Kari Lake previews her plans for Voice of America in the next Administration.

[TheBigA]

The dismantling of VOA (which is illegal without an act of Congress, by the way) is only the beginning....

Correct, with good reason. The idea was to keep politics out of media decisions. That's why USAGM and VOA are independent. In her release, Kari Lake says that's wrong. But until the law is changed, they still need to follow the law. By shutting the place down, they are not following the law. By running VOA from the white house is against the law. Courts have already ruled on other similar actions, and so far, the president has lost all but one case. He blames it on the judges, but the law is the law.

There's a reason why this hasn't happened before: Previous presidents followed the law. This one doesn't. It's not going to end up well. We've seen this kind of thing before.

 

[gr8oldies]

Correct, with good reason. The idea was to keep politics out of media decisions. That's why USAGM and VOA are independent. In her release, Kari Lake says that's wrong. But until the law is changed, they still need to follow the law. By shutting the place down, they are not following the law. By running VOA from the white house is against the law. Courts have already ruled on other similar actions, and so far, the president has lost all but one case. He blames it on the judges, but the law is the law.

There's a reason why this hasn't happened before: Previous presidents followed the law. This one doesn't. It's not going to end up well. We've seen this kind of thing before.

We have no law other than Donald Trump and Elon Musk.In an unrelated issue, the administration asserts courts have no jurisdiction over them.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

Layoffs hit 1,000 workers at Voice of America, other government broadcasters

The job cuts are rooted in an Executive Order signed by President Trump on Friday that requires USAGM and other organizations to reduce their activities and employee count.

thedesk.net

Here is an update now more staff members are being removed from the VOA.

 

[Jean Luc]

We have no law other than Donald Trump and Elon Musk.In an unrelated issue, the administration asserts courts have no jurisdiction over them.

Convicted of a felony but no jail time. No wonder he thinks he's above the courts.

 

[TheBigA]

There are two key paragraphs in the above article. The first is the legal right of Kari Lake to fire people at VOA:

It isn’t clear if, as a special advisor, Lake has the legal authority to endorse or revoke contracts on behalf of USAGM or its operations.

Then the legality of an executive order shutting down VOA:

The order faces a likely legal challenge, as Congress passed a law five years ago that was intended to remove any sitting president from having a direct impact on the operations of USAGM.

I understand that the administration doesn't like the various laws that protect USAGM and VOA. They laid all that out in Project 2025, and then in the releases from the white house and Kari Lake. But until those laws are changed, they are still the law. We are not allowed to bypass the law because we don't like it. What happens when a president breaks the law? Did the supreme court give him the right to break the law? We may soon find out.

 

[davideduardo]

Convicted of a felony but no jail time. No wonder he thinks he's above the courts.

This is becoming a political subject rather than a radio and TV one. Your post has nothing to do with electronic media. Rather than deleting it, I am leaving it as an example.

No "pure politica posts". Please.

 

[davideduardo]

We have no law other than Donald Trump and Elon Musk.In an unrelated issue, the administration asserts courts have no jurisdiction over them.

Repeating another post:

This is becoming a political subject rather than a radio and TV one. Your post has nothing to do with electronic media. Rather than deleting it, I am leaving it as an example.

No "pure politica posts". Please.

 

[Don CT]

Repeating another post:

This is becoming a political subject rather than a radio and TV one. Your post has nothing to do with electronic media. Rather than deleting it, I am leaving it as an example.

No "pure politica posts". Please.

How can this not be a political subject at this point. The president is shutting it down

 

[TheBigA]

Bringing it back to media and radio: Let's talk about the first amendment. What does it say? "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech or of the press."

So one could look at that and say: In this case congress isn't making the law. Instead it's the president. But if you read the text of the constitution, the president doesn't make laws. It's his job to execute them. So which part of it is illegal? Having the president make rules about things out of his jurisdiction? Or the abridging the freedom of the press? Take your pick. The media and journalism can't work this way.

 

[davideduardo]

How can this not be a political subject at this point. The president is shutting it down

Yes, but posts like the two I highlighted have nothing to do with radio, the VOA or electronic media. They are pure politics.

 

[davideduardo]

Bringing it back to media and radio: Let's talk about the first amendment. What does it say? "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech or of the press."

So one could look at that and say: In this case congress isn't making the law. Instead it's the president. But if you read the text of the constitution, the president doesn't make laws. It's his job to execute them. So which part of it is illegal? Having the president make rules about things out of his jurisdiction? Or the abridging the freedom of the press? Take your pick. The media and journalism can't work this way.

The VOA situation has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the First Amendment. This is about the current administration deciding on where to spend taxpayers' money. Their argument is that the money is wasted and ineffective.

We can argue elsewhere about the political perspectives, but the fact is that an organization based on OTA radio, particularly short wave, is totally outdated and obsolete. Using that criteria alone, it is not a bad idea to either close the agency or create a new "system" for the diffusion of American concepts and ideas.

 

[Jean Luc]

The VOA situation has nothing to do with freedom of the press or the First Amendment. This is about the current administration deciding on where to spend taxpayers' money. Their argument is that the money is wasted and ineffective.

We can argue elsewhere about the political perspectives, but the fact is that an organization based on OTA radio, particularly short wave, is totally outdated and obsolete. Using that criteria alone, it is not a bad idea to either close the agency or create a new "system" for the diffusion of American concepts and ideas.

