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

[IM42A]

Sounds like a clever strategy that worked for them.

It did indeed. They picked off county after county until they reached the outer limits of what was possible for them.

There might be just a touch of thread drift at this point, so any further discussion might be better placed in the TV Guide thread, which has morphed into a kind of catch-all for all matters involving TV markets and so forth. There's a rich history to be mined here.

 

[TheBigA]

The question out of all of this is whether taxpayers should be required to support radio and TV stations,

Seems to me congress has already decided that. No?

I haven’t yet heard a valid argument as to why all taxpayers should be required to support public broadcasting.

Once again, the decision has been made.

Nobody asked me if I want my taxpayer money to fund Teslas. But it does.

 

[K.M. Richards]

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

If you want to repeal the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, talk to your elected representatives in D.C. If they re Republicans they will probably love the idea.

In the meantime, this discussion is solving absolutely nothing.

 

[TheBigA]

Here is the letter that the white house sent to congress asking them to rescind funding to CPB. At no point does it say "the government is getting out of broadcasting."

This proposal would rescind $535 million, the full amount appropriated in FY 2024 for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in advance for FY 2026. CPB's base appropriation is disbursed to public radio and public television systems in accordance with a statutory formula outlined in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended. These funds would be used to subsidize a public media system that is politically biased and an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer. Enacting the rescission would eliminate Federal funding for CPB.

Note there is no proof that the system is biased. Just a simple sentence that we don't like you, so we don't want to pay for you. That's it.

It answers the question: Why do taxpayers fund CPB? It's in accordance with a statutory formula. By law.

The basis is biased news, not that the government is getting out of broadcasting. This was done despite all the previous measures I identified and documented that were intended to keep politics out of the funding decisions.

 

[Gravel Switch]

If you want to repeal the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, talk to your elected representatives in D.C. If they re Republicans they will probably love the idea.

In the meantime, this discussion is solving absolutely nothing.

I have no political axe to grind as opposed to some others on here, but I don’t understand the vitriol directed at simply re-evaluating something after 50-plus years. Are programs/funding supposed to just lurch along simply because it has for 50-plus years?

As we all know, public TV got out of in-school instructional programming decades ago, as that use was one of the original reasons for the related legislation over 50 years ago. And the plethora of public TV/radio signals in any given market demonstrates that its growth, pulling from taxpayer funds, may have been oversaturated beyond its purpose. As a result, some reconsideration and pruning isn’t too much to ask for.

 

[TheBigA]

Are programs/funding supposed to just lurch along simply because it has for 50-plus years?

Once a law is written, it continues to be in place until it's repealed. That's how the government works. In this case, the law is still there. It wasn't repealed or even amended. All they did was defund it for two years. So in two years, the funding can be put back.

In this case, every year, CPB goes to congress for a new request for funding. They did it last year. The funding was evaluated and approved in March. Then the president demanded it get removed. Here is a link to the presentation CPB made to congress for funding:

https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/Public-%20FY%202026%20and%20FY%202028%20Justification%20to%20Labor%2C%20Health%20and%20Human%20Services%2C%20Education%20Related%20Agencies%20Subcommittee%20%281%29.pdf

Then every year, all of the radio & TV stations have to apply for funding. They have to fill out a government form, they have to meet qualifications, and then CPB decides if the grant should be approved. The president says that system is biased. Rather than fix the system, amend the law, or repeal it, they just defunded it.

There are hundreds of laws that operate this way. Laws that deal with health care, social security, and education. People depend on these laws to be there and protect them. There's a level of personal security people have from that kind of consistency. Am I right?

As we all know, public TV got out of in-school instructional programming decades ago, as that use was one of the original reasons for the related legislation over 50 years ago.

The in-school instruction pre-dates the public broadcasting act. Even in the 60s, this use of TV in the classroom was becoming dated. If you read the public broadcasting act, there is nothing in it that deals with in school instruction. The main thing it does is create PBS as a system of TV programming that is meant to be educational for everyone, regardless of age. That's why you have science programs like Nature or history programs like The Civil War and the other Ken Burns films.

This kind of TV still isn't done anywhere. The History Channel is filled with reality shows like Pawn Stars and American Pickers.

As a result, some reconsideration and pruning isn’t too much to ask for.

Absolutely, but that's not what was done here. Most of what you're talking about should be done at the state level. Maybe it'll happen now. But these funds weren't stopped because areas are oversaturated. I posted the actual text of why the funding was cut.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Once a law is written, it continues to be in place until it's repealed. That's how the government works. In this case, the law is still there. It wasn't repealed or even amended. All they did was defund it for two years. So in two years, the funding can be put back.

In this case, every year, CPB goes to congress for a new request for funding. They did it last year. The funding was evaluated and approved in March. Then the president demanded it get removed.

There are hundreds of laws that operate this way. Laws that deal with health care, social security, and education. People depend on these laws to be there and protect them. There's a level of personal security people have from that kind of consistency. Am I right?



The in-school instruction pre-dates the public broadcasting act. Even in the 60s, this use of TV in the classroom was becoming dated. If you read the public broadcasting act, there is nothing in it that deals with in school instruction. The main thing it does is create PBS as a system of TV programming that is meant to be educational for everyone, regardless of age. That's why you have science programs like Nature or history programs like The Civil War and the other Ken Burns films.

This kind of TV still isn't done anywhere. The History Channel is filled with reality shows like Pawn Stars and American Pickers.



Absolutely, but that's not what was done here. Most of what you're talking about should be done at the state level. Maybe it'll happen now. But these funds weren't stopped because areas are oversaturated. I posted the actual text of why the

Yes, I worked in the legislative branch in the late 1980s through the early 1990s, so I know how the legislative process works. I’m just struck by the “by-God” attitude to taxpayer funding as it relates to public radio/TV. The sense of entitlement that taxpayers should be expected to foot some of that bill is striking, and the “just because it’s so” argument demonstrates just that.

 

[TheBigA]

I’m just struck by the “by-God” attitude to taxpayer funding as it relates to public radio/TV. The sense of entitlement that taxpayers should be expected to foot some of that bill is striking, and the “just because it’s so” argument demonstrates just that.

That's not the way it works. There is no sense of entitlement. They have to apply for it every year. It's not automatic. It's the same with every government program. They are all renewed every year. This one was renewed in March and approved by this president. Congress could have said no then. When funding is applied for and approved, that means you're getting the money. Where am I wrong about this?

 

[gr8oldies]

Yes, I worked in the legislative branch in the late 1980s through the early 1990s, so I know how the legislative process works. I’m just struck by the “by-God” attitude to taxpayer funding as it relates to public radio/TV. The sense of entitlement that taxpayers should be expected to foot some of that bill is striking, and the “just because it’s so” argument demonstrates just that.

Then have your Congressman introduce legislation to repeal the Public Broadcating Act, not have Trump say "they aren't praising and worshiipping ,e, I can withhold their funds". Recissions are a big part of Project 2025's dictatorial blueprint.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Then have your Congressman introduce legislation to repeal the Public Broadcating Act, not have Trump say "they aren't praising and worshiipping ,e, I can withhold their funds". Recissions are a big part of Project 2025's dictatorial blueprint.

This goes beyond Trump and whoever is in the White House, as I’m not coming at it from a political bent (like some here are). It’s simply a broad question as to whether taxpayer funding of public radio/TV in this day and age is appropriate.

 

[K.M. Richards]

It’s simply a broad question as to whether taxpayer funding of public radio/TV in this day and age is appropriate.

I think you are going to get your answer as public broadcasters try to cope with what has happened.

If they cannot survive without taxpayer funding, and without the option of commercial revenue, then you will see the accompanying reductions. That appears likely to include quality of programming on public stations.

Ask that question again after we get through this ... if you dare.

 

[TheBigA]

This goes beyond Trump and whoever is in the White House, as I’m not coming at it from a political bent (like some here are). It’s simply a broad question as to whether taxpayer funding of public radio/TV in this day and age is appropriate.

OK let me follow up on that concept. People don't want to pay for radio or TV. They object to commercials, they object to subscription fees, they object to paying for internet, they object to paying music royalties, and they object to paying taxes. How does anyone run a business that way? Explain where does the money come from if people don't want to pay, don't want to subscribe, and don't want commercial breaks. If you know the answer, tell me. The money has to come from somewhere.

I work with a lot of people who are in the music business. They had an idea about ten years ago that there would be a music charge added to people's phone bills. People use the phone to listen to music, so when you get your phone bill, there would be a surcharge that would pay for the music. It would be collected by the phone companies. When that idea was proposed, the outcry was so huge, that the people proposing it crawled into a hole. But they have the same problem. People have a sense of entitlement (as you put it before) that they should be able to hear music for free. And radio is just part of that.

Radio & TV hasn't gotten better. The problems that existed 50 years ago are even worse now. I don't have to tell you all of the limitations to commercial radio. And even then, they're hurting for money, and all the radio companies have gone bankrupt. It's the same problem. Nobody wants to pay.

 

[IM42A]

As we all know, public TV got out of in-school instructional programming decades ago, as that use was one of the original reasons for the related legislation over 50 years ago. And the plethora of public TV/radio signals in any given market demonstrates that its growth, pulling from taxpayer funds, may have been oversaturated beyond its purpose. As a result, some reconsideration and pruning isn’t too much to ask for.

Just out of curiosity, are there any public TV stations that still follow the model of in-school instructional programming during the normal school day? Or has that gone the way of the dodo?

Again, from my own experience homeschooling my son, I can attest that use of instructional video is a godsend. Very often there has been a topic, such as in math or English grammar, where I felt that a well-produced video could augment my own discussion, and explain the topic better than I could. It also enables "virtual field trips" to hear classical performances, tour art museums, or see stage plays. The possibilities are endless.

 

[TheBigA]

I felt that a well-produced video could augment my own discussion, and explain the topic better than I could. It also enables "virtual field trips" to hear classical performances, tour art museums, or see stage plays. The possibilities are endless.

I think you're right. I've seen it done. I was part of a team that did instructional videos for the Park Service. If you go to the visitor centers at national parks, there are these videos being shown telling the history of the park. Those were done when the government had a budget for those things. That budget was cut this year. So now those visitor centers are being shut down because there's nobody to staff them. It all comes down to money. Creating instructional videos are a lot more useful than listening to a lecture in a classroom. No question. Unfortunately, there's no budget.

In Miami, the local public radio & TV stations are owned by the board of education. At one time, all of the people who worked there were employees of the city, and received all the benefits that city workers get. That was way too expensive, so the school board outsourced operations of the radio & TV stations to a non-profit group. They raise the money, and pay the staff from listener and corporate donations (plus some CPB money). They operate that way because the school board wants to focus its attention on running the public schools, not programming radio & TV stations.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Just out of curiosity, are there any public TV stations that still follow the model of in-school instructional programming during the normal school day? Or has that gone the way of the dodo?

Well, I can't really check this because the school year has not yet started in L.A., but the last time I was paying attention to such things KLCS/58, which is owned by the Los Angeles Unified School district was doing some daytime programming that was educational in nature. They also had, last time I checked, a live program in the afterschool afternoon hours for homework assistance.

Ask me again near the end of the month.

 

[IM42A]

Well, I can't really check this because the school year has not yet started in L.A., but the last time I was paying attention to such things KLCS/58, which is owned by the Los Angeles Unified School district was doing some daytime programming that was educational in nature. They also had, last time I checked, a live program in the afterschool afternoon hours for homework assistance.

Ask me again near the end of the month.

That's good, I'm glad to know it. It's not entirely an outmoded concept.

 

[IM42A]

I have noticed that, especially in the South where, historically, there were notable deficits in public education, the networks retain the word "educational" in their names, such as in South Carolina and Kentucky.

 

[TheBigA]

I have noticed that, especially in the South where, historically, there were notable deficits in public education, the networks retain the word "educational" in their names, such as in South Carolina and Kentucky.

Which is why it makes no sense that they're being penalized for being politically biased. Education is managed locally. So is public broadcasting.

The local public broadcasting authorities, run by the state, decide what programming to carry. It's not imposed by NPR or CPB.

 

[kevtronics]

I have noticed that, especially in the South where, historically, there were notable deficits in public education, the networks retain the word "educational" in their names, such as in South Carolina and Kentucky.

Historically? There still are.

 

[IM42A]

Historically? There still are.

Could be, compared to some other states, but they have come a long way since the 1960s and 1970s.