• 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 plans order to cut funding for NPR and PBS

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is how possible cuts to CPB translate to changes in the public radio system. Operationally, it means job cuts in Atlanta:


So for those who attribute this to cutting the size of government, what it really means is that local radio people will be out of work.
 
We’re well past the point of pointing out hypocrisy. Truth be told, not a single Republican will stand up to Trump because they are meek and cowardly and there won’t be any tangible opposition from voters within the party.

The vast majority of his base blindly support him and won’t bat an eye even if their livelihood is hurt badly. They can’t be swayed.
 
We’re well past the point of pointing out hypocrisy. Truth be told, not a single Republican will stand up to Trump because they are meek and cowardly and there won’t be any tangible opposition from voters within the party.

The vast majority of his base blindly support him and won’t bat an eye even if their livelihood is hurt badly. They can’t be swayed.
Well True and also if there are Republicans standing up to Trump they are "Ex-Republicans", Converted to voting for Democrats and are speaking up about the latest drama from the White House just not in places where the fans of Elon Musk and Donald Trump are located. This group is speaking up on Substack, MSNBC, CNN and others. Its because these pundits know they will or already have been banned from Fox News and Newsmax over Trump.




At one point Charlie Sykes even had appearances on NPR affiliate WNYC as a host once he resigned from WTMJ Radio Milwaukee and left the GOP in 2016. Well today we know Charlie Sykes for being on MSNBC Talk shows talking about the current state of the GOP.

 
The dollars being discussed are basically about 5% of the revenue pie for stations. There are stations offering the only media for tiny spots that need almost 100% funding and I support that.

Nothing has happened yet and lots of folks are pointing to things that are happening before the fact. Such is the news cycle on the left and right...just select facts and plenty of hyperbole when needed.
 
The dollars being discussed are basically about 5% of the revenue pie for stations. There are stations offering the only media for tiny spots that need almost 100% funding and I support that.

You're right and nobody listened when it was brought up during the congressional hearing. They call it a hearing, and nobody was listening.
 
There was a poll asking people how they feel about defunding public broadcasting, and only 25% were in favor. That's less than his base.
On the other hand, the administration's goal is to reduce expenditures and the national debt, both of which are unsustainable.

In the case of public broadcasting, the conclusion seems to be that this is an area that government should not be involved at all. That matches many other nations, and also matches the reduction in government public broadcasting support in nations with significant entities in that area.
 
On the other hand, the administration's goal is to reduce expenditures and the national debt, both of which are unsustainable.

This is not true. The gutting of the government is politically motivated, the reasons laid out in the Project 2025 roadmap.

Also, Trump's agenda already called for adding trillions of dollars to the U.S. debt and now he's pushing another trillion-dollars in military spending, making it clear this is not really about reducing expenditures or the national debt at all.


 
On the other hand, the administration's goal is to reduce expenditures and the national debt, both of which are unsustainable.

As I said, the president and everyone involved has never used the expense as the reason for defunding. Same with VOA. It's all about the content.

Their latest budget bill will grow the debt by $5 trillion more. So that's not the reason. Try again.
In the case of public broadcasting, the conclusion seems to be that this is an area that government should not be involved at all.
If that's the conclusion, why aren't they saying it? Nobody is giving that as the reason. The government is fine with being in broadcasting as long as they control the message. That's what Kari Lake said. The government could change funding rules and only give money to stations in need. There are a lot of ways they could fix the problems. But they want to shut down the radical left. That's all they're saying.
 
This is how possible cuts to CPB translate to changes in the public radio system. Operationally, it means job cuts in Atlanta:


So for those who attribute this to cutting the size of government, what it really means is that local radio people will be out of work.
True and when CPB is cut how will the Corporation for Public Broadcasting investigate allegations like misusing funds as seen with the case when California State University reported that the former General Manager of Cap Radio Sacramento was misusing their funds for questionable reasons lead to California State University, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to investigate the books of Sacramento State University and CapRadio over those allegations in an audit. But then again this is not being discussed on the national level for some reason.




 
NPR is advising its affiliates to lobby congress:


As I've said, the stations should also speak with their governors. A lot of NPR stations are owned in some way by state governments. They will lose this funding, not NPR. But this is a CPB problem, and they should be the ones speaking to congress. That's why they exist.

