• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless they find a way to roll it into reconciliation, a dubious but not impossible proposition, the bill is unlikely to pass the senate getting the needed 60 votes to break a standard-issue filibuster. That doesn’t even need to be the point. It’s the threat. It’s the bullying. It’s the message it sends.

The FCC will do the dirty work of intimidating via investigations, while this is sending a signal. They can dry up the funding to CPB, they can attach strings to it. This is a loud shot over the bow.
 
Keep in mind this is the exact problem conservative republicans have with the department of education and other federal funding. It often comes with stipulations on how the funding can be spent. They want to abolish the DOE and just give the money to the states. Well that's exactly how the CPB funding is disbursed. They let the states decide how they want to spend the money. So now these same republicans are putting stipulations on the federal funding. The very thing they want to abolish at the DOE.
 

Now a member of congress pushes this proposal. However these thing affects how the states get CPB funding for their state wide NPR and PBS affiliates.

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-Cleveland) introduced a bill in the House this week that would prohibit federal funding for NPR and PBS.

The Defund Government Sponsored Propaganda Act would disallow both indirect and direct federal support of the organizations, "including through the payment of dues to or the purchase of programming from the organization(s) by a public broadcast station," the bill's text reads. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

NPR receives about 1% of its funding directly from the federal government, compared to 16% for PBS. Both are also supported by member stations that receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a publicly funded non-profit corporation.
 
Now a member of congress pushes this proposal. However these thing affects how the states get CPB funding for their state wide NPR and PBS affiliates.

The article quotes a local Ohio station:

"Defunding public media's Community Service Grants will harm local stations much more than NPR or PBS," said WRVO Station Manager Bill Drake. "For WRVO, this would likely result in a loss of local jobs, including journalists. In an era when local journalism is an increasingly rare commodity, this will make it even more difficult for citizens to learn about the activities of their local officials and other important events in their communities."

These people in congress are hurting their own communities.
 

Now a member of congress pushes this proposal. However these thing affects how the states get CPB funding for their state wide NPR and PBS affiliates.
The "Defund Government Sponsored Propaganda Act" sounds like what I call "stunt legislation." Can it pass out of committee? Maybe? Can it get signed into law? Maybe? But that's not the point.

What it is meant to do (as most stunt legislation like "protect the flag" or "save the Pledge of Allegiance" acts) is to give the sponsor(s) of the bill something to put on their website/resume' for the next congressional run. "I sponsored legislation to defund radical leftist NPR, and I will continue to fight the radical left as your Congressman/Senator." Whether it helps, harms, or even passes muster is largely irrelevant. It's just a drum to beat when it comes time to raise money and support.
 
As public broadcasters like to remind us, government money is a small part of their revenue. They don't need the money. Whether I listen or not, whether I approve of their content or not, they don't need the money. CPB money was fine when public broadcasting was new and somewhat experimental. It does not need to be subsidized today. And most of what public broadcasting does is content that commercial broadcasters didn't want to do and were happy to have an excuse to stop doing. SNL celebrates its 50th anniversary next fall - in a studio built for live classical music broadcasts. No more CBS Reports or NBC White Papers. No more Studio One. Public broadcasting took all that over.
 
Respectfully, since you're new to this forum, JeanLuc, the points you're making have been beaten to death for many years here.

The general consensus is that the CPB funding supplements listener and underwriting support by providing dollars for the infrastructure that allows public broadcasters to serve more remote areas where listener/underwriter support doesn't exist in great enough numbers to make service possible otherwise. It also tends to end up funding the least commercially viable programming, like educational outreach to underfunded schools.

And it's literally written into law (to whatever extent that matters anymore). If the party in full control of all branches of the federal government wants to get rid of it, they can now - but a lot of smaller stations will fail completely, everyone else will see staffing and service cuts, and a lot of politicians in red and purple states will lose the only broadcast service regularly bringing news about them to areas outside the big cities.

We've beaten this horse to a bloody pulp here for a very long time now.

Do you have anything new to add to the conversation?
 
As public broadcasters like to remind us, government money is a small part of their revenue. They don't need the money. Whether I listen or not, whether I approve of their content or not, they don't need the money. CPB money was fine when public broadcasting was new and somewhat experimental. It does not need to be subsidized today. And most of what public broadcasting does is content that commercial broadcasters didn't want to do and were happy to have an excuse to stop doing. SNL celebrates its 50th anniversary next fall - in a studio built for live classical music broadcasts. No more CBS Reports or NBC White Papers. No more Studio One. Public broadcasting took all that over.

Depends on the state and the stations. Red states need money. Blue states don’t. Public broadcasting isn’t a centralized national system. It’s all run by the states. These politicians are screwing their own constituents.
 
Depends on the state and the stations. Red states need money. Blue states don’t. Public broadcasting isn’t a centralized national system. It’s all run by the states. These politicians are screwing their own constituents.
And even that is a huge oversimplification. WNYC could survive (in somewhat reduced form) without CPB funding. But North Country Public Radio, which provides the only significant local broadcast news coverage for a huge and very thinly populated swath of the Adirondacks and the St. Lawrence Valley? It would be in a world of hurt. And by the way, it may be a "blue state," but that area is blood red - it was Elise Stefanik's district.

In some places, public broadcasting is "run by the states." Not in New York. It's a patchwork of local and regional nonprofits with a couple of universities in the mix. There's no overarching state agency.
 
And even that is a huge oversimplification.
Thanks for the last two posts that clarified how funding is used at the state level..

Few in Washington, anywhere on the rainbow, seem to know this. But the Republican initiatives seem to be based on the greater ignorance of the two parties.
 
If you wanted to eliminate funds for public broadcasting, wouldn’t it make more sense to phase it out over 3-5 years to give stations time to plan instead of taking an axe to it with no warning/planning time?
 
We're toast slice 1 if this happens


download.jpg
 
And even that is a huge oversimplification. WNYC could survive (in somewhat reduced form) without CPB funding. But North Country Public Radio, which provides the only significant local broadcast news coverage for a huge and very thinly populated swath of the Adirondacks and the St. Lawrence Valley? It would be in a world of hurt. And by the way, it may be a "blue state," but that area is blood red - it was Elise Stefanik's district.

In some places, public broadcasting is "run by the states." Not in New York. It's a patchwork of local and regional nonprofits with a couple of universities in the mix. There's no overarching state agency.
True too! California has the same situation where it is a patchwork of the local nonprofits in addition to California State University and local school districts running the local PBS and NPR affiliates and no overarching state agency that oversees public media. This bill in question "The Defund Government Sponsored Propaganda Act" does not consider how CPB will be affected by this law and it hits them the hardest when it comes to budget allocation to CPB and the amount of money the states get.
 
Keep in mind, they'd also like to defund colleges and universities as much as possible too. So a station licensed to such an entity is going to be squeezed on multiple fronts. The president and those around him do not have a high opinion of such institutions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom