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

[davideduardo]

In the case of many, if not all, of these states, the networks were originally intended to deliver in-school video instruction during the school day, something which AFAIK is very rare nowadays.

You brought back the memories of a station on an airplane broadcasting to the schools in Indiana back 50 or 60 years ago. Similarly, the Board of Education in Cleveland had a station that broadcast certain classes. There were more, but those are examples of the origins of public radio.

I am old enough to remember the big, institutional black-and-white sets up on tall carts, and I was expert enough even at that age to adjust the loop or bowtie antenna, tune to the UHF channel using those old continuous knobs (not always easy), and so on. That was always my job.

I recall those, too.

 

[K.M. Richards]

You brought back the memories of a station on an airplane broadcasting to the schools in Indiana back 50 or 60 years ago.

Here you go, mi amigo. On the website hosted on your own server, no less.

History of UHF Television

uhfhistory.com

 

[TheBigA]

The Federal Government is getting out of broadcasting, period. Your attempt to claim that they are still involved because they buy paid ads on radio and TV makes no sense:

That's only one example. The federal government had nothing to do with owning, operating, or programing public stations. Legally, they didn't actually fund them either. That was done independently by CPB. All of this was done legally through the public broadcasting act.

The federal government is VERY involved in broadcasting. They are about to mandate AM in every car. They just made a deal with Skydance. So no, they're not getting out of broadcasting.

Buying ads does not imply ownership.

Ownership of what??? Having the congress appropriate money to CPB doesn't give the government ownership of anything. As I say, the federal government subsidizes Tesla. They have no ownership rights to the company, and it doesn't mean the government is in the electric car business. It isn't.

But as I said a lot of state governments are directly involved in owning, operating and programming radio & TV stations in a lot of republican states. They have now had their federal funding cut by millions, and they'll have to make up that loss somewhere. So state governments are still very involved in owning radio & TV stations. Obviously not all republicans are on the same page here.

 

[davideduardo]

That's only one example. The federal government had nothing to do with owning, operating, or programing public stations.

They provided funds.

Legally, they didn't actually fund them either. That was done independently by CPB. All of this was done legally through the public broadcasting act.

And you are way into the deep end of the semantics pool. The government provided money that helped public radio and TV. The current administration does not agree with doing that, for whatever reasons they like.

The federal government is VERY involved in broadcasting.

You are talking about regulating the spectrum, which every country in the world does. It's not station ownership.

They are about to mandate AM in every car.

That is part of a belief that AM is needed for national defense. It is not "ownership of broadcast stations".

They just made a deal with Skydance.

No, they did not per the declarations of the CEO of Skydance himself. And

So no, they're not getting out of broadcasting.

They are getting out of providing or causing to be proved content.

 

[TheBigA]

They provided funds.

To quote you, funds is not the same as ownership.

You are talking about regulating the spectrum, which every country in the world does. It's not station ownership.

Where do you get this idea that providing funds means station ownership. It doesn't.

They are getting out of providing or causing to be proved content.

They never had ANYTHING to do with content. The constitution forbids it. Granting money to CPB is not ownership of stations or content.

The states own the stations. They had their funds cut. That's different from the feds. The feds can't own domestic radio, TV, or content.

 

[davideduardo]

To quote you, funds is not the same as ownership.

I did not say just "owership". The thesis is that the feds should not be involved in broadcasting. That means both station operation, funding for same, and program creation.

Buying ads on the radio is not "being involved in broadcasting". Ask Lever or Pepsi or Ford if their ads give them any ownership participation in broadcasting.

Where do you get this idea that providing funds means station ownership. It doesn't.

It means being a part of broadcasting, including ownership, financing with conditions and program creation.

They never had ANYTHING to do with content. The constitution forbids it. Granting money to CPB is not ownership of stations or content.

The Constitution does not prohibit an administration from not providing "support" (ownership, conditional grants, content creation, etc.) to radio and TV stations. The current administration does not wish to support such activities, just as it chose not to support USAID and a number of other government agencies it believes are beyond the reach of that government and a waste of money.

The states own the stations. They had their funds cut. That's different from the feds. The feds can't own domestic radio, TV, or content.

You are arguing semantics.

"Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It explores how words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning, and how that meaning is understood by speakers and listeners. It delves into the relationships between words, their meanings, and how they relate to the world"

My point is that the current administration, for whatever reason, does not want to spend money and / or support Federal Government involvement at any level in the financing, support, programming and the like of radio and TV operations.

Again, buying ads does not make you part of the "financing, support, programming and the like of radio and TV operations"

 

[TheBigA]

I did not say just "owership". The thesis is that the feds should not be involved in broadcasting. That means both station operation, funding for same, and program creation.

They aren't allowed to be involved in station operations or program creation. The funding went to CPB for a constitutional reason. As I've said, this has been argued since the 60s. This isn't a new issue. The reason the funding went to CPB was so politicians weren't involved in the way the money was directed.

Buying ads on the radio is not "being involved in broadcasting".

Neither is giving money to CPB.

It means being a part of broadcasting, including ownership, financing with conditions and program creation.

There were no conditions to the appropriation of money to CPB. The government had nothing to do with ownership or program creation. Nothing.

Nobody at any time ever asked where the money was going or how it was being used. So you're making assumptions.

The Constitution does not prohibit an administration from not providing "support" (ownership, conditional grants, content creation, etc.) to radio and TV stations.

I don't know what you're talking about.

You are arguing semantics.

No I'm not. The states are the ones that own stations, operations and content. Not the feds. So the feds cut money to republican states.

Again, buying ads does not make you part of the "financing, support, programming and the like of radio and TV operations"

It's taxpayer money that is going to broadcasting. In either case, the stations are free to use the money in any way they wish. You can talk yourself into anything. But it doesn't change the fact that the government is involved in broadcasting, and these agencies have departments that deal specifically in the creation and production of content.

The government has never said it doesn't want to be involved in broadcasting. Just that they want congress to claw back funding to CPB. That's it. If you have some policy that says otherwise, post it.

 

[IM42A]

You brought back the memories of a station on an airplane broadcasting to the schools in Indiana back 50 or 60 years ago. Similarly, the Board of Education in Cleveland had a station that broadcast certain classes. There were more, but those are examples of the origins of public radio.

It was not unknown for cable systems to carry MPATI. Portsmouth OH and Shelbyville KY are two that come to mind (strictly speaking, the only documentation I have for Shelbyville is that they sought a waiver for it, this per the 1970-1971 TVFB).

 

[TheBigA]

The thesis is that the feds should not be involved in broadcasting.

Let's focus on this one sentence. Who's "thesis" is this? The president doesn't agree with this. This was a very narrow thing. All that's happened is an appropriation has been withdrawn. That's it. No laws have been repealed or changed. CPB will still exist, but with no money. NPR and PBS still exist as constituted by the public broadcasting act. NPR doesn't have to reorganize or do anything differently. The next congress can pick things up again and refund CPB. They don't have to ask the president. They can also bury money for public broadcasting in another bill.

At no time, and in no place has the president ever said the government should not be involved in broadcasting. This president considers himself an expert on broadcasting. He keeps hiring people who worked in broadcasting. He speaks regularly to people in broadcasting. He wants to be involved in broadcasting. He believes it's important. His view is the only one that matters. If I'm wrong, show me.

 

[K.M. Richards]

It was not unknown for cable systems to carry MPATI. Portsmouth OH and Shelbyville KY are two that come to mind (strictly speaking, the only documentation I have for Shelbyville is that they sought a waiver for it, this per the 1970-1971 TVFB).

Got another example to prove that was indeed something that had wide appeal among cable operators in MPATI's "footprint": I found an article in Broadcasting about the three UHF stations in the South Bend-Elkhart market banding together to file a competing bid to provide cable in that area, back in 1965. Both they and the first bidder proposed to carry MPATI.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Magazines/Archive-BC-IDX/65-OCR/1965-07-05-BC-OCR-Page-0036.pdf

 

[davideduardo]

Let's focus on this one sentence. Who's "thesis" is this? The president doesn't agree with this. This was a very narrow thing. All that's happened is an appropriation has been withdrawn. That's it. No laws have been repealed or changed. CPB will still exist, but with no money. NPR and PBS still exist as constituted by the public broadcasting act. NPR doesn't have to reorganize or do anything differently. The next congress can pick things up again and refund CPB. They don't have to ask the president. They can also bury money for public broadcasting in another bill.

But for the moment, the administration does not want to support the federal government's involvement in any form of broadcasting. Use your "favorite" words to describe this, such as "underwriting" or "donations" or whatever, but the concept is to not give federal funds to any aspect of public radio and TV operation.

At no time, and in no place has the president ever said the government should not be involved in broadcasting. This president considers himself an expert on broadcasting. He keeps hiring people who worked in broadcasting. He speaks regularly to people in broadcasting. He wants to be involved in broadcasting. He believes it's important. His view is the only one that matters. If I'm wrong, show me.

He does not want the government to have any involvement with CPB, NPR, PBS and any other entity you can add in. It's part of reducing government expenditures, but also part of eliminating partisan politics from government such as saving money and staying out of local politics with USIS/USAID and similar organizations that promote politicized views outside the United States.

 

[TheBigA]

But for the moment, the administration does not want to support the federal government's involvement in any form of broadcasting.

Show me. That is not government policy. The only thing that happened is he asked congress to rescind an appropriation.

He does not want the government to have any involvement with CPB, NPR, PBS and any other entity you can add in.

That's not what he said. He doesn't want government funding to go to NPR or PBS. That's the limit to his interest.

 

[b-turner]

If I'm reading things correctly, the government funding CPB is not funding programming or stations yet the lacl of those dollars, by the stations themselves, will result in programming losses and sation operations to some extent. So, which is it?

 

[K.M. Richards]

If I'm reading things correctly, the government funding CPB is not funding programming or stations yet the lacl of those dollars, by the stations themselves, will result in programming losses and sation operations to some extent. So, which is it?

Federal appropriation to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is passed down to the stations. They can spend it on operations, personnel, program content, the electric bill, whatever.

Take away that funding -- which is what has happened here -- and the stations lose whatever percentage of their budget is based on CPB ... it simply goes away. So cuts will happen wherever each station decides they will be made.

Honestly, I do not know why that seems so hard to understand.

 

[TheBigA]

If I'm reading things correctly, the government funding CPB is not funding programming or stations yet the lacl of those dollars, by the stations themselves, will result in programming losses and sation operations to some extent. So, which is it?

The funding made by CPB was called an "unrestricted grant." That means it can be used for anything. Nobody asked what it was used for. But the money comes from CPB, not the government. CPB was put as an intermediary to prevent political meddling. How would you describe what just happened?

Key point: You need to separate "government" from "CPB." Not the same thing. CPB is supposed to be independent. There is a lawsuit now to determine exactly how independent it is supposed to be. These are not semantics. There's a reason why it was done this way.

 

[b-turner]

Thank you for clarifying this.

So, those dollars or lack of will cause some programs to cease and put station operations in jeopardy. Seems to me no matter how it is set up those government funds are being used for programming and operations.

 

[TheBigA]

Seems to me no matter how it is set up those government funds are being used for programming and operations.

Here's how CPB explains it's role:

For 35 years, Congress has supported advance appropriations to insulate CPB from politically motivated interference with programming. As the House Commerce Committee report accompanying the 1975 bill stated, advance funding “would go a long way toward eliminating both the risk of and the appearance of undue interference with and control of public broadcasting … and will minimize the possibility of any government scrutiny of or influence on programming that might occur in the course of the usual annual budgetary, authorization, and appropriation process.”1 The advance appropriation effectively serves as a firewall that protects the independence of local stations and producers in their programming decisions, and helps to maintain the trust of the American people in public media.

So once the money goes to CPB, it's no longer government funds.

 

[IM42A]

Got another example to prove that was indeed something that had wide appeal among cable operators in MPATI's "footprint": I found an article in Broadcasting about the three UHF stations in the South Bend-Elkhart market banding together to file a competing bid to provide cable in that area, back in 1965. Both they and the first bidder proposed to carry MPATI.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Business/Magazines/Archive-BC-IDX/65-OCR/1965-07-05-BC-OCR-Page-0036.pdf

This reminds me of the promotional campaign that the three Lexington (KY) TV stations of the time (WLEX, WKYT, and WBLG) engaged in, during the 1970s,
cross-promoting all three stations in one cluster with the tagline being "Lexington Television - A Reflection of You". That, too, was an all-UHF market, and they sought to have folks in central and eastern Kentucky watching their stations, rather than those from Louisville, Cincinnati, Huntington, and Knoxville, which in many places might have been easier to receive given the state of UHF signals, antennas, and tuners in those days (those miserable continuous tuners that tended to drift and were sensitive to adjacent- and near-adjacent-channel interference). They did a nice job of expanding their market in all directions and securing cable carriage. It was a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

 

[K.M. Richards]

This reminds me of the promotional campaign that the three Lexington (KY) TV stations of the time (WLEX, WKYT, and WBLG) engaged in, during the 1970s,
cross-promoting all three stations in one cluster with the tagline being "Lexington Television - A Reflection of You". That, too, was an all-UHF market, and they sought to have folks in central and eastern Kentucky watching their stations, rather than those from Louisville, Cincinnati, Huntington, and Knoxville, which in many places might have been easier to receive given the state of UHF signals, antennas, and tuners in those days (those miserable continuous tuners that tended to drift and were sensitive to adjacent- and near-adjacent-channel interference). They did a nice job of expanding their market in all directions and securing cable carriage. It was a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Sounds like a clever strategy that worked for them.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Here's how CPB explains it's role:



So once the money goes to CPB, it's no longer government funds

Here's how CPB explains it's role:



So once the money goes to CPB, it's no longer government funds.

But those funds didn’t just appear out of the blue — the funds came from taxpayers via the government. The question out of all of this is whether taxpayers should be required to support radio and TV stations, whether it’s supporting formats that have fallen out of favor with commercial audiences or using public funds to support newscasts (!), etc.

I make the choice to donate to my local classical music public station, but I don’t think taxpayers should subsidize a format that I enjoy but they might not enjoy. Listeners on their own should support programming they find beneficial, but I haven’t yet heard a valid argument as to why all taxpayers should be required to support public broadcasting. Or why government should even be in that business.

Over 50 years is a good run for anything, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be reevaluated in the here and now.