• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
most likely that NPR will survive, though scaled back in terms of the number of reporters it has and the number of stations that it will serve.

As I've been saying, and has been documented for years, NPR receives only a fraction of its budget from CPB, and none of it for news coverage. So NPR will be largely unaffected. Large market NPR stations also only receive a fraction of their budget from CPB. However some receive CPB grants to do special projects. KQED received $5 million to do an education project with area high school students, and that grant will be cut. So any staff connected to that specific grant will be let go.

The places where this will have its greatest effect is in the rural states where federal funding is a higher percentage of the budget. These are states where the government owns the public radio and TV stations. Louisiana is one such state. Georgia is another. Any place that has a state public broadcasting authority will lose millions in CPB funding. Coupled with the loss of education funding, it will make it much harder for those local stations to serve their communities.

The thing is, Mr. Trump is impatient--he wants NPR gone now! What I think he's going to do towards making that a reality will be to put financial and political pressure (I'm hoping not troops) on the corporations who sponsor both the network and local stations. I would like this effort to be unsuccessful but we'll just have to wait and see.

Correct. Once he sees the results are not what he intended, he will move on to phase two. As I've been saying, this was not about saving taxpayers money. This is about shutting down the media. He said so in his EO. He will continue to attack NPR even though the company will no longer receive any taxpayer money. While he's doing this, he will increase pressure on commercial broadcasters as well.
 
I have lived in rural Alaska. Not once did I have to use a CPB funded media asset to get news, information or entertainment. Very sorry you'll be affected. Hopefully those who value the station and regard it as a benefit back that up with contributions, which will be tax deductible to those that itemize.

You can keep the $3.

They do contribute, but because of the low population numbers, it could never amount to enough, even if every single living breathing human, including babies donated every year
 
Meanwhile, the president still wants to control the agency he's trying to defund.


What the real issue here is: Is CPB an executive branch agency? They claim they aren't, and therefore don't follow his demands. That issue was never addressed by the court in this case. All the judge said was that CPB could protect their board members with a change to their bylaws. The president is seeking to have that action removed as well.
 
They do contribute, but because of the low population numbers, it could never amount to enough, even if every single living breathing human, including babies donated every year

The sad part about this vote is that this is exactly what the public broadcasting act was intended to correct. People who live in under-populated areas should have access to the same media as everyone else. The fact that it was non-profit media was seen as something everyone could support. The funding didn't benefit any private corporate interest.

Instead, what the FCC is seeking to do is use the power of the government to fund big telecom to install fiber and wifi in those rural areas, in order to bypass local radio and TV. What you can expect is improvements in telecom, but at a price. Residents will still have to pay for improved service, while the public broadcasting was available for free. This was addressed in the congressional testimony for this bill, where repubs described public broadcasting as obsolete in a time when people have access to so many other media sources. That's why I said this isn't strictly about public broadcasting. It's about broadcasting in general.
 
Instead, what the FCC is seeking to do is use the power of the government to fund big telecom to install fiber and wifi in those rural areas, in order to bypass local radio and TV. What you can expect is improvements in telecom, but at a price. Residents will still have to pay for improved service, while the public broadcasting was available for free. This was addressed in the congressional testimony for this bill, where repubs described public broadcasting as obsolete in a time when people have access to so many other media sources. That's why I said this isn't strictly about public broadcasting. It's about broadcasting in general.

LOL parts of "rural" Alaska has fiber but we wont... too far of a trip to get here, low population and we still deal with crap phone service that isnt changing anytime soon. no improvements coming anytime soon for telecom in my immediate region
 
LOL parts of "rural" Alaska has fiber but we wont... too far of a trip to get here, low population and we still deal with crap phone service that isnt changing anytime soon. no improvements coming anytime soon for telecom in my immediate region

BTW Murkowski tried to add an amendment to protect small local stations and prevent the use of federal funds for NPR, and it was defeated. It had everything rural states wanted, and they didn't support her. So she voted no on the bill. She tried to stand up for you and other small Alaska stations. She couldn't convince your other senator to join her.
 
Coast Alaska, the station services and advocacy group sent out a final warning so to speak and urged us to reach out to Begich... so this is what i sent, some of it in direct reply to comments he made on this topic before


In rural Alaska, we dont have internet on cell phones, the network out here is 2G. Some still dont have.. or even want the internet for various traditional and cost reasons. But what do they have? A radio.

I manage a public radio station station in rural McGrath. We serve several very small, remote villages on the lower Yukon, Lower Kuskokwim and Upper Kuskokwim whos population is predominantly older and radio is a very important habit and tradition. They have formed a relationship with us over 40 plus years and TRUST US.

If the CPB funding is eliminated, it would devastate my station... KSKO. Why? We derive 60 to 70 percent of our operating budget from CPB funding and I am the only full time staff member but we still manage to offer exemplary service

We have been on air at all hours of the day and night when towns are flooding at river break up when the water starts moving again. We have been on air whenever needed to bring wildfire information to our residents when towns are being threatened.

When a town begins to flood at 10pm at night, I was on the air for several hours. People might be winding down the night or laying in bed but they have radios on. When people woke up the next day and realized how bad the flooding was and how it kept going, I was on the air on and off for 9 hours providing vital information as the situation changed.

In situations like that, even if people have internet and cell phones, they don't have time to be searching for stuff as they clean muck off their living room floor and move furniture or throw out stuff that was damaged.

When a wildfire is so close to a community, visibility is less than a mile, they don't have time to be looking stuff up, they have to protect their property but can listen to radio with earbuds or on a big speaker while they work.

When our community was dealt a one two punch with two deaths in the same weekend, one from the Bering Air crash and one from a 6 year old dying under questionable circumstances, we had a mental health professional on the air the next day to talk about coping with loss.
When phone service on landlines or cell phones fails, as it so regularly does out here, offering rendering cell and landlines inoperable, even to reach 911, KSKO plays a critical role in letting people know about the outage and what to do in the interim when an emergency may arise while also playing public megaphone and passing along urgent messages.

With the loss of CPB funding, my position would eventually be eliminated and so would all of our local programming and all of that life saving information. Residents would have nowhere to turn for any of that. Social media and the internet are great as ADDITIONAL TOOLS for us, but could never even come close to approaching what we offer.. mainly information that you can trust and know is accurate.
Please, please.... save our CPB funding. KSKO has a 44 year legacy of being the only source of information and despite having little staff, I continue that because PEOPLE DEPEND ON US.

Rep Begich or any of his staff are VERY WELCOME to call me anytime .. 907 **** that is my cell phone. I would be glad to share stories, answer any questions or even further explain why we are so vital.

I understand people who don't live or spend alot of time in rural Alaska may not understand just how vital we are, so I am more than glad to provide any info I can.
 
Somehow, I doubt Rep. Begich cares or will give anything more than a formulaic response.

A lot of people want to make this about "fiscal conservatism" and some of you actually believe that. But for the majority of these voting for this, and celebrating this as a win, it isn't the point. The culture war is. Their leader wants to "own the libs." And they do it by taking swings at everything that isn't lockstep with their MAGA agenda.
 
1
Somehow, I doubt Rep. Begich cares or will give anything more than a formulaic response.

A lot of people want to make this about "fiscal conservatism" and some of you actually believe that. But for the majority of these voting for this, and celebrating this as a win, it isn't the point. The culture war is. Their leader wants to "own the libs." And they do it by taking swings at everything that isn't lockstep with their MAGA agenda.

1.) Likely and 2.) YUp.

But i ant have a right to kvetch if i dont stand up for what is right.
 
It's getting close to midnight, the house is still in session debating the rescission bill, and what's holding it up is an amendment to the bill that would add a non-binding resolution about releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files:



If that's added, it has to go back to the senate. It will be another late in in congress. The deadline for this bill is midnight Friday.
 
a win on a technicality is a win and nice.. but i really wanna win on the virtues of what we are/offer

A setback to "his" plan gives us an opportunity to make our case to those who count ... the constituents.

Get enough people to tell their Senators and Congressmembers that they will definitely lose their vote if they go along with the bully and his threats become a losing proposition. If they think defunding public broadcasting will be a path to being voted out anyway, they may be persuaded to take their chances with us.
 
A setback to "his" plan gives us an opportunity to make our case to those who count ... the constituents.

Get enough people to tell their Senators and Congressmembers that they will definitely lose their vote if they go along with the bully and his threats become a losing proposition. If they think defunding public broadcasting will be a path to being voted out anyway, they may be persuaded to take their chances with us.

You saw the long post i made today about what i said to Begich.. i that doesnt convince someone, nothing will.
 
You saw the long post i made today about what i said to Begich.. i that doesnt convince someone, nothing will.

Get more people to say it. The more people Begich hears from who would be actually, directly affected, the stronger our position.

With all due respect, Paul, Begich probably is dismissing you as just trying to save your own job. He needs to hear from those affected by the loss of the station itself.
 
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.
By looking at both of MPR's maps, available on their website, there are a lot of smaller stations in rural MN, along with repeaters / translators, that cover most, if not all of the state. That's a lot of infrastructure to cover, financially. Serves a lot of people.

NPR detractors in the Federal government just think of the big city stations, and forget that a lot of public radio is rural or small market in nature.

MPR coverage map, pretty insteresting to look at.:
 
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.
Fair enough point. But here I think the 'circumvention' is that that recission is done at the behest of the Administration, to 'circumvent' that funding that was appropriated already by Congress.
 
A setback to "his" plan gives us an opportunity to make our case to those who count ... the constituents.

Get enough people to tell their Senators and Congressmembers that they will definitely lose their vote if they go along with the bully and his threats become a losing proposition. If they think defunding public broadcasting will be a path to being voted out anyway, they may be persuaded to take their chances with us.
All I can say is good luck. Even the opposition party in Congress is completely and utterly out to lunch when it comes to Radio. I wrote both my (D) senators and local (D) rep about VOA being shut down and never heard back from either Senator, and the Congressman sent me a canned reply complaining about the President, with no mention whatsoever about VOA, or Radio -- there was no indication whatsoever that anyone at the office even read my letter.

They don't care about radio. Period.

And that's a problem.

Of course, that doesn't mean one shouldn't try. I did, and anything I said fell on deaf ears. But you got to to what you've got to do.
 

I suppose there are some good points here (other news sources), but I think this man has the wrong idea about biased coverage.
Can the author of that article name any commercial, for-profit broadcast outlet that does as thorough a job covering news and culture as NPR and PBS?

Back in the '90s, opponents of public broadcasting cited the Discovery Channel and History Channel as reasons why public funding was unnecessary. How did that work out?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom