• 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.
I realize much of the debate this issue comes from whether one agrees or disagrees with public radio presentation. But I say it should be about how should our tax dollars be spent? The people who run public radio at any level or public television at any level keep telling us they don't get that much money from governments but they turn around and act they really gotta have it.

Even with government funding, over the last 54 years, public stations and NPR News have gone through cycles of cutting staff and hiring staff. Nothing new with public broadcasting people being laid off.

I wonder how this issue would play out if back before Rupert Murdoch landed somebody had launched a right-wing public radio outlet alongside NPR, American Public Media, PRX and Pacifica and like them, was supported, directly or indirectly, by tax money?
You continue to frame this as though public media is "left wing "

We have beaten this topic entirely to death here for many years, and just because you're new here, you're not actually bringing anything new to the table.

As for the question of how our tax dollars are spent, there is an established system for deciding that. At least for now, there is Congressional legislation, approved on a bipartisan basis year after year, that appropriates funding for CPB.

Want to change that? Follow the established system. Lobby your elected officials. Make your case. That's how the American system works when it's functioning.

So far, enough elected officials on both sides of the aisle have found enough value in public broadcasting to keep it funded for over 50 years. If that's going to change, the conservative (small-c) position is that it should change through the established systems for change, not because an unelected billionaire is given sudden control of the purse strings.
 
Even with government funding, over the last 54 years, public stations and NPR News have gone through cycles of cutting staff and hiring staff. Nothing new with public broadcasting people being laid off.
TheBigA beat me to it, but I'd emphasize that like any other station, NPR affiliates are competing for dollars. Both in sponsorships and donations. If it really were all taxpayer funded (as some people still seem to think), then operating costs would be somewhat insulated from market forces, and be more dependent on what funds get allocated to them by Congress. They wouldn't need to have a sales staff or run pledge drives, but they do. That should put to bed any notion that NPR is just a sink for our tax dollars.

At the end of the day, though, it is PUBLIC broadcasting. Funded (mostly) by the public through donations and (arguably) doing a better job at using their publicly-owned broadcast license to serve the public. All that educational content I mentioned earlier is a SERVICE that other license holders would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide. All your local AM talk station has to do to "serve the public" is run regular EAS tests, run some PSAs in off hours, and make sure the tower lights are on. NPR (and PBS) provide enormous value for the money, and the annual outlay for each individual taxpayer is pennies. All the people crying for NPR to be "defunded" have dropped more money in the sofa cushions than they're "forced to spend" on public broadcasting.
 
There is no law preventing any non-com from being started to be right wing. However, EMF and K-Love might be close.
Whenever I tune across our local American Family Radio station (KAFR 88.3) I’m guaranteed to hear plenty of far-right political talk. Same thing with Relevant Radio. Both are non-comms, so two such examples, and there are many more.
 
Want to change that? Follow the established system. Lobby your elected officials. Make your case. That's how the American system works when it's functioning.

I've said this several times. The reason why public stations get federal funding is because congress passed a law that set up the system. That system was amended in the 80s under Reagan. The current system is a republican federalist system built around local control. But unfortunately, that happened 40 years ago. The current people in congress have no memory of that. And they apparently don't read the laws or study how the system works. That's what happens when the "me generation" has kids, and they get elected to office.

None of these congresspeople are talking to their constituents about this. MTG is not speaking to her governor about Georgia Public Broadcasting, which is funded by the State of Georgia. Senator Kennedy, who was once the treasurer of Louisiana, isn't talking to the people running his state about how they're going to serve his constituents after his bill passes the senate. They're all operating in their own silo.

The people pushing this aren't interested in working through the established system. They see the established system is part of the problem, and why they voted for this administration. But in my view, they don't understand the consequences of what they want until it hits them personally. By then it's too late.
 
I realize much of the debate this issue comes from whether one agrees or disagrees with public radio presentation. But I say it should be about how should our tax dollars be spent? The people who run public radio at any level or public television at any level keep telling us they don't get that much money from governments but they turn around and act they really gotta have it.

Even with government funding, over the last 54 years, public stations and NPR News have gone through cycles of cutting staff and hiring staff. Nothing new with public broadcasting people being laid off.

I wonder how this issue would play out if back before Rupert Murdoch landed somebody had launched a right-wing public radio outlet alongside NPR, American Public Media, PRX and Pacifica and like them, was supported, directly or indirectly, by tax money?


give me your mailing address, ill mail you $3.50 out of my own pocket and pay you back for the taxes of yours that went into CPB funding last year.

Im serious.
 
Once again, you're basing this on the idea that public radio is left wing. Not everything in this world is about politics. What's happening is people are confusing intellectual with radical left. They're not the same thing. These stations are educational in nature. That's because they're in the non-commercial educational part of the spectrum. They're intended to be educational. That leads to an image of stuffiness or elitism, which is under fire by the party in power. There is no law preventing any non-com from being started to be right wing. However, EMF and K-Love might be close.
Arguably, that has been done to NPR affiliates in some cases at the state level. Look at GPB and the time their governor installed a GOP partisan to host a show promoting Georgia business. Definitely a more business and advocacy slant compared to what's considered the norm for public radio.
 
I believe that NPR & PBS will be here for many years with or without tax payers founding them or not and even if NPR & PBS were defuned they wouldn't be going away ASAP in my opinion. I'm a broken record on this topic and sorry for not adding anything new to it.
 
That would be a good point if there were statistical proof. I can not find any, but if you have references I'd like to see the facts.
One of the most examples of the "extreme voters" only voting in a party primary was David Duke former Grand Wizard of the Klan who in 1991 who won the Republican nomination for Governor in Louisiana. It was so bad that President Bush campaigned for the Democratic candidate Edwin Edwards who IIRC owned WNOE at one time
 
How many independent, religious, or Low-Power FM (LPFM) stations receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)? Are there any non-NPR stations benefiting from this funding, and if so, how do their allocations compare to NPR-affiliated stations? Transparency on these figures would be useful—does anyone have a source that outlines the actual numbers?

Public broadcasting is often justified as an essential service, but what sets it apart from commercial or internet-based alternatives? In an era where streaming services, internet radio, podcasts, and commercial stations offer an overwhelming diversity of content, what unique value does taxpayer-funded broadcasting provide that isn't already covered by the free market? If noncommercial status is supposed to serve the "public interest," what specific benefits does it offer that justify government intervention? Wouldn’t commercial radio—driven by direct consumer demand—serve as a more accurate measure of actual public interest than a government-subsidized national network?

Additionally, what exactly defines a “public” radio station? NPR affiliates receive public funding, but how much local programming do they actually produce? Is it significantly more than what commercial stations already offer? If NPR is considered “public” radio, why aren’t struggling local AM stations, which serve their communities, also eligible for taxpayer support?

With the vast number of news sources available today, what is NPR’s justification for receiving public funds while other media outlets operate independently? The idea of "radio deserts" has largely been eliminated with technologies like Starlink, satellite radio, and internet streaming. So why does CPB funding still subsidize public radio in major metropolitan areas like New York and Los Angeles, where media options are plentiful? If public radio is truly valuable, why does it require government support? Shouldn’t it be sustained by its listeners instead?

These are the kinds of questions any unbriefed congressman or senator might ask when reconsidering the necessity of taxpayer funding for public broadcasting. If public radio truly serves the public, then the public—not the government—should be its primary source of support. If it cannot sustain itself through voluntary contributions, perhaps that is a sign that it is no longer serving its audience effectively.
 
How many independent, religious, or Low-Power FM (LPFM) stations receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)?

It's a fair question. CPB has very high standards for stations to meet in order to qualify for funding. Stations must have a certain level of staffing, and a certain amount of power. So LPFMs don't qualify. Not sure what you mean by "independent." NPR doesn't own any stations. The stations are mostly all locally owned by community groups, universities, or states. The goal of CPB was to create a professional public broadcasting service that had the standards of commercial radio. They wanted to distinguish themselves from smaller community radio stations or student run college stations.

