Trump plans order to cut funding for NPR and PBS

[davideduardo]

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.

The economic plan contemplates significant increases in government revenue that will exceed the increases in budget. The media, in all colors and flavors, doe not look at the full picture.

If this were a radio station, what if we change formats? The idea is that the new format may cost more, but has greater audience potential and we will bill more as a result. In the case of government, the changes in income tax, tariffs and such supposedly will produce more than the increased budget.

As I said, the media only looks at the costs and fails to contemplate the revenue. And that is because so few journalists understand economics 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.

There is a point to Lake's statement, but my perspective is that the government should not be involved in broadcasting. Did the government ever have a newspaper (other than military base publications)? Why should it have radio stations?

 

[TheBigA]

The economic plan contemplates significant increases in government revenue that will exceed the increases in budget. The media, in all colors and flavors, doe not look at the full picture.

My figures come from the congressional budget office. This isn't a media problem. Fiscal conservatives in congress are opposed to this budget because of the $3 trillion in new debt.

There is a point to Lake's statement, but my perspective is that the government should not be involved in broadcasting. Did the government ever have a newspaper (other than military base publications)? Why should it have radio stations?

The federal government is prohibited from owning domestic radio stations. You know that. This isn't about ownership. It's about ideology.

The problem for congress is that more than a dozen states own radio & TV stations. The funding we're talking about goes to them. Can they afford to each lose as much as $3 million?

 

[TheBigA]

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.

Everybody knows and accepts that less than 4% of the federal money goes to NPR, and none of it is for news. If they all know that, why are they pushing this false idea that the government is funding news?

 

[davideduardo]

My figures come from the congressional budget office. This isn't a media problem. Fiscal conservatives in congress are opposed to this budget because of the $3 trillion in new debt.

And there are compensatory increases in projected revenue. As I said, many are looking at the costs but not the income.

The government is prohibited from owning domestic radio stations. You know that. This isn't about ownership. It's about ideology.

That is why I used the term "involved" referring to OTA broadcasting.

As to ideology, the current government finds the "ideology" of public radio to be partialized.

 

[davideduardo]

Everybody knows and accepts that less than 4% of the federal money goes to NPR, and none of it is for news. If they all know that, why are they pushing this false idea that the government is funding news?

The perspective is that they are funding an entity that also has predominantly opposition party partisans, journalists and management.

 

[TheBigA]

And there are compensatory increases in projected revenue. As I said, many are looking at the costs but not the income.

That's what the CBO does. They factor all that in, and they came up with $3 trillion in new debt. Talk to the socialist Rand Paul about it.

As to ideology, the current government finds the "ideology" of public radio to be partialized.

That's why we have a first amendment. Government shall not abridge.

The perspective is that they are funding an entity that also has predominantly opposition party partisans, journalists and management.

You could say the same thing about half of congress. Once again, we are allowed to have an opposition in this country. We're not China.

 

[davideduardo]

You could say the same thing about half of congress. Once again, we are allowed to have an opposition in this country. We're not China.

But one party does not have to fund what it perceives as "belonging" to the other.

Not all free word nations have radio stations nor do they aid in the financing of radio programming or operation by others. This is not something that warrants comparison with China.

Simply, the current administration does not want to finance broadcasting that it perceives to be partisan.

 

[TheBigA]

But one party does not have to fund what it perceives as "belonging" to the other.

Really? Show me where it says that in the constitution.

There has been no real proof of any party affiliations of any news services. As I've said before, such a question would be inappropriate.

Simply, the current administration does not want to finance broadcasting that it perceives to be partisan.

The current administration has to follow the law. If they want to limit funding to only local stations, they can amend the law.

They want to cut funding to local stations because they don't like the reporting by NPR News. That's wrong.

 

[gr8oldies]

The perspective is that they are funding an entity that also has predominantly opposition party partisans, journalists and managementIf

The economic plan contemplates significant increases in government revenue that will exceed the increases in budget. The media, in all colors and flavors, doe not look at the full picture.

If this were a radio station, what if we change formats? The idea is that the new format may cost more, but has greater audience potential and we will bill more as a result. In the case of government, the changes in income tax, tariffs and such supposedly will produce more than the increased budget.

As I said, the media only looks at the costs and fails to contemplate the revenue. And that is because so few journalists understand economics at all.

There is a point to Lake's statement, but my perspective is that the government should not be involved in broadcasting. Did the government ever have a newspaper (other than military base publications)? Why should it have radio stations?

Nothing should be on the air other than Fox News, according to the administration.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Nothing should be on the air other than Fox News, according to the administration.

Not true. Remember when even Fox News wasn't covering Trump like he wanted to be covered?

 

[gr8oldies]

Not true. Remember when even Fox News wasn't covering Trump like he wanted to be covered?

Once in a while Fox and the administration get into a snit, but on balance, they praise and worship him, and even paid $787 million for lying for him.

 

[vchimpanzee]

But just in case, there are OANN and NewsMax.

 

[davideduardo]

Really? Show me where it says that in the constitution.

There is nothing that requires any funding of radio, TV or any kind of media.

There has been no real proof of any party affiliations of any news services. As I've said before, such a question would be inappropriate.

That has been estimated many times, based on party affiliation, donations and the like. I'd bet that around 90% of all journalists in radio, TV, print and online are either registered Democrats or are partial to the Democratic Party platform.

The current administration has to follow the law. If they want to limit funding to only local stations, they can amend the law.

There is no constitutional requirement for funding of any news media, and laws are changed, amended, modified or removed all the time.

They want to cut funding to local stations because they don't like the reporting by NPR News. That's wrong.

What other local radio stations does the Federal Government fund? The Republicans appear to want to eliminate that part of the budget, not change to whom it goes.

 

[TheBigA]

There is nothing that requires any funding of radio, TV or any kind of media.

The congress passed the public broadcasting act, as amended, as well as several other acts related to its funding.

They discussed at the time the political problems with government funding. It's why they created CPB as an independent intermediary.

The president constitutionally has no role in funding.

That has been estimated many times, based on party affiliation, donations and the like. I'd bet that around 90% of all journalists in radio, TV, print and online are either registered Democrats or are partial to the Democratic Party platform.

Joe McCarthy also said there were thousands of communists in the federal government. You know what happened to him.

Party affiliation is not a requirement for a job in this country. As I said, this isn't China. There, you must be part of the CCP, and they all promote the same singular agenda. We don't work that way here. The government is supposed to work for ALL of the people, not just the party of the president.

There is no constitutional requirement for funding of any news media, and laws are changed, amended, modified or removed all the time.

I already addressed that. The president is trying to get around the laws and the law-making process for ideological reasons.

Also, there is a lot more covered by CPB than NPR news. The president is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What other local radio stations does the Federal Government fund? The Republicans appear to want to eliminate that part of the budget, not change to whom it goes.

What other local radio stations have a congressionally passed law that involves funding?

Republicans can repeal the public broadcasting act. I'm amazed that none of them have even brought it up.

 

[fybush]

That has been estimated many times, based on party affiliation, donations and the like. I'd bet that around 90% of all journalists in radio, TV, print and online are either registered Democrats or are partial to the Democratic Party platform.

I have actually stepped down as a moderator here specifically to call you out for this line of bullshit you keep spewing in this interminable thread.

You have no actual proof of this assertion you keep making, and you know it.

It's disrespectful and demeaning to any of us who have put in the hard work as journalists over the years to so casually and routinely make these accusations of bias.

I spent 20 years in public radio. I covered Democrats, Republicans, independents, all while adhering to the same ethical principles good journalists bind themselves to following. I never donated to a political candidate or endorsed one. That's what public media journalists do, not that you know or care. We give up a lot of the ability we'd sometimes like to have to be involved in our local and national politics in order to do the hard work of journalism.

And here you are using this site as your personal grudge outlet for whatever weird shit you encountered in a life that has very little to do with the lived reality of most US broadcasters and especially journalists. Yes, I have heard your story, incessantly, of comparing media coverage of Ecuador. Good for you. That was a lifetime ago on another part of the continent.

