• 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

House Seeks to Defund CPB

Senator Cruz is making demands of NPR:


All of the information he is demanding is posted on the NPR website. It's all public knowledge. The FCC requires stations to post their funding information. Congress doesn't fund NPR. CPB and the local stations do. His issue is with CPB, the organization that was formed to act as an intermediary between politicians and the media. CPB's president is a Trump appointee. The current situation was anticipated by Congress in 1967. They knew there would be politicians who would use the power of the federal government to interfere with journalists doing their job.
 
i can say this, theyll never be completely happy with NPR's reporting since it tells the truth about the republicans, stuff they cal lfake news
 
i can say this, theyll never be completely happy with NPR's reporting since it tells the truth about the republicans, stuff they cal lfake news

Which gets back to why we have the first amendment, that says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. They don't like that part of the constitution, and want to use every way they can to interfere with freedom of the press. That's why CPB exists: To protect and shield NPR. Freedom of the press means that if the media doesn't report some stories, the government can't come in and force them to change their reporting. Regardless of where they get funding. The funding doesn't come with content restrictions. It leaves those decisions to the states and to the journalists.
 
CPB's president is a Trump appointee.
No she isn't, Patricia Harrison has been the president of CPB since 2005:
 
Senator Cruz is making demands of NPR:


All of the information he is demanding is posted on the NPR website. It's all public knowledge. The FCC requires stations to post their funding information. Congress doesn't fund NPR. CPB and the local stations do. His issue is with CPB, the organization that was formed to act as an intermediary between politicians and the media. CPB's president is a Trump appointee. The current situation was anticipated by Congress in 1967. They knew there would be politicians who would use the power of the federal government to interfere with journalists doing their job.
Here we go again we had this mentioned that NPR is funded by CPB and the donations to the local affiliates. Also we have to consider the other part there are local NPR and PBS stations that have their funding via state educational budgets. It's not the network itself that has an issue with political interference. It's the affiliates of NPR and PBS that has to deal with that. Case and point West Virginia Public Broadcasting when they fired a reporter.


 
In his letter to NPR, Sen. Cruz asks an interesting question:

“What precautions does NPR take, if any, to ensure that financial contributions from its donors do not impact its editorial decisions?” Cruz asked.



The question assumes that there's a political motivation by its donors. The fact is that NPR announces the names of its donors on the air. That's really all they have to do. It follows the same disclosure rules that commercial radio stations follow in accepting money from record labels.

Operationally, NPR's news division is isolated from its fundraising arm. That was part of the structure created in the 1980s. These kinds of questions go back to the founding on NPR. That's why the company has a 'public editor.' To oversee the editorial, and report on it to the public.

 
Last edited:
In his letter to NPR, Sen. Cruz asks an interesting question:





The question assumes that there's a political motivation by its donors. The fact is that NPR announces the names of its donors on the air. That's really all they have to do. It follows the same disclosure rules that commercial radio stations follow in accepting money from record labels.

Operationally, NPR's news division is isolated from its fundraising arm. That was part of the structure created in the 1980s. These kinds of questions go back to the founding on NPR. That's why the company has a 'public editor.' To oversee the editorial, and report on it to the public.

We can repeat this again and again on how Public Media works but this group does not want to accept that. Wait how is the donor funding system between CPB, Local affiliates, NPR and PBS money laundering. Also in some cases the local affiliate in some parts of the country needs state legislature and Governor approval for budgeting too. That is some very loaded allegation here.

A memo linked to in a Tuesday press release points to more perceived conflicts of interest in NPR’s coverage of the climate crisis, elections, immigration and DEI. The memo highlights grants supporting those priorities and headlines from NPR articles on the subjects.

Cruz also took issue with CPB’s funding model, under which stations receive funds to pay for programming. The fees stations pay NPR are “pass throughs to launder taxpayer dollars moving from CPB to NPR,” Cruz wrote.
 
But the assumption is that Cruz actually wants an answer to his question, which of course he doesn't. It's all grandstanding.

The answer to his question is a matter of public record. Its right in front of his face. His own party (under Ronald Reagan) set up the funding structure under which NPR operates.
 
The answer to his question is a matter of public record. Its right in front of his face. His own party (under Ronald Reagan) set up the funding structure under which NPR operates.
These elected officials don't care about NPR or PBS given that their supporters don't even use the PBS app or radio apps that carry The local stations.
 
These elected officials don't care about NPR or PBS given that their supporters don't even use the PBS app or radio apps that carry The local stations.

Youd be surprised... many even in very maga states will often at least sample for the local non news content.

And the states who most want to rid the world of CPB funding are the states that need it most
 
Youd be surprised... many even in very maga states will often at least sample for the local non news content.

And the states who most want to rid the world of CPB funding are the states that need it most




Also some of the NPR and PBS affiliates in Texas where Ted Cruz represents are funded by State Universities like University of Houston (Owner of KUHF and KUHT-TV), University of Texas (Owner of KUT Austin) , Texas A&M (Owner of KAMU Radio and KAMU-TV). In Other words Ted Cruz while ranting about the CEO's of NPR and CPB unwittingly accuse some of the local affiliates of Money Laundering. But wait the Texas State Legislature and governor has to provide the funding of some of the NPR and PBS affiliates for approval via funding the public universities in the state.



Here is one from the CPB CEO response. See Ted Cruz does not care about that we can go back to the Uri Berliner editorial about NPR and we said something similar at that time on how Public Media operates.

CPB CEO Patricia Harrison responded Thursday to another letter from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who had sought answers about CPB’s oversight and funding of NPR.

Cruz wrote Harrison April 25 to “express deep concern about National Public Radio’s (NPR) departure from its stated mission.” The senator said that “recent developments reveal a deeply entrenched culture of political bias and partisanship” at the network, pointing to the essay published in The Free Press by former editor Uri Berliner.

Cruz also criticized NPR CEO Katherine Maher, calling her “an angry, Left-wing radical” and citing statements she had made on social media before joining NPR.

“By continuing to allocate funding to NPR, the CPB is complicit in perpetuating political bias and misinforming the American public at taxpayer expense,” he wrote.
 
Cruz wants to know if donors are influencing journalism. Isn't that what he's trying to do? He's using his position in the government to use government funding as a way to impact editorial decisions. He's saying if we fund it, we should have a say in the reporting. It's inappropriate and unconstitutional.

In 1967, house republicans were concerned about government interference. Now they're the ones doing the interfering:


One might also look at the recent Cruz decision by Supreme Court over political contributions and quid pro quo.

 
Last edited:




Again Ted Cruz can rant everything but I just looked at the ratings in Austin and Houston their recent ratings showed that KUT and KUHF are within the top 10 spots within their respective markets. He can say nobody listens to NPR but we have the data to say otherwise and also we agreed that there should not be political interference in Public Media especially.
 
It doesn't matter how many facts are thrown out to disprove Mr. Cruz's claims. It's all nothing more than political red meat that needs no basis in fact just to keep his political base happy.

That's all there is to it.
 

We can mention that in Dallas, Lubbock and San Antonio the NPR affiliates in those cities are the number two among talk stations in those cities but are somewhere in the middle overall in those radio markets.

However there are cities within Texas that don't have a local NPR affiliate that is registered in the Nielsen data at the time of recording. The cities are Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Odessa, Amarillo, Killeen, Tyler and Beaumont as of this posting.

 
It doesn't matter how many facts are thrown out to disprove Mr. Cruz's claims. It's all nothing more than political red meat that needs no basis in fact just to keep his political base happy.

That's all there is to it.
At the risk of veering too far into politics, a longtime friend of my sister was nominated for a seat on a high profile federal district court. She's eminently qualified, has a great backstory (the daughter of small town schoolteachers) but such a position requires Senate approval. Her confirmation process was one of praise from the D Senators (she's a Biden pick), tough but reasonable questions from the R Senators, and (she pointed out) bombastic, sometimes irrelevant questions delivered in a condescending tone from Senator Cruz. For most of his colleagues, it was a more or less perfunctory hearing for an easy confirmation, but for Cruz it was apparently an opportunity to make a show of how "tough" he can be and throw some red meat to the base.


It's not just NPR funding. This is what he does.
 
New study from Ralph Nader's legal group proposes more stable funding for public broadcasting:


The fact is that government funding was originally seen as "more stable funding" back when the Public Broadcasting Act was passed. That was before politicians sought to stop government funding of certain things. In this time, there really isn't a source for stable funding of media, as we've seen with several commercial radio companies. Foundation funding & continuing gifts from estates appear to be the best bet.
 


Back
Top Bottom