-
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
Court reaffirms CPB's independence
- Thread starter K.M. Richards
- Start date
- Status
Wondering about MPR? https://files.apmcdn.org/production/c838889215d26f9022653e134c87a821.pdf
Go to page 8 for details $7,288,000 from CPB
Go to page 8 for details $7,288,000 from CPB
If CPB is defunded, they lose that money. Right now, CPB only has money through the end of 2025. If the 26 and 27 appropriations are rescinded, all grants made for those years will not happen, due to funding cuts.
They're a non-profit, so they also spend every bit of their $117, 826, 000 earnings. They're a big company. $7 million means a lot of people will lose their jobs. Nobody is saying MPR will go out of business. That's not the point. The president believes that by rescinding federal funding, NPR and all their stations will shut down. We all know that's false. But they will be affected. Anytime any business loses money, it's a bad thing.
The right word is "income" and not earnings. A non-profit has no "earnings" and, if contributions and income exceed expenses, they can create a fund for future use. K-Love has a fund that they build up that might be used a year or two later to buy more stations or to finance their new facility, for example.
Still, I think the point is that the current administration does not believe the government should be involved in broadcasting. Today, they claim public broadcasting favors the "other party" base on their evaluation of content and the belief that the vast majority of public radio staff members are on the Blue side of the spectrum. Whether they are right in their assumptions. there is a valid argument for government not having a direct media presence; for a long time the loose ideology of the Libertarians has opposed many government functions and agencies that they think are outside the purpose of government... so this is not just a Red vs. Blue situation.
Then they should shut down the FCC. They don't care about the money. They will continue to attack NPR even after they remove government funding. The president was very clear in his post: "Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement.”
He wants them to stop broadcasting. That's his end game. After he's done with them, he'll move on to everyone else.
Scarce commodities, ranging from access to rivers and ports, mineral rights and the radio spectrum all require a regulatory board of some kind.
If I get a permit to drill for gas on my property, I have to follow rules. But the gas is still "mine".
The FCC, other than indecency and profanity and political rates, does not really regulate content. It controls "how many barges at a time can go upriver".
So? That is their right. They don't like public radio and believe it is biased.
I don't think the goal is for them to stop your local public radio station. They seem to just want the feds to stop subsidizing it. It's their party, their platform.
There is no proof or evidence of that. But if they believe nearly all electronic media is significantly biased, they can try to take whatever legal steps they can find to change that.
Both sides have rights in this country. The constitution promises that. Everyone pays taxes, not just the far right. Government is supposed to serve everyone, not just the ones who won an election. The first amendment says the government can't abridge freedom of the press regardless of what they believe.
It's our country. All of us. They work for us, not the other way around. They don't understand the system. They clearly don't know what they're cutting. They will not stop at cutting federal funding. They won't stop with NPR. The president already told you what he wants.
No they can't. We have freedom of the press here. There is no fairness doctrine. The president and the FCC are going after every media outlet. Just because your head is in the sand doesn't mean it's not happening. They don't want fairness. They don't want equality. They don't want unbiased. They just want to win at any cost.
The rescission appears to be in trouble in the senate. There are more then enough repubs to defeat it. That's why the president issued his threat:
www.insideradio.com
These rural state repubs know the truth about public media because their states own the radio stations and will lose the funding.
Rural State Republican Senators Push Back On Defunding Public Media.
The Senate will vote this week on President Trump’s proposal to rescind $9.4 billion, including nearly $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Many rural-state Republican senators oppose the
These rural state repubs know the truth about public media because their states own the radio stations and will lose the funding.
Here's what I have noticed about the whole thing: some non-Republicans seems to be psychic knowing every one of Trump's moves before he makes them and seemingly in some extremes, exactly what the far right thinks as well as other 'personal' data. I form this opinion from words read on this site.
You don't have to be psychic. The president tells you what he's going to do. Some listen and some don't. For me, I always link reporting from Inside Radio or RadioInk. If there's anything I have said that requires more documentation, let me know. It's all being reported in the radio media.
They wanna stop NPR as a whole and dont care about the collateral damage they cause
further proof its about ideology/news AND the money... Kari Lake signed a contract (allbeit, at no cost..... ) with OANN to provide content to VOA
But the funding of government assisted or government operated radio is not a constitutional right. In fact, there is nothing that says that the government has to operate media organizations of any kind.
Again, the point is that, if there is a significant portion of the population or its representatives that does not want the government to operate radio or TV stations or program sources, then there is an argument for not being involved at all.
That is your opinion. However, you are mixing two different subjects.
First, should the government be involved in media ownership and operation at the domestic level at all? Many think it is either a political topic or a waste of money or both.
Second, there is a much more ambiguous topic involving the preponderance of "blues" in traditional media, including print, radio, TV, cable channels and the like. Those on the right believe that they are outnumbered, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC vs. just Fox News as far as those voices go. Their point can be stated as a question: "Does ABC have a show that balances the vitriol of The View with perspectives from the extreme right?"
No one has ever said it was. However, it was specified in the public broadcasting act.
Congress is welcome to repeal or amend it. They're trying to circumvent it because they don't have the votes, and that's against the law.
The representatives want it and have voted for it in a bi-partisan way for over 55 years including as recently as last March. They're not being allowed to vote for their own states because of the threats from one man.
They're not. The federal government is prohibited from owning and operating radio. Just providing grant money has nothing to do with ownership or operation. Why is that so hard for you to understand??
The government funds Elon Musk's companies. Musk owns and operates them with help from government funding. Just like public broadcasting.
Once again, there is no fairness doctrine in this country. The courts ruled it unconstitutional. That means Rupert Murdoch can lie all day about anything he wants and the government can't force him to tell the truth.
There is no fairness doctrine. They need to read the constitution. They're all welcome to start their own media and lie all they want. But they can't force other companies to hire conservatives to meet some kind of DEI quota system. That seems to be what they want. They want DEI that favors their ideology.
OK then, I want to see a fund for struggling stations commercial and non-commercial. Why can't there be dollars to support local news coverage in a small town station where Amazon and big box stores have left the local market a tiny fraction of what it was? If there's a fund for not-for-profit radio to provid programming and in cases like Alaska, feed enough dollars to keep it going, why can't dollars be made available to struggling commercial stations needing just a bit more to restore a local news position or repair a rusting-out tower?
If that funding came from the government, it would be socialism. We can't have that.
But commercial stations are free to run their own funding drives, asking for donations from listeners. Two commercial religious stations in my area have done "Rebuildathon" fund drives to pay for needed repairs and upgrades.
All great ideas. It's up to congress to create it and fund it.
Right now, the only law that exists to fund radio is this one, and the president wants to end it.
How is using the recissions process circumventing anything? That IS the established process for Congress to consider changes to previously appropriated funding. That literally requires a Congressional vote.
- Status