Umm... nobody voted for Leon Mask. š
-
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
Musk Calls for NPR and PBS Defunding
- Thread starter sdwulfdawg
- Start date
- Status
The UK is ending its tax that supports the Beeb. We have some posters from there who can amplify info on this change.
Actually, it didnāt.
What's really a shame is the media has pretty much destroyed any moderate views about politics that people used to hold, and excels on both sides in stoking division of the masses. I'm not defending the current administration, but the bitterness in these posts is stunning. It's going to be a long four years for the self proclaimed "tolerant" liberals. I wish you the best.
They don't want to "cut spending" so much as redirect it. Elon wants his government contracts. Trump blew millions to show up at the Super Bowl.
Look, these guys are going to find waste and silly spending. They'll find the small potatoes to cover up the bigger game, the long con.
It's healthy to be cynical of government. It's also healthy to be cynical of billionaires.
Any examples?
Did you read that McChesney article yet?
You're mistaking me for someone who is "tolerant" of bigotry, attempts to dehumanize people, striking the images of women and minorities off museum walls, and who has tried to erase the legal existence of family members. Really, 4 years of "F Joe Biden and f you for voting for him"."All Democratic voters want to make your kid trans". No, I'm not shutting up. I have no obligation to worship this or any other President. Seems MAGA is pretty bitter as winners.
Let's keep this about radio. Your moderators can't keep up with the posts that are not at least somewhat related to radio or TV or streaming.
This is a post that has noting to do with RadioDiscussion's subject matter.
Last edited:
Not sure about that. So far the lawsuits from states to get temporary injunctions on spending cuts through executive orders have come from states with D Attorney Generals. Barely any Rās have had the spine to contest or criticize any nominations or Executive Orders.
The states that own public radio stations are mainly R states, such as Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alaska, and Texas. The CPB money goes to the states, not NPR. It's a funding cut to those states that depend on that money. The average is $3 million per state. That's serious money.
A lot of these budget cuts are about money for the states. That's really what people in congress are supposed to do. Bring home the bacon. Now they're voting against their own constituents. The Education department is mainly money for states. FEMA is money for states. It's gonna hurt at some point.
Because public broadcasting serves areas and listeners that commercial broadcasters don't reach, and does it much more efficiently. Any commercial broadcaster will jump at the chance to move their signal to a metro area. The result is coverage of and sales to the major market. The city of license goes by the wayside. Public radio provides valuable information to population and areas that are underserved by commercial radio and lacking cell service. It also provides an intelligent alternative in many markets where 2 or 3 stations all run the same format in an effort to serve whatever demographic is most desired by advertisers. The reasons for the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 are even more relevant today than they were in 1967.
Dave B.
Exactly. If you read the underlying reason for the Act, it was because commercial media companies were prioritizing their profits over public service. The point of non-com was to remove the profit motivation from media by replacing it with government funding. The Reagan administration amended the PBA in the 80s to allow for corporate funding to replace government funding, which is the current model. Carr apparently wants to remove both sources of funding. It's happening at a time when commercial media companies are once again cutting back on public service and staffing in order to maximize profits.
I have been accused of and called things because of where I work and heard comments about the network........ and its people assuming alot simply BECAUSE of where I work.
They think i align 150 percent with NPR which isnt true. And no matter how i try and explain it, no one wants to hear or believe that my background is actually in commercial radio and all I care about is facts.
They think i align 150 percent with NPR which isnt true. And no matter how i try and explain it, no one wants to hear or believe that my background is actually in commercial radio and all I care about is facts.
edit to add.. i have a very strict policy on how truth/verified information is ferreted out.
Anything national or international that we mention locally is verified with at least 2 mainstream sources, often with at least one from the opposite side of the aisle as me.
Anything locally must come from a person who is willing to speak on the record and be responsible for what im told (IE: city official, state official, or say.. when im reporting on river conditions, an elder who is known to be knowledgeable and i report based on that)
... they had been doing that since the later 1920's when radio as a profitable ad medium came of age under Paley and Sarnoff.
And lots of ads from European river cruises.
What is being investigated (and not yet analyzed or with a conclusion or plan) is why ads that avoid a "hard sell" are allowed in non-profit radio and TV. They are, indeed, advertisements. All that they don't do is engage in puffery* but they definitely sell goods and services.
It may be found that all of that is okay for the greater good and resultant benefits or it may be found that such blatant advertising is beyond the desired definition of "non profit".
"Puffery" is a term-of-the-trade that covers everything from "nothing tastes better" to "whiter than white". d
Public broadcasting is following the guidelines as published by the FCC. If anyone is doing what you say, they should be fined. That's what the FCC did last year to WBAI. If those FCC guidelines are to be revised, that's one thing. But that's not what's happening. We have one commissioner launching an investigation with no specifics. He stated in his letter that his purpose is to give congress a reason to deny funding.
He didn't send his letter to American Public Media or any of the public stations. He sent them to NPR and PBS, neither of which he regulates, and to congress. It's a fake investigation that hasn't been officially announced by the FCC.
The congress is currently working on the appropriations budget. Their deadline is in March. This investigation was launched now in order to affect the appropriation for public broadcasting. The chairman said so in his letter. The results of the investigation don't matter. The goal is to defund public broadcasting. His letter gives the congress a reason.
Another defunding of public broadcasting bill in congress. This one tells local stations that they can't spend federal dollars on NPR or PBS.
www.insideradio.com
The fact is they have always had the choice of spending money on anything they want, and they have chosen to spend it on NPR and PBS. The stations that run this programming don't have the bias that the people in congress seem to have. Maybe because the people at the stations actually listen to the programming. Now they're being prevented from using money for programming that their audiences want.
A Second Bill Targets Public Media Funding for Radio & TV.
There is another proposal in Congress to cut off NPR funding, but unlike the one submitted last week, this one also would end taxpayer dollars going to PBS. What has
The fact is they have always had the choice of spending money on anything they want, and they have chosen to spend it on NPR and PBS. The stations that run this programming don't have the bias that the people in congress seem to have. Maybe because the people at the stations actually listen to the programming. Now they're being prevented from using money for programming that their audiences want.
The irony of the people drafting these atrocious laws daring to call what someone else does as ālawfareā is especially rich. Their hypocrisy knows no limits.
It will be interesting to see how they apply and enforce this bill, if passed. Because once again, congress doesn't fund stations. They fund CPB. In none of these discussions do they address CPB at all, and CPB is the agency that is meant to be the intermediary between congress and the stations. CPB reports to congress, and they are the agency who applies each year for the appropriation. Yet they're completely left out of the discussion.
Then there's the matter of enforcement. They tell the stations they can't spend the federal money on NPR. Then the stations continue to run NPR programming, perhaps funded by listener donations. What does congress do?
Then there's the matter of enforcement. They tell the stations they can't spend the federal money on NPR. Then the stations continue to run NPR programming, perhaps funded by listener donations. What does congress do?
- Status