Court reaffirms CPB's independence

[Rusty Muck]

We can debate all day long how much of what we choose to do together and given the nature of our system, there will be wins and losses on both sides. But if we choose to stop doing this America thing together, that's going to a place far more disturbing than losing a radio station. Yet the discussion about throwing communities like McGrath out of connection with their own state and nation via a service (terrestrial radio) that's supposed to exist as a resource of the people is exposing the reality of a "social Darwinism" mindset that when taken to its logical conclusion, does actual damage to the stability of society and of the very nation we claim to treasure.

I, for one, wouldn't want that mindset to win the day. I believe an informed public with access to actual journalism and the ability to know what's going on in their state government especially, and also nationally and globally, is a net positive for society and for my country. I don't think people in Alaska or West Virginia deserve less benefit from taxpayer dollars while Silicon Valley and Wall Street deserve more.

The burden of proof is on the public at large—on the right and the left—to prove they have not fallen into that Social Darwinism. And to me, it's not looking good on that front at all.

 

[gr8oldies]

At no time has anyone in the government promised to use the billion dollars to either pay down the debt or give back to taxpayers. If they set up a rebate system where all taxpayers got a portion of the public radio money, I'd agree with you. But that money just goes into the general treasury to be spent on more opulence for big government. More diet coke in the white house. The recent budget bill is adding trillions to the debt. Taxpayers won't win. Public service loses.

What is forgotten is that public radio listeners pay taxes too. The polls say that 60% of the public was opposed to cutting the funding. Nobody cares. This wasn't done to benefit taxpayers or the public. That's just a smokescreen. Most of the CPB money went to red states like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Georgia, and the Dakotas. Those state governments own public radio & TV stations. They will now have to make up millions in lost federal funding. Or they'll have to pay unemployment compensation to the fired workers. Which means they'll have to raise local taxes.

Not everyone has a cellphone. I hate to break it to you. Not everyone can receive the internet. Not everyone has the personal finances to pay for media subscriptions. Even now in 2025! It's amazing. Some people still shop in brick & mortar stores. The fact is that even though they may be obsolete, the airwaves belong to the public. At least that's what I've been told. Part of the reason why government funded public broadcasting was to put something else besides corporate formats on the radio. The government was investing in what it owns: The radio spectrum. Novel idea. You won't see it coming from corporate radio companies. As I said, it's another nail in the coffin of radio. Meanwhile, these same people (Ted Cruz) are pushing AM in Every Car. What total hypocrites.

Again, if I live in a red-state area with a commercial broadcaster with a right-wing talk format and Fox News and a couple of Godcaster relays where the preachers say how God wants you to vote, with Townhall news at the top of the hour, I have tp buy intrnet access and a subscription to hear any critique of my state let alone national government, I'm not being served.

 

[ok walters]

Do people smoke? Don't they know smoking causes cancer? Taxpayers pay subsidies to tobacco farmers who grow a crop that causes cancer. There's just one example. As I said, people aren't responsible. We have lots of "accommodation" laws in this country, where we make allowances for personal issues that people have. Why? Because those people pay taxes too. The people in isolated areas pay taxes, and they deserve to receive the same services people receive in populated areas. Poor people are citizens covered by the constitution. They may not pay a lot in taxes, but they are citizens under the jurisdiction of the same laws as everyone else. They also vote. So we're talking about voters who pay taxes. Those are two things politicians care about.

Here's another example. People build homes on rivers and the ocean. Then the rivers flood, or the hurricanes cause the oceans to wash away those homes. Who pays for it? The taxpayers. The president was just down in Texas promising all those people that his government will help them after the flood. Why? Because they pay taxes, and those taxes are supposed to help people like them.

Why are taxpayers responsible? Because we all live in the same country. E Pluribus Unum. Do you know what that means? So we're all responsible for everyone, not just the people we like.



If broadcasting is so obsolete, why is Ted Cruz and his buddies pushing so hard to put AM In Every Vehicle? Explain that to me.

First of all, keeping AM radio in cars has zero to do with taxpayer money, so not sure how those two things go together. So Ted Cruz wants AM radio in cars - how much is that costing taxpayers to keep a utility in a car that is rapidly becoming obsolete? Zero so who cares.

