• 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.
Then you would be wrong. The station news directors report to Suzanne Scott, and previously Roger Ailes.
If we are mixing Fox Television Stations and Fox News divisions, then some of this is because there's a streaming network that's also running the "Fox News" name and it's Live Now on Fox. It's an all news feed that is made by the Fox Television stations division produced by the O&O division. The other Fox News as in "Live Now on Fox" do not have the political pundits connected to Musk and Trump type stuff.







Often called the "Red Zone" of news, the programming seamlessly moves between the biggest events and stories as they are happening.

Coverage and content are supported by the local station group and the vast resources of FOX.

LiveNOW is always raw, live and unfiltered, with limited commentary and no opinion.
 
True and where will red states find “Reliable News” too when that happens. We looked at major cities in Texas and their radio ratings and their local NPR affiliates they are within the top 5-10 spots in their local markets. This data partially disproves the stereotype that people listen to Doge/maga rants. Some of this also involves in state funding and local donors in addition to CPB funding. The most famous argument mentioned here is that Texas gets a certain portion of Ex-California residents because their Employers move their main office or open branch offices in the states major cities. Not everybody in red states are like Elon Musk or Donald Trump as seen here.




The largest Texan cities are blue, though, for the most part. Houston, Austin and Dallas have blue mayors, for example.

Point taken, though.
 
It is sad to see radio, as a medium, kicked around like this -- be it public radio or otherwise.

But hey, they all have cellphones and internet, right? So who needs public radio? Why do stations in the big metros, or anywhere with internet access, need any government funding? I mean, they've got websites. They've got social media. Hey, it's the 21st Century already. [sarcasm button off]

That seems to be the mantra.
 
Last edited:
But hey, they all have cellphones and internet, right? So who needs public radio? Why do stations in the big metros, or anywhere with internet access, need any government funding? I mean, they've got websites. They've got social media. Hey, it's the 21st Century already. [sarcasm button off]

That seems to be the mantra.

The challenge isn't to the platform but to the media.
 
The challenge isn't to the platform but to the media.
True, but they're saying that the platform itself is irrelevant also. I believe Brendan Carr's direct quote is "“For my part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace."

Granted, if NPR and public radio were all Rush Limbaugh wannabes, he wouldn't be saying that. But the 'internet is the news media' mantra still holds. Everyone knows that the internet is increasing in importance as an alternative to legacy media for news and information. And that trend is being used to attack the platform, as well as whatever media that political operatives may not like.

Radio is under fire. Sure, conservatives dislike NPR, for the same reasons that liberal people hate conservative talk radio on the AM band. And both are using the "irrelevant radio platform" mantra as an excuse to undermine government funding / mandates for cars, etc. to attack the media that they do not agree with. But they're also attacking the platform. As someone who worked in that platform for 20 years, it bothers me to see Radio being undermined and attacked.

I live in a region where public radio is fairly healthy. The next state south of me, Oregon, has two fairly healthy, statewide or region wide public radio networks -- OPB and JPR. They have great programming, and they're on both FM and AM. I hate seeing the media -- or the platform -- attacked like this.

The question I don't see answered anywhere is: what are public radio proponents doing to try to counter this? Back in the 1960's, GOP'ers in the Senate wanted to cut NET funding (PBS's predecessor). Mister Rogers testified, and managed to convince a key Senate leader that NET was valuable, because of its service in educating children.

Is anyone even trying to fight this?
 
True, but they're saying that the platform itself is irrelevant also. I believe Brendan Carr's direct quote is "“For my part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace."

That once again shows his ignorance because both of those services have very rich digital platforms beyond broadcasting. In fact NPR's podcasting platform is a commercial business that is among the most popular in that category, and receives no taxpayer funding at all. But Carr is oblivious to it.

The MAIN thing that differentiates NPR and PBS from other options is one doesn't need a subscription or the internet to receive them. They are available to all regardless of income or status. That's the point of taxpayer funding: To make it available to all, not limit it to those with the financial means or those with current technology. Of course Carr has no idea that there are such people in this country.

