Alaska Governor Wipes Out All State Funding For Public Radio, TV.

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

http://www.insideradio.com/free/ala...cle_4a78eca6-9c9f-11e9-9b0c-3b54e95ccfa7.html

The Republican Governor of the state of Alaska has stripped all state funding from Alaska’s public radio and television stations, as part of 168 line-item vetoes to the state operating budget next year. Gov. Mike Dunleavy insists, “We believe that people will still be able to access programs through other means.”

During a press conference Friday, Dunleavy explained his position on the veto of just over $2 million for public radio, and $600,000 for public television: “We believe that with the number of stations, both radio and television — and just given our fiscal situation, it’s really the fiscal situation that’s driving the need to reduce the budget — we believe that people will still be able to access programs through other means,” Dunleavy said. “We still keep intact the emergency broadcasting aspect of public media. It’s not easy, but this is going to be part of the overall reduction.”

KCAW the Radio station is affected by the cuts and Alaska Public TV outlets are also affected by the cuts.

 

[b-turner]

There will be quite a few broadcasters hurting because they are in remote places without the economic base to fund a radio station. I'm all for helping such stations. On the other hand, I know several stations where revenue is nothing more than an afterthought. Even in some instances a moronic thought pattern that if you create content that is marketable/viable it is somehow bad and a sellout if you find underwriters actually want to fund it. My thought is if you are running a station, public or for-profit, you need to know where the money is coming from and a way to generate it versus relying on outside sources. In defense of some friends, I know of some superbly run public stations.

Consider this: if I started a commercial radio station in a small isolated town about the size of, say, Talkeetna, and am losing money because my economic base is too small to cover my expenses, will the government throw me a small amount each year to help? I'd be stuck paying annual spectrum use fees and other expenses like property taxes a non-profit wouldn't have. If no, why should the public station get a few bucks?

 

[crainbebo]

Massive blow for KBRW, KNOM, KYUK, KDLG, and KOTZ! And I'm sure I left a bunch out. The Alaska Bush will suffer greatly...for many this is ALL THEY HAVE to listen to. Messages to remote listeners are vital for communication when there's no phone lines nearby. Awful decision by a stupid governor.
KYUK already said they will get a 10% funding cut, almost $200K. That's one of the worst for them in decades.
University of Alaska also getting a 41% cut in funding.

 

[b-turner]

That's the thing lots of people don't realize about lots of the remote public radio communities in Alaska. It is the only lifeline for people out in the bush. It's how they communicate because it's the only way.Many times in these towns there are very few businesses and many are cooperatives. There's just not the business community to underwrite the station and so few people mostly living on a less than modest income. Listener donations don't add up to much.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I know for a fact in some villages, the public radio translators or class D rebroadcast satelittors are the only things they can hear on the radio.. and some villages have no or very poor cellservice

 

[TheBigA]

I'd be stuck paying annual spectrum use fees and other expenses like property taxes a non-profit wouldn't have. If no, why should the public station get a few bucks?

Because you're talking about two completely different things. The commercial station is a business, and the public station is a service. They are not on the air to make money. They were created because of the focus of commercial broadcasting to generate a profit. The idea was to create a system of broadcasting that wasn't motivated by profit. Those are the only kinds of stations that would be crazy enough to try to operate in remote parts of Alaska. And previous governments in Alaska understood that. They had enough oil money coming in to toss a couple million to provide services for their remote populations. Now they say they don't. I believe people have to hurt in order by their government before they seek to change it. We'll see if people in Alaska are hurt when some radio services get cut.

 

[Syfy]

http://www.insideradio.com/free/ala...cle_4a78eca6-9c9f-11e9-9b0c-3b54e95ccfa7.html



KCAW the Radio station is affected by the cuts and Alaska Public TV outlets are also affected by the cuts.

Lets just be honest most people dont care about the public access channels and a lot of the time they will even go unused because they dont have enough people that want to do programming on them. Most of the people get there public access info for events and what not online or via newspaper these days. So most likely thats why it was cut especially in a market like Alaska. Because the public access tv in like the new york market has about over 20 of those channels.

 

[TheBigA]

Lets just be honest most people dont care about the public access channels

This isn't about public access channels but rather public broadcasting. Two different things.

Public broadcasting in New York would be Channel 13 WNET or WNYC-FM.

 

[kenglish]

Maybe the state could fund 5G cell towers every 1000 feet or so?
Silly, ain't it?
This sounds a bit like Radio Australia's elimination of shortwave a couple of years ago, when they thought everybody would have smartphone capability, even in the bush and at sea. People need communications.

 

[CTListener]

Maybe the state could fund 5G cell towers every 1000 feet or so?
Silly, ain't it?
This sounds a bit like Radio Australia's elimination of shortwave a couple of years ago, when they thought everybody would have smartphone capability, even in the bush and at sea. People need communications.

And yet shortwave was not brought back.

 

[b-turner]

Big A makes a good point about the difference between commercial and non-commercial. Both non-profit and commercial stations must pay their bills. Generally,public or for profit, you locate in areas where the funding or advertising dollars can sustain the station. In some Alaska towns this is not the case.

I know some radio station operators that run their for profit station in a community that needs the service but can't sustain it financially. The owner might kick in a little cash to keep it going or not take a salary. My point is if a station serves an area where the economic base cannot sustain the station, why should the non-profit get a few dollars from the government when the 'for profit' station is losing money and providing a needed service as well? So, if a for profit station performing the same needed service and access that is in need of money cannot get a few tax dollars to help, then why is it right for only the public station to get a few tax dollars?

All I am doing is making a point. That point is there are good for profit and public broadcasters dedicated to service over profit/funding. I'm not advocating a change but rather that if you are counting on a few tax dollars, you might be counting on something that might not always be there. Having a plan B is a really good idea.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is if a station serves an area where the economic base cannot sustain the station, why should the non-profit get a few dollars from the government when the 'for profit' station is losing money and providing a needed service as well? So, if a for profit station performing the same needed service and access that is in need of money cannot get a few tax dollars to help, then why is it right for only the public station to get a few tax dollars

Because that's the role of government: To serve the people. To provide services where a for profit company cannot. Do you think a for profit company could run a state-wide radio network in Alaska for $2 million? I don't think they could operate a station in one place for that amount. The amount being cut from the budget is chicken feed. It's bottled water money. They're making excuses because they want to cut public radio, not to save money. They will spend it on the governor's staff.

 

[b-turner]

Good point on the amount of funding. From all the information I have seen, the percentage is fairly close to about what a state sales tax would be. As I understand it, those dollars are doled out in non-equal portions where more goes where the need is greatest. The spots where it will really hurt is the most remote communities that could never sustain a station. And those stations have shoestring budgets already.

I must disagree that public radio is the only type of station that can make a dime do the work of a dollar. In my career I have had a knack for winding up at such stations (ie: asking what our promotional budget was at one station, I was told to look in the mirror).

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

My point is if a station serves an area where the economic base cannot sustain the station, why should the non-profit get a few dollars from the government when the 'for profit' station is losing money and providing a needed service as well? So, if a for profit station performing the same needed service and access that is in need of money cannot get a few tax dollars to help, then why is it right for only the public station to get a few tax dollars?

.

Outside of the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage and Fairbanks, there are virtually no commercial stations in alaska... these public stations dont have any competitors in many cases in alaska.. if they had to go commercial or depend entirely on listener donations, theyd never survive....

 

[seattlesarchiebunker]

First thing I thought of when I heard this: “Why are they cutting public TV/radio when they have the APF? It is a literal multi-billion dollar fund.”

(For the unenlightened: APF = Alaska Permanent Fund. The state is contractually obligated to deliver the yearly state surplus to Alaskan residents in the form of a check. Basically taxes from the oil industry)

Without jumping the line from broadcasting to politics, it appears The Governor is trying to deliver on a campaign promise to offer a $6,000 APF before his administration ends. Generally speaking, APF is usually $1,500-3,000/per resident per year.

The Governor is a small-government conservative—the idea is even though Alaska is doing just fine money-wise, someone needs to bust in, clean house, and make government smaller and more efficient. Unfortunately, it’s not just public media that’s taking a haircut if he has his way. Tuition at Alaskan colleges is about to skyrocket apparently.

What would this mean for Alaska Rural Communications System (ARCS)? AFAIK, they are the ones who broadcast to these towns deep in the bush with a mixture of network programming (Not unlike AFN minus the military PSAs). It is run by Alaska Public Broadcasting with the approval of the Fairbanks and Anchorage network affiliates...perhaps those 10-20,000 folks who are quite reliant on ARCS aren’t the type that would vote for the current Governor and he’s appealing to his much more suburban Anchorage/Mat-Su Valley constituents. I dunno, but this whole thing sounds like a game of political one-upmanship

 

[FreddyE1977]

Because you're talking about two completely different things. The commercial station is a business, and the public station is a service. They are not on the air to make money. They were created because of the focus of commercial broadcasting to generate a profit. The idea was to create a system of broadcasting that wasn't motivated by profit. Those are the only kinds of stations that would be crazy enough to try to operate in remote parts of Alaska. And previous governments in Alaska understood that. They had enough oil money coming in to toss a couple million to provide services for their remote populations. Now they say they don't. I believe people have to hurt in order by their government before they seek to change it. We'll see if people in Alaska are hurt when some radio services get cut.

Be careful what you wish for. It may turn out that they just don't care very much.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Because that's the role of government: To serve the people. To provide services where a for profit company cannot.

My view of the role of government is that its there to protect my life, my property, my basic civil liberties and
defend the society from outside invaders. I guess we just have a basic philosophical difference on that.

 

[seattlesarchiebunker]

My view of the role of government is that its there to protect my life, my property, my basic civil liberties and
defend the society from outside invaders. I guess we just have a basic philosophical difference on that.

I would agree with you politically right there. Here’s the rub that makes me really question whether this is a “handout” or an “essential service” for rural life and limb. If the only television or radio providers in a town are public media (probably a NPR translator and an ARCS TV translator), what are we dealing with then? They would generally be the one with EAS equipment and the ability to notify townsfolk about emergencies going on. If nobody else broadcasts to this town and internet/cell coverage is poor quality and expensive (as it frequently is in the Alaskan Bush), how do these folks get real-time emergency updates?

If this were Mississippi and the governor threatened to remove public broadcasting’s state funding, most of us would go ‘ho-hum’, crack some joke about Mississippi and it’s educational system, and move along. MS ETV would likely do fine...finding a big corporate donation to cover the loss. Problem is, virtually everyone in Mississippi can access TV/radio that is not public. It would probably not be considered an “essential service”.

When it’s a town of 200 people who are 80 miles from the nearest road, and there are hundreds of them scattered about, it’s tougher to have people just change the channel...primarily because they can’t in many cases.

If the governor wanted to disband/defund ARCS, the only way I can foresee this working well is a local government co-op model where towns are responsible for maintaining a translator (like many are in the SW US). However, this “co-op” would still have to band together to maintain satellite uplink facilities to feed the translators plus the programming. This, however, would take years to develop and may result in some towns with limited funding to shut down their translator(s)

 

[TheBigA]

Be careful what you wish for. It may turn out that they just don't care very much.

Did the people get a chance to vote on it, or did their government make the decision for them?

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I would agree with you politically right there. Here’s the rub that makes me really question whether this is a “handout” or an “essential service” for rural life and limb. If the only television or radio providers in a town are public media (probably a NPR translator and an ARCS TV translator), what are we dealing with then? They would generally be the one with EAS equipment and the ability to notify townsfolk about emergencies going on. If nobody else broadcasts to this town and internet/cell coverage is poor quality and expensive (as it frequently is in the Alaskan Bush), how do these folks get real-time emergency updates?

If this were Mississippi and the governor threatened to remove public broadcasting’s state funding, most of us would go ‘ho-hum’, crack some joke about Mississippi and it’s educational system, and move along. MS ETV would likely do fine...finding a big corporate donation to cover the loss. Problem is, virtually everyone in Mississippi can access TV/radio that is not public. It would probably not be considered an “essential service”.

When it’s a town of 200 people who are 80 miles from the nearest road, and there are hundreds of them scattered about, it’s tougher to have people just change the channel...primarily because they can’t in many cases.

If the governor wanted to disband/defund ARCS, the only way I can foresee this working well is a local government co-op model where towns are responsible for maintaining a translator (like many are in the SW US). However, this “co-op” would still have to band together to maintain satellite uplink facilities to feed the translators plus the programming. This, however, would take years to develop and may result in some towns with limited funding to shut down their translator(s)

They are towns in Alaska with less then 200 people, farther then 80 miles off the road system. And as I said in a previous post, some of the remote interior villages.. the public radio translator or rebroadcaster from KIYU, KYUK, KSKO.. is the ONLY thing they can hear.. and these stations take their responsibility to inform very seriously.

I should know about all of the above.. I spent 6 months working in bush Alaska radio