Are there any non-NPR stations benefiting from this funding, and if so, how do their allocations compare to NPR-affiliated stations? Transparency on these figures would be useful—does anyone have a source that outlines the actual numbers?

Have you gone to CPB | A Private Corporation Funded by the American People You'll find a lot of answers to your questions there. Yes there are lots of non-NPR stations, and there are a lot of independent producers who also get direct funding for content creation outside of NPR and the stations.
Public broadcasting is often justified as an essential service, but what sets it apart from commercial or internet-based alternatives?

These boards are filled with stories about commercial stations that have cut most of their local staff and local programming. Most commercial stations no longer do local news. The reason congress started public broadcasting was that commercial stations were more focused on profits for stockholders. Public stations don't have stockholders. All revenues must be spent on serving the community.

With the vast number of news sources available today, what is NPR’s justification for receiving public funds while other media outlets operate independently?

NPR doesn't receive federal funding directly. The money goes to the stations, and they buy programming from lots of non-com producers. One of them is NPR. But there are many others, including American Public Media. Some stations, such as WBUR or WAMU, produce programs that other stations carry. CPB testifies in front of the congressional appropriations committees every year to justify the money they receive. Beyond that, there is the Public Broadcasting Act, that created CPB, NPR, and PBS.

If public radio is truly valuable, why does it require government support? Shouldn’t it be sustained by its listeners instead?

It is. The way the Public Broadcasting Act was amended during the Reagan administration, federal funding was based on the amount of money stations raise locally. That way, it wasn't just welfare for stations with no audience. These are stations that get good ratings. The NPR stations in a lot of cities are in the Top 10. The funding is based on the law passed and administered by congress. It's possible for congress to amend or repeal the law, but they've never talked about that.

These are the kinds of questions any unbriefed congressman or senator might ask when reconsidering the necessity of taxpayer funding for public broadcasting.

You would think they would ask those questions, but they're not. They just want to defund it without knowing anything about it. It would probably surprise a lot of them that the funding they want to cut goes to their states, and those states decide how to spend it. They're basically hurting their own constituents. But they don't care. They haven't talked to their governors who in many cases oversee the local stations. They just believe the talking points they've been given.

If it cannot sustain itself through voluntary contributions, perhaps that is a sign that it is no longer serving its audience effectively.
It's hard to generalize. The big market stations can sustain themselves just fine. It's the small stations in mostly red states that really need the federal funds. We have a poster here from an NPR station in Alaska who says his station would shut down if it wasn't for federal funds.
 
Last edited:
If Congress defunds the CPB do they at the sane time want to reinstate the pre-Reagan administration FCC public interest mandate programming guidelines/rules?
 
If Congress defunds the CPB do they at the sane time want to reinstate the pre-Reagan administration FCC public interest mandate programming guidelines/rules?

No. They're not talking about anything like that. They just want to defund NPR.
 
The thing I never understood in hours upon hours of listening to NPR news is the accusation that they were supposedly so left-wing "biased". They are more neutral than a ham sandwich. You get both sides of an issue. And it's often the only place where most people nationally can hear it.

Is that the problem?
 
The thing I never understood in hours upon hours of listening to NPR news is the accusation that they were supposedly so left-wing "biased". They are more neutral than a ham sandwich. You get both sides of an issue. And it's often the only place where most people nationally can hear it.

Is that the problem?
On the best ways to slant the news is by omission.

Back when Obama was running for president I mentioned to a friend who was a loyal NPR listener that Obama was a heavy smoker. He was shocked! SHOCKED, I say!! He honestly couldn't believe it, although it was widely reported by other media.

That's just a trivial example (I don't want to get into politics) but you get the point.

The same goes for Fox, Newsmax, talk radio, etc. They use omission too, but the listeners/viewers I know don't insist that they're right down the middle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom