Trump to PBS and NPR: I’m cutting you off…

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Ok I should qualify it by adding if the government was sincere when it said they wanted to save taxpayers money. Because now that the goal has been accomplished, they have played their card.

“Sincerity” by the current regime is laughable. Can we stop the charade that this is anything rational or normal? That past history has any bearing whatsoever on what’s happening now?

For crying out loud, they’re firing the person who compiled the jobs data because it doesn’t appease Dear Leader, and we’re going to pretend there is “sincerity” going on? In what universe?

 

[IM42A]

Correct. There is no network exclusivity. Same with NPR. Also no requirement that any station must carry the network lineup. It’s all done voluntarily. Oklahoma has chosen not to air some PBS programs.

That is not quite where I was going with my comments, but you are right. This said, I have to wonder whether this is a concern of statewide PBS networks that may have stations coming in from other states. Within a metropolitan market with stand-alone stations, I imagine that they make some effort not to duplicate. Some such stations are secondary affiliates.

 

[TheBigA]

I have to wonder whether this is a concern of statewide PBS networks

My take is they don't see themselves in competition with each other.

 

[danderson6500]

I really dislike Trump for this. I'm fine with him cutting other stuff, but for him to cut funding for a channel where i watched Sesame Street, Square One Television, Barney and Friends and Ghostwriter? Of course, the PBS when those shows were on is a far cry from the one, we have now.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

“Sincerity” by the current regime is laughable. Can we stop the charade that this is anything rational or normal? That past history has any bearing whatsoever on what’s happening now?

For crying out loud, they’re firing the person who compiled the jobs data because it doesn’t appease Dear Leader, and we’re going to pretend there is “sincerity” going on? In what universe?

True the worst case scenario im thinking here is that Chairman Carr will come in and go after major local PBS and NPR affiliates licences around the country like WBUR, WETA, WBEZ, WTTW, KQED, KERA, KUHT, WGBH, WAMU, KPCC, KOCE, WNYC, WNET and WHYY all because shows like PBS Newshour, PBS Frontline, NPR News aired something the White House does not want released.

 

[IM42A]

My take is they don't see themselves in competition with each other.

Very true. To use the Kentucky example, KET is not going to be terribly concerned whether the PBS member stations in Cincinnati, Huntington, Evansville, and so on, are running the same programs, or running them at the same time, as KET stations that also serve that market. I do know that very frequently in a market, one PBS station will be the primary affiliate, and another one will be the secondary affiliate, possibly running fewer PBS shows, or running them at different times. WKYU in Bowling Green KY would be an example, if they adhered to the same schedule at KET/WKGB, it would be pointless. The question then that begs to be asked and answered is whether Bowling Green really needs two PBS stations. WKYU is basically an adjunct of the information technology department of Western Kentucky University and runs a truncated portion of the national PBS schedule.

 

[TheBigA]

The question then that begs to be asked and answered is whether Bowling Green really needs two PBS stations.

Who would ask the question?

 

[IM42A]

Who would ask the question?

Anybody could. If I were not familiar with the situation, I'd be asking it myself, "hey, this is a small town, what's up with this second PBS station?".

I phrased it the way I did to avoid the very-common misuse of the term "begging the question", when what the person means to say is "raising the question". Begging the question is a formal term (the Latin term is petitio principii) in logic and rhetoric, meaning that you assume the truth of the assertion that you are making. It's something entirely different from "raising" the question..

 

[rparky54]

True the worst case scenario im thinking here is that Chairman Carr will come in and go after major local PBS and NPR affiliates licences around the country like WBUR, WETA, WBEZ, WTTW, KQED, KERA, KUHT, WGBH, WAMU, KPCC, KOCE, WNYC, WNET and WHYY all because shows like PBS Newshour, PBS Frontline, NPR News aired something the White House does not want released.

Don't forget Washington Week.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Very true. To use the Kentucky example, KET is not going to be terribly concerned whether the PBS member stations in Cincinnati, Huntington, Evansville, and so on, are running the same programs, or running them at the same time, as KET stations that also serve that market. I do know that very frequently in a market, one PBS station will be the primary affiliate, and another one will be the secondary affiliate, possibly running fewer PBS shows, or running them at different times. WKYU in Bowling Green KY would be an example, if they adhered to the same schedule at KET/WKGB, it would be pointless. The question then that begs to be asked and answered is whether Bowling Green really needs two PBS stations. WKYU is basically an adjunct of the information technology department of Western Kentucky University and runs a truncated portion of the national PBS schedule.

This shows the plethora of multiple public TV stations in many markets, as well as overlapping coverage from various markets, that ultimately was not sustainable. (e.g., Bowling Green, Kentucky, a very small market with TWO public TV stations, Cincinnati and Dayton markets with easy OTA access to THREE to FOUR public TV stations, etc. — the situation was not efficient at all and ripe for pruning.)

