LPFM is even more important now

[Mike Stark]

Anyone who has worked in radio sales or radio management knows that there is lots of local, state and national paid advertising for specific purposes. While those "Smokey The Bear" spots are Ad Council productions and run for free in unsold times, many campaigns are paid and specifically targeted just like an ad for a car or an airline or whatever.

Those campaigns usually come through a recognized ad agency or an agency's buying service. They do the same as all agency buys by asking for a quote based on the schedule they want.

When I was a GM in Puerto Rico, about 8% to 10% of my revenue came from local and federal government campaigns.

And if a station refuses one government campaign, they would have to refuse all government campaigns.

The analysis I saw is that the cost of advertising "self deportation" is less than 10% the cost of apprehending, temporarily housing and transporting "home" of a comparable illegal immigrant. Of course, that is the government's own evaluation and subject to skepticism, but even logic indicates that running some ads that result in self-deportation is a cheaper way of removing illegal immigrants from the country.

Exactly the way I would perceive it to work.
m

 

[ZebraRadio]

Are not the ads the Department of Homeland Security are airing on the networks featuring Kristi Noem paid for by taxpayers?

Those aren't ads, those are PSAs from a government agency urging illegal migrants to cooperate with the DHS. Would you be just as critical of the FCC if Chairman Carr was in a PSA urging citizens in flood areas to monitor their local radio, TV and NOAA stations?

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Those aren't ads, those are PSAs from a government agency urging illegal migrants to cooperate with the DHS. Would you be just as critical of the FCC if Chairman Carr was in a PSA urging citizens in flood areas to monitor their local radio, TV and NOAA stations?

Pretty sure those are paid ads. Audio from the government wouldnt be a PSA, no way it qualifies as such. Its a political ad

 

[TheBigA]

Those aren't ads, those are PSAs from a government agency urging illegal migrants to cooperate with the DHS.

Those are NOT PSAs. The DHS spent millions of dollars BUYING time on radio and TV. They announced it in February:

DHS Announces Ad Campaign Warning Illegal Aliens to Self-Deport and Stay Out | Homeland Security

Secretary Kristi Noem announced a nationwide and international multimillion-dollar ad campaign warning illegal aliens to leave our country now or face deportation with the inability to return to the United States.

www.dhs.gov

PSAs would say at the end "Brought to you by this station and the Ad Council." These ads do not say that. Neither do the ones I'm running now from NTHSA. They paid for them.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Those aren't ads, those are PSAs from a government agency urging illegal migrants to cooperate with the DHS. Would you be just as critical of the FCC if Chairman Carr was in a PSA urging citizens in flood areas to monitor their local radio, TV and NOAA stations?

There is a disclaimer in very small print at the bottom of the screen that identifies it as a paid announcement.

Or were you unaware that the government no longer relies on free-of-charge public service announcements to get their "message" out? They had to, because PSAs are no longer mandated for licensees. Stations can run them if they want to, or (more often) don't.

KRKE frequently runs ads for various projects and events for the City of Albuquerque. They are paid commercials, although the station owner does give them a reduced rate.

 

[ZebraRadio]

LPFM stations have never asked for, nor have they received, a government handout.

Because they don't qualify.

Perhaps NPR can come down from their ivory tower and learn how LPFM stations are able to survive without the help of taxpayers.

Only a fraction of NPR's budget comes from taxpayers. Ronald Reagan did that in 1983. He amended the public broadcasting act so that the majority of the money went to local stations.

This defunding of CPB will mainly hurt those local stations, mainly in rural areas. The big city stations will be fine.

They (meaning LPFM stations) don't qualify because Congress never passed a law allocating funds to LPFM stations and no LPFM group has ever asked for such a law. NPR and PBS stations only qualified because of Congress. Now Congress has taken that money away so that they no longer qualify.

If only a fraction of their budget comes from taxpayers, then why all the whining? I have no doubt they can make up the difference and supporters of public broadcasting will step in to fill the breach. PBS can charge an extra two dollars for Passport and NPR can charge whatever it needs for any club memberships offered. And the content can be monetized in other ways. The problem is that NPR and PBS tried to have it both ways. They took government money while at the same time biting the hand that fed it not to mention providing only one viewpoint. At some point it was all going to come to a head. Now it has. I greatly doubt the gloom and doom about the negative impact cutting the funding to rural stations will cause. How many of those stations are there, really? Few, if any.

If you think about it, this situation could be a greater opportunity for public broadcasting. Whenever an entity takes money from the government it becomes beholden to the government. Now that the Fed money is gone, pubcasters are free to express whatever viewpoint they want without fear of Congress or bureaucrats acting as watchdogs. It’s really more freeing this way.

 

[K.M. Richards]

The spots are also available for download through the DHS website. No such 'paid announcement' wording exists on them. Given the highly controversial nature of this issue, it wouldn't surprise me if the DHS would have to pay to air them. At least the stations benefit financially.

I have no doubt that DHS is trying to play it both ways, and of course there would be no disclaimer on the spots they didn't have to pay to air.

It doesn't surprise me either that they are having to pay for the airtime. DHS is not exactly a popular agency in the eyes of the media.

 

[Mike Stark]

It doesn't surprise me either that they are having to pay for the airtime. DHS is not exactly a popular agency in the eyes of the media.

BUT, they'll take the money. Radio 2025.

 

[K.M. Richards]

It doesn't surprise me either that they are having to pay for the airtime. DHS is not exactly a popular agency in the eyes of the media.

BUT, they'll take the money. Radio 2025.

I think that in some cases, they were bullied into it by the dubious claim that if they refused they wouldn't be allowed to carry regular political advertising. (Which is a lie, because the restrictions on the latter have no connection to the former.)

 

[TheBigA]

If only a fraction of their budget comes from taxpayers, then why all the whining?

If I took money away from you, any amount, after you'd already budgeted for it, would you not complain?

Now that the Fed money is gone, pubcasters are free to express whatever viewpoint they want without fear of Congress or bureaucrats acting as watchdogs. It’s really more freeing this way.

Really? Why is the FCC doing all these investigations?

 

[cc333]

Nope. It moved to Oregon. I got to see it on the way to an NAB show around '89 or so. You could even sit in the cockpit!

Indeed!

I got to see the Spruce Goose back in June 2011, and it was quite a sight to behold. I didn't sit in the cockpit (I don't remember if it was even possible), but I do remember boarding it.

c

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

If you think about it, this situation could be a greater opportunity for public broadcasting. Whenever an entity takes money from the government it becomes beholden to the government. Now that the Fed money is gone, pubcasters are free to express whatever viewpoint they want without fear of Congress or bureaucrats acting as watchdogs. It’s really more freeing this way.

I cant speak for everyone, but in general... we dont have a desire to express whatever viewpoint we want. We have a desire to serve the community and also offer accurate, fair news reporting.

 

[TheBigA]

I cant speak for everyone, but in general... we dont have a desire to express whatever viewpoint we want. We have a desire to serve the community and also offer accurate, fair news reporting.

Now that the Fed money is gone, pubcasters are free to express whatever viewpoint they want without fear of Congress or bureaucrats acting as watchdogs. It’s really more freeing this way.

Just speaking for me, but doesn't the first amendment guarantee me the right to express whatever viewpoint I want? I wasn't aware there were exceptions to the first amendment based on funding. A lot of soldiers died so I have that right. We honor them every time we express ourselves.

For 60 years, public broadcasters enjoyed that right. I'm sure none of them ever thought twice about it, because it is a right. Just because a few bureaucrats want to play games doesn't change that we all still have that right. The government shouldn't act like "watchdogs" over the people who elected them. This is why we fought to be free from the King of England. There is nothing more freeing than being a citizen of the USA.

But again, that's just me.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Just speaking for me, but doesn't the first amendment guarantee me the right to express whatever viewpoint I want? I wasn't aware there were exceptions to the first amendment based on funding. A lot of soldiers died so I have that right. We honor them every time we express ourselves.

For 60 years, public broadcasters enjoyed that right. I'm sure none of them ever thought twice about it, because it is a right. Just because a few bureaucrats want to play games doesn't change that we all still have that right. The government shouldn't act like "watchdogs" over the people who elected them. This is why we fought to be free from the King of England. There is nothing more freeing than being a citizen of the USA.

But again, that's just me.

I get your point, but i was just countering the fact NPR when it comes to news has anything to do with a percieved liberal agenda

 

[TheBigA]

I get your point, but i was just countering the fact NPR when it comes to news has anything to do with a percieved liberal agenda

I agree. I just wasn't aware that getting elected to office automatically qualifies someone to be the arbiter of news. I don't think it does.

I also think there's a clause in the aforementioned first amendment about that.

Members of congress are paid with taxpayer money. They still have the right to express themselves. So receiving federal money doesn't remove anyone's rights. Freedom and liberty apply to all.

 

[newsmark]

I agree. I just wasn't aware that getting elected to office automatically qualifies someone to be the arbiter of news. I don't think it does.

It does until someone makes him stop.

 

[cc333]

It does until someone makes him stop.

And so far, nobody has stepped up.

c

 

[ZebraRadio]

I was reminded that the spending cut to CPB was only for a year or so. We could be having this conversation again next year. As it is, NYT reported that donations to NPR and PBS have surged. So, this may have been a blessing in disguise.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I was reminded that the spending cut to CPB was only for a year or so. We could be having this conversation again next year. As it is, NYT reported that donations to NPR and PBS have surged. So, this may have been a blessing in disguise.

2 years

and hardly a blessing in disguise.. while donations are up, it still places many of the rural stations in a precarious position.

At least one has already cut staff and broadcasting hours... one may have to go off air before spring.

Another may have to cut staff

 

[TheBigA]

I was reminded that the spending cut to CPB was only for a year or so. We could be having this conversation again next year. As it is, NYT reported that donations to NPR and PBS have surged. So, this may have been a blessing in disguise.

It covers 2026 and 2027. NPR & PBS are not allowed to fundraise from the public. Donations to some stations have increased. The NYT article says they've received $20 million, which is a fraction of the $1 billion cut.

The public broadcasting act that created CPB was neither repealed nor amended. It's still on the books. The next congress could bring it up again during the appropriations process, and return funding if there was enough support. It will continue to appear as long as the law stays on the books.