For Carr, this is about ideology, not FCC funding. He wrote Project 2025's chapter on the FCC and now he's executing Trump's priorities for which he will surely be personally rewarded. He's looking out for himself first and foremost, and we can infer that he expects funding for his agency to follow.
-
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
FCC Opens Investigation into NPR and PBS
- Thread starter xmtrland
- Start date
For Carr, this is about ideology, not FCC funding. He wrote Project 2025's chapter on the FCC and now he's executing Trump's priorities for which he will surely be personally rewarded. He's looking out for himself first and foremost, and we can infer that he expects funding for his agency to follow.
It's about both. The FCC gives him the power to forward the ideology. Otherwise, he's just another unemployed blogger. The same thing with Brent Bozell. He's not going to run USGMA as an unbiased source of information. That's not going to keep him employed. He knows what life was like before, and he doesn't want to be on the outside again. They've given him his one chance to do what he's always dreamed of doing.
I have always said that NPR & PBS can make it on there own with the donors which I'm sure they have rich donors that can fund both years to come. That is why the tax payers shouldn't have to pay taxes to NPR & PBS which is wrong and I demand my money defund PBS & NPR no more tax dollars from the payers. Donations is what can keep them in business.
I'll also add that The FCC should be unpartisan as The FCC is just political hacks as it is now both parties who are in power abuse it and pick and choose which rules to enforce which Jessica liked rules that weren't made in the 1980s to now and was into outdated rules from 50s, 60s, & 70s which was very wrong. That is all I'll say I could go and on and on but I'll not do it. Carr is wrong to go after CBS on 60 Minutes with Kamala Harris interview which CBS just wants to be done and over with will settle the lawsuit like ABC did in my opinion. Even know I feel that the courts would favor ABC & CBS and not the government.
I'll also add that The FCC should be unpartisan as The FCC is just political hacks as it is now both parties who are in power abuse it and pick and choose which rules to enforce which Jessica liked rules that weren't made in the 1980s to now and was into outdated rules from 50s, 60s, & 70s which was very wrong. That is all I'll say I could go and on and on but I'll not do it. Carr is wrong to go after CBS on 60 Minutes with Kamala Harris interview which CBS just wants to be done and over with will settle the lawsuit like ABC did in my opinion. Even know I feel that the courts would favor ABC & CBS and not the government.
I don't like subsidizing defense contractors or whatever Elon's doing this week, can I get my money back too?
The money CPB gets actually helps local stations raise funds. I can't recall the exact formulation, but for every X amount it's said member stations raise more. It's seed money, not a handout, and as someone who's worked with public stations, the criteria is very stringent to get and keep that money.
current.org
8 to 4 vote. That's the state our Interior Secretary came from, not even a "purple" state. And they want to keep public radio and TV. In some parts of that state (I've been there) the only reliable radio and tv coverage of state government comes from public broadcasting. I happen to think it's worth the pittance in tax dollars paid for it.
The money CPB gets actually helps local stations raise funds. I can't recall the exact formulation, but for every X amount it's said member stations raise more. It's seed money, not a handout, and as someone who's worked with public stations, the criteria is very stringent to get and keep that money.
North Dakota House passes bill to end funding for Prairie Public
House Bill 1255 would bar any “state officer” from spending “state funds or federal funds … to directly or indirectly support public broadcasting.”
current.org
8 to 4 vote. That's the state our Interior Secretary came from, not even a "purple" state. And they want to keep public radio and TV. In some parts of that state (I've been there) the only reliable radio and tv coverage of state government comes from public broadcasting. I happen to think it's worth the pittance in tax dollars paid for it.
I disagree. Business hours do go beyond identification of the underwriter. By providing those hours, you are inducing patronization by stating what hours you can patronize the business. Business hours can say how convenient a business is without candy coating it. Would "open 24 hours a day" be considered promotion? The enhanced underwriting guidelines are clear:
- Logograms or slogans which identify and do not promote.
- Location information.
- Value neutral descriptions of a product line or service.
- Brand names and trade names in service listings.
Remember, the enhancements through the 1970s and 1980s took acknowledgements from a time when you were limited to only one per hour and identification of name only to the enhanced guidelines we have today.
The government enhanced the underwriting guidelines because their intent was to replace government funding with underwriting. That was the thinking in the 80s. It's very different now. If you read Carr's letter, he interprets the law as only one sentence giving the name of the sponsor. His intent is to eliminate government funding and make sponsorship more difficult. He says that very clearly in his letter.
I don't like subsidizing defense contractors or whatever Elon's doing this week, can I get my money back too?
The money CPB gets actually helps local stations raise funds. I can't recall the exact formulation, but for every X amount it's said member stations raise more. It's seed money, not a handout, and as someone who's worked with public stations, the criteria is very stringent to get and keep that money.
North Dakota House passes bill to end funding for Prairie Public
House Bill 1255 would bar any “state officer” from spending “state funds or federal funds … to directly or indirectly support public broadcasting.”
8 to 4 vote. That's the state our Interior Secretary came from, not even a "purple" state. And they want to keep public radio and TV. In some parts of that state (I've been there) the only reliable radio and tv coverage of state government comes from public broadcasting. I happen to think it's worth the pittance in tax dollars paid for it.
We used to get state funding but the governor has veto'd that for awhile now.
The way I explain CPB funding to people who ask "The formula used, at least in part, to determine how much funding we get is to look at local support and local support is judged by the number of memberships we have. thats why buying our merch is great but becoming a member counts even more"
donations and corporate underwriting would keep NPR/PBS somewhat afloat, but there would likely be a reduction in service.
Lack of any federal money would decimate stations like mine. We would never survive on underwriting and donations alone. Lack of federal money would leave large chunks of alaska (the aluetian chain.. KUHB, KSDP), and large chunks of the interior from Bethel to Galena to Chevak up to Utqiagvik and along the Kenai Peninsula over to Valdez with severely reduced local content (KYUK, KBRW, KBBI might survive, but theyd have no dedicated news person anymore and one person running the entire ship). KCUK, KIYU, KSKO would be gone.
youd have lots of alaska with ZERO local source of local information.... public radio plays a massive role during wildfire and breakup season.
Unfortunately for you, this decision will not be based on local service. They just want to eliminate the expense. This is what happens when you get government run like a business. They cut expenses without thought given to the consequences.
Right. I was responding to the original posters comment.
BTW, when ive seen others clamor to defund PBS/NPR i tell them something I forgot to mention to @Megatron
The amount of taxpayer funding that goes to CPB every year amounts to like a cup or two of gas station coffee once a year
I've offered to mail people $3 out of my own pocket and theyve never taken me up on the offer because they then realize how assinine they sound.
They don't care. Their mind is made up.
I don't think this is framed accurately enough. Carr's intent isn't just to make sponsorship more "difficult," it's to make it so worthless that most sponsors will pull out, effectively defunding a major source of public media's private funding as well as government funding.
I would also expect to see Carr's "investigation" lead to rulings that, although unfounded, will lead to major fines across all public media outlets, further attacking their financial viability.
Her state receives over $3 million in federal funds for Georgia Public Radio, which is run by her governor. Wonder how he feels about her cutting aid to Georgia.
Once again, this is a situation where she has already reached her conclusion. It's in her release. She's telling them they're biased. Whatever they say is a lie because she has already reached her conclusion. They can come in with charts and graphs and she that she's wrong, but she's not interested. All she wants is to say they're biased and have that video shown on conservative TV.
The person she should be talking to is the CEO of CPB. They're the agency who gets federal funding, not NPR.
I find it ironic the states that need it the most and gladly accept it are the ones most against the federal funding.
They don't understand the connection between cutting the money and it going to their state. They think the money goes to NPR. And they're not interested in the real story. As I said, they've already reached their conclusion.
i think some of them know.. most stations and people involved in public radio are clear how things get funded...and its been made/said/told clearly CPB funding go to local stations...... so maybe im giving them more credit then they deserve but theyd literally have to put their fingers in their ears jump up and down and go .. la la la la la la la la la la la la la.. and while i think some of them are, not all of them are.. though a vast majority probably are
In another thread, someone supposed that the FCC might allow NPR to sell commercials. Obviously that's not the intent. They want to shut it down. They also want to start another FCC investigation into payola on commercial radio. Plus impose a new music royalty. The new administration is 100% united against broadcasting as we know it.
Senator Wants Concert Arrangements Between Radio And Artists Examined.
The FCC is being asked to investigate allegations of payola violations. No cash is said to be changing hands, but Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) says stations offering more airtime for
I've been calling this what is is from the outset. I got a little pushback about being political with my comments but anyone who doesn't understand what's happening yet is living in willful denial. The strong-arming of broadcasters, and the capitulation to Trump by corporate media organizations, is just a small part of a much larger, more infuriating reality right now.
I recall talking to a mayor of a town of about 8,000. I mentioned I saw an attorney attending the council meeting and questioned why. The mayor said because nobody on the council knows what they're doing. They need a lawyer to explain it to them so they actually know what they are voting on.
I resent any FCC or Congress that kicks a dog when they're down. Radio is that dog, both public radio and commercial. If they're going to threaten and make it harder on us, They won't get my vote and I caution them that nobody can mount a campaign successfully against the media that shapes opinions of the people almost instantly. Maybe the NAB and CPB need to band together for a little back office meeting sooner than later.
For the FCC and/or Congress to go out on a witch hunt is nothing less than McCarthyism in a sense. No industry should be on the receiving end of such abuse.
I resent any FCC or Congress that kicks a dog when they're down. Radio is that dog, both public radio and commercial. If they're going to threaten and make it harder on us, They won't get my vote and I caution them that nobody can mount a campaign successfully against the media that shapes opinions of the people almost instantly. Maybe the NAB and CPB need to band together for a little back office meeting sooner than later.
For the FCC and/or Congress to go out on a witch hunt is nothing less than McCarthyism in a sense. No industry should be on the receiving end of such abuse.
- Status