayers won't win. Public service loses.

What is forgotten is that public radio listeners pay taxes too. The polls say that 60% of the public was opposed to cutting the funding. Nobody cares. This wasn't done to benefit taxpayers or the public. That's just a smokescreen. Most of the CPB money went to red states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Georgia, and the Dakotas. Those state governments own public radio & TV stations. They will now have to make up millions in lost federal funding. Or they'll have to pay unemployment compensation to the fired workers. Which means they'll have to raise local taxes.

Not everyone has a cellphone. I hate to break it to you. Not everyone can receive the internet. Not everyone has the personal finances to pay for media subscriptions. Even now in 2025! It's amazing. Some people still shop in brick & mortar stores. The fact is that even though they may be obsolete, the airwaves belong to the public. At least that's what I've been told. Part of the reason why government funded public broadcasting was to put something else besides corporate formats on the radio. The government was investing in what it owns: The radio spectrum. Novel idea. You won't see it coming from corporate radio companies. As I said, it's another nail in the coffin of radio. Meanwhile, these same people (Ted Cruz) are pushing AM in Every Car. What total hypocrites.

 

[vchimpanzee]

WFAE reduces staff to cope with difficult budget, loss of federal funding

WFAE is reducing its workforce by a half-dozen staff members as it faces a difficult revenue environment and the loss of federal funding due to the defunding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

www.wfae.org

Even in a city of nearly a million people with a million or so more in its coverage area.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, this was already-budgeted money. The latest budget was approved in March by this very same congress.

Imagine you run a business, and someone commits money to you. Then a few months later, they rescind that money. What do you do?

WFAE is a big city station, and they're not going to go out of business. But they budgeted for a certain amount and now that money's gone.

So they have to lay off people, and those people will be eligible for unemployment that the state has to pay.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

This is the statement our station is releasing concerning whats going on:

Public Statement from Kuskokwim Public Broadcasting Corporation / KSKO regarding the funding rescission for public broadcasting
July 17, 2025

We are deeply saddened to share that the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan originally proposed by the Trump administration to rescind $9 billion in previously allocated federal funding. This includes a devastating $1.1 billion cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), effectively eliminating all federal support for KSKO Radio.

As a result, Kuskokwim Public Broadcasting Corporation will begin scaling back operations in a way that allows us to remain on the air for as long as possible.

This funding loss impacts every village we serve in the Upper and Middle Kuskokwim region, the GASH area and our listeners in the Ft. Yukon and Fairbanks areas. Your voice matters now more than ever. Our Community Advisory Board will be seeking your input as we make critical decisions about the future of our service.

How can you help fill the gap today?
Support KSKO today by signing up or renewing your membership online or by phone. Your contribution directly supports the local programming, news, and community connection we work hard to provide every day.

We remain committed to our mission of connecting and informing our communities and will do everything we can to preserve that service.

Thank you for your continued support and understanding during this challenging time.
— Kuskokwim Public Broadcasting Corporation / KSKO Radio

 

[Delete My Account]

By the logic espoused by some posters in this thread, why don't we just shut down these rural towns completely? I mean, we have the costs of infrastructure - power, roads, some sort of accessibility to medical care and emergency services, fire, police. Why don't we do what pencils out practically and consolidate them into towns and cities of more practical layout?

Sounds a lot like that central planning and "Agenda 21" that feeds the conspiracy theorists.

Here's the deal. As a society we've accepted that we want freedom to pursue our happiness, but running a nation isn't free in dollars. There's a social contract involved. To go George Costanza for a second.. "We're living in a SOCIETY!"

Our system of government is participatory. You can run for office, volunteer for your party of choice, start a new one. But ultimately, we choose people to imperfectly represent us and help manage this unwieldy collection of people and agendas and priorities and values.

I don't love that a portion of my taxes goes to Starlink and Plantir. I find it unethical. I'd much rather it be used so that people who choose to or need to live in McGrath for whatever reason can be connected to the rest of their nation and more importantly, their state and what's being done there and affecting their daily lives, knowing no media company, my small one, Audacity, or iHeart could ever make it profitable. And I don't even mind if a little of it goes to just entertain and uplift them either so their lives are a bit better day to day. I also know that my small contribution, while appreciated, isn't as powerful as a network or consortium like CPB that leverages a statistically small amount of money for a greater good.

It was once said that “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

We can debate all day long how much of what we choose to do together and given the nature of our system, there will be wins and losses on both sides. But if we choose to stop doing this America thing together, that's going to a place far more disturbing than losing a radio station. Yet the discussion about throwing communities like McGrath out of connection with their own state and nation via a service (terrestrial radio) that's supposed to exist as a resource of the people is exposing the reality of a "social Darwinism" mindset that when taken to its logical conclusion, does actual damage to the stability of society and of the very nation we claim to treasure.

I, for one, wouldn't want that mindset to win the day. I believe an informed public with access to actual journalism and the ability to know what's going on in their state government especially, and also nationally and globally, is a net positive for society and for my country. I don't think people in Alaska or West Virginia deserve less benefit from taxpayer dollars while Silicon Valley and Wall Street deserve more.

And that's why even as a commercial broadcaster, I've advocated for public media. I once had a GM chastise me for public support of my state's public media system. He viewed it as competition, as though news, classical and jazz listeners would suddenly switch to our contemporary country format if it were the only station on the dial. I asked him where the funds were going to come from in our budget in this unrated rural community to send reporters to the state house and do long-form reporting, and where it would fit into our programming.

Astonishingly, he couldn't work that out.

 

[Bongwater]

How many such locations have an NPR or PBS affiliate that have no other service? I know your situation is definitely one of them. I am wondering if there are any in the "Lower 48" that fit that definition.

In some parts of the deep South/Bible Belt outside of metro areas, you can play a fun game find the NPR affiliate with Radio-Locator. There are even places when everything locally receivable from 88-92 MHz is religious broadcasting of some sort.

 

[davideduardo]

In some parts of the deep South/Bible Belt outside of metro areas, you can play a fun game find the NPR affiliate with Radio-Locator. There are even places when everything locally receivable from 88-92 MHz is religious broadcasting of some sort.

My question was whether there are any "lower 48" areas where there is no other local broadcast radio service of any kind other than an NPR affiliate.

 

[TheBigA]

My question was whether there are any "lower 48" areas where there is no other local broadcast radio service of any kind other than an NPR affiliate.

Keep in mind the CPB funding cut affects a lot more stations than NPR affiliates. So we're talking about the tribal radio stations on reservations in very isolated parts of South Dakota for example.

 

[ok walters]

At no time has anyone in the government promised to use the billion dollars to either pay down the debt or give back to taxpayers. If they set up a rebate system where all taxpayers got a portion of the public radio money, I'd agree with you. But that money just goes into the general treasury to be spent on more opulence for big government. More diet coke in the white house. The recent budget bill is adding trillions to the debt. Taxpayers won't win. Public service loses.

What is forgotten is that public radio listeners pay taxes too. The polls say that 60% of the public was opposed to cutting the funding. Nobody cares. This wasn't done to benefit taxpayers or the public. That's just a smokescreen. Most of the CPB money went to red states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Georgia, and the Dakotas. Those state governments own public radio & TV stations. They will now have to make up millions in lost federal funding. Or they'll have to pay unemployment compensation to the fired workers. Which means they'll have to raise local taxes.

Not everyone has a cellphone. I hate to break it to you. Not everyone can receive the internet. Not everyone has the personal finances to pay for media subscriptions. Even now in 2025! It's amazing. Some people still shop in brick & mortar stores. The fact is that even though they may be obsolete, the airwaves belong to the public. At least that's what I've been told. Part of the reason why government funded public broadcasting was to put something else besides corporate formats on the radio. The government was investing in what it owns: The radio spectrum. Novel idea. You won't see it coming from corporate radio companies. As I said, it's another nail in the coffin of radio. Meanwhile, these same people (Ted Cruz) are pushing AM in Every Car. What total hypocrites.

The discussion was about rural radio and whether it is a reasonable use of taxpayer funds when more modern and effective technology is available. My response was that if you choose to live in a remote area you have made a choice of a more difficult and expensive lifestyle. Key word here is “choice” - no one is forced to live in those areas. They made a choice that convenience, comfort, and even safety may be an issue, and have made their own decisions on emergency communications as well. Why are taxpayers responsible for the cost of those personal decisions? On the other hand, if it is decided that taxpayers should fund communication systems in those remote areas, why wouldn’t the money be better spent on more modern technology that provides two way communication with millions of choices of content?

98% of American adults have a cell phone, and 91% of American adults have a smartphone, so the “not everyone can afford a cell phone” argument doesn’t hold much water. Hand held internet access is reality for over 90% of the population and it is getting cheaper and higher quality every day. The Biden administration allocated $42 billion in 2021 for improved broadband access in rural areas, and Alaska got over $1 billion of that money. Why? Because that is the technology of the future whether we like it or not.

 

[TheBigA]

Why are taxpayers responsible for the cost of those personal decisions?

Do people smoke? Don't they know smoking causes cancer? Taxpayers pay subsidies to tobacco farmers who grow a crop that causes cancer. There's just one example. As I said, people aren't responsible. We have lots of "accommodation" laws in this country, where we make allowances for personal issues that people have. Why? Because those people pay taxes too. The people in isolated areas pay taxes, and they deserve to receive the same services people receive in populated areas. Poor people are citizens covered by the constitution. They may not pay a lot in taxes, but they are citizens under the jurisdiction of the same laws as everyone else. They also vote. So we're talking about voters who pay taxes. Those are two things politicians care about.

Here's another example. People build homes on rivers and the ocean. Then the rivers flood, or the hurricanes cause the oceans to wash away those homes. Who pays for it? The taxpayers. The president was just down in Texas promising all those people that his government will help them after the flood. Why? Because they pay taxes, and those taxes are supposed to help people like them.

Why are taxpayers responsible? Because we all live in the same country. E Pluribus Unum. Do you know what that means? So we're all responsible for everyone, not just the people we like.

On the other hand, if it is decided that taxpayers should fund communication systems in those remote areas, why wouldn’t the money be better spent on more modern technology that provides two way communication with millions of choices of content?

If broadcasting is so obsolete, why is Ted Cruz and his buddies pushing so hard to put AM In Every Vehicle? Explain that to me.

 

[ted chittenden]

My question was whether there are any "lower 48" areas where there is no other local broadcast radio service of any kind other than an NPR affiliate.

Yes. Challis, Idaho. While there are a few translators up there, the only two full-time stations in town are the news and classical feeds of Boise Public Radio.

Until recently, I would also have cited Tonopah, NV, which, for many years, only had the satellite station for the Las Vegas NPR outlet, KNPR.

Finally, I would suggest the area around Panaca/Pioche, NV, where the only radio station one could receive was the KNPR satellite in Panaca. (The noncommercial school station in Pioche has been on- and off the air over the past several years.)

There are plenty more areas where the only other station besides the NPR outlet is a commercial outlet that has minimal national and international news coverage and no local news coverage. Monticello, UT, is a good example of this