LPFM is even more important now

[DaveBayArea]

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.

Two hundred forty-five to be exact:

CPB Support for Rural Stations

Public broadcasting has largely achieved the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967's “universal service” mandate — to provide all Americans with free, over-the-air access to public broadcasting's programming and services. Today, nearly 99 percent of the U.S. population can access public broadcasting's...

cpb.org

To qualify, the population density has to be 40 or fewer people per square kilometer in your coverage area. Obviously, there are some who qualify that are much more self-sufficient than others. But most of those rural stations cover at least some geographical area that has no cell service and no other means of disseminating local emergency information. Commercial radio? They abandoned those areas long ago.

Dave B.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

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.

Alot of assumptions there.

KCHU 770 Valdez, AK is in danger of going off air before spring due to a lack of funding.

KYUK 640 Bethel, AK is in danger of serious cutbacks to their multi language services including local news

Several other stations in Alaska depend on the CPB funding for north of 85 percent of their budget.

My station is dependent to CPB for 70 percent of its budget.

The risk right now is a serious impact and potential loss of much of any local content in the entire Aluetian islands and a good chunk of Western Alaska over the next 6 months to 2 years if more funding cant be found.

 

[ZebraRadio]

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The public broadcasting act that created CPB was neither repealed nor amended.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.

Good. That gives NPR two years to clean up its act. Stop the liberal bias and be more balanced in its coverage. My biggest concern is that local NPR stations may start competing with LPFM for donors. As we've seen, they're already amping up their pleas for money on a local as well as national level.

 

[TheBigA]

Good. That gives NPR two years to clean up its act.

No, the funding stops in October at the end of the fiscal year. NPR only gets very limited federal funding. This mainly affects local stations.

Stop the liberal bias and be more balanced in its coverage.

The loss of federal funding doesn't change the programming they do. There is no fairness doctrine in this country. Congress can pass no law abridging freedom of speech or press. The loss of federal funding means conservatives no longer have the defunding card to play.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Good. That gives NPR two years to clean up its act. Stop the liberal bias and be more balanced in its coverage. My biggest concern is that local NPR stations may start competing with LPFM for donors. As we've seen, they're already amping up their pleas for money on a local as well as national level.

I'm curious and I rarely get an answer to this when I ask this genuine question.. if you consider NPR to be liberal bias, what news media/sources/outlets do you consume on radio, tv, audio/video streaming, newsletters/websites, etc @ZebraRadio ?

 

[DaveBayArea]

I'm curious and I rarely get an answer to this when I ask this genuine question.. if you consider NPR to be liberal bias, what news media/sources/outlets do you consume on radio, tv, audio/video streaming, newsletters/websites, etc @ZebraRadio ?

My genuine question is perhaps even simpler. If you consider NPR to be liberal bias, have you actually ever listened to NPR news? So far I haven't had a "yes" answer. How does long-form, investigative, factual reporting equate to a liberal bias? As mentioned elsewhere, none of this will affect NPR. If anything, local stations will have to jettison staff, and the result will be more NPR & PRX programming ingested into an automation system that doesn't require a live body.

Dave B.

 

[davideduardo]

Or were you unaware that the government no longer relies on free-of-charge public service announcements to get their "message" out?

They haven't for many decades. Everything from staff recruitment to specific campaigns that require greater precision in scheduling than the "filler" Smoky the Bear spots have been bought as paid ads. I can recall ones going back to my time in Birmingham and Phoenix in the 70's.

They had to, because PSAs are no longer mandated for licensees.

And even when they were, there was no requirement to run the federal government ones. Many stations preferred to do their required PSAs for local organizations only.

Stations can run them if they want to, or (more often) don't.

In particular, the over-exposed ad council ones were something worthy of staying away from as they were somehow all kind of trite and unappealing.

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.

Every year in Puerto Rico over several decades we'd get IRS ads reminding Puerto Ricans that income coming from the 50 states, including investment income, was taxable at the federal level, even though local income was not taxed.

 

[davideduardo]

I'm curious and I rarely get an answer to this when I ask this genuine question.. if you consider NPR to be liberal bias, what news media/sources/outlets do you consume on radio, tv, audio/video streaming, newsletters/websites, etc @ZebraRadio ?

I don't consider NPR to be liberal, just kind of boring and very "Northeastern white guy" focused. I use Fox and Breitbart, but also subscribe to the WSJ, the NYT, Reuters (paid) and Infobae as my principal sources. On specific subjects, I use El Comercio (Ecuador), El Nuevo Día (Puerto Rico) and El País (México) and the Jerusalem Post (Israel) regularly. I used to read the English service of Al Jazeera regularly, but it has gone "way off the tracks" of late insofar as my perspectives on the Middle East. Another I quit using for the same reasons is the South China Morning Post which has become a near-total Peking mouthpiece of late.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I don't consider NPR to be liberal, just kind of boring and very "Northeastern white guy" focused. I use Fox and Breitbart, but also subscribe to the WSJ, the NYT, Reuters (paid) and Infobae as my principal sources. On specific subjects, I use El Comercio (Ecuador), El Nuevo Día (Puerto Rico) and El País (México) and the Jerusalem Post (Israel) regularly. I used to read the English service of Al Jazeera regularly, but it has gone "way off the tracks" of late insofar as my perspectives on the Middle East. Another I quit using for the same reasons is the South China Morning Post which has become a near-total Peking mouthpiece of late.

so you rely on a news source thats been sued for lying and lost?

 

[b-turner]

I don't consider NPR News to be liberal nor conservative. The indepth features seem to favor the Democrat mindset a bit more than the Republican mindset (neither extreme). I notice the same in other media such as indepth TV programs.

One thing I have always seen in commercial radio is programming geared to the masses. Commercial radio does not program conservative talk because of the political views of the owners but rather because it is financially viable. Lots of people think otherwise. Public radio's talk/news side does not run programming that makes their audience tune away but rather brings in the listener (and donations).

 

[ZebraRadio]

I'm curious and I rarely get an answer to this when I ask this genuine question.. if you consider NPR to be liberal bias, what news media/sources/outlets do you consume on radio, tv, audio/video streaming, newsletters/websites, etc @ZebraRadio ?

I stopped listening to NPR years ago. However, I do read their website along with CNN and Fox News. Yes, NPR is liberal and biased. A recent case in point is their constant bashing of tariffs. No coverage is ever given as to why tariffs may be necessary or how they help the economy, taxpayers and the national debt. It's been reported that there are 87 Dems on NPR's editorial staff but no GOP. You can't tell me that such an imbalance isn't going to affect how the news is covered or what stories are featured. But that's not the point of what I've been saying. I, frankly, don't care what NPR says or what they cover, I just don't think taxpayers should have to pay for it. Simple. I also objected to NPR's attempt to quash the LPFM service. Apparently, they're only in favor of community radio as long as they control it. Thankfully, NPR failed in their effort to silence LPFM.

 

[TheBigA]

No coverage is ever given as to why tariffs may be necessary or how they help the economy, taxpayers and the national debt.

Actually, NPR did an interview with Peter Navarro, who is the president's expert on tariffs:

{quote] President Trump said this week that U.S. tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico will go forward when a month-long suspension expires next week. Peter Navarro, Trump's senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, joins us to discuss Trump's trade agenda. [/quote]

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/25/1233779215/here-now-anytime-02-25-2025

He gives all the details on why they're necessary, and how they will help the economy. What's biased about it?

 

[K.M. Richards]

Yes, NPR is liberal and biased. A recent case in point is their constant bashing of tariffs. No coverage is ever given as to why tariffs may be necessary or how they help the economy, taxpayers and the national debt.

Since you brought it up, here is an article from a non-biased source, Scientific American, which does a fairly good job of describing tariffs, pro and con.

The Science behind Tariffs and How They Work

President Donald Trump is threatening steep tariffs on virtually all imports. Here’s what that means and what economics research suggests would be the impact

www.scientificamerican.com

But even for a presumably better educated audience like that which listens to NPR, it's difficult to explain in spoken word form without putting the listeners to sleep.

If you really want the answer to your question, at the very end Luisa Blanco, an economist at Pepperdine University says the greatest negative impacts of tariffs will affect all consumers, but especially those with lower incomes with theleast padding in their household budgets: “These tariffs are going to be regressive taxes,” she says. “At the end of the day, we all have to buy groceries.”

And if you would like to try to discredit Blanco, keep in mind that Pepperdine ranked #6 among colleges with politically conservative or moderate leanings:

20 Highly Ranked Colleges with Politically Conservative or Moderate Leanings

At South Shore College Consulting & Tutoring, we understand that selecting the right college is about more than academic excellence—it’s about finding a campus culture that aligns with a studen…

highambition.org

They even have an on-campus group called Pepperdine College Republicans.

So, NPR is factually accurate in reporting the negative impacts of Trump's tariffs, and it seems that the kind of "in-depth" explanation you believe is necessary would cause even you to doze off.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I stopped listening to NPR years ago. However, I do read their website along with CNN and Fox News. Yes, NPR is liberal and biased. A recent case in point is their constant bashing of tariffs. No coverage is ever given as to why tariffs may be necessary or how they help the economy, taxpayers and the national debt. It's been reported that there are 87 Dems on NPR's editorial staff but no GOP. You can't tell me that such an imbalance isn't going to affect how the news is covered or what stories are featured. But that's not the point of what I've been saying. I, frankly, don't care what NPR says or what they cover, I just don't think taxpayers should have to pay for it. Simple. I also objected to NPR's attempt to quash the LPFM service. Apparently, they're only in favor of community radio as long as they control it. Thankfully, NPR failed in their effort to silence LPFM.

