House panel targets public broadcasting

[Robert Bass]

A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8161454/>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8161454/</a>

 

[fredflintstone]

No, House panel targets FUNDING for public broadcasting

I know the headline on the post came from MSNBC's article, but still...

If you read the article, it says the committee is looking at cutting government funds (by 25%) for CPB. Now, I enjoy public radio and TV. And I don't really like the idea of government funding for it. Now, some people around here seem to think that if you don't want government money going to public broadcasting, then you don't like public broadcasting (not true, at least for me). They also point out what a small percentage of public broadcasting's total budget comes from the CPB. But then they scream "the sky is falling" if some committee wants to reduce CPB's appropriation. C'mon folks. You can't have it both ways. If it's such a small percentage, cutting a quarter of a small percentage is not such a big deal.

And the last I heard, CTW - which produces kids shows like those mentioned in the previous posts - had "surplus revenue" (which is like profit, only it's a non-profit organization).


> A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the
> federal government's financial support for public
> broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help
> underwrite such popular children's educational programs as
> "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards
> From Buster."
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8161454/
>

 

[MikefromDelaware]

FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

That is an interesting article. Further down in the article it discusses the impact of that loss of Federal money could have on small rural area NPR radio and PBS Television stations that are at bare bone now. It would appear that the larger "metro" area NPR/PBS stations would survive, but it could make or break a number of the small time NPR/PBS stations. I'd rather see the Federal government pull the funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the people who have funded such wonderful artwork like a picture of the Modonna (Virgin Mary, not the singer) made out of cow feces or the Crucifix in a jar of urine, etc.

At least most NPR/PBS programming has some redeeming value, even if you don't agree with the view point expressed. It also has balance. I've listened to both liberals and conservatives on NPR and PBS. Would the National Endowment of the Arts fund a "positive" art piece dealing with the Christian religion. Probably not, as many would say that there should be seperation between church and state, yet they fund "negative" art dealing with Christian religion. Isn't that a double standard? At least NPR/PBS deals with both sides of issues which is as it should be.

> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8161454/
> >
>

 

[StangBuddy]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

> That is an interesting article. Further down in the article
> it discusses the impact of that loss of Federal money could
> have on small rural area NPR radio and PBS Television
> stations that are at bare bone now. It would appear that
> the larger "metro" area NPR/PBS stations would survive, but
> it could make or break a number of the small time NPR/PBS
> stations. I'd rather see the Federal government pull the
> funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, the people
> who have funded such wonderful artwork like a picture of the
> Modonna (Virgin Mary, not the singer) made out of cow feces
> or the Crucifix in a jar of urine, etc.
>
> At least most NPR/PBS programming has some redeeming value,
> even if you don't agree with the view point expressed. It
> also has balance. I've listened to both liberals and
> conservatives on NPR and PBS. Would the National Endowment
> of the Arts fund a "positive" art piece dealing with the
> Christian religion. Probably not, as many would say that
> there should be seperation between church and state, yet
> they fund "negative" art dealing with Christian religion.
> Isn't that a double standard? At least NPR/PBS deals with
> both sides of issues which is as it should be.
>
> > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8161454/
> > >
> >
>
I can see the headline now. "PBS loses government funding, Big Birds big bucks go to cable". Lets face it PBS has some very profitable marketing brands that the GOVERNMENT IS SUBSIDIZING. On the other hand any operation that puts "Antiques Road Show" on in prime-time is essentially moribund. I know this is a radio board, and I have a very good friend who is a big shot in DC with PBS, but something is very off kilter with government funded public broadcasting right now. I say let the government allow the mandate and mission and get the money out of the airwaves.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

If this trend continues NPR might find itself having to go full-time on Satellite Radio in order to survive. Either that or more listeners will have to step up to the plate and start supporting the local NPR affiliate in their community. Translation: More and longer pledge drives.

It should be noted that back in the "Newt" days in Congress, Gingrich tried and failed to cut off government funding for Public Broadcasting. That effort was quickly squashed when there was such an outcry from the public against the idea of eliminating government money from CPB and NPR that the GOP backed down.

Just watch public broadcasting operations and their supporter try to rally the troops once again. There is going to be one big battle on Capitol Hill over this issue. Trust me, this matter hasn't been settled yet.

What is ironic is that certain members of Congress are trying to get this measure passed in a year when they don't stand for re-election. Congress wouldn't have tried to pull this next year, believe me.
<P ID="signature">______________
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them".</P>

 

[billybarou]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

I've heard Christian fund raisers proclaim that "whether or not you want to, you are supporting public broadcasting with your tax dollars. we, however, don't receive any government support and that's why we especially need your help"

So, if Christian Non-Comms are any indication of what NPR would be without government grants... what would the state of non commercial be? All underwriting all the time?

Or are we (Americans) generous enough to keep the lower left FM band "in business?"

 

[testing]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

I think most stations would be OK without government help. It could be the best thing for public Radio stations.

Unfortunately, at smaller stations, most local staff would probably be let go and those stations would rely on volunteers or satellite services for programming.

again, not the end of the world.



> I've heard Christian fund raisers proclaim that "whether or
> not you want to, you are supporting public broadcasting with
> your tax dollars. we, however, don't receive any government
> support and that's why we especially need your help"
>
> So, if Christian Non-Comms are any indication of what NPR
> would be without government grants... what would the state
> of non commercial be? All underwriting all the time?
>
> Or are we (Americans) generous enough to keep the lower left
> FM band "in business?"
>

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

It may not be the end of the world for those of us who live in metro areas, but for those small town communities it isn't good and certainly to those folks who get laid off, its no picnic. Those small towns lose the local element of radio as most of their other local commercial stations are probably already mostly if not entirely satellite.


> I think most stations would be OK without government help.
> It could be the best thing for public Radio stations.
>
> Unfortunately, at smaller stations, most local staff would
> probably be let go and those stations would rely on
> volunteers or satellite services for programming.
>
> again, not the end of the world.
>
>
>
> > I've heard Christian fund raisers proclaim that "whether
> or
> > not you want to, you are supporting public broadcasting
> with
> > your tax dollars. we, however, don't receive any
> government
> > support and that's why we especially need your help"
> >
> > So, if Christian Non-Comms are any indication of what NPR
> > would be without government grants... what would the state
>
> > of non commercial be? All underwriting all the time?
> >
> > Or are we (Americans) generous enough to keep the lower
> left
> > FM band "in business?"
> >
>

 

[fredflintstone]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

If you visit some of these small towns, you'd be apalled at how bad local radio there is. Thanks to satellite radio, people in small towns now get professional, major market quality radio by competent broadcasters.


> It may not be the end of the world for those of us who live
> in metro areas, but for those small town communities it
> isn't good and certainly to those folks who get laid off,
> its no picnic. Those small towns lose the local element of
> radio as most of their other local commercial stations are
> probably already mostly if not entirely satellite.
>
>

 

[fredflintstone]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

Tax-empt status for what often is a profit-generating business is a huge government subsidy to preachers.



> I've heard Christian fund raisers proclaim that "whether or
> not you want to, you are supporting public broadcasting with
> your tax dollars. we, however, don't receive any government
> support and that's why we especially need your help"
>
> So, if Christian Non-Comms are any indication of what NPR
> would be without government grants... what would the state
> of non commercial be? All underwriting all the time?
>
> Or are we (Americans) generous enough to keep the lower left
> FM band "in business?"
>

 

[network]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

> I think most stations would be OK without government help.
> It could be the best thing for public Radio stations.
>
> Unfortunately, at smaller stations, most local staff would
> probably be let go and those stations would rely on
> volunteers or satellite services for programming.
>
> again, not the end of the world.

Well of course not the 'end of the world', but it could be the 'end' of why many people tune into public radio for. Especially in those markets where the local NPR affliate has a strong local news presence. Smaller markets would definitely be hit hard and many would probably just wind up broadcasting from the bird.

While I simply see this threat to reduce funding as the current Administration acting like a bunch of babies because they don't agree with the coverage, I think it is about time to simply cut funding already and get it over with. I agree with a previous poster who said this is not the end of this issue. If the affliates get the message out & what this will mean to public radio, especially in their market, the public WILL react! There is a reason listnership for public radio continues to increase every year. People with any common sense see this threat as the Administration throwing a temper-tantrum like a 3-year old.

Will it mean more underwriting on the local level? Yes, of course.

Will it mean NPR will raise its' rates for its' affliates (and this will be a major factor for many affliates of all market sizes)? Yes, of course.

Will it mean longer/more pledge-drives? Yes, of course.

There are many affliates that factor in the CPB money last (and usually use a very conservative amount) when doing their budget. But there are those in smaller markets with limited resources who do count on this money. Why should the affliates suffer because they have an "issue" with NPR?

 

[network]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

> Tax-empt status for what often is a profit-generating
> business is a huge government subsidy to preachers.
>
Just look at some of these "churches" they're building. They resemble high schools they're so big...with Coca-Cola/Pepsi vending machines, snack machines, book stores and even cafeterias or snack bars. All generating $$$$.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

However badly produced or the lesser quality of the on air staff, local content means a lot to a small town market. Sure it's fine to have some national (satellite) programming, but what makes radio important is the local personal aspect. If not, then simply put in translators or repeaters from the big city stations and simulcast their programming. The locals do want the local news, such as it is, the local community bulletin boards, farm reports, local high school sports, etc that makes up small town local radio. That is what will be lost if CPB loses its funds from the Federal govenment. As I stated earlier, I'd rather see tax money spent this way than have it spend to produce insulting "art" that mocks some people's religious faith (National Endowment for the Arts). You'd think the conservative Republicans would have already targeted that, but then the "Endowment" hasn't produced any anti Republican art, yet.

> If you visit some of these small towns, you'd be apalled at
> how bad local radio there is. Thanks to satellite radio,
> people in small towns now get professional, major market
> quality radio by competent broadcasters.
>
>
> > It may not be the end of the world for those of us who
> live
> > in metro areas, but for those small town communities it
> > isn't good and certainly to those folks who get laid off,
> > its no picnic. Those small towns lose the local element
> of
> > radio as most of their other local commercial stations are
>
> > probably already mostly if not entirely satellite.
> >
> >
>

 

[testing]

Re: FUNDING for public broadcasting may adversely affect small stations

I agree with you! I didn't mean to seem indifferent to the plight of the small local stations. I have worked for a couple in my career... For them it's going to be tough. Local news will be one of the first things to go, and that is a shame.


> Well of course not the 'end of the world', but it could be
> the 'end' of why many people tune into public radio for.
> Especially in those markets where the local NPR affliate has
> a strong local news presence. Smaller markets would
> definitely be hit hard and many would probably just wind up
> broadcasting from the bird.
>
> While I simply see this threat to reduce funding as the
> current Administration acting like a bunch of babies because
> they don't agree with the coverage, I think it is about time
> to simply cut funding already and get it over with. I agree
> with a previous poster who said this is not the end of this
> issue. If the affliates get the message out & what this
> will mean to public radio, especially in their market, the
> public WILL react! There is a reason listnership for public
> radio continues to increase every year. People with any
> common sense see this threat as the Administration throwing
> a temper-tantrum like a 3-year old.
>
> Will it mean more underwriting on the local level? Yes, of
> course.
>
> Will it mean NPR will raise its' rates for its' affliates
> (and this will be a major factor for many affliates of all
> market sizes)? Yes, of course.
>
> Will it mean longer/more pledge-drives? Yes, of course.
>
> There are many affliates that factor in the CPB money last
> (and usually use a very conservative amount) when doing
> their budget. But there are those in smaller markets with
> limited resources who do count on this money. Why should
> the affliates suffer because they have an "issue" with NPR?
>

 

[Les]

Ain't just federal

Alaska legislature, just before fleeing for the summer,
chopped the budget for state-run radio and TV by about
1/3 compared to past years.