So using your logic, lets agree that the government should subsidize emergency communications to every person who decides to live anywhere in the US, regardless of how remote it is. Why? Because they are ALL citizens of the US, and as you said, we should all bear the costs of any decision that anyone makes in all cases - you know, E Pluribus Unum. What would be the most efficient way to do that? Would it be building and running thousands of tiny radio stations and funding their operation and upkeep? Or would it be using satellites that could see the entire world to provide internet service to EVERYWHERE? Not only does it cover everyone - even one person alone in the wilderness - it is two way and can provide not only audio communication, but video as well. In other words, should we invest in 1960 technology or 2025 technology?

 

[davideduardo]

There are plenty more areas where the only other station besides the NPR outlet is a commercial outlet that has minimal national and international news coverage and no local news coverage. Monticello, UT, is a good example of this

But the EAS service does not require local staffing or news coverage. All that is needed is the mandated equipment to receive and re-transmit automatically emergency alerts. So as long as there is any kind of signal, even if from a neighboring town or market, that will guarantee alert coverage.

But the point many are making is "how many people are actually listening to any radio at the time of an emergency?" On average, in New York City, only one in twenty people is listening in the daytime dayparts. More effective is delivery by cellular phone.

Back in the era of CONELRAD in the mid to late 50's and earlier 60's, the government knew radio did not reach everyone all the time and installed sirens on schools and public buildings. Today, everyone from the NAB on down thinks that radio is much more vital than it actually is.

 

[ok walters]

Again, if I live in a red-state area with a commercial broadcaster with a right-wing talk format and Fox News and a couple of Godcaster relays where the preachers say how God wants you to vote, with Townhall news at the top of the hour, I have tp buy intrnet access and a subscription to hear any critique of my state let alone national government, I'm not being served.

The commercial broadcaster with a right wing talk format, Fox News, Townhall, and the Godcaster relays are all privately funded entities providing a free service over the radio. If you want something that is not available for free over the air, who should pay for you to have it? You, right?

 

[TheBigA]

First of all, keeping AM radio in cars has zero to do with taxpayer money, so not sure how those two things go together.

You're talking about broadcast radio being obsolete technology. If so, then AM should be top of the list. How much are taxpayers paying Ted Cruz? Don't forget we all pay his salary even if some of us think he's a dodo.

What would be the most efficient way to do that? Would it be building and running thousands of tiny radio stations and funding their operation and upkeep?

The radio stations are already built. They each get minimal money to keep them on the air. It costs billions to install all that modern technology. Which is more efficient? Sure let's build for the future too. But in the meantime, let's keep what's there working. Seems logical to me.

The other part you're missing is that in a lot of these states, the public radio stations are owned by state governments run by republican governors. How are these governors going to replace this loss of federal money?

 

[TheBigA]

The commercial broadcaster with a right wing talk format, Fox News, Townhall, and the Godcaster relays are all privately funded entities providing a free service over the radio. If you want something that is not available for free over the air, who should pay for you to have it? You, right?

I work at one of those stations. I get paid commercials from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security. The amount I get is equal to the amount the public station in town gets. Who is paying for my radio station? The government is buying time on obsolete radio.

 

[TheBigA]

More effective is delivery by cellular phone.

Assuming people keep notifications on. I shut mine off.

 

[davideduardo]

Assuming people keep notifications on. I shut mine off.

Good point to remember. There are too many irrelevant notifications that could be done less intrusively by text and, where I live, way to many for areas well over a 2 hour drive away.

And then, all summer long, we get "dangerous heat level" warnings; the Coachella Valley has about 80 days with temperatures at 110° or over, so that is no worth nor worthy of a warning. Maybe 120°, but even that is not highly unusual.

Every person I have chatted with about this has also turned notifications off.

 

[408listener]

Yeah.

Add A&E (then referred to Arts & Entertainment).

Back in the 90s, these networks actually had very good content worthy of public television.

Alas, by the late 2000s, all had declined into the sensational reality TV wasteland that many other networks seemed to likewise succumb to.

Nowadays, A&E et al are virtually indistinguishable from USA and the like, which in turn is virtually indistinguishable from Fox. It's sad.

c

In part because today's market is far different from the '90s.

Back then, the question "where else can I find it?" for specialty cable channels was easily answered "nowhere".

Where else could you watch non-stop WWII documentaries? Where else could you watch the latest music video? Where else on commercial TV could you find a Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman concert in the daytime?

Nowadays "YouTube" is the answer to the above questions. But even before YouTube, the media companies must've realized that Itzhak Perlman concerts didn't bring in as much ad revenue as the various Strangers in a Dorm or Keeping Up with the Nepo Family knock-off shows.

 

[408listener]

Why does producing programming for radio require government money? It may have made some sense - maybe - in 1967 when the internet didn’t exist and FM radio was in its infancy, but today the population has doubled and there are now literally millions of content producers and thousands of outlets for that content.

Has quantity translated to quality? If anything, the rise of AI slop, clickbait, and "reaction YouTube channels" in the last 15 or so years shows there is value to having professionally QC'd public media. Respectfully, name the YouTube channel or blog that's remotely comparable to NPR's Fresh Air or PBS's Nature.

If the content is worthwhile, someone will pay for it, and it needs to be remembered that building your entire business as you claim many people have around a government grant that has to be renewed every year is risky at best.

Regarding "pay for it" I'll point to a previous post:

People are cheap. That's what keeps broadcast radio in business. Otherwise everyone would subscribe to music services. But a lot of people get what they want for free by listening to broadcast radio. The problem public radio has is it can't put a paywall on public airwaves. That's really the only way to be sure people pay for what they enjoy. Otherwise, it's the honor system, and not everyone is honorable.

What we know is that on average, only about 7% of people who listen to public radio actually subscribe. If they can freeload, they will.

Similar to the complaints about "why do news websites put on paywalls when they'd been available for free?" I see elsewhere.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

Do people smoke? Don't they know smoking causes cancer? Taxpayers pay subsidies to tobacco farmers who grow a crop that causes cancer. There's just one example. As I said, people aren't responsible. We have lots of "accommodation" laws in this country, where we make allowances for personal issues that people have. Why? Because those people pay taxes too. The people in isolated areas pay taxes, and they deserve to receive the same services people receive in populated areas. Poor people are citizens covered by the constitution. They may not pay a lot in taxes, but they are citizens under the jurisdiction of the same laws as everyone else. They also vote. So we're talking about voters who pay taxes. Those are two things politicians care about.

Here's another example. People build homes on rivers and the ocean. Then the rivers flood, or the hurricanes cause the oceans to wash away those homes. Who pays for it? The taxpayers. The president was just down in Texas promising all those people that his government will help them after the flood. Why? Because they pay taxes, and those taxes are supposed to help people like them.

Why are taxpayers responsible? Because we all live in the same country. E Pluribus Unum. Do you know what that means? So we're all responsible for everyone, not just the people we like.



If broadcasting is so obsolete, why is Ted Cruz and his buddies pushing so hard to put AM In Every Vehicle? Explain that to me.

Absolutely spot on . Thank you for being the voice of logical reasoning, something in short supply these days.

 

[Daryl Lynn L.A.]

First of all, keeping AM radio in cars has zero to do with taxpayer money, so not sure how those two things go together. So Ted Cruz wants AM radio in cars - how much is that costing taxpayers to keep a utility in a car that is rapidly becoming obsolete? Zero so who cares.

So using your logic, lets agree that the government should subsidize emergency communications to every person who decides to live anywhere in the US, regardless of how remote it is. Why? Because they are ALL citizens of the US, and as you said, we should all bear the costs of any decision that anyone makes in all cases - you know, E Pluribus Unum. What would be the most efficient way to do that? Would it be building and running thousands of tiny radio stations and funding their operation and upkeep? Or would it be using satellites that could see the entire world to provide internet service to EVERYWHERE? Not only does it cover everyone - even one person alone in the wilderness - it is two way and can provide not only audio communication, but video as well. In other words, should we invest in 1960 technology or 2025 technology?

My federal income taxes go to pay the salaries of the people who voted to rescind the funding. Plus l am a donor to NPR each year. Your point is that no one wants to pay for public broadcasting. My point is that NPR and PBS have great programming, and l am happy that my income taxes, plus my individual contributions help support it.