I'm sick of it, and I have asked Lance to delete my account here if this is the kind of dialogue he's going to continue to let fester here.

I will always respect you for the work you do on broadcast history, but I have had it with the constant attacks on journalism here. And I say that now as a former journalist - I quit a year ago because I had my own issues with where public media was going (which have nothing to do with your imagined reality), and because I didn't want to spend the rest of my life sitting on the sidelines when my country was under attack. It was an either/or choice. I couldn't do both.

 

[tbolt909]

This personal attack of a very respected colleague and the use of profanity is indefensible. Please be civil or don’t post. It is offensive.

What's offensive is when a moderator can post his OPINIONS and make wild claims that are not factual.
It's insufferable.

Journalists are under attack in this country for simply doing their jobs. Reporting a fact like Joe Biden won the 2020 election is considered heresy by many people...

 

[fybush]

I'm sick of his bullshit. And **** you.

You know what's disrespectful? When someone who has no lived understanding of what journalists do comes on here, under the banner of a moderator, and drowns out any actual conversation with constant repetition of speculation and lies.

I make no apologies for having had enough of it.

 

[gr8oldies]

There is nothing that requires any funding of radio, TV or any kind of media.

That has been estimated many times, based on party affiliation, donations and the like. I'd bet that around 90% of all journalists in radio, TV, print and online are either registered Democrats or are partial to the Democratic Party platform.

There is no constitutional requirement for funding of any news media, and laws are changed, amended, modified or removed all the time.

What other local radio stations does the Federal Government fund? The Republicans appear to want to eliminate that part of the budget, not change to whom it goes.

Are the journalists on your favorite MAGA sources all Democrats? You seem to have an issue with MAGA not having an absolute monopoly, which is what Trump wants.

 

[davideduardo]

You know what's disrespectful? When someone who has no lived understanding of what journalists do comes on here, under the banner of a moderator, and drowns out any actual conversation with constant repetition of speculation and lies.

I have, in recent times, programmed both of the two all news stations in Puerto Rico, You-Ess-Ay. One of which I created from scratch. And an all news and talk station in the Dominican Republic which will be the overwhelmingly #1 station in the Dominican Republic for 40 years in about 13 months (It was soooo #1 that the Presidents of the Republic have a staffer doing a synopsis of the daily content each morning). Oh, and the #1 or #1 news and talk station in Argentina for 25 years... a market larger than New York City.

My stepbrother was Editor and Publisher of what, when newspapers meant anything, of one of the ten highest circulation papers in the United States. My family was all about "the press" and journalism.

Heck, I even took advanced journalism classes at Michigan State University after being noted for founding my High School's student newspaper. In the real world, I was in charge of news/talk station in New York City, Chicago, Miami, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, McAllen, and LA where I trained and supervised the news directors, news staffs and on-air talent.

I make no apologies for having had enough of it.

I'd say that we have differing opinions, but you want to make yours more valid by challenging both my right to a differing one and all my 60 years of experience doing radio news after growing up in a newspaper home.

 

[davideduardo]

Are the journalists on your favorite MAGA sources all Democrats? You seem to have an issue with MAGA not having an absolute monopoly, which is what Trump wants.

No such thing. I've had the unique experience among poster here of having done all news or news/talk in a U.S. territory and a number of nations where there are more than two parties. There, we find a much wider assortment of party/ideology partisans at every station because there may be three, four or more parties. And some parties are the result of no party being effective, such as in Mexico where the party in power did not exist until this millenium yet it overcame all three of the long-standing parties, causing the "losers" to suddenly present joint candidates.

From a radio perspective, in a many-party system, it is often necessary to align a station with one party or one ideology. In Puerto Rico, one station I created and programmed is aligned with the PNP, the statehood party. The other one I worked with for a decade and a half is aligned with the Commonwealth (Free Associated State) party, the PPD. And at times there have been strong independence movements or strong splinter independent parties.