Trump is a convicted felon. That's factual. If they are reporting on that case, why bristle at that? Trump's war on NPR is because he "can't handle the truth". He wants to control the narrative on everything...
-
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
Trump funding cuts to PBS/NPR
- Thread starter Yabadabado1
- Start date
- Status
Nothing? Maybe not directly, but obviously the more spending the more debt, all else being equal.
Did you read the article I linked? It explains the budget plan. In order to add another $3.8 trillion to the debt takes a lot more than just spending.
It really doesn't matter. Public broadcasting has already been advance funded to 2027. It was done in March. Nothing the president can do about it.
But it is not relevant to the story at hand.
It's like saying "David Gleason, who lost the 440 yard dash in Junior High, has invested 25 year in building WorldRadioHistory.Com". The added item has nothing to do with the story being covered.
Again, it is not relevant. That is core to journalism.
He, and many others, believe that at least some of the NPR content is biased by the political affiliations of the writers and editors.
They can believe whatever they want to believe. The first amendment has no exceptions. Nobody forces them to listen. But the constitution protects the freedom of the press.
This is not a freedom of the press issue. It is a funding issue, and, as far as I know, there is no Constitutional Amendment requiring the funding of public media of any kind.
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the president any role in funding. That's why NPR is suing him.
You can't on one hand claim "bias," and then say "This is not a freedom of the press issue." If you're claiming bias, you're by definition seeking to abridge the freedom of the press.
Donald Trump is our elected President because most Americans saw that the attempt to put a strong Presidential contender in jail was politics at its worst.
One of the defenses for keeping taxpayer funding of public broadcasting is that a number of small stations, such as those in some rural areas, really need the funding to remain on the air in a fiscally sound way. What about funding only those types of stations and not ones that can make it on their own?
Trump is a convicted felon. If many people don't care, that's a separate issue. Most Americans didn't vote for anyone. Trump wants NPR to go away because they won't bend to his will. He has no role in the funding of it...
That's a good point that should be handled by congress. Right now, the law says the federal money is given to stations based on qualifications. When the Reagan repubs amended the law in 1984, they didn't want federal funds given out like welfare to poor or needy radio stations. Instead, they wanted radio stations to earn the federal money. So the federal money is a match that is based on the amount of money the local stations raise from their communities. That way, the stations have to work for their federal money. Sound familiar? They're doing the same thing now with Medicaid. So this is why big city stations receive federal funding. The reason is they qualify based on the law. CPB makes those decisions. Stations apply to CPB for the money. CPB also funds independent radio & TV producers who create programs for the stations. It's a very complicated process spelled out in the law, and the president has no role in it.
The amount of money stations receive is a completely separate discussion, and isn't what this particular battle is about. In this case, the president doesn't want stations to use their federal money to buy programming from NPR. That's not his decision. That's a local decision, made by the station GMs. He wants to defund NPR and PBS because of their news coverage.
Because if they aren't Fox News II, they're biased.
NPR CEO discusses suing Trump administration over order targeting funding
NPR and three Colorado public radio stations filed suit against the Trump administration in federal court over his executive order targeting funding for NPR, PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The lawsuit contends Trump's order is a violation of the First Amendment. Geoff Bennett...
www.pbs.org
The CEO of NPR appears on the PBS Newshour to explain why their team filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. As mentioned here it’s tied to political interference and First Amendment issues.
Honestly, I'd much rather see and hear regular commercials and sponsoring on PBS and NPR then have to put up with a 15-minute segment of a show followed by a 15-minute pledge drive break.
The only way you can have a classical music station today is with listener sponsorship.
Very true-the kind of mx played on pub stations...classical/jazz/bluegrass/folk and even some alternate rock just wouldn't command enough bodies to sell to advertisers...hence...one of the main reasons for the creation of pub radio, so that people can hear this worthwhile music and suport ith with their pledges, and those who feel like its a worthy cause to support via foundations and underwriting ...but it has been allowed to morph into something else...just take a look at the staff sizes at some of these places...
These stations are mainly locally owned. So they don't have access to corporate HR, engineering, or accounting departments. They have to hire them locally. This is what radio looked like before consolidation. So yes, big staffs, but because of the way they're run. We've become used to corporate radio with national VT and lots of staff cuts. It's usually different in the non-com world, where they don't have to provide quarterly dividends to stockholders. It's instead reinvested in the product and the community.
raises arm and waves.
Here.. 1 FT, 1 part time locally... 1 part time office person remotely, 1 contract accountant, 1 contract engineer we see once a year.We must be one of the few public radio stations that that doesnt run the typical public radio music fare.. country music in the morning, rock/pop/oldies, etc in the afternoon (just check out our recently played list at kskopublicradio.com
We serve 1200 people, most with no other media source and we've existed for 44 years because of CPB Funding.. and trust me, we far exceed whatever community service requirements the CPB has.
I've worked commercial & non-commercial stations. I much prefer the non-commercial ones because they tend to serve the community and pay attention to what's going on in it, HOWEVER, there are a few that try to be all things to all people and that tends to annoy me. One of the non-coms I worked for decades ago, which wasn't an NPR station and which basically had block programming of similar type music grouped together, had much major drama going on a few years ago where you had one group of people demanding that the station play more of their type music and threatening other hosts and station management with death threats, etc. I'm not sure what happened there but I haven't heard anything about it lately so I guess it got hashed out. I think it would take some strong station management to say "We're not putting up with that crap so you're banished from OUR airwaves. Go start your own station and you can play your type music to your hearts content." But they were afraid of offending some listeners so the problem just festered till it exploded into public view.
No commercial station or its ownership has to pay dividends to shareholders. There is no requirement, and many of the best performers in the stock markets either don't or did not pay dividends for prolonged periods of time.
- Status