One side says it's political but there's very little
local content of any sort of political nature other than
gavel-to-gavel coverage of the legislature.

Other side says it's about public money being used
to compete with private business and it being time
for people to pay for the service if they want it.

Threats to maintain urban services and let the rural
services wither.

Could this be the prototype for what's to come???

<P ID="signature">______________

Due to underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: Ain't just federal

Similar sort of thinking with AMTRAK funding. If Washington has its way, AMTRAK will only serve the Northeast corridor and possible the West Coast corridor. The other routes that serve mainly rural low populated areas that are not near an airport and depend on rail service, even if it isn't great service, will lose their train service and only have bus service,if that. Sounds like what is going to possibly happen to pubic radio/TV if Washington and from what you say state governments get their way.

Oddly enough, one would think that in those very very rural areas of Alaska, something like Public radio would be an important service for those folks. That would have been the last state I'd have guessed in cutting the Public radio funds.

> Alaska legislature, just before fleeing for the summer,
> chopped the budget for state-run radio and TV by about
> 1/3 compared to past years.
>
> One side says it's political but there's very little
> local content of any sort of political nature other than
> gavel-to-gavel coverage of the legislature.
>
> Other side says it's about public money being used
> to compete with private business and it being time
> for people to pay for the service if they want it.
>
> Threats to maintain urban services and let the rural
> services wither.
>
> Could this be the prototype for what's to come???
>

 

[Les]

Re: Ain't just federal

Cuts are directed at the TV side...radio specifically not
included in the cuts.

Problem is that, in several cases, the radio and TV are
operated jointly, including power costs, staffing, etc.,
so it's probable that, in those locations, radio will
suffer as well. Especially since TV far surpasses radio
in fund-raising.

In some areas of the state public radio is pretty much a
repeater with no local content at all, not even news or
weather. There are several non-profit, non-commercials
in private ownership which serve those functions well so
the loss is not that great except in terms of NPR programming.

Even with that, KUAC, funded by the state university out of
Fairbanks, runs a huge translator network that has been
bringing NPR programming to the bush since the costs of
non-profits carrying it became prohibitive about 8-10
years back. At that time many of the non-state owned
stations had to drop it to survive!

Major problem being faced by the non-commercial AM's is the
need to increase power just to stay even on coverage due
to there being more electrical appliances and vehicles in
the bush communities. With one station on 780 we're running
25-kW to do less than 10-kW was able to do 30-years ago...
and working toward to 50-kW because the 25 is now losing
listenability at the fringes.
<P ID="signature">______________

Due to underwhelming popular demand...</P>

 

[BLewis]

Picture this...a new Morning Edition clock

:00:00 NPR Billboard with live sponsor announcments

:01-:04 News

:04-:06:30 NPR Commercials
:06:30-:09:00 Local Commercials
:09:00-15:00 News Segment
15:00-17:00 NPR Commercials
17:00-20:00 Local Commercials
...et cetera


What's the chance we are headed in this direction?



I think most stations would be OK without government help.
>
> > It could be the best thing for public Radio stations.
> >
> > Unfortunately, at smaller stations, most local staff would
>
> > probably be let go and those stations would rely on
> > volunteers or satellite services for programming.
> >
> > again, not the end of the world.
>
> Well of course not the 'end of the world', but it could be
> the 'end' of why many people tune into public radio for.
> Especially in those markets where the local NPR affliate has
> a strong local news presence. Smaller markets would
> definitely be hit hard and many would probably just wind up
> broadcasting from the bird.
>
> While I simply see this threat to reduce funding as the
> current Administration acting like a bunch of babies because
> they don't agree with the coverage, I think it is about time
> to simply cut funding already and get it over with. I agree
> with a previous poster who said this is not the end of this
> issue. If the affliates get the message out & what this
> will mean to public radio, especially in their market, the
> public WILL react! There is a reason listnership for public
> radio continues to increase every year. People with any
> common sense see this threat as the Administration throwing
> a temper-tantrum like a 3-year old.
>
> Will it mean more underwriting on the local level? Yes, of
> course.
>
> Will it mean NPR will raise its' rates for its' affliates
> (and this will be a major factor for many affliates of all
> market sizes)? Yes, of course.
>
> Will it mean longer/more pledge-drives? Yes, of course.
>
> There are many affliates that factor in the CPB money last
> (and usually use a very conservative amount) when doing
> their budget. But there are those in smaller markets with
> limited resources who do count on this money. Why should
> the affliates suffer because they have an "issue" with NPR?
>

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: AM needing more power

I was stationed at Eileson AFB in 1972 and worked on AFTRS (AFRN 1490 Eielson). Our tower was a copper wire running up a telephone pole. Our transmitter was broadcasting at 50w and you could pick up the station pretty clearly in Fairbanks about 30 miles away. Back then there were only 5 AM stations on the dial and all were well spaced on dial, there was literally no static on the AM dial, like it is on FM. Of course KJNP had that 50,000w flamethrower at I believe 1190, it's been a long time ago. The other stations had more like 5,000w and 1,000 w signals. So times they've changed up there.

> Cuts are directed at the TV side...radio specifically not
> included in the cuts.
>
> Problem is that, in several cases, the radio and TV are
> operated jointly, including power costs, staffing, etc.,
> so it's probable that, in those locations, radio will
> suffer as well. Especially since TV far surpasses radio
> in fund-raising.
>
> In some areas of the state public radio is pretty much a
> repeater with no local content at all, not even news or
> weather. There are several non-profit, non-commercials
> in private ownership which serve those functions well so
> the loss is not that great except in terms of NPR
> programming.
>
> Even with that, KUAC, funded by the state university out of
> Fairbanks, runs a huge translator network that has been
> bringing NPR programming to the bush since the costs of
> non-profits carrying it became prohibitive about 8-10
> years back. At that time many of the non-state owned
> stations had to drop it to survive!
>
> Major problem being faced by the non-commercial AM's is the
> need to increase power just to stay even on coverage due
> to there being more electrical appliances and vehicles in
> the bush communities. With one station on 780 we're running
>
> 25-kW to do less than 10-kW was able to do 30-years ago...
> and working toward to 50-kW because the 25 is now losing
> listenability at the fringes.
>

 

[Les]

Re: AM needing more power

> I was stationed at Eileson AFB in 1972 and worked on AFTRS
> (AFRN 1490 Eielson). Our tower was a copper wire running up
> a telephone pole. Our transmitter was broadcasting at 50w
> and you could pick up the station pretty clearly in
> Fairbanks about 30 miles away. Back then there were only 5
> AM stations on the dial and all were well spaced on dial,
> there was literally no static on the AM dial, like it is on
> FM. Of course KJNP had that 50,000w flamethrower at I
> believe 1190, it's been a long time ago. The other stations
> had more like 5,000w and 1,000 w signals. So times they've
> changed up there.

Oddly enough, I'm sitting at a computer in Fairbanks right now.
The local AM's are all doing fine in town but I won't know until
tomorrow how much "legs" they have when I drive to Anchorage.
The situation I described in an earlier post was related to a
much different target audience. Fairbanks stations have a large
enough listener base in and around the city that 1-5 kW is
plenty to do the job. The station I work with is in a city of
3,400 but the target audience is NOT that city; it's somewhere
between 150 and 200 scattered villages, some 200 miles away!
Use of add-on antennas is common and the distance so great and
the signal so small that electrical noise is a killer!

BTW: Recorded three ID's in Nome last week and will send them
to Tophour.net when I get back to my own studio in about 3-weeks.<P ID="signature">______________

Due to underwhelming popular demand...</P>