WHy would someone from the GOP want to work at NPR, something *they* consider to be fake news/bias? Just like i wouldnty expect a democrat with half a brain to wanna work at Fox.

 

[TheBigA]

WHy would someone from the GOP want to work at NPR, something *they* consider to be fake news/bias? Just like i wouldnty expect a democrat with half a brain to wanna work at Fox.

Funny. Nobody has ever asked me, when I applied for a job in radio, what political party I'm from. I think there are laws that prevent them from asking such a question. And I've been credentialed to cover the white house and the capitol. I went to the secret service office in the OEB. I was fingerprinted. Nobody ever asked me about my personal politics.

To be honest, I'm not registered. A lot of people who cover the news don't register and don't vote. So I don't know where that number came from. I think it was made up. Seems to me we're all from the same country. I don't understand this kind of thinking at all.

 

[K.M. Richards]

A lot of people who cover the news don't register and don't vote.

I don't blame them in the least.

The right to vote is just that ... a right, and not a mandate. Citizens are allowed to decide whether or not they want to exercise that right, and I respect that so long as they do not also express partisan political opinions. You have done quite well on that last point, A, for which I commend you.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Funny. Nobody has ever asked me, when I applied for a job in radio, what political party I'm from. I think there are laws that prevent them from asking such a question. And I've been credentialed to cover the white house and the capitol. I went to the secret service office in the OEB. I was fingerprinted. Nobody ever asked me about my personal politics.

To be honest, I'm not registered. A lot of people who cover the news don't register and don't vote. So I don't know where that number came from. I think it was made up. Seems to me we're all from the same country. I don't understand this kind of thinking at all.

Right, no ones asked me and i dont think they can ask.. but no hardcore rightie is going to work at a woke, liberal left wing, biased network or station

 

[TheBigA]

Right, no ones asked me and i dont think they can ask.. but no hardcore rightie is going to work at a woke, liberal left wing, biased network or station

People on the right refuse to even do interviews with NPR. Forget about working there.

 

[K.M. Richards]

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?

I'm going to try -- hopefully not in vain -- to expand on BigA's answer in way that will dismiss the original question. (Everyone who hates me already, get ready to click on "Report" because I'm being mean.)

Let's pretend that Zebra has a brick-and-mortar retail business of some sort. Now, let's say that one of his long-time customers, who has always paid their bills in a timely manner and in full, needs something that has to be special ordered, non-returnable. Zebra will go ahead and order it with payment on delivery to the customer, because he knows the customer is good for it.

The item comes, Zebra pays for it himself ... and then the customer comes in and says "sorry, but now I don't have the money to pay for it, because something unanticipated happened." Zebra now has a big gaping hole in his budget because he spent money that now isn't coming from where the budget expected.

That is what is happening here. For many years, CPB was that customer and the public broadcasters were the business owners. They were told by the good customer how much they were going to "spend" with the "business" based on a reasonable expectation of their own financial "income" (the annual appropriation). So the stations created their budget knowing that they were going to get that money from CPB. Then that good customer suddenly isn't going to have that income, through no fault of their own, and the stations have a gap in their budget.

Just as my pretend scenario creates the probability that Zebra would ultimately have to close up shop because he couldn't make up the deficit from normal sales, public radio is in clear danger of having to go silent because they can't make up the deficit from normal fundraising operations.

▼ The "report" link is down here under my signature.

 

[ac175]

I don't consider NPR to be liberal, just kind of boring and very "Northeastern white guy" focused. I use Fox and Breitbart, but also subscribe to the WSJ, the NYT, Reuters (paid) and Infobae as my principal sources. On specific subjects, I use El Comercio (Ecuador), El Nuevo Día (Puerto Rico) and El País (México) and the Jerusalem Post (Israel) regularly. I used to read the English service of Al Jazeera regularly, but it has gone "way off the tracks" of late insofar as my perspectives on the Middle East. Another I quit using for the same reasons is the South China Morning Post which has become a near-total Peking mouthpiece of late.

Those are my exact feelings on NPR right there. Programming for folks who preach about better race relations but live in a predominantly white suburb. Or preach about more help for the poor but snub their noses at the homeless on the side walk when they are downtown. While they may not champion liberal candidates on air, they sure try to paint the news in a positive way for liberal ideas. I was listening one day to NPR talking about a college student who was here illegally, hiding from dorm to dorm to stay one step ahead of ICE. That's fine, but a balanced news source would also air stories from the other side of the coin. Families of victims from illegal immigrant crime, or the heavy burden illegal immigration has on our health system. That's where the bias is exposed in what they don't cover