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

[umfan]

...the congress can bring it up again.

Sure they can. Whatever helps you cope.

So for the most part, it hasn't affected any NPR or PBS programming.

Sure it hasn't. That's why NPR is cutting staff citing the exact reason that customers are cutting it loose.

 

[TheBigA]

That's why NPR is cutting staff citing the exact reason that customers are cutting it loose.

I refer you once again to the quote. They're cutting staff for the same reason everyone else is cutting staff. It's a bad economy, run by a president who cares more about his ballroom than the cost of gas. NPR is a $300 million operation. Losing $15 million is a small part of the big picture. They're not going anywhere, even though the president wants to shut them down. He is also targeting ABC, NBC, and CBS, even though none of them receive federal funds. This isn't about saving taxpayers money. It's about shutting down negative media coverage.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Had the issue really been about that, they could have simply cut funding to NPR & PBS. Instead they cut all funding for all radio & TV.

There is no political lean for classical music or children's programming. But that's what got cut.



The programming wasn't "widely recognized." If it was, they would not have received the money in the first place. There was no requirement for any radio or TV station to air any programming it objected to. These are the same people who object to Colbert and Kimmel, and neither of them use taxpayer money. This isn't about "balanced programming." It's about shutting down the media. This isn't an isolated thing.

This is the same government that will use taxpayer funding so the president can hold a political rally in Washington on the 4th of July.

True and it partially screams that the White House wants a Bari Weiss/David Ellison type person running not just Paramount inc but all of the media given everything we keep seeing here.

 

[TheBigA]

That's why NPR is cutting staff citing the exact reason that customers are cutting it loose.

FYI Today NPR explained more about how it came up with the 15% drop in station fees. They voluntarily cut those fees:

NPR overhauling dues model for member stations to offset loss of government funding

NPR will shift station dues from a revenue-based model to one based on broadcast reach and households served, according to a report.

thedesk.net

Overhauled NPR dues model provides incentives for closer collaboration

Stations can opt into tiers that provide discounts for working with NPR on donor communication, among other activities.

current.org

NPR projects that the proposed change will decrease its dues revenue by 15% to 18% compared to the current fiscal year, COO Ryan Merkley told Current in an interview. NPR cited the reduced income from station fees as one reason for its May 27 workforce reduction.

As I've often said, NPR is overseen by its member stations. Not the other way around. The stations control the board of directors. So if the board wants to cut NPR revenues, they can do it, and NPR has to adjust its budgets. That seems to be what happened.

The previous system was based on CPB rules and guidelines. Now that CPB is gone, NPR can change its model as it sees fit.

 

[umfan]

FYI Today NPR explained more about how it came up with the 15% drop in station fees. They voluntarily cut those fees:

NPR overhauling dues model for member stations to offset loss of government funding

NPR will shift station dues from a revenue-based model to one based on broadcast reach and households served, according to a report.

thedesk.net

Overhauled NPR dues model provides incentives for closer collaboration

Stations can opt into tiers that provide discounts for working with NPR on donor communication, among other activities.

current.org

As I've often said, NPR is overseen by its member stations. Not the other way around. The stations control the board of directors. So if the board wants to cut NPR revenues, they can do it, and NPR has to adjust its budgets. That seems to be what happened.

The previous system was based on CPB rules and guidelines. Now that CPB is gone, NPR can change its model as it sees fit.

Glad they confirmed that the loss of CPB funding by their member stations is what led them to start charging fees that are appropriate.

It also confirms that the catalyst for this was the loss of CPB Funding which basically everyone here, save for one individual clearly understands.

 

[TheBigA]

It also confirms that the catalyst for this was the loss of CPB Funding which basically everyone here, save for one individual clearly understands.

I refer you back to the quote from the article you posted that listed several things leading to layoffs, not just one.

Loss of CPB funding was one of those things.

 

[umfan]

Loss of CPB funding was one of those things.

It was the single thing. They can try to church it up to mask that their assertion of getting just a tony bit of their budget from CPB was true, but the current actions clearly belie that. Just because this is a bitter pill for you doesn't mak it untrue.

 

[TheBigA]

It was the single thing.

Three things. This is what NPR says:

NPR CEO Katherine Maher told staff the organization expects a $15 million drop in station-fee revenue while sponsorship revenue is also softening amid economic uncertainty and declining radio listening.

NPR isn't the only broadcast entity laying off staff. So it's more than CPB funding.

They can try to church it up to mask that their assertion of getting just a tony bit of their budget from CPB was true, but the current actions clearly belie that. Just because this is a bitter pill for you doesn't mak it untrue.

Once again, NPR's budget is $300 million. Put it in context. Every broadcast organization is laying off staff. This isn't an isolated thing.

The main thing is it isn't affecting their programming.

 

[umfan]

Three things. This is what NPR says:


NPR isn't the only broadcast entity laying off staff. So it's more than CPB funding.


Once again, NPR's budget is $300 million. Put it in context. Every broadcast organization is laying off staff. This isn't an isolated thing.

The main thing is it isn't affecting their programming.

I agree. If anything it's improving it. The demise of the Climate Desk is a positive result.

Once again, the impact is far greater than the one percent they, and you, continually asserted. The change has forced NPR to face reality.

 

[TheBigA]

The change has forced NPR to face reality.

Any non-profit faces reality every day.

The impact is far greater at the local station level, where they had to send back money that had already been received and spent. State governments are coping with losses in their state broadcasting systems as well as major losses in federal education funding. This will lead to local tax increases. NPR's situation is smaller compared to that.

 

[kevtronics]

I agree. If anything it's improving it. The demise of the Climate Desk is a positive result.

NPR's climate coverage has been reorganized, not eliminated:

NPR lays off its chief climate editor

There's no conspiracy — just another newsroom making a poor decision.

www.climatecoloredgoggles.com

After this story was published on Monday, NPR spokesperson Juliet Barbara told me that the broadcaster "has not eliminated its Climate team or any other coverage areas; we have reorganized our newsroom."

"While the newsroom reorganization was driven by financial necessity, we also took care to ensure that climate coverage and all areas of coverage would be preserved and not diminished," she said in an email. "Integrating the climate team into the national desk means climate journalism is able to be woven into more of our reporting: climate is a cost-of-living story, a politics story, a community story that touches every beat we cover."

"Our commitment to climate journalism has not changed," she added.

 

[umfan]

NPR's climate coverage has been reorganized, not eliminated:

NPR lays off its chief climate editor

There's no conspiracy — just another newsroom making a poor decision.

www.climatecoloredgoggles.com

I have no doubt they'll continue to offer slanted climate coverage from time to time, but there will be less of it, because the way they did it was not value added. It was the first thing they threw over the side, so the decision must not have been too difficult.

 

[umfan]

Any non-profit faces reality every day.

The impact is far greater at the local station level, where they had to send back money that had already been received and spent. State governments are coping with losses in their state broadcasting systems as well as major losses in federal education funding. This will lead to local tax increases. NPR's situation is smaller compared to that.

True reality is only recently known to NPR, but it will be known now every day moving forward.

 

[TheBigA]

True reality is only recently known to NPR, but it will be known now every day moving forward.

Not true because Ronald Reagan was the first president to defund NPR in 1983. The funding had been under attack every year since then.

When Reagan took office in 1981, he appointed a panel to review the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the federal agency that funds NPR, PBS, and local public stations. The panel’s recommendation was to cancel the entire CPB budget.

That's why only 1% of their funding came from CPB. They knew they couldn't depend on it. But the local stations and state governments never expected their own congressmen to cut funding to the states. That's why I expect some form of funding will return with the next congress. The states, particularly the red states like Nebraska, Mississippi, and Arkansas, depend on the federal money. If any of those states wanted to cancel the NPR programming completely, they could. But they don't. They need the NPR programming for local fundraising, and because people who live there love the programming. That's something opponents of public broadcasting never expected.

NPR's situation is very different. They've developed many other revenue streams besides broadcasting. They could completely leave that area and still be a very solid company. They're one of the top podcasters in the country.

 

[kevtronics]

I have no doubt they'll continue to offer slanted climate coverage from time to time,

Can you provide any specific examples of "slanted climate coverage" they've done in the past?

 

[TheBigA]

Can you provide any specific examples of "slanted climate coverage" they've done in the past?

Keep in mind a lot of people still smoke even though they know it causes cancer, and overeat even though it usually leads to heart problems.

Their hope is if nobody tells them about it, the problem will go away.