Carr is making it a priority to improve access to the internet, but no matter what he does, it will still be a service that users pay for. NPR and PBS are free.

The question I don't see answered anywhere is: what are public radio proponents doing to try to counter this?

The CEOs of NPR and PBS have been called to testify by MTG. That will be where the fight begins. The FCC investigation is internal, and there are no factual charges yet. It's just a wild hair being launched by the chairman. So it's very early in the process.
 
The CEOs of NPR and PBS have been called to testify by MTG. That will be where the fight begins. The FCC investigation is internal, and there are no factual charges yet. It's just a wild hair being launched by the chairman. So it's very early in the process.
As we know, the investigation needn’t have charges and can be a wild goose chase but still result in the desired result. The threats of fighting charges, of spending valuable resources defending perfectly legitimate actions is enough to force organizations without limitless resources into obedience.
 

Here is more on the subcommittee Marjorie Taylor Greene is assigned to and it's to get the CEO's of NPR and PBS in congress. However that also requires the head of CPB for explanations here. We debunked this multiple times.

Driving the news: Greene, the chair of the new DOGE subcommittee, sent letters on Monday to NPR CEO Katherine Maher and PBS CEO Paula Kerger, writing that "the subcommittee seeks to better understand" each news organization's "position on providing Americans with accurate information."

  • In letters to both CEOs, Greene wrote that the subcommittee is concerned by the two news organizations' "blatantly ideological and partisan coverage."
  • Greene asked both CEOs to testify during the week of March 3 or March 24. It's the first hearing to be announced for the subcommittee.
  • Elon Musk tweeted his approval, calling it an "excellent action" by Greene.
 
Thanks, I was surprised at how many states don’t give any funds to public stations.
True and in some cases the local NPR and PBS affiliate are owned by local school districts and community colleges. For California I recognize that KALW is owned by the San Francisco Unified School District. KCSM-FM is owned by College of San Mateo and PBS affiliate KLCS-TV Los Angeles is owned by the Los Angeles Unified School District. It’s a case of in California we have a mix of Local Non-Profit foundations, California State University, Local Community Colleges and local school districts that own local NPR and PBS stations.
 
The threats over the possible loss of funding has caused four NYC area music-based non-coms to form an alliance:



The purpose is to share resources and develop strategies for improving funding and audience growth.
 
The threats over the possible loss of funding has caused four NYC area music-based non-coms to form an alliance:



The purpose is to share resources and develop strategies for improving funding and audience growth.
Two of these stations, WFUV and WSHU, are owned and operated by Catholic universities: Fordham University and Sacred Heart University. For them to receive government (CPB) money violates the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment and the principle of separation of church and state.
 
Two of these stations, WFUV and WSHU, are owned and operated by Catholic universities: Fordham University and Sacred Heart University. For them to receive government (CPB) money violates the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment and the principle of separation of church and state.

You're welcome to challenge the grant on that basis. The stations are not religious in any way. WSHU plays mostly classical music. WFUV is AAA.

The purpose of the grant isn't tied to the station's ownership. It's all based on the station's programming.

The way you're interpreting the 1st amendment would call into question the federal licensing of any radio station owned by a church.
 
Two of these stations, WFUV and WSHU, are owned and operated by Catholic universities: Fordham University and Sacred Heart University. For them to receive government (CPB) money violates the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment and the principle of separation of church and state.
You're free to have your own opinions here. You don't get to make up your own facts.

Catholic universities (and others with religious affiliations) have been licensees of public radio and TV stations for as long as the system has existed, and as long as they follow CPB's rules, they are and continue to be eligible for CPB funding.
 
WFUV is another example of stations that are CPB qualified but carry no NPR news programming. I think WBGO and WQXR have very limited memberships.

WFUV may carry World Cafe and Thistle & Shamrock. Not sure about that last one. Examples that NPR does many things other than news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom