Court reaffirms CPB's independence

[ok walters]

They pay with their money.

Where did they get that money? Did any or all of it come from the government?

 

[TheBigA]

Where did they get that money? Did any or all of it come from the government?

Depends on the station. Most only get 8% of their budget from the govt

No restriction on what they spend it on. If the feds want to restrict it, they can.

 

[K.M. Richards]

But the “member stations” can and do run lots of NPR programming by choice, and they pay NPR for that programming, so there is that money going to them indirectly.

They pay with their money.

Where did they get that money? Did any or all of it come from the government?

I think the point is not "where did it come from". Just as commercial broadcasters do not pay specific expenses from specific revenue (imagine this conversation happening ... "okay, as soon as Dave's Plumbing pays their invoice we can pay the electric bill for the transmitter"), public stations total the revenue and then just pay the bills.

Yes, the funding that had been coming from CPB might have been used to pay for NPR programming. Or it might not have been. It sounds like you are so hell bent on proving your point -- and making this thread into a circular argument in the process -- that I half-expect you to demand a full audit of every public radio station in the country, in hopes of being correct in your presumptions.

One thing is clear to me, and that is that you don't want one penny of your tax dollars funding public radio, which brands you as a hater, in my opinion. So ... you've made your point, and you're not likely to get the detailed information you demand. You can stop anytime you like.

 

[ok walters]

Never “demanded” any “detailed information”. The claim was made that no CPB funds go directly to NPR, and I mentioned heavily CPB funded public radio stations buying programming from NPR so they do get that revenue as a pass through. Money is fungible, so the “they didn’t use THAT money” claims are pretty weak.

It has no bearing on my life if the government funds rural radio service in some way. There are better options that are getting better everyday, but if the consensus is that helping fund rural radio is a government function, then so be it. However, there is absolutely zero need for the government to fund any programming of any kind in today’s media environment, especially news and politics. How can you be critical of the government if they fund your operations?

 

[101tm]

It has no bearing on my life if the government funds rural radio service in some way. There are better options that are getting better everyday, but if the consensus is that helping fund rural radio is a government function, then so be it. However, there is absolutely zero need for the government to fund any programming of any kind in today’s media environment, especially news and politics. How can you be critical of the government if they fund your operations?

It’s nice to find some common sense finally making its way in to this exhausting thread. The truth hurts sometimes.

How refreshing.

 

[Bongwater]

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.

Of course there is. But what does one hear there locally as food for thought besides Focus on The Family?

 

[K.M. Richards]

It’s nice to find some common sense finally making its way in to this exhausting thread. The truth hurts sometimes.

How refreshing.

It's "refreshing" and "common sense" to accept the possibility of public broadcasting going under?

I must have crossed over to Bizarro Earth when I wasn't paying attention.

 

[ok walters]

It's "refreshing" and "common sense" to accept the possibility of public broadcasting going under?

I must have crossed over to Bizarro Earth when I wasn't paying attention.

It is refreshing and common sense for the government to stop funding any and all radio and TV programming, both directly and indirectly. How is funding radio and TV programming a government function when thousands of programming options already exist? There is obviously no shortage or need, especially regarding news and politics, which would no doubt be easily biased due to the funding source. Is it wise for a government funded broadcaster to criticize the government who controls their revenue and therefore their future? Considering it is an annual appropriation and can be cancelled easily, how many would or could take that chance?

 

[K.M. Richards]

I have a couple new candidates for the Ignore function now.

 

[ok walters]

I have a couple new candidates for the Ignore function now.

I would wear it as a badge of honor. If that is your response to an opinion contrary to your own, it is probably for the best anyway

 

[davideduardo]

Why do we need the government to fund programming in today's world? In 1967, there were 4-5 TV channels available in most areas,

In larger markets other than the couple of largest, more like 3 to 4 stations in the mid 60's.

FM radio was in its infancy,

FM was in its infancy in 1940. By 1950 there were 1000 statioins.

and cable TV

CATV began in the 50's as a way of getting TV service to rural areas too far away for OTA reception.

and the internet didn't exist.

On that, you are right. In baseball, you'd be batting .250 but in history you did not pass the class.

Now there are hundreds of TV channels available everywhere, and the radio dial is completely full of stations of every genre. Once again - why is the government funding any programming at this point?

That is not the main argument which is whether the government should be creating content. There are points to be made about making electronic media accessible everywhere, but that is different from actually creating the content itself.

 

[TheBigA]

The claim was made that no CPB funds go directly to NPR,

Who made that claim? NPR says about 2% of its funding comes from CPB. It mainly supports the satellite distribution system. Not programming.

Money is fungible, so the “they didn’t use THAT money” claims are pretty weak.

If the government wanted to know, the stations could supply that information. Every dollar has to be accounted for to satisfy the IRS.

Keep in mind that CPB is the intermediary here. And now they're defunded. They're responsible for how the money is spent.

How can you be critical of the government if they fund your operations?

How can you truthfully report on what the government does if you have to be concerned about offending someone? That's why the money doesn't come from the government, but rather from CPB. CPB is not part of the government. They decide how the money is spent, not the president or congress. CPB is who will fight this battle for stations, not NPR.

 

[TheBigA]

That is not the main argument which is whether the government should be creating content.

The only content made by the government is the advertising they & their agency create that airs on commercial radio stations.

They create no content for public radio. Neither does CPB. In fact neither does PBS. NPR creates some but not all of it's content. It competes with several other major national syndicators.

 

[101tm]

I have a couple new candidates for the Ignore function now.

Glad to be one.

 

[101tm]

It is refreshing and common sense for the government to stop funding any and all radio and TV programming, both directly and indirectly. How is funding radio and TV programming a government function when thousands of programming options already exist? There is obviously no shortage or need, especially regarding news and politics, which would no doubt be easily biased due to the funding source. Is it wise for a government funded broadcaster to criticize the government who controls their revenue and therefore their future? Considering it is an annual appropriation and can be cancelled easily, how many would or could take that chance?

We don’t need the government funding programming when there are millions of options out there now. Exactly. I love radio, but I accept it’s dying and no longer a relevant option to many in 2025. I am also well aware of the affect this has on broadcasting — but all it will do, if anything, is slightly hasten the digital transition, although I think it will be a tiny impact on the medium at the end of the day. I welcome any cut to blatantly biased programming out there, one way or another.

We’re in the mobile, streaming, and on demand era now. There are plenty of options out there without government intervention.

And also, if posters choose to ignore me, fine. That just shows no tolerance for differing opinions. I see blatantly opposite views and opinions of mine on these boards daily, and generally just don’t comment. I don’t have time to debate. You’re not changing my mind, and I’m not changing yours. I have a full life outside of this to tend to. Nothing else to say as I respect the other topics discussed on this board too much to get bogged down in this.

 

[TheBigA]

It’s nice to find some common sense finally making its way in to this exhausting thread. The truth hurts sometimes.

How refreshing.

Everything I have said can be substantiated. If you need documentation on anything, let me know. I can provide.

If you don't agree, I don't care.

 

[ok walters]

In larger markets other than the couple of largest, more like 3 to 4 stations in the mid 60's.

I grew up in Annapolis, Maryland and we had DC and Baltimore OTA TV - we had 9 total stations in 1967 - 5 in DC and 4 in Baltimore. 7 VHF and 2 UHF. Still isn't many stations, and that was my point about limited content and choices.

FM was in its infancy in 1940. By 1950 there were 1000 statioins.

According to the 1951 FCC Annual Report, there were 536 licensed FM stations, an increase of 34 from 1950. The total didn't hit 1000 until 1961, and exploded to over 2000 by 1967. This means that half of the FM stations on the air in 1967 were less than 6 years old. In 1967 AM was still king with over 4000 stations on air - first FMs in cars as an option only in 1963-64. The FM band was still fairly empty as well. I should get at least 1/2 point on that one

CATV began in the 50's as a way of getting TV service to rural areas too far away for OTA reception.

My understanding of cable TV in its early years was that is existed mainly a delivery method for existing OTA channels, which is pretty much what you said. This just expanded coverage - it didn't add content or choices with its own channels until much later.

On that, you are right. In baseball, you'd be batting .250 but in history you did not pass the class.

Can you rescore me and see if I picked up a point or two?

That is not the main argument which is whether the government should be creating content. There are points to be made about making electronic media accessible everywhere, but that is different from actually creating the content itself.

It is just one argument as to why the government shouldn't be funding ANY content at this point. While "times have changed and there is no need anymore" is one argument, the chance of biased coverage is very high as well. If you are reporting on the source of your funding, you will likely be careful to not upset them and risk your future funding chances. It is just human nature.

 

[davideduardo]

Once again, a personal choice to ignore the technology in your hand. You ignore the cell phone that actually notifies you and apparently rely on over the air radio instead that you may not even have on. Okay got it

Many of us have turned off notifications because the authorities both overuse the option when not truly critical and they notify about things that are not in our own area.

