NJN Sold To WNET-13

[Cosmopolite]

Official announcement later this week.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/new_jersey_network_television.html

 

[jvn]

If you read the article WNET will not be giving NJ any money for the right run the stations so the term Sold might not be correct. NJ will still be the holder of the Licenses.

 

[satech]

WNET is licensed to Newark, NJ, so don't be surprised if Christie tries to cut whatever state funding they might be getting, too.

 

[VeteranPD]

Again....why do we need all of these PBS/Public funded stations....especially in the age of cable and satellite where we have access to so many signals and reception is not an issue. So now we will continute to have 13,21,23,50,52 and 58 all basically offering the same thing, albeit at different times. What a waste of RF.

 

[MickeyD]

If you read the article WNET will not be giving NJ any money for the right run the stations so the term Sold might not be correct. NJ will still be the holder of the Licenses.

SOunds like a good thing to me. When it comes auction time for "wireless", the state will make a pretty good haul on the BW.

 

[pab]

When the time comes for WNJS license renewal I hope we get a good number of people to oppose it. It was bad enough that Trenton never bothered to cover South Jersey on the South Jersey frequency, but with almost all New Jersey coverage, period, to be gone from the frequencies then WNJS will not serve the public interest in its coverage area at all.

 

[hubcity]

Again....why do we need all of these PBS/Public funded stations....especially in the age of cable and satellite where we have access to so many signals and reception is not an issue. So now we will continute to have 13,21,23,50,52 and 58 all basically offering the same thing, albeit at different times. What a waste of RF.

Because everyone in the state can receive all those stations, right? Why do we even have more than three TV channels total to begin with?

You think they're wasting RF? File a complaint. Have their license revoked. Put your money where your mouth is.

Good luck with that.

 

[TheBigA]

but with almost all New Jersey coverage, period, to be gone from the frequencies then WNJS will not serve the public interest in its coverage area at all.

The FCC has never used lack of serving the public interest as a reason to deny renewal.

 

[pab]

but with almost all New Jersey coverage, period, to be gone from the frequencies then WNJS will not serve the public interest in its coverage area at all.

The FCC has never used lack of serving the public interest as a reason to deny renewal.

Maybe not, but it should. And with a Republican and Conservative dominated FCC, it might be interesting to see whether they would want to authorize a renewal for a "socialist" state-owned station they could revoke the license of and give to a private entity.

 

[TheBigA]

Maybe not, but it should. And with a Republican and Conservative dominated FCC, it might be interesting to see whether they would want to authorize a renewal for a "socialist" state-owned station they could revoke the license of and give to a private entity.

I doubt very much that a Republican FCC would do anything to embarrass a Republican governor. But in point of fact, the current FCC isn't "dominated" by Republicans or conservatives. And the law doesn't allow for such capricious actions. The governor has already turned station operations over to a private entity, and that entity will most likely continue to ignore the specific needs of south Jersey.

 

[TheBigA]

The real question the public should be asking is why is the governor basically giving away a state resource to an out of state organization in order to save $11 million in salaries. And then he hops on a state-owned helicopter to go to his son's softball game. I never knew the state owned a helicopter for the governor's personal use. How much money did that little joy ride cost? Obviously not $11 million, but this is typical for New Jersey.

 

[KC2LDY]

Well, I understand the state's position in all this: From a practical standpoint, with the budget crisis, it can't afford to run NJN any longer. There is also Christie's ideological position to consider: That is, government shouldn't be in broadcasting. You can agree or disagree with the governor's position, but it is what it is. I believe both of my points are reality right now.

Also, consider that the state wants to unload NJN quickly - before the next budget year begins. That isn't likely to happen with an outright sale. Things just don't move that fast - particularly when public broadcasters are involved.

So, New Jersey essentially creates an LMA of sorts with WNET. Channel 13 doesn't pay - but the state eliminates the problem of keeping NJN on the air immediately and the frequencies remain non-commercial. If the state is unhappy with what WNET puts on the NJN's frequencies, it can always end the relationship because it remains the licensee.

Here's what I expect to happen: NJN programming may mirror what is now aired by WLIW, Channel 21 (also controlled by WNET), with certain exceptions such as the nightly New Jersey news broadcast, a weekly public affairs program and election coverage. That isn't dramatically different from what NJN airs now - and maybe a bit better. In a best-case scenario, the state will require a step-up in New Jersey-centric programming.

It has been stated in the past that WNET could cover 70 percent of New Jersey with only the Channel 13 and Channel 23 (Camden) signals. But I can't see WNET duplicating Channel 13 on Channel 23 - because so much of that programming is already on WHYY.

