Sorry I apologize. Can you explain why this government is only firing dems from the CPB Board? Even after they defunded it.
I've addressed your question several times, fairly, and with documentation. Please have the courtesy of addressing mine.
-
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
NPR, PBS members see record donations after Congress cuts funding
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
Sorry I apologize. Can you explain why this government is only firing dems from the CPB Board? Even after they defunded it.
I've addressed your question several times, fairly, and with documentation. Please have the courtesy of addressing mine.
Sorry, but both sides of the aisle engage in political machinations — that is based on my experience in the legislative branch. It’s why I’m only looking at the issue through the lens as to whether taxpayer funds should be involved, regardless who’s in the White House.
Setting aside current politics, I believe NPR and PBS made their tilted beds over the years/decades, and they now have to sleep in it.
Sorry but that didn't address the specific question I asked.
I answered your question by saying, “ … both sides of the aisle engage in political machinations — that is based on my experience in the legislative branch. It’s why I’m only looking at the issue through the lens as to whether taxpayer funds should be involved, regardless who’s in the White House.”
Here's how the general public feels on the subject.
New Poll Finds Bipartisan Support for Federal Public Radio Funding.
A new Harris Poll conducted for NPR reveals strong bipartisan support for public radio, with two-thirds of Americans backing federal funding and viewing it as a good value. The survey
Maybe it would be appropriate to ask taxpayers how they feel.
A lot of these threads and posts fail to take into account that the current administration does not want the federal government involved in any way with over the air broadcasting. We are arguing semantics over words like "own" and "program" and "support".
Whether "support" means owning stations, subsidizing them, providing content or any other service is not favored by this administration.
Last edited:
Because that's not true. They are very involved in many ways in over the air broadcasting. This president feels he's an expert on the subject, and comments on it a lot. He's never said he doesn't want to be involved. Whenever he needs an expert, he hires a broadcaster.
I can't find the recruit specs, the screener or the questionnaire. However, when they say "Nearly three-quarters of respondents (73%) said they depend on public radio emergency alerts and news for public safety, including 77% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats" I find it impossible to believe that three-quarters of adults depend on public radio for "emergency alerts etc."Here's how the general public feels on the subject.
New Poll Finds Bipartisan Support for Federal Public Radio Funding.
A new Harris Poll conducted for NPR reveals strong bipartisan support for public radio, with two-thirds of Americans backing federal funding and viewing it as a good value. The surveywww.insideradio.com
Really? I doubt more than a quarter of the population would now what their local "public" station is, and less than half of that would know where to look for it or actually use it. Usage is born out by looking at the cume of an average of representative public radio stations.
That's how the president deals with polls he doesn't like. He told Fox News to fire their pollster.
How? All you have mentioned is the fact that the government, as it has done for decades and decades, buys ads on radio and TV for different agencies.
Commenting about favored and disliked broadcast commentators, newscasters and personalities is something that has also been done for many decades.
But that is not the same as having "the government" producing, financing, owning, propagating or otherwise being actually involved with the operations of stations.
I can comment on the quality of American vs. foreign made cars all I want. That does not mean I am involved with the ownership, design, sales, pricing or any other aspect of the running of an automaker.
No, the government is very involved in all aspects of broadcasting. It's getting deeper every week.
Once again, the government is forbidden by law from any of those things. That's why VOA is not meant for domestic consumption. You know this.
In this case, the cume of "public" stations (a term not even defined in the NPR's self-serving release) can be seen in Nielsen ratings. Nobody has disputed that data, and it bears out that in the average market only a tiny percentage of the population listens even once a week to an NPR affiliated station.
In this case, as someone who did actual radio research as the head of a research (and programming) division of a top 10 group owner and who also was involved with custom general market projects in markets as diverse as Huntsville and Albuquerque, I can say that that study stinks as badly as a raw sewage plant in the tropics.
You're welcome to post any data you like.
I comment on the weather every day. That does not make me a meteorologist. Today it hit 120°. I had nothing to do with it.
No, the VOA was chartered to not provide programming that would be attractive to the domestic audience. There was no way to prevent "domestic consumption" of short-wave radio.
Having been contracted on multiple occasions to analyze and advise one of the divisions of the parent of the VOA, I was thoroughly trained and advised about the restrictions.
You can look at the cume of each rated "public" station online. If a market has. let's say, 8 million persons over 18, and the NPR station(s) get a cume of 500,000, then it's reach is about 6% of the adult population. If the market has more than one station fitting the vague "public" heading, we have to be a subscriber to know what the unduplicated cume of each is.
Regardless, the government is not involved in producing, owning, propagating or otherwise being actually involved with the operations of public stations or NPR. In fact CPB isn't involved in those things either. All they do is evaluate grant applications, and either approve or deny.
From CPB.org:
If the government ever WAS involved in any of those things, I doubt the president would have defunded it.
Last edited:
See??? There you go with semantics, words and word meanings. "Grants" to stations or other entities that provide funding, content or some kind of assistance to "public" radio and TV constitute "government involvement".
Yes, I know that they do not own or operate any such stations. But they provide support in direct or indirect manners that facilitate their operation.
Heck, if that was not "government support" why are all the organization like CPB and NPR and the like protesting the elimination of, well, government support?
You need to read the public broadcasting act. It's all explained there. The law is still active.
You still haven't shown me where the government has said it wants no involvement in broadcasting.
Actually NPR really hasn't protested at all. In fact, it set up a fund to help poor stations. I'm surprised CPB hasn't really done a thing.
The stations are all rebudgeting and firing staff. I haven't seen any protests.
It has done nothing to create content, contribute to stations, contribute to organizations that support stations or anything else that meets you "word meaning" contest. The fact is, the Trump administration defunded everything to do with domestic public radio and almost totally closed international propaganda radio.
To me, that is "having no involvement in broadcasting". Yes, the administration and the President and his cabinet and advisors have opinions about "public radio" but that is not the same as "involvement". Again, we are arguing word meaning and semantics.
That press release that InsideRadio published is certainly a "protest". Well written, expressing their perspective. And protesting what the Trump administration is doing / has done.
So this is your opinion, not a factual statement of policy from the government. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. That's all it is.
Maybe what you read was a protest from the writer at Inside Radio. They have been known to editorialize.
A protest would involve legal action. There has been no legal action, from NPR, CPB, PBS, or any of the stations. None.
The comments from everyone have been measured and polite. No threats. No retaliation. Everyone is still dedicated to the mission.
The real work is going on behind the scenes. There's no point protesting against this government.