 

[TheBigA]

Anybody could. If I were not familiar with the situation, I'd be asking it myself, "hey, this is a small town, what's up with this second PBS station?".

You don't understand the situation. The decision for the WKU station wasn't based on if the town needed another PBS station. WKU wanted to have a place where its students could create local TV programming and have it seen. They put together a budget, and determined they had the funds to do it. They became a secondary affiliate of PBS. Stations pay to be members of PBS. Turning down WKYU means PBS is turning down money. It's up to the station to differentiate itself from WKGB. If WKU can come up with the funding, they can become a PBS affiliate.

The state network has the primary affiliation. The state technically owns both stations. If this was a problem, it would be up to the state to tell the university it can't compete with the state TV system. They didn't. The university could have told the Broadcasting Department that this was a waste of money, but it didn't. That's why I asked who would ask the question? PBS can't. The state didn't, and neither did the university. So that's why they exist. There's enough programming in the public TV system so they can air different programming.

In radio, I often hear people ask "does this town need another country station?" You could ask that question about Nashville. They have five country stations. There used to be four, and Midwest flipped a station to classic country. There already was a classic country station in Nashville. It didn't "need" another. But it got one.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Is this really efficient use of taxpayer funds with all this duplication/multiple public TV stations in a market/overlapping signals, etc., etc.?

And if PBS/NPR had the editorial leanings of Fox News rather than its current leanings (and I’m registered “unaffiliated”), we all know it would’ve been defunded years ago.

 

[TheBigA]

Is this really efficient use of taxpayer funds with all this duplication/multiple public TV stations in a market/overlapping signals, etc., etc.?

They exist for different reasons. See my post above. We don't have a centralized broadcasting system in this country. It's instead based on the free market. Or it's supposed to be free. Anyone can start a TV or radio station in this country.

And if PBS/NPR had the editorial leanings of Fox News rather than its current leanings (and I’m registered “unaffiliated”), we all know it would’ve been defunded years ago.

PBS/NPR has received government funding since 1968. It always received bi-partisan support. It still has that support now. A lot of these stations are owned by red states. If they were airing extremist left wing programming, the republican governor could object. In fact, in Oklahoma, the governor told the state PBS station it couldn't air a show about LGBT issues. When you have a decentralized system, and you turn the power over to the states, it's up to those states to make the decisions.

The states have the power to not run NPR News. It's not forced on them by the government. They choose to do it because it attracts a big audience, and they can raise money around it. The fact that it receives federal money is immaterial. The stations are run locally, not by the national organization. Right now, the president is turning over more responsibilities to the states. Health care, disaster funding, education. Those areas will now be run by the states instead of the feds. Public broadcasting was turned over to the states in 1983 under Reagan. It's run by the states, not NPR or CPB. It's up to them to decide the programming. This is an example of what can happen when you turn things over to the states.

 

[Gravel Switch]

They exist for different reasons. See my post above. We don't have a centralized broadcasting system in this country. It's instead based on the free market. Or it's supposed to be free. Anyone can start a TV or radio station in this country.



PBS/NPR has received government funding since 1968. It always received bi-partisan support. It still has that support now. A lot of these stations are owned by red states. If they were airing extremist left wing programming, the republican governor could object. In fact, in Oklahoma, the governor told the state PBS station it couldn't air a show about LGBT issues. When you have a decentralized system, and you turn the power over to the states, it's up to those states to make the decisions.

The states have the power to not run NPR News. It's not forced on them by the government. They choose to do it because it attracts a big audience, and they can raise money around it. The fact that it receives federal money is immaterial. The stations are run locally, not by the national organization.

In that case, and given receiving “federal funding is immaterial,” then the loss of the minuscule federal funding (as some public outlets have characterized the amount of funding over the years —but suddenly aren’t characterizing it as such now) shouldn’t be a problem.

I’m no fan of Trump or Fox News, but to any objective viewer/listener, PBS/NPR has increasingly leaned a certain way over the years/decades. Why should all taxpayers even pay penny for that tilted content? Can you imagine the caterwauling if PBS/NPR leaned the other way? Again, it would’ve been defunded years ago regardless of how the affiliate/state system is set up, etc.

 

[TheBigA]

In that case, and given receiving “federal funding is immaterial,” then the loss of the minuscule federal funding (as some public outlets have characterized the amount of funding over the years —but suddenly aren’t characterizing it as such now) shouldn’t be a problem.

It depends on the station. These are non-profit stations, so there is no profit margin. They must spend every dollar they receive. This was budgeted money, so that means it's already been spent. They hired staff, they created programming, and maybe even made capital purchases based on receiving federal money. Now that money has been "clawed back." They have to rebudget based on the loss of funding. People are being fired, and services are being cut. That's a problem. It's like losing your job. You budget based on having that income. When it disappears, it's a big problem.

Why should all taxpayers even pay penny for that tilted content?

Who decides that the content is tilted? The government? Is that who you want deciding the news you watch? The president is biased. He doesn't want anyone to criticize him. The employment numbers came out Friday. He didn't like the news, so he fired the person in charge. That's not good. From now on, the employment numbers will be biased to please the president, not to be factual. Is that a bad thing? Investors base what they do on employment numbers. From now on, those numbers will be tilted. Is that OK?

With regards to the CPB funding, there never was any proof given that taxpayer money was going to news. That's an assumption. You're basing it on what a biased president is saying. It's very possible that all the taxpayer money went to local station infrastructure. But nobody asked. Now who pays for that infrastructure? Who pays for the satellite system that used to be funded by CPB? Who pays for music royalties that used to be payed for by CPB? That's why this is a problem.

 

[Gravel Switch]

It depends on the station. These are non-profit stations, so there is no profit margin. They must spend every dollar they receive. This was budgeted money, so that means it's already been spent. They hired staff, they created programming, and maybe even made capital purchases based on receiving federal money. Now that money has been "clawed back." They have to rebudget based on the loss of funding. People are being fired, and services are being cut. That's a problem. It's like losing your job. You budget based on having that income. When it disappears, it's a big problem.



Who decides that the content is tilted? The government? Is that who you want deciding the news you watch? The president is biased. He doesn't want anyone to criticize him. The employment numbers came out Friday. He didn't like the news, so he fired the person in charge. That's not good. From now on, the employment numbers will be biased to please the president, not to be factual. Is that a bad thing? Investors base what they do on employment numbers. From now on, those numbers will be tilted. Is that OK?

With regards to the CPB funding, there never was any proof given that taxpayer money was going to news. That's an assumption. You're basing it on what a biased president is saying. It's very possible that all the taxpayer money went to local station infrastructure. But nobody asked. Now who pays for that infrastructure? Who pays for the satellite system that used to be funded by CPB? Who pays for music royalties that used to be payed for by CPB? That's why this is a problem.

Exactly. Government should not be involved in funding news. Why should any government funding be involved at all (and regardless who’s president)?

BTW, I contribute to my local public classical station — that’s my decision. But why should any taxpayer have to also pay for what I enjoy?

 

[TheBigA]

I read these comments about "inefficiency in broadcasting," and compare them to the complaints I hear about iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy. They bought those radio stations, and saw a lot of inefficiencies. So they cut staff and programming. Is commercial radio better now because it's more efficient? Do you prefer the programming? There used to be more competition among stations and formats. Then ownership laws were changed and things became more efficient. You don't have four Top 40 stations in a market anymore. Is that better? It's certainly more efficient.

Non-commercial radio was created because it wasn't motivated by profit. That makes it inefficient. But for some people, it makes better programming.

In public broadcasting, the primary concern is in public service. You don't cut corners to be efficient when you're trying to serve the public. Take a look at the medical system in this country. It could be more efficient, but people feel they're getting better health care because it's expensive. Take a look at local law enforcement. You have police, then you have the sheriff, then you have the state police, then you have the national guard. All are run locally. How many different groups do you need doing basically the same thing? And meanwhile, you still have mass shootings all the time. How does that happen with so much law enforcement? I don't know, but it does. They could make it a lot more efficient. But they don't.

 

[TheBigA]

Exactly. Government should not be involved in funding news. Why should any government funding be involved at all (and regardless who’s president)?

You think the government doesn't fund commercial radio? There's a thread right now about Homeland Security commercials airing on news/talk stations. Those are paid commercials. They begin with the words "Thank you President Trump." That's how the government funds the news. Is that OK?

But why should any taxpayer have to also pay for what I enjoy?

Because what you pay is not enough. What you enjoy requires a subsidy. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

[Gravel Switch]

The government funds lots of things. The government subsidizes Elon Musk. Of course, since he made the decisions, he kept his subsidies.

You think the government doesn't fund commercial radio? There's a thread right now about Homeland Security commercials airing on news/talk stations. Those are paid commercials. They begin with the words "Thank you President Trump." That's how the government funds the news. Is that OK?

Again, regardless who’s President, should government be in the business of providing any funding of media — particularly media that has certain editorial leanings (either R or D)? That’s the overarching consideration regardless who’s in the White House.

 

[IM42A]

You don't understand the situation. The decision for the WKU station wasn't based on if the town needed another PBS station. WKU wanted to have a place where its students could create local TV programming and have it seen. They put together a budget, and determined they had the funds to do it. They became a secondary affiliate of PBS. Stations pay to be members of PBS. Turning down WKYU means PBS is turning down money. It's up to the station to differentiate itself from WKGB. If WKU can come up with the funding, they can become a PBS affiliate.

I fully understand why WKYU was created. There is, indeed, enough programming for two stations, moreover, without looking at the schedule, I'd assume that WKYU runs its PBS programming (only 25% of the national schedule) at different times than does KET, to provide variety. My thinking (which may have been of the tunnel-vision variety) was that it costs money to run stations, and in an environment of severe budget cuts, some stations might have to go.