As I said before, and like "everybody I know here" we have turned off notifications as we get things like "high heat warnings" when the temperature hits 100° even though we have about 60 days over 110° each year. So when you get multiple daily notification from late May to September, you turn off notifications. And when you get notifications frequently about areas that are a two or three hour drive away, it means that your phone is beeping several times a day for irrelevant data.

This is symptomatic of government overexerting its authority. We see it in California where a high percentage of what I buy has some health warning on the label or packaging. When you are told that everything is potentially dangerous, you ignore all such warnings as there is no "scale" of the degree of danger.

Cellular notifications should be classified into degrees of threat, ranging from "caution" to "imminent threat".

 

[davideduardo]

I grew up in Annapolis, Maryland and we had DC and Baltimore OTA TV - we had 9 total stations in 1967 - 5 in DC and 4 in Baltimore. 7 VHF and 2 UHF. Still isn't many stations, and that was my point about limited content and choices.

Good point, but you were in a unique situation. If you were in Indanapolis or Columbus, OH, or Birmingham, AL, you likely had 3 stations in the earlier 60s.

According to the 1951 FCC Annual Report, there were 536 licensed FM stations, an increase of 34 from 1950. The total didn't hit 1000 until 1961, and exploded to over 2000 by 1967. This means that half of the FM stations on the air in 1967 were less than 6 years old. In 1967 AM was still king with over 4000 stations on air - first FMs in cars as an option only in 1963-64. The FM band was still fairly empty as well. I should get at least 1/2 point on that one

You are looking at the wrong report. From 1000 licensed FMs in 1950 we went to just around 700 in 1960 as all the "bus radio" and other gimmicks failed to pan out and the few independent FMs gave up.

My understanding of cable TV in its early years was that is existed mainly a delivery method for existing OTA channels, which is pretty much what you said. This just expanded coverage - it didn't add content or choices with its own channels until much later.

Correct. It was called CATV, or Community Antenna Television. It picked up signals from distant stations and amplified them and sent them by wire to homes. But that was the origin of cable television once it occurred to some systems to add stuff like the town council meetings and the like.

Can you rescore me and see if I picked up a point or two?

Extra half-point.

It is just one argument as to why the government shouldn't be funding ANY content at this point. While "times have changed and there is no need anymore" is one argument, the chance of biased coverage is very high as well. If you are reporting on the source of your funding, you will likely be careful to not upset them and risk your future funding chances. It is just human nature.

The problem with government anywhere is that it tends to create its own logic for expansion. Since there is no controlling factor like a need to make at least a little profit, too many ideas get implemented.

I'm fascinated by the FCC's desire to cut regulations. But I still see some rules that are irrelevant based on current technology that are out of date; one is the distance limits on second adjacent FM channels. Most of the rest of the world where there is open commercial broadcasting allows same-city second adjacent full power stations.

 

[ok walters]

Good point, but you were in a unique situation. If you were in Indanapolis or Columbus, OH, or Birmingham, AL, you likely had 3 stations in the earlier 60s.

Only situation I knew at age 5. Not much content and all in black and white at my house.

You are looking at the wrong report. From 1000 licensed FMs in 1950 we went to just around 700 in 1960 as all the "bus radio" and other gimmicks failed to pan out and the few independent FMs gave up.

This is what I looked at - 1952 FCC Report to Congress. Page 121 shows totals of 732 "Authorized" and 493 "Licensed". My guess is "authorized" would be like a current day CP and "licensed" would be just that - licensed and on air.

Correct. It was called CATV, or Community Antenna Television. It picked up signals from distant stations and amplified them and sent them by wire to homes. But that was the origin of cable television once it occurred to some systems to add stuff like the town council meetings and the like.

So it really just expanded existing OTA coverage initially. So it didn't exist with original programming until later, so no additional programming choices.

Extra half-point.

Better than nothing but under appeal.

The problem with government anywhere is that it tends to create its own logic for expansion. Since there is no controlling factor like a need to make at least a little profit, too many ideas get implemented.

I'm fascinated by the FCC's desire to cut regulations. But I still see some rules that are irrelevant based on current technology that are out of date; one is the distance limits on second adjacent FM channels. Most of the rest of the world where there is open commercial broadcasting allows same-city second adjacent full power stations.

That second adjacent nonsense is holding me back right now - it would help a bunch if that one went away