Key Congressional Vote Will Impact Public Radio

[Mark_Giardina]

With the deadline fast approaching for a key Congressional subcommittee to vote on whether or not to cut federal funding for public broadcasting by 45 % many local public stations have begun a massive cry for help from their supporters.

Here in Rochester the public broadcasting station has been running both radio and TV spots urging people to write their congressional representatives to vote against cutting public funding, claiming such cuts “would severely impact every public radio and television station’s ability to provide educational, cultural and informational programming in local communities and throughout the nation”.

This isn’t the first time that certain members of Congress have proposed cutting government funds to public radio and television. Another effort, back in the mid 1990s, failed when enough citizens complained to Congress that they were opposed to such an idea. This time I wonder if a similar game plan by PBS/NPR affiliates will work?

Members of Congress are not up for re-election this year and with important issues like the economy, Social Security, the War against terrorism and the trade deficit one has to wonder just how important reducing federal funding to public broadcasting really is to the average taxpayer.

The full House of Representatives is slated to vote on this measure by next Wednesday, June 22nd. Meanwhile if you are a regular listener or viewer to public broadcasting, be prepared for another type of beg-a-thon. Instead of asking for your money, you are going to be asked to e-mail or call your congressional representative.
<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>

 

[Desi_Bell]

If you don't know how to get a hold of your congress-person or other representatives, you can sign an on line petition here:

http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/

Yes, this initiative is supported by Move On.org, which many conservatives feel is a group run by the devil himself, but the facts remain the same. Every person who reads this board who has been positively impacted by any shows on NPR or PBS (Sesame St., anybody?) should consider what will happen if the funding is cut.

 

[dampier]

So far it looks like the House already has an overwhelming number of Republican votes to pass the budget cuts. It's a done deal there. The real fight will be in the Senate, and thus far there are still a few moderate Republicans who are likely to support NPR who will break from the 90%+ GOP members who will support cuts. I don't see any Democrat supporting cuts.

This is only round one. Round two is the effort by the Administration to install political hacks into key public broadcasting positions. Every one of them agrees that there is too much news and information programming on NPR and PBS and these shows need to be replaced by music and culture programming. It's not a popularity contest either - it's a position of principle with them. They don't believe it is appropriate for public tax dollars or services be used to compete with commercial broadcasting, which they believe already provides adequate service.

I don't trust these people because they are cut from the same cloth of people who are rewriting and changing newscasts at the Voice of America to eliminate/tone down negative reporting on Iraq. There is a firestorm over there among the news people.

Rick Santorum has extended that even further by introducing a bill that would eliminate NOAA Weather Radio and all public weather information (except warnings) that is already provided by a commercial company. No surprise Accu-Weather is in the same state that Santorum represents....

 

[ohmslaw]

While I admire and enjoy the programming on PBS and the NPR outlets here I believe they should become somewhat self sufficent. WNED, according to their 990 appears to be doing well on the road to becoming self sufficent. This is good. Underwriters appear to be abundant and it's common place to see 3 minutes of 'underwriters at the head and tail of every show. You will also notice that TRT on a 30 is now, like commercial programming, about :24:00 to accomadate underwriters and bumps...then there are the internals within content...except BBC which runs a full :29:00 TRT.

I'm waiting for the tickers in the lower third through out programming.

Then, you need to ask yourself why NYS Assembly Majority State Leader Paul Tokasz, in a paid underwriter and do we really nned to hear his name dropped several times a day...and is this legal, or in a gray area.

What people do not realize is the salaries for the top feeders exceed the salaries of commercial peers, while bottom feeders are barely above poverty level. Entry level positions, at least locally. are below poverty level.
If you look at http://www.guidestar.org/ you can see what your local not for profit and/or PBS is pulling down. You might be surprised.

I have signed the petition.

I love PBS/NPR. but when I hear them asking for another 100 grand to make ends meet this year and the local CEO knocks down close to 300k with benies tells me it's not for the love of PBS. Congress wants to cut funding by 45%. Local Board of Directors should cut salaries of the top feeders by 45%.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by TeslaCoil on 06/17/05 04:05 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[Bob1370]

> So far it looks like the House already has an overwhelming
> number of Republican votes to pass the budget cuts. It's a
> done deal there. The real fight will be in the Senate, and
> thus far there are still a few moderate Republicans who are
> likely to support NPR who will break from the 90%+ GOP
> members who will support cuts.

It'll be interesting to see if GOP moderates demonstrate more spine on this issue or give in to their party leaders. If they don't, you're going to see a round of campaign spots depicting Congressional leaders, or your local Congressman if he's a Republican, strangling Big Bird next year. And the result will be the kind of backlash that can flip control of Congress in a close election.

Guess they learned nothing from the battles 10 years ago which stalled Newt Gingrich, helped re-elect Bill Clinton, and ended the careers of past privatizers like Larry Pressler. Thye're already in trouble with voters who give them even lower approval ratings than George Bush (and way lower than the Democratic Congress that was booted out 11 years ago). This move, if it persists, guarantees Nancy Pelosi can start measuring the windows for new drapes for the Speaker's office in 18 months, and Harry Reid for the Majority Leader's.

If I were a COMMERCIAL broadcaster I'd be telling my rep, regardless of party, to push hard for higher PBS funding, because PBS is about as much of a third-rail issue as Social Security in most polls, if not more so. A Democratic majority means guaranteed re-regulation of the industry in ways in which the industry's big conglomerates definitely won't like, and if strangling PBS is one of the issues that brings it about, broadcasters won't like the backlash. If I were the head of a company like Clear Channel or Entercom, I'd be telling the leadership, for God's sake, don't do this or we're all sunk in the resulting anti-Congressional, anti-corporate tide.

Now I'll admit I'd LIKE to see the industry re-regulated in a measured, moderate way, for its own good. Its biggest players have become SO big and so debt-ridden, they're making all manner of decisions that's opening the door for competition from satellites and podcasts that never would have emerged if they hadn't been too greedy.

But killing the one easily accessible alternative that people support by trying to starve its funding just blackens commercial broadcasting's name even further. It could generate ill will that will encourage the re-regulators to go further than anyone can now imagine or most of us would want---maybe to create a permanent and well funded commercial-free large scale BBC-style government-owned competitor, of a kind this country has never seen before. There is nothing in current law barring the national government from broadcasting directly to the public, that cannot be changed by a simple Congressional majority vote. It would be the commercial cablecasters' and broadcasters' worst nightmare come true, and the conditions for public opinion to demand its realization are being created as we speak.

 

[JazzEd]

>
> If I were a COMMERCIAL broadcaster I'd be telling my
> rep, regardless of party, to push hard for higher PBS
> funding, because PBS is about as much of a third-rail issue
> as Social Security in most polls, if not more so. A
> Democratic majority means guaranteed re-regulation of the
> industry in ways in which the industry's big conglomerates
> definitely won't like, and if strangling PBS is one of the
> issues that brings it about, broadcasters won't like the
> backlash. If I were the head of a company like Clear Channel
> or Entercom, I'd be telling the leadership, for God's sake,
> don't do this or we're all sunk in the resulting
> anti-Congressional, anti-corporate tide.
>

I wouldn't be so quick to come to the conclusion that a Democratic majority would bring re-regulation. While deregulation got started during the Reagan administration, it was minor in comparison to what happened during the Clinton administration during the time the FCC was headed by Al Gore crony Reed Hundt.

Also, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a hugely bipartisan measure, with all but 6 Democrat and 2 Republican senators voting yes, and only 20 representatives, all Democrats except Bernie Sanders, voting no. Hundt himself and the other FCC commissioners were big supporters of the act.

 

[StangBuddy]

> >
> > If I were a COMMERCIAL broadcaster I'd be telling my
> > rep, regardless of party, to push hard for higher PBS
> > funding, because PBS is about as much of a third-rail
> issue
> > as Social Security in most polls, if not more so. A
> > Democratic majority means guaranteed re-regulation of the
> > industry in ways in which the industry's big conglomerates
>
> > definitely won't like, and if strangling PBS is one of the
>
> > issues that brings it about, broadcasters won't like the
> > backlash. If I were the head of a company like Clear
> Channel
> > or Entercom, I'd be telling the leadership, for God's
> sake,
> > don't do this or we're all sunk in the resulting
> > anti-Congressional, anti-corporate tide.
> >
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to come to the conclusion that a
> Democratic majority would bring re-regulation. While
> deregulation got started during the Reagan administration,
> it was minor in comparison to what happened during the
> Clinton administration during the time the FCC was headed by
> Al Gore crony Reed Hundt.
>
> Also, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a hugely
> bipartisan measure, with all but 6 Democrat and 2 Republican
> senators voting yes, and only 20 representatives, all
> Democrats except Bernie Sanders, voting no. Hundt himself
> and the other FCC commissioners were big supporters of the
> act.
>
Ed, Osama Bin Laden, through some Caymen Island subsidiary, could own public airwaves in this country right now due to changes in governance that were enacted in 1987 during the Reagan administration. You know that, I know that, Reed Hundt knows that and so does Rupert Murdoch. Reality Ed O.K.

 

[dampier]

> It'll be interesting to see if GOP moderates
> demonstrate more spine on this issue or give in to their
> party leaders. If they don't, you're going to see a round of
> campaign spots depicting Congressional leaders, or your
> local Congressman if he's a Republican, strangling Big Bird
> next year. And the result will be the kind of backlash that
> can flip control of Congress in a close election.

It's going to be extra tough. Bill Frist is being pressured by the Christian conservatives to make this a priority item, and that means the pressure is going to be on to not allow a "free vote," (no punitive party issues regardless of vote).

> Guess they learned nothing from the battles 10 years
> ago which stalled Newt Gingrich, helped re-elect Bill
> Clinton, and ended the careers of past privatizers like
> Larry Pressler.

