Sure they can. Whatever helps you cope.
Sure it hasn't. That's why NPR is cutting staff citing the exact reason that customers are cutting it loose.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Trump to PBS and NPR: I’m cutting you off…
- Thread starter only1moore
- Start date
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
APTS criticizes Congress for failing to restore funding to educational TV initiative
June 10, 2026 - The program, called Ready to Learn, was dependent upon grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which dried up last year.
thedesk.net
Here is the update over funding on the Public TV funding front.
Sure.
The bias of National Public Radio leans left
Ira Glass, bless his little heart. The host of National Public Radio’s “This American Life” knows the first thing about reporting and exploring the news, but he apparently doesn’t quite
Paricularly telling was how they edited an interview with Juidth Curry:
JC on NPR - Climate Etc.
I have an interview tonite on NPR’s All Things Considered. The link for the interview can be found [here]. There is a print story, and a 7 minute audio. The title of the pice is ‘Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s … Continue reading →
judithcurry.com
Uri Berliner, who worked there for years, tried to get NPR to see the light. NPR has impressive news gathering abilities, but applied a slant to many topics, including climate change:
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.
www.thefp.com
How about you dig up what they reported on the topic that you consider balanced?
The dangers of smoking have been objectively demonstrated.
The drivers of climate change are not hardly as clear cut. That you would choose this as an analogy is not surprising, but regrettable nonetheless.
That's your opinion. The point is that some people simply don't want to know.
To them, it's a media problem. If the media wouldn't cover it, it would go away.