NPR, PBS members see record donations after Congress cuts funding

[umfan]

Despite your later "no one said ..." denials, that sentence creates the impression that CPB=NPR, even though we know it doesn't.

What would stop the mass public from presuming that a replacement for CPB would also not "be NPR"? Because until you resolve that misperception -- especially with President Blowhard spewing nonsense based on his belief that it is -- no such replacement is ever going to be viable.

The fact was CPB provided funding for NPR and that association, in my opinion, played a role in eroding support for CPB.

An entity that did not provide funding for NPR, but only in fact provided the infrastructure to provide and manage shared services might not face the same negative perception. Really, better that the stations that make a go at remaining need to do this on their own. The demise of the CPB was long overdue IMO.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Neither CPB nor NPR own stations.

I know that.. i said the states own the member stations

 

[umfan]

You seem to think being critical of the government is against the law. It isn't.

Who has been charged with breaking the law in the context of this discussion? I certainly never did. You keep introducing these polarizing statements into it. NPR can credibly be assessed as having weaved an unbalanced POV into their news reporting. You may disagree, but, as I wrote, many share this view and it has a credible basis. This is not illegal at all, I never wrote or implied that it is. Providing taxpayer funding for such an operation is not required by law, and you seem to think that is an entitlement, which it is not.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR can credibly be assessed as having weaved an unbalanced POV into their news reporting.

But this money wasn't taken away from NPR. Was it?

Providing taxpayer funding for such an operation is not required by law, and you seem to think that is an entitlement, which it is not.

Once anyone applies for something, and it's been granted and approved, then the recipient has the right to expect it to be delivered.

This money was applied for and granted in March. This president signed the bill authorizing the money.

If this happened to anyone else, they would have a right to be upset. Especially if they had nothing to do with the so-called biased reporting

 

[TheBigA]

The fact was CPB provided funding for NPR and that association, in my opinion, played a role in eroding support for CPB.

They call that throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The way you handle a problem is you fix the problem. That wasn't done here.

Had they accepted the Murkowski amendment, it would have stopped any funding of NPR, but retained the money for the stations. They said no.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Who has been charged with breaking the law in the context of this discussion? I certainly never did. You keep introducing these polarizing statements into it. NPR can credibly be assessed as having weaved an unbalanced POV into their news reporting. You may disagree, but, as I wrote, many share this view and it has a credible basis. This is not illegal at all, I never wrote or implied that it is. Providing taxpayer funding for such an operation is not required by law, and you seem to think that is an entitlement, which it is not.

Agree, the “tilt” in All Things Considered and Morning Edition, as well as The PBS Newshour, is undeniable to any objective listener over time. Hence the reason that taxpayers shouldn’t be a funding source regardless of the direction of the “tilt.”

 

[TheBigA]

Agree, the “tilt” in All Things Considered and Morning Edition, as well as The PBS Newshour, is undeniable to any objective listener over time. Hence the reason that taxpayers shouldn’t be a funding source regardless of the direction of the “tilt.”

So then just withdraw money from NPR & PBS. Not the entire system. What's wrong with what I'm suggesting? What am I missing here?

 

[umfan]

So then just withdraw money from NPR & PBS. Not the entire system. What's wrong with what I'm suggesting? What am I missing here?

Nothing wrong in having an opinion. It's just not the path Congress chose. The ship has sailed and isn't returning to port. PBS could've proactively taken steps like this before. They thought they were untouchable. They thought wrong.

 

[umfan]

They call that throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The way you handle a problem is you fix the problem. That wasn't done here.

Had they accepted the Murkowski amendment, it would have stopped any funding of NPR, but retained the money for the stations. They said no.

There wasn't anything nearly as valuable as a baby within PBS.

 

[umfan]

But this money wasn't taken away from NPR. Was it?

The portion that came from PBS has been eliminated.

 

[Gravel Switch]

So then just withdraw money from NPR & PBS. Not the entire system. What's wrong with what I'm suggesting? What am I missing here?

I think what you’re missing is the bigger picture — why should any taxpayer funding be used for the entire public broadcasting system anymore? I haven’t heard a reason why for the continuation of taxpayer funds or why it’s even appropriate in this day and age and whether it’s actually the role of government to be involved in broadcasting.

 

[umfan]

I know that.. i said the states own the member stations

Right. I was just clarifying the basis for my comment.

 

[umfan]

But this money wasn't taken away from NPR. Was it?



Once anyone applies for something, and it's been granted and approved, then the recipient has the right to expect it to be delivered.

This money was applied for and granted in March. This president signed the bill authorizing the money.

If this happened to anyone else, they would have a right to be upset. Especially if they had nothing to do with the so-called biased reporting

Unless the process to remove it is followed. As it was in this case.

 

[TheBigA]

PBS could've proactively taken steps like this before. They thought they were untouchable. They thought wrong.

What steps could they have taken? Tell Ken Burns to redo The Civil War so that the south won?

This was all laid out in Project 2025. Everybody knew this was what they were going to do. There were no proactive steps.

Yes, they have no one to blame but themselves. And they used BROADcasting to reach niche audiences, but expected ALL taxpayers to pay for it.

So now NPR no longer has to fear losing any funding. They can report whatever they want, right? Can I have that in writing?

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Yes,

Yes, they have no one to blame but themselves. And they used BROADcasting to reach niche audiences, but expected ALL taxpayers to pay for it.

So just because people live rural and even if everyone within range of the signal ponied up cash and that still wasnt enough, they dont deserve to have local media and local life saving info?

 

[Gravel Switch]

So just because people live rural and even if everyone within range of the signal ponied up cash and that still wasnt enough, they dont deserve to have local media and local life saving info?

I was speaking solely of NPR’s and PBS’s tilted editorial approach which is widely known (even WAY before the current administration). Let’s not ascribe other meanings to that specific observation.

 

[Gravel Switch]

What steps could they have taken? Tell Ken Burns to redo The Civil War so that the south won?

This was all laid out in Project 2025. Everybody knew this was what they were going to do. There were no proactive steps.



So now NPR no longer has to fear losing any funding. They can report whatever they want, right? Can I have that in writing?

News outlets that don’t receive ANY government/taxpayer funding are free to slant either way they want. But when it involves taxpayer funding, that’s unconscionable and wrong and hence the reason government shouldn’t be in the business of funding news, regardless of $ amount.

 

[TheBigA]

News outlets that don’t receive ANY government/taxpayer funding are free to slant either way they want. But when it involves taxpayer funding, that’s unconscionable and wrong and hence the reason government shouldn’t be in the business of funding news, regardless of $ amount.

So the government can't be biased? It must be fair and represents all sides? OK Great. I'll write that down. Thanks.

Why is the president firing only the dems on the CPB Board? Doesn't he want it to be fair and unbiased?

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-administration-sues-oust-corporation-public-broadcasting-board-members-2025-07-15/

What was that word? "Unconscionable." Yes. Good word.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I was speaking solely of NPR’s and PBS’s tilted editorial approach which is widely known (even WAY before the current administration). Let’s not ascribe other meanings to that specific observation.

yeah but... unfoertunately, what i mentioned is collateral damage because of defunding

 

[Gravel Switch]

So the government can't be biased? It must be fair and represents all sides? OK Great. I'll write that down. Thanks.

Why is the president firing only the dems on the CPB Board? Doesn't he want it to be fair and unbiased?

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-administration-sues-oust-corporation-public-broadcasting-board-members-2025-07-15/

What was that word? "Unconscionable." Yes. Good word.

I don’t think a snarky tone is called for, as I was attempting to have an honest, non-political discussion about taxpayer funding of public broadcasting. But it appears you have an overriding political bone to pick that’s getting in the way of a straight-up discussion about whether it’s appropriate to have taxpayers fund broadcasting.

Unfortunately it’s yet another example of instead of discussing an issue on its merits, it devolves into political sniping by one of the discussion’s participants.

I’ll leave it at that.