FCC Opens Investigation into NPR and PBS

[AbrahamJSimpson]

I'm afraid it's all going to come crashing down. How long will it take us to dig our way out of this mess?

We can’t.

 

[cc333]

I'm afraid it's all going to come crashing down. How long will it take us to dig our way out of this mess?

We can’t.

i think maybe this damage can be undone, but it might not be within our lifetimes. It will take many decades, and probably a second American Revolution to get back to where we were a month ago, which is severely depressing.

c

 

[The Beat]

BTW... anyone who thinks CPB and by extension, NPR member stations arent due this money.. come talk to me.

Remote public stations like yours are valuable and supplementing funding makes sense. Still, that doesn't make a good argument for why CPB funds stations in the largest metros with the best equipment. Why does CPB fund stations in NYC, LA & Chicago? Fact is, they shouldn't. Not before they fund every struggling LPFM & AM in America first.

But how many non-NPR affiliates do they fund? I bet it's not more than 5%. Pathetic to only fund a network's major market players when so many others (like Paul's) are in smaller markets and have no chance of survival.

I wonder how people would feel if taxpayers were funding EMF?

Defund the CPB and start a small market radio fund.

 

[TheBigA]

Remote public stations like yours are valuable and supplementing funding makes sense. Still, that doesn't make a good argument for why CPB funds stations in the largest metros with the best equipment. Why does CPB fund stations in NYC, LA & Chicago? Fact is, they shouldn't.

When the republicans amended the public broadcasting act during the Reagan administration, they changed the criteria for how stations qualified for funding. They didn't want it to be based on need. That would make it, in their view, a welfare program. So they said the CPB grant would be based on the local fundraising the station did. The large market stations are very popular and very successful, and as a result of the criteria, they qualify for the funding.

The congress can amend the law right now and change the criteria so it's based on need again. But they seem more interested in shutting it down, not seeking ways to keep it in business.

I wonder how people would feel if taxpayers were funding EMF?

That's an interesting question. There are bills right now that would allow taxpayer funding of religious schools and taxpayer funding of pastors in public schools. Yet the first amendment says very clearly that congress can't establishing a religion.

The question is would EMF be willing to accept the funding based on the required criteria? CPB requires local staffing and local studios. EMF has neither. So perhaps your question should be directed to EMF.

But how many non-NPR affiliates do they fund? I bet it's not more than 5%.

I gave you a link to the CPB website. If you would take the time to go there, you'd find out it's more than you think.

Defund the CPB and start a small market radio fund.

That would require repealing or amending the Public Broadcasting Act, and I don't think they have enough votes.

 

[kevtronics]

I wonder how people would feel if taxpayers were funding EMF?

We already are. EMF is tax-exempt.

 

[davideduardo]

We already are. EMF is tax-exempt.

Being "tax exempt" is not the same as "public funding". In fact, it is somewhat of an untrue statement. For federal and state income taxes, since there is no profit to be distributed and no shareholders to receive a distribution, there is nothing taxable to begin with.

The other exemptions vary by location, but may include exemptions from things like property taxes. That is not "public funding" as there is nothing going from government coffers to the exempt entity. And there, not just religious groups but charities, civic organizations, hospitals and government buildings are not subject to property tax.

 

[davideduardo]

That's an interesting question. There are bills right now that would allow taxpayer funding of religious schools and taxpayer funding of pastors in public schools. Yet the first amendment says very clearly that congress can't establishing a religion.

The propositions being presented involve diverting funds from public schools to private ones based on enrollment. The concept is that the government devotes a percentage of its education budget to each student, and that budget could be spent elsewhere, other than the decrepit public school system.

That would require repealing or amending the Public Broadcasting Act, and I don't think they have enough votes.

But it can be effectively killed by under-budgeting it.

 

[TheBigA]

The propositions being presented involve diverting funds from public schools to private ones based on enrollment. The concept is that the government devotes a percentage of its education budget to each student, and that budget could be spent elsewhere, other than the decrepit public school system.

The state governors are responsible for the local public schools, not the federal government. It's one of the things they run on at election time. If they spent more time running schools instead of attacking teachers and librarians, the schools might be better. There was once a concept that government provides public service. That apparently doesn't exist anymore. It's now everyone for themselves.

I went to college to be a teacher. After a year as a practice teacher, I decided I was better off working in radio. That says a lot.

But it can be effectively killed by under-budgeting it.

I was responding to a comment about fixing the system so smaller stations get the money. But yes, instead of fixing things, they prefer to shut it down.

I'm not sure that simply defunding CPB will kill it. From what I see, only action taken by congress can kill an agency. That's sort of a constitutional question that the president is trying to get around in other areas.

 

[The Beat]

I gave you a link to the CPB website. If you would take the time to go there, you'd find out it's more than you think.

No- it was just as I suspected. Money to NPR affiliates and nothing for LPFM and AM.

Anyone who thinks the CPB should fund 100kW FM stations in New York City (or anywhere) before small market AM stations, is not being logical.

After all, define "public broadcasting."

 

[TheBigA]

No- it was just as I suspected. Money to NPR affiliates and nothing for LPFM and AM.

I explained why LPFM don't qualify. Non-com AM stations such as WHA, WOI, and WNYC-AM all qualify and receive CPB funding.

Non-NPR affiliates include KJZZ in Long Beach. If you would just look, you'd find more. As I said, they also fund independent producers who create programs that compete against NPR.

Open Grants and RFPs | CPB

cpb.org

BTW stations are not required to carry NPR. They carry it because they make the decision locally. There are lots of other options from other national program suppliers.

Anyone who thinks the CPB should fund 100kW FM stations in New York City (or anywhere) before small market AM stations, is not being logical.

The law funds anyone who qualifies. If they don't, they could be sued for discrimination. Please read the law.

Also, WNYC is not a 100KW station in NYC. Much lower power than that.

 

[The Beat]

It's the CPB "decider of the qualifications" that excludes LPFMs for no good reason. Not congress. Congress gives them the money and TRUSTS them to allocate it properly. They don't. For that reason, defund the CPB. There is no good reason to not support the smallest broadcasters when you are funding multi-million dollar operations in NYC.

KJZZ? Why should we fund a 30kW class B LA jazz station before funding a small market AM station in a funding desert small market? That's a horrible example and another reason why this funding should come under examination.

The CBP rules are the issue. They are obviously constructed to benefit high power NPR stations... not the stations that really need it.

I noticed you didn't define "public broadcasting" (hint: it doesn't mean noncommercial or NPR)

 

[cc333]

it can be effectively killed by under-budgeting it.

Death by attrition.

c

 

[TheBigA]

It's the CPB "decider of the qualifications" that excludes LPFMs for no good reason. Not congress.

The law, as written by congress, has no provision in it for LPFM funding. Read the law.

We have several posters here who represent LPFMs. I'll defer to them.

There is no good reason to not support the smallest broadcasters when you are funding multi-million dollar operations in NYC.

They support everyone that qualifies, small and large. Otherwise, it's discrimination.

KJZZ? Why should we fund a 30kW class B LA jazz station before funding a small market AM station in a funding desert small market? That's a horrible example and another reason why this funding should come under examination.

Is the AM station non-commercial? Have they applied for funding? Be more specific.

The CBP rules are the issue. They are obviously constructed to benefit high power NPR stations... not the stations that really need it.

If you read the law, it specifically talks about funding NPR and PBS. But in fact, they also fund American Public Media and many other program suppliers other than NPR. They also fund the distribution system that's available to anyone.

I noticed you didn't define "public broadcasting" (hint: it doesn't mean noncommercial or NPR)

It's not up to me to define it. Those are two words that can mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

 

[The Beat]

Also, WNYC is not a 100KW station in NYC. Much lower power than that.

Split hairs much? That's usually a sign of someone who is losing faith in their own argument.

Given their height, WNYC is the equivalent of a 50kW class B. Regardless, it blankets NYC with a city grade signal as well as any 100kW.

It definitely should not receive funding before a 100 watt LPFM in any small market.

If it could sell spots, it could more than support itself. It should be allowed to do that before funding them with our tax money.

Center for Public Broadcasting should support "broadcasting to the public" by stations who need the funds; not multi-million dollar NYC NPR or LA jazz stations.

Given the many, many alternatives, noncommercial radio in 2025 makes as much sense as an 8 track tape. Let them all sell spots and gauge exactly how much local support there is from the "public." If you want noncommercial, listen to almost any internet station. Where there isn't enough local support possible (rural), then apply taxpayer funding. All top 50 market stations with plenty of advertising support should be excluded.

 

[The Beat]

The law, as written by congress, has no provision in it for LPFM funding. Read the law.

If you read the law, it specifically talks about funding NPR and PBS. But in fact, they also fund American Public Media and many other program suppliers other than NPR. They also fund the distribution system that's available to anyone.

Again, that's why "the law" must go. Hopefully, sensible politicians see that.

 

[TheBigA]

If it could sell spots, it could more than support itself. It should be allowed to do that before funding them with our tax money.

Nobody in congress is talking about that. Neither is the FCC in the OP to this thread. Their only intent is to shut it down for political reasons.

I would think the NAB would oppose any such idea.

Congress gives them the money and TRUSTS them to allocate it properly. They don't. For that reason, defund the CPB.

Every year, CPB testifies in front of congress in order to get its appropriation. They tell congress what they did, and how they did it. They are open to questions from the various committees. That would be a good time to bring up funding LPFMs or other things. Instead, you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. All that's needed is to amend the law. But that's not what's being said here. The politicians want to shut it down, first by defunding it, next by limiting corporate sponsorship, and then by destroying credibility.

 

[The Beat]

Instead, you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. All that's needed is to amend the law. But that's not what's being said here. The politicians want to shut it down, first by defunding it, next by limiting corporate sponsorship, and then by destroying credibility.

Yeah, unless they plan on supporting LPFMs and the many AMs that go off the air every year due to lack of funding, throw the baby out. As of now, it's a divisive partisan issue. To that end, we all must yield to the party America elected.

Outside a situation like Alaska that was mentioned earlier, what value does NPR or PBS programming bring to our communities that internet & broadcast stations don't?

Fund the broadcast stations who need it most... then, maybe move on to the multi-million dollar LA jazz stations if there's any money left.

 

[TheBigA]

Yeah, unless they plan on supporting LPFMs and the many AMs that go off the air every year due to lack of funding, throw the baby out.

So unless they do what YOU want, then throw them out. OK. You are the king of the world.

Outside a situation like Alaska that was mentioned earlier, what value does NPR or PBS programming bring to our communities that internet & broadcast stations don't?

That's a different issue. You're talking about CPB funding. CPB funds stations, and those stations air lots of things other than NPR. You want to blow the whole thing up. It doesn't matter if others find value in what they do. You don't, so blow them up.

It doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other thing. The idea is for there to be lots of options. As of now there are. People have choices. What's wrong with that?

 

[The Beat]

So unless they do what YOU want, then throw them out. OK. You are the king of the world.



That's a different issue. You're talking about CPB funding. CPB funds stations, and those stations air lots of things other than NPR. You want to blow the whole thing up. It doesn't matter if others find value in what they do. You don't, so blow them up.

It doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other thing. The idea is for there to be lots of options. As of now there are. People have choices. What's wrong with that?

Yes, I want stations who really need the money to get it; not the million dollar partisan properties you support. "What's wrong with that?"

Name-calling already? You have definitely lost faith in your own argument and any discernable points you were making.

Signed,

King Of The World

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, I want stations who really need the money to get it; not the million dollar partisan properties you support. "What's wrong with that?"

Who said it's what I support? I'm just telling you what the rules are. You don't like them.

This isn't an argument. You began by asking questions. I directed you to the answers. Then you got upset. Sorry.

If you didn't want answers, why did you ask all those questions? I'm just trying to be helpful.