 

[boombox4]

Why does producing programming for radio require government money? It may have made some sense - maybe - in 1967 when the internet didn’t exist and FM radio was in its infancy, but today the population has doubled and there are now literally millions of content producers and thousands of outlets for that content. If the content is worthwhile, someone will pay for it, and it needs to be remembered that building your entire business as you claim many people have around a government grant that has to be renewed every year is risky at best.

The rural radio discussion is the same argument. When you choose to live in a remote, low population area like the Alaska wilderness, you understand that life will be more difficult, inconvenient, and expensive. Areas like that can’t support traditional media outlets due to population count alone, and as SRG said, even basic utilities like phone service can be sketchy. None of this is a surprise yet the overall opinion on this board is that the taxpayers should fund media services for people who chose to live where traditional media can’t survive. If you are going to fund communication services for remote areas, why aren’t we spending that money on more modern technology like satellite internet? Local radio has one channel - the internet has millions - so why keep funding technology that is inferior and has only one voice?

The bottom line is personal responsibility - if you chose to live in a town of 300 people that is the largest town for hundreds of miles in any direction with absolutely nothing in between, you have made a choice that doesn’t include all of the conveniences of other less remote places. Do you expect the government/taxpayers to keep you informed, or do you understand that it is your responsibility to keep yourself informed even if it isn’t free?

A lot of people who live in rural areas are there for a valid reason. Many of them feed the rest of us. They grow your food, mine resources that you need for the technology you are using right now. A lot of people in rural areas were born there. They are citizens and have rights just as everyone else does. Most Native American reservations are rural and underserved with technology. I suppose you think they should all just pack up and move to NYC, Houston, Chicago or Los Angeles?

Rural people pay taxes just as much as urban people do. And as for your suggestion that the government pay for satellite connectivity, that probably would cost more money than to subsidize a public AM or FM radio station in Alaska. Because launching satellites is NOT cheap, nor is the equipment to receive those signals. You really want the government to finance thousands of satellite internet installations in rural areas, when radio is already getting the job done?

And either way, you're talking about a Federal subsidy.

As for 'personal responsibility', it's funny how the 'personal responsibility' people are all gung ho about it until a hurricane or tornado or other disaster hits, and then all of a sudden they're whining and crying about the government not being fast enough in coming in to help with supplies, infrastructure rebuilding, or money. Riots or other urban civil unrest happens in a big city and the 'personal responsibility' people are all of a sudden whining and complaining about the police (i.e. government) not being effective enough in protecting their houses or businesses. And when their stuff burns down, they suddenly want government help, and any notion of 'personal responsibility' goes straight out the window.

The fact is that we all pay taxes, one way or another, to government, for it to do it's job -- which is maintaining a system of laws, and providing for the general welfare, within certain limits, of the ALL Americans. 'Provide for the general welfare' -- it's in the Constitution. It's part of government's job. And in this case, CPB funding for public radio in rural and underserved areas is undoubtedly much cheaper than some higher tech solution.

Sure, in 20-30 years maybe the cost of higher tech solutions will come down enough for the average rural resident in AK to have a satellite internet transceiver. But for the time being, radio is what works in rural areas. It's most cost efficient.

And cost efficiency is a good thing, right?

 

[ok walters]

Assuming people keep notifications on. I shut mine off.

Once again, a personal choice to ignore the technology in your hand. You ignore the cell phone that actually notifies you and apparently rely on over the air radio instead that you may not even have on. Okay got it

 

[ok walters]

A lot of people who live in rural areas are there for a valid reason. Many of them feed the rest of us. They grow your food, mine resources that you need for the technology you are using right now. A lot of people in rural areas were born there. They are citizens and have rights just as everyone else does. Most Native American reservations are rural and underserved with technology. I suppose you think they should all just pack up and move to NYC, Houston, Chicago or Los Angeles?

I never said that there weren't good reasons to live in remote areas. I said that making the CHOICE to live there is not without personal responsibility for your own well being, including communications with the outside world. SRG is a good example - he was offered a job in rural Alaska and he considered everything that entailed - remoteness, weather, high costs for everything, and inconveniences - and he decided that was all acceptable. It is a free country and you can CHOOSE to live anywhere, but those choices come with consequences.

Rural people pay taxes just as much as urban people do. And as for your suggestion that the government pay for satellite connectivity, that probably would cost more money than to subsidize a public AM or FM radio station in Alaska. Because launching satellites is NOT cheap, nor is the equipment to receive those signals. You really want the government to finance thousands of satellite internet installations in rural areas, when radio is already getting the job done?

And either way, you're talking about a Federal subsidy.

My thought there is that IF federal money is being spent, why are we spending it on outdated technology when something far better is available. Starlink is already available there, with speeds all over Alaska at 150 kbs, so all that is needed is the receivers and to set up a few community hot spots. Is it more expensive right now? Probably - but it actually works for everybody everywhere, something a chain of low power local repeaters just can't do. FYI - Starlink costs $120 per month for unlimited data at 150 kbs everywhere in Alaska and the equipment is currently free. Is that unreasonable in the Alaska wilderness? I pay almost that much for regular internet in a suburban area now.

Starlink

High-speed internet. Available almost anywhere on Earth.

www.starlink.com

As for 'personal responsibility', it's funny how the 'personal responsibility' people are all gung ho about it until a hurricane or tornado or other disaster hits, and then all of a sudden they're whining and crying about the government not being fast enough in coming in to help with supplies, infrastructure rebuilding, or money. Riots or other urban civil unrest happens in a big city and the 'personal responsibility' people are all of a sudden whining and complaining about the police (i.e. government) not being effective enough in protecting their houses or businesses. And when their stuff burns down, they suddenly want government help, and any notion of 'personal responsibility' goes straight out the window.

The fact is that we all pay taxes, one way or another, to government, for it to do it's job -- which is maintaining a system of laws, and providing for the general welfare, within certain limits, of the ALL Americans. 'Provide for the general welfare' -- it's in the Constitution. It's part of government's job. And in this case, CPB funding for public radio in rural and underserved areas is undoubtedly much cheaper than some higher tech solution.

Sure, in 20-30 years maybe the cost of higher tech solutions will come down enough for the average rural resident in AK to have a satellite internet transceiver. But for the time being, radio is what works in rural areas. It's most cost efficient.

And cost efficiency is a good thing, right?

Big difference in natural disasters and rioting in our cities and choosing to live off grid and expecting someone else to help pay for it. Yes, radio is cheaper to fund, but it doesn't reach everybody and it has to be on and being listened to to be effective. Could the government fund satellite internet hotspots in those areas? Yes, but the issue there is the government itself. The previous administration allocated $42 billion for rural broadband service four years ago and no one has been hooked up as of right now. Starlink was deployed in battle damaged Ukraine in a matter of days, so it can be done if the government can get out of the way.

 

[ok walters]

My federal income taxes go to pay the salaries of the people who voted to rescind the funding. Plus l am a donor to NPR each year. Your point is that no one wants to pay for public broadcasting. My point is that NPR and PBS have great programming, and l am happy that my income taxes, plus my individual contributions help support it.

Why do we need the government to fund programming in today's world? In 1967, there were 4-5 TV channels available in most areas, FM radio was in its infancy, and cable TV and the internet didn't exist. Now there are hundreds of TV channels available everywhere, and the radio dial is completely full of stations of every genre. Once again - why is the government funding any programming at this point?

 

[ok walters]

Has quantity translated to quality? If anything, the rise of AI slop, clickbait, and "reaction YouTube channels" in the last 15 or so years shows there is value to having professionally QC'd public media. Respectfully, name the YouTube channel or blog that's remotely comparable to NPR's Fresh Air or PBS's Nature.

So there is nothing available anywhere that can compare to two shows on PBS and NPR? Quantity has translated into lots of choice and you have chosen what you like - at least you now have a choice unlike the pre-internet days

Regarding "pay for it" I'll point to a previous post:

Similar to the complaints about "why do news websites put on paywalls when they'd been available for free?" I see elsewhere.

So people are cheap and don't like to pay for things. This just in - water is wet.

 

[TheBigA]

Once again, a personal choice to ignore the technology in your hand. You ignore the cell phone that actually notifies you and apparently rely on over the air radio instead that you may not even have on. Okay got it

Nope. Keep guessing.

 

[ok walters]

Nope. Keep guessing.

No reason to “guess” about anything. You turned off notifications because you decided you didn’t need them - your choice and your responsibility for your own safety. Doesn’t matter to me what you do - that is your deal