The VOA and CPB situations are entirely different in that the CPB was set up to establish and help fund public radio and television. The VOA is a government owned and operated broadcasting service. As the old saying goes, freedom of the press only belongs to those who own a press (or a transmitter). It's much more like a commercial licensee who decides to run conservative talk shows (or back when TV stations did editorials, conservative editorials).

 

[TheBigA]

Using that criteria alone, it is not a bad idea to either close the agency or create a new "system" for the diffusion of American concepts and ideas.

Absolutely, and the mechanism to do that is for congress to repeal or change the act that created the agency. It's very easy. The president can't make that decision alone. Yes I know in private business, it would be unheard of for a president not to have the power of the purse. But the government is not a private company. It is government, with rules set out in a constitution. That's why all previous presidents haven't done what this one is doing. People have to understand what their jobs are, and unfortunately, these people don't. If this was an OTA radio company, it would be very different. But it's not.

There is nothing in the executive order that closes the agency or creates a new one. It states very clearly that they must follow the statute. Kari Lake is not doing that. I've said this before: The EO doesn't deal at all with shortwave. Neither do the comments of Kari Lake. This isn't about saving taxpayers money. It's about abridging the freedom of the press. If you just read what they have written, it's right in front of you. They're not hiding what they are doing. It's in full view.

 

[davideduardo]

Absolutely, and the mechanism to do that is for congress to repeal or change the act that created the agency. It's very easy. The president can't make that decision alone.

But he can force action by using his powers to shut down a useless activity and ask for legislation that is updated and current.

Yes I know in private business, it would be unheard of for a president not to have the power of the purse. But the government is not a private company. It is government, with rules set out in a constitution. That's why all previous presidents haven't done what this one is doing. People have to understand what their jobs are, and unfortunately, these people don't. If this was an OTA radio company, it would be very different. But it's not.

But it is a waste of money, and the electorate wanted a leader who would have tighter control over the national purse.

There is nothing in the executive order that closes the agency or creates a new one. It states very clearly that they must follow the statute. Kari Lake is not doing that. I've said this before: The EO doesn't deal at all with shortwave. Neither do the comments of Kari Lake. This isn't about saving taxpayers money. It's about abridging the freedom of the press. If you just read what they have written, it's right in front of you. They're not hiding what they are doing. It's in full view.

The first step in restoring an old building is fumigating. That is what was done over the weekend.

 

[TheBigA]

As the old saying goes, freedom of the press only belongs to those who own a press (or a transmitter). It's much more like a commercial licensee who decides to run conservative talk shows (or back when TV stations did editorials, conservative editorials).

I think it may have been Ben Franklin who said that. In the case of VOA, they discussed all of this when they passed the law that created it. They wanted to insolate the organization from politics. The same discussion was had about CPB. CPB was designed to separate the press from politics. If the politicians had a problem with the news coverage, the proper course of action is for congress to complain to CPB. Not for the FCC or congress to investigate the press. That's not supposed to happen.

For VOA, the laws were passed to keep presidents from shutting it down. The president chooses the board, and the board makes that decision. The president in this case fired the board. That doesn't give him the right to usurp their power.

 

[davideduardo]

It's much more like a commercial licensee who decides to run conservative talk shows (or back when TV stations did editorials, conservative editorials).

And why did licensees decide to do conservative talk? Answer: it got ratings and generated revenue. Why don't they do things like Air America? Answer: because that effort got low or no ratings and failed to generate revenue.

 

[TheBigA]

But he can force action by using his powers to shut down a useless activity and ask for legislation that is updated and current.

Not in the case of USAGM. The law prevents him from doing it. Kari Lake referred to that law, so she knows it's against the law to do what they're doing.

But it is a waste of money, and the electorate wanted a leader who would have tighter control over the national purse.

The constitution still controls what that leader can do. Once again, there's a reason other presidents haven't done this. They know it's illegal.

The first step in restoring an old building is fumigating. That is what was done over the weekend.

A crime is a crime, no matter what the purpose.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

And now here is the news segment on the shutdown of VOA.

 

[TheBigA]

Here is Kari Lake admitting that she is breaking the law:

It is unfortunate that the work that was done by self-interested insiders in coordination with outside activist groups and radical Leftist advocacy organizations to “Trump-Proof” the agency made it impossible to reform. In fact, they weren’t just “Trump-Proofing” the agency from political leadership, they were accountability-proofing the agency from the American people.

The person who insulated VOA from what is now happening is Gerald R. Ford. He was president after Richard Nixon. His intent was to protect the VOA from a president who wants to shut it down. Gerald Ford was not a radical leftist. He was a republican from Michigan. These people don't know radio, they don't know history, and they don't know government.

The sad part about this entire story is a lot of great radio people are affected. These are radio people, not politicians. I know some of them. I worked with them at other radio operations in DC. In many cases they got fired in the endless layoffs that happen in commercial radio. So they thought they were going someplace safe. Where they could do their jobs without the endless layoffs. They were wrong.

 

[Mediafrog+]

The USAGM shutdown is affecting other broadcasters that use some of the USAGM transmitter sites. For instance the broadcasts of Radio Thailand, which transmits from the USAGM facility in that country, have been reported missing today.

Conversely, some leased facilities used by USAGM for its various services have been running the music fill, as it appears those operators have not received any instructions from USAGM of what to do with the transmission schedule.