They actually did learn something. They learned to demagogue and distort the issues. PBS can run Big Bird on the chopping block all they want (and nobody begs better than public broadcasting when it comes to implying "pledge or we cancel it"), but this time there will be the equivalent of Swift Boat Broadcasters for Truth & The American Way running ads accusing public broadcasting of:

- running programming that questions the war on terror and puts our troops at risk;

- allowing the liberal agenda that nobody wants to see (or their ratings would be higher) to be foisted upon unsuspecting innocents while expecting God-fearing Americans to pay for it;

- that the leadership of public broadcasting have ties to questionable political groups;

- that their award-winning programming only gets awards because their liberal friends hand them out, and their government subsidized programming makes private commercial broadcasters unwilling to spend the money to create their own award-winning programming.

Heh... yeah it sounds ridiculous and crazy but after the last election season, nothing surprises me. I can barely deal with C-SPAN call in shows with all the venom.

> Now I'll admit I'd LIKE to see the industry
> re-regulated in a measured, moderate way, for its own good.
> Its biggest players have become SO big and so debt-ridden,
> they're making all manner of decisions that's opening the
> door for competition from satellites and podcasts that never
> would have emerged if they hadn't been too greedy.

A return to the Fairness Doctrine, a disclaimer on news channels when a program is actually an opinion show, and stricter limits on station ownership would be fine with me.

 

[Bob1370]

> I wouldn't be so quick to come to the conclusion that a
> Democratic majority would bring re-regulation. While
> deregulation got started during the Reagan administration,
> it was minor in comparison to what happened during the
> Clinton administration during the time the FCC was headed by
> Al Gore crony Reed Hundt.

Talk to some leading Democrats (including the probable future Chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee if Democrats regain the House) and you'll find a new Fairness Doctrine high on the agenda. The way it's framed could conceivably make it impossible for Limbaugh and Savage to stay on the air, unless they had an equally loud and liberal co-host joining them. Democrats feel they erred in acquiescing to de-regulation and they vow they won't make that mistake again.

> Also, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a hugely
> bipartisan measure, with all but 6 Democrat and 2 Republican
> senators voting yes, and only 20 representatives, all
> Democrats except Bernie Sanders, voting no. Hundt himself
> and the other FCC commissioners were big supporters of the
> act.

Even Bill Clinton (presumably reflecting Hillary's thinking as well) now says signing that bill was a mistake---maybe the biggest one of his administration, bigger than Monica. Count on it being undone whenever Democrats regain power.

What broadcasters will need to worry about most if they help precipitate a Democratic resurgence is not a forced end to their consolidation drive, but if public opinion becomes incensed enough, a wave of regulation that forces them to divest much of what they already have. The big broadcast combines are now unpopular to a degree last seen at the end of the Depression. Check your history. The same thinking that caused FDR's FCC to force the breakup of the NBC combine (and created ABC) in the early 1940s is rising again, and gaining public support. It almost created a full fledged government competitor (plans were advanced to allow the Voice of America to begin domestic broadcasting if the war had lasted much longer). If the special interests (broadcasters in league with the extreme religious right) kill PBS and help fuel the building anti-Republican backlash, then that is the future...dismantling of the big conglomerates combined with the rise of a public TV and radio network fully able to compete with the Big 4; imagine the BBC on steroids and you've got the picture.

If I were Les Moonves or Bob Iger I would be PLEADING with Congressional leaders to keep PBS and CPB funding whole, and even sweeten it a little. I wouldn't want to have to live with the consequences if Big Bird gets strangled.

 

[Element9]

Re: Irreversible Boondoggle

>
> Even Bill Clinton (presumably reflecting Hillary's thinking
> as well) now says signing that bill was a mistake---maybe
> the biggest one of his administration, bigger than Monica.
> Count on it being undone whenever Democrats regain power.
>
Much as I'd like to think you're correct, I do not see the Telecom Act being undone to any great extent even if the Dems regain power or latch on to enough seats in the House so as to gain more leverage.

Mr. Clinton, being the savvy political mind he is and an astute lawyer as well, knew damn well what the Telecom Bill had in store when he signed it. Granted, he may not have known the bill's ramifications to the extent that they have revealed themselves, but he is not without blame.

The damage has been done and I dare say the Telecom Act isn't going to change much. Not as long as CBS, ABC, NBC, Infinity, Clear Channel, Cox, Citadel, Entercom et alia have the abilities and avenues to make massive contributions to the "parties of their choice."

-E9 Buscador

 

[maildude]

The NPR website reports this morning ...

Morning Edition, June 24, 2005 · A solid majority of the House votes to restore $100 million in funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Despite that vote, the House has eliminated more than $100 million designated for CPB in other funds for digital technology and children's programming. Also Thursday, former Republican National Committee co-chair, Patricia Harrison, is named president and chief executive of the CPB.