 

[TheBigA]

It has been stated in the past that WNET could cover 70 percent of New Jersey with only the Channel 13 and Channel 23 (Camden) signals. But I can't see WNET duplicating Channel 13 on Channel 23 - because so much of that programming is already on WHYY.

One way NJN handled this was in scattering the airtimes of PBS shows...basically for folks who don't own a Tivo. So they may run the same shows, just at different times. That's also how NPR affiliates handle duplication.

 

[MickeyD]

but with almost all New Jersey coverage, period, to be gone from the frequencies then WNJS will not serve the public interest in its coverage area at all.

The FCC has never used lack of serving the public interest as a reason to deny renewal.

This is true.

 

[TimeIsTight]

And with a Republican and Conservative dominated FCC, it might be interesting to see whether they would want to authorize a renewal for a "socialist" state-owned station they could revoke the license of and give to a private entity.

Let's not forget why New Jersey needed a "socialist" TV network to provide New Jersey centric news in the first place. That was because the free market commercial stations were virtually ignoring New Jersey news coverage and playing to the larger potential audiences in New York and Philly.

Lets also not forget that in this country we have "socialist" police and fire departments almost everywhere, we all enjoy our socialist parks and recreation areas, many towns have socialist water and sewer service, roads and highways are all socialist operations too. The big bridges, tunnels and airports in New Jersey are all owned and operated by quasi-socialist authorities like the NY Port Authority.

Fire departments were started as "fire companies" that sold their own "protection." That worked until some guys started fires to drum up business, and competing companies fought each other at the scene of fires for the right to collect the fee for putting the fire out. Now its all socialist and paid for with taxes because that system works better.

It was founding father Ben Franklin who started the "socialist" free public library. As a free market economic proponent who usually leans Conservative in these matters, there are times when the state has to do what the free market won't and the NJ News situation is one of them.

Sure we have all those cable channels now, but none of them produce documentaries of the quality of Frontline, or science programming like Nova, have high level interviews like Charlie Rose, the in depth news coverage of the News Hour,or broadcast live opera.

The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, and the History Channel all started with the promise of producing intelligent PBS type programming. Now one covers dirty jobs and fishing expeditions, another has focused on home buying and decorating, and the third has switched from real history to a lot of paranormal and other speculative fluff. Even the Food Network has dumbed down its offerings as all look to attract the biggest audience by using the lowest common denominator as a standard. I enjoy some of those shows, but there is a need for something at a higher level too.

Unfortunately, PBS is needed for a lot of reasons, to lift the viewers a little instead of feeding them a constant diet of mostly intellectual junk food deserves to be on top of that list.

 

[musichead1029]

And with a Republican and Conservative dominated FCC, it might be interesting to see whether they would want to authorize a renewal for a "socialist" state-owned station they could revoke the license of and give to a private entity.

Let's not forget why New Jersey needed a "socialist" TV network to provide New Jersey centric news in the first place. That was because the free market commercial stations were virtually ignoring New Jersey news coverage and playing to the larger potential audiences in New York and Philly.

And they were ignoring NJ audiences because those audiences didn't consume the 'local' broadcasts in sustainable numbers. Same for WWOR's FCC-enforced N.J. content. I suspect that NJN's ratings are usually unmeasurable.N.J. can get news from its commercial radio outlets and, today, the internet. There isn't any "need" for a government-run TV (or radio) network in New Jersey.

The rest of your argument attempts to compare nonessential government broadcasting to essential services and infrastructure and, hence, is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, PBS is needed for a lot of reasons, to lift the viewers a little instead of feeding them a constant diet of mostly intellectual junk food deserves to be on top of that list.

You may feel the need for a 'lift', and you're welcome to pay for an outlet that provides it to you. I feel no such need and don't want to be forced by law to pay for your niche broadcast preferences. Nor should I have to.

Similarly, I don't want the government to tell me what broadcasts I 'need' to pay for; the government doesn't have a clue what I or anyone else 'needs' in a broadcast. Commercial operators stake their existence on providing what I 'need' without the artificial constraints of politics, and do as good a job as possible providing it.

 

[hubcity]

Similarly, I don't want the government to tell me what broadcasts I 'need' to pay for; the government doesn't have a clue what I or anyone else 'needs' in a broadcast. Commercial operators stake their existence on providing what I 'need' without the artificial constraints of politics, and do as good a job as possible providing it.

Is there any commercial operator giving you what you need? I'm curious.

 

[TimeIsTight]

N.J. can get news from its commercial radio outlets and, today, the internet. There isn't any "need" for a government-run TV (or radio) network in New Jersey.

Unfortunately, the radio outlets in New Jersey don't provide the kind of comprehensive state news coverage that voting citizens need to be even minimally informed about what is going on in the state, or with state government. A few minutes at the top of the hour on a few stations just isn't enough. As far as TV news goes, almost everywhere else in the country the commercial TV stations focus on the local and state news, but that doesn't happen in New Jersey. Average citizens here are often in the dark about their own state news, and much better informed about car crashes on Long Island, or fires in Philadelphia that have no direct impact on their lives.

The rest of your argument attempts to compare nonessential government broadcasting to essential services and infrastructure and, hence, is irrelevant.

It was one of the founding fathers who made the point that a well informed citizenry is essential to a functioning democracy, and that is why the freedom of the press is held so dear.

I would argue, that easily and regularly available news and information about the operations of government in the state are as essential as highways and other services. As long as most Americans get, at least some, of their local and state news and information from TV, New Jerseyians should be able to also, even if most of the TV licenses serve big cities on the other side of a river.

You may feel the need for a 'lift', and you're welcome to pay for an outlet that provides it to you. I feel no such need and don't want to be forced by law to pay for your niche broadcast preferences. Nor should I have to.

Both PBS and NPR stations in New Jersey ought to be able to support themselves with grants and donations. When you look at the facts and figures the tax payer contributions are minimal. For any individual, the taxpayer input for the whole year is probably the difference between a cup of coffee at Starbucks or walking down the street and buying the same size coffee at WAWA or Dunkin Donuts. It's really minimal, and dropping any taxpayer input would shut the nickel and dime crybabies up.

In the new situation, the State of New Jersey is keeping the licenses because they are so unique and valuable, and would never be easily replaced. I think that is the way to go for NJ citizens.

I don't want anybody else to pay for my "niche" broadcast preferences either, but a higher level of news, information and culture being widely available is a benefit to all and the society in general. It should be freely available so that others can find that higher level of information when they need it, or just to improve their knowledge of the world they live in.

Commercial operators stake their existence on providing what I 'need' without the artificial constraints of politics, and do as good a job as possible providing it.

Commercial TV operators often use the public airwaves in a race to the bottom to sell whatever they can. The worst example is the infomercials, where the public airwaves are being used to scam the most gullible viewers and rip them off. I wouldn't put them on any kind of a pedestal of public interest. They are doing as good a job as possible in making the most money for themselves as possible, and the old fashioned public responsibility of a public airwaves license holder mindset has faded over the years.

Freedom of choice is important and nobody is forcing viewers to watch the junk, just like nobody forces people to eat junk food, but the alternative choice of something more nutritious should be there for all.

The problem with many individual choices people make is that we all wind up paying for them in the end.

People have the right to eat junk food until they are as obese as my fellow economic Conservatives Rush Limbaugh, or Chis Christie. The problem is that all of our medical costs in this country are covered by either private or taxpayer supported health care, and even though Rush and Christie are both millionaires we are all going to pay the extra medical costs their obesity causes over time whether we pay private insurance premiums or taxes, those costs will be in the mix that we pay for.

Same thing with public TV, we can have a whole country of ill and poorly informed citizens who will make bad choices due to their ignorance, and in the end all of us will pay the cost of that ignorance. A well informed citizenry is essential, and we will all go down the flusher together if we concentrate on celebrity news and MTV's Jersey Shore and don't have a clue as to how the state or country is being run.

 

[TheBigA]

And they were ignoring NJ audiences because those audiences didn't consume the 'local' broadcasts in sustainable numbers.

Really? Tell that to the owners of NJ101.5 and the cable channel News12. There's a huge audience for local, but bigger bucks to be made by aiming at NYC, not NJ. New Jersey residents had no choice in the matter.

NJN was underfunded and poorly staffed to provide local news. If they spent more of their money on programming, they would have attracted a bigger NJ audience.

I feel no such need and don't want to be forced by law to pay for your niche broadcast preferences. Nor should I have to.

This isn't a democracy but a federal republic, so the government isn't required to ask individuals for permission in how it spends money. Personally I was furious about having $2 trillion of tax dollars spent on two useless wars, and I resent Republicans blaming today's financial crisis on public services, while they keep demanding tax cuts for billionaires, and continued unchecked funding for the military. But my preferences aren't addressed. So neither should yours.

 

[hubcity]

Here's another nice question: how much do you suppose we taxpayers pay for commercial radio? (Hint: we pay sales tax on this expenditure, to boot.)