The government is of the mistaken opinion that NPR is some top-down system that controls what its stations do. It's not.
 
Part of the federal funding that goes to CPB is for the emergency warning system at local stations. Some of that money also comes from FEMA, and apparently that money is also tied up in the government's attempt to shut down FEMA:

Last week, FEMA changed it's mind and decided it would fund the emergency system.

 
NPR is advising its affiliates to lobby congress:


As I've said, the stations should also speak with their governors. A lot of NPR stations are owned in some way by state governments. They will lose this funding, not NPR. But this is a CPB problem, and they should be the ones speaking to congress. That's why they exist.

The government is of the mistaken opinion that NPR is some top-down system that controls what its stations do. It's not.

When I read your post, I recalled hearing (or reading) somewhere in the distant past, that recipients of government funding are blocked from lobbying on their own behalf. So Ilooked up the situation with CPB. While I didn't find any official statements from the CPB or other sites on this matter, I did find the following Reddit post from last January that opposes public radio funding:


Open Secrets, a non-profit entity that supports full government transparency, did not find that the CPB lobbied Congress in 2024 which may give substance to the claim that that organization is forbidden by law from lobbying Congress on its own behalf.


Anyway, I think this is why the CPB is asking individual public stations to lobby on its behalf.
 
The non-com Music Alliance says ending funding for CPB will devastate public broadcasting;


The politicians believe they're only cutting NPR. They haven't looked at what their cuts actually mean. Not all of the recipients of CPB money air NPR news. Some air classical music.
 
The non-com Music Alliance says ending funding for CPB will devastate public broadcasting;


The politicians believe they're only cutting NPR. They haven't looked at what their cuts actually mean. Not all of the recipients of CPB money air NPR news. Some air classical music.
We have a local Americana station that gets CPB funding
 
The non-com Music Alliance says ending funding for CPB will devastate public broadcasting;


The politicians believe they're only cutting NPR. They haven't looked at what their cuts actually mean. Not all of the recipients of CPB money air NPR news. Some air classical music.

And some air adult album alternative, jazz, and alternative music! However, none of this matters to the person who is demanding these cuts; he only seeks to give his opposition a lesser voice than his supporters, much like what is being done in today's Hungary.
 
FCC Chairman Carr says his goal is to "empower local broadcasters:"


If that's true, why is he trying to defund local public broadcasters? The entire public radio system is based on empowering local stations. They choose the programming they carry. It's not mandated by any national company. In fact the local stations sit on NPR's board and set its agenda. Not the other way around. Carr and his party should love the system. It was their party that set it up in 1983 under Reagan. But they're too young to know that.
 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting sues Trump Administration over the firing three of its board members. Another hearing is set for May 14 over this issue.

UPDATED with judge setting filing dates: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Tuesday filed suit against Donald Trump and other members of his administration for their removal of three members of its board, including Sony’s Tom Rothman.

The corporation, the independent entity set up to distribute federal funds to public broadcasting entities, is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop Trump’s firing of Rothman and board members Laura Ross and Diane Kaplan.
Although presidents appoint members of the CPB board, there is nothing in the statute that allows them to remove them once they are confirmed by the Senate, the corporation’s attorneys wrote.


CPB’s attorneys wrote, “Put simply, Congress conceived CPB as a vehicle for infusing federal money into public broadcasting without the introduction of government direction or control, with Congress reserving for itself the oversight responsibility for the CPB by, among other things, controlling the appropriations for CPB and public broadcasting. Moreover, Congress protected the CPB from the executive branch by withholding from CPB any form, pure or quasi, of legislative, judicial, or regulatory power.”
 
Having failed to cut public broadcasting with various options, the president is now trying something different: Rescission:


He is asking congress re rescind already allocated funds. The problem for congress is the action defies an existing law, and it would mean they're cutting aid to their own states. It's not being presented that way, but it will come out in the hearings. The "talking points" say it would cut funds to NPR & PBS, but that's not true. It would instead cut millions of already-allocated funds to local stations and state governments. There have to be hearings on this proposal, and I expect them to be very revealing.
 
The attack isn't about saving money. It's about shutting down free speech. It's about government control of what the media says. They aren't hiding it or mincing words. They believe what the media is saying needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary.
The "other side" says that it is about closing ending government sponsorship of something they feel is both an area where the government should not be participating and where the endeavors are, in their opinion, partisan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom