Trump plans order to cut funding for NPR and PBS

[Mediafrog+]

Have the airwaves overseen by an industry group.

One hundred years ago this is essentially what then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover told the broadcast industry: Police yourselves. The industry refused to do that, thus the creation of the Federal Radio Commission, and later, the current FCC.

Are broadcasters now willing to take on that responsibility without the broader public being screwed over?

I would leave wider spectrum allocation decisions to an oversight group of varying interests that would have the general public’s input. Otherwise a few fatcats will gobble up everything.

 

[TheBigA]

Are broadcasters now willing to take on that responsibility without the broader public being screwed over?

It depends on how it's set up. But there are lots of industry groups that are not connected to owners that are involved in lots of things, such as negotiating licensing of music. A hundred years ago, there really was no industry. Now there is. Very different situation. But if the goal is to get the government out of media, that's how to do it. Personally I think this president wants the government involved in media, with all if it reporting to him.

The FCC is already a self-sustaining agency. It receives a government appropriation, which it pays back from license fees, fines, and spectrum sales. So it's perfect for a spin off.

 

[gr8oldies]

I think it might be advisable to explain why both the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule (not discussed thus far but which does have some bearing on this matter) came to be in the first place. This is taken from both my memory of what I learned at Loyola Marymount University during the early 1980s and the first episode of the WNYC's "Divided Dial," from last year. And, of course, anybody is free to correct me.

Originally, there was no Equal Time rule or fairness doctrine for radio or television. It wasn't written in the Federal Radio Act of 1927; nor was it written in the Communications Act of 1934, the law that created the FCC.

In 1936 (if memory serves), a Catholic priest named Charles Coughlin purchased airtime on Detroit's WJR, Los Angeles' KMPC, and a third station (whose callsign I now forget). He used this airtime to attack President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his policies, especially his foreign policy towards Nazi Germany. Father Coughlin was very fond of the policies that Adolf Hitler was putting in place in Germany and called for many of those policies (including some against Jews) to be instituted in the U.S. Because he was on at one 50kW station (WJR) and because there were a lot fewer radio stations then than now, Father Coughlin got a lot of public support for his viewpoints, and, on radio at least, nobody was challenging him. It wasn't until the onset of U.S. involvement in World War II that Father Coughlin lost his show due to public opinion finally turning against him.

Per "The Divided Dial,", during WWII, the U.S. government didn't allow radio stations to broadcast any comments opposing U.S. participation in the war. Many critics, including the ACLU, were very concerned about this policy. (In fact, I believe the ACLU may have taken this to court, but I don't know the outcome.)

After the war, the Truman Administration agreed that not allowing radio stations to air commentaries on current controversial topics wasn't a good idea--it made for people less knowledgeable about the issues. In 1949, both the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule were created by the FCC. Of these, the Equal Time Rule was the more controversial in that it required that if a radio station had a candidate for political office on the air, it had to offer the same air time at the same rates to any other political candidates running for that office. In contrast, the Fairness Doctrine was much looser; all it required was that if a radio station ran a commentary on a controversial issue, it must also let its listeners know what those on the other side of that issue were saying. Unlike the Equal Time Rule, there was no same time requirement nor same rate requirement--the opposing view could be buried late at night.

DavidEduardo is correct in the reasons President Reagan gave for removing the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule in 1987. From my perspective, the results have been disastrous! We are mostly getting just one side of controversial issues and only the candidates with the most money can get their voices heard on most commercial radio outlets these days.

Public radio, including NPR, has (mostly) been the exception. Public radio stations, especially around election time, *will* do news features on (usually) all of the major candidates in statewide and big city races, regardless of party. And, in those states (like my current home state of Arizona), the local public radio outlets will extensively cover any initiatives that may be on the ballot.

I was alittle surprised by DavidEduardo's argument that stations in small towns didn't cover political issues because of the Fairness Doctrine. I very well remember being up at Camp Tatia [not sure of spelling] (a summer camp for blind children near Show Low, Arizona) in 1976 and listening to a *very* anti-Communist commentary by one Allen (or was it Alan) Stang. KVSL didn't air the other side of his commentaries that I ever heard, and I have no knowledge of any attempts to revoke the station's license for airing those commentaries without response. (As a then 13-year-old kid, I thought they were great--I later learned that they were mostly lies.)

My point in this long post was to try, as best I can, to explain how and why the Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time Rule came about in the first place and to comment on what has happened since they were removed. Sadly, I don't think that either policy could stand up to our courts today, particularly U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny. For the U.S. experiment in democracy to continue, we need to have a well-informed citizenry and I fear that, especially with threatened Presidential actions against the CPB, that citizenry will become much less informed than it's ever been.

I particularly remember my first small station in Ohio, back in the 70s. We had a daily talk show, and when it was election season, both Democratic and Republican candidates would come in for interviews. This was in the day when one party didn't have a monopoly on public discussion. We covered the city and town council meetings and I don't remember us getting into any fairness doctrine problems.
I remember Jimmy Swaggart's station in Bowling Green, Ohio, back when weren't a relay of Jimmy Swaggart's network. They'd carry religious programs from guys like Billy James Hargis, one after another, railing against integration, abortion and public schools. They carried a five-minute commentary called "In the Public Interest" as their "balance", with lots of disclaimers. (I have to laugh these days when I hear commercial Christian stations running disclaimers about having to carry ads from Democratic candidates.....Jesus being a registered Republican and all).
In the 70s, there were no Superpacs. Citizens United changed all of that. The unlimited money has largely led us to where we are.

 

[TheBigA]

Will 'educational' programming be destroyed by a lack of funding? Where there is a will there is a way. In commercial radio we had bosses who said 'sell it" and it hits the airwaves. In other words we took the product and shopped it around until we had the funding.

That's where things are now in "educational broadcasting." A lot of them are owned by colleges and universities that are looking to get out of that business and get rid of the expense. The federal money covered some expenses that the universities don't have. If federal money goes away, coupled with the collapse of the Department of Education, you'll see a quick rush to sell by these educational institutions. Who is buying? Religious broadcasters. So that's the future without government funding.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

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'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.

Your expierience while valid is in a much different time and place

My expierience in radio isnt in public radio, its in commercial radio for 16 or soof my 22 years in broadcast media. I only care about being local and community involved, regardless of the signal that gets me there.

Given where I live (in small town Alaska, people take things alot more personally then youd imagine) and because of what I do there's alot I can't do or say in person or on social media so my reputation as a journalist/program director doesnt get ruined and I can remain and unequivically appear to remain unbiased on air and in my coverage.

Stuff our current administration is doing endangers the life of people like me, as a member of the LGBTQ "family", threatens the communities I live in (wanting to eliminate the EAS transportation which is crucial out here) and wants to eliminate CPB funding which would devastate many stations in Alaska which would likely force the closure of many stations here leaving many chunks of the state with zero local reliable trustworthy information sources.

Come on.. come up here, fly up here, spend a week up here with me, listen in on the phone calls I get, take a look and listen to some of the lifesaving information we provide. CPB funding is necessary for our survival and has been for 44 years.

Even if ever living breathing creature in our listening area contributed $200 a year (and that includes babies) and all businesses converted to cash donations and not in kind, that would barely be enough for an austere type of budget with electricity at 75 c kwh and gas at $8.55 a gallon

We deserve radio and we're not moving to a more populated area. Come on David, come up and visit... i challenge you.

 

[vchimpanzee]

(I have to laugh these days when I hear commercial Christian stations running disclaimers about having to carry ads from Democratic candidates.....Jesus being a registered Republican and all).

I have seen a number of letters to the editor that say Jesus would be a Democrat. I can understand why conservatives wouldn't accept this, but on certain issues, they disagree with Him.

 

[Delete My Account]

I wish you had not brought in Soros. That ruined your whole, particularly if you have friends and relatives in the UK who have suffered year after year after he "ruined" the Pound and wrecked the British economy. In any case, I can also bring up equal cases of demonstrations and vandalism and destruction from the other side, so we have to conclude that any major political party will have a percentage of fanatics who are well out of their minds.

I don't bring in Soros to praise him. He was, however, a name that frequently was used to accuse our reporters and anchors of being paid to spread propaganda or promote COVID vaccines. I'm not speaking to his character or politics, I'm merely pointing out that his name was used as shorthand for this supposed "agenda" this privately owned, highly commercially successful radio station was believed to have had by the extremists.

Yes, there's fanatics on the far left. They weren't the ones targeting my coworkers. The worst we got from them was that "Trump should be jailed." Far-left anarchists don't generally trust commercial media either. But at least in my market in the United States, they ignored us. The far-right seemed to really enjoy harassing our newsroom.

My point is not that fanaticism is ideologically one sided. It's that certain camps of it right now, and at least since the pandemic, feel particularly angry at the news media and desire to intimidate them. This plays right into the current war on the media by Carr and company. Even if we admit that the funding mechanism for NPR is a worthy debate, the culture war is on all fronts. It's NPR, CBS, and on and on. And that's what I have a problem with because it's actively pouring fuel on the fire at a time when, particularly with social media as big as it is, that we need people who report these stories and provide a counterpoint to any administration's narrative. And their lives and livelihoods shouldn't be put in danger simply for expressing views this president doesn't agree with.

Which is why, in the big picture, this does remind me of Putin's Russia. Because there were private broadcasters that didn't toe the line and they got shut down. RT is an apologist for him and a propaganda outlet that was allowed into the United States. No disrespect to your experience, David, but our current President and many of his followers believe you can or should use methods that are far too close to that line for the comfort of many of us posting here. Thus, the comparisons.

Putin Shuts Down Russia's Free Press for Reporting Accurately on Ukraine - Nieman Reports

The crackdown on independent news outlets takes Russia back to the Soviet era

niemanreports.org

No broadcaster should be pressured by the President via the FCC because they don't report the news about him the way he feels they should. And the discussion about NPR should be content-neutral. But it isn't, because it's more advantageous to the current president and his most avid supporters, to frame it as a cultural and moral issue and make them the enemy of the people.

 

[davideduardo]

This is a really fascinating discussion........one of the most interesting ever, for me as a listener. But I have a question for anyone. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting started out as an educational endeavor, to provide educational programming without commercial interruptions. It was seen as public service programming, which is why the govt. funded it. Correct ?

I'm not an expert on the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, so hope that someone with knowledge will expand. Remember, the federal government does not own radio and TV stations, but states may, either directly or through state funded institutions like universities.

My very first exposure to PBS was my first time employment as a part time nanny for pre schoolers who loved the Muppets on Sesame St., shown on Ch. 28 KCET L.A. My family only received TV channels through a roof antenna. We did not get UHF reception. But the family for whom I worked could afford cable. That was a long, long time ago ! Sesame St. was funded to help teach literacy skills to little kids who might be disadvantaged or whose family could not afford pre school.
But it was an effective and fun teaching device for all backgrounds.

Interesting anecdote and observation the usefulness of the public TV children's programs.

The govt can fund educational programming, can it not ? Why did that become so controversial? ..... Daryl

The "controversy" involves the allegations by the right that the news and commentary content leans towards favoring the left side of the aisle and that the journalists and writers are "all" (a generalization meaning "the majority") Democrats. Thus comes the opposition by the Republicans to providing public funding for those endeavors.

 

[davideduardo]

In the 70s, there were no Superpacs. Citizens United changed all of that. The unlimited money has largely led us to where we are.

That alone is worth further broadcast-related discussion.

In the 70's, I never sold any political time other than to candidate committees and their parties. Even ballot initiatives would buy time through the sponsoring party (during the 70's I spent most of my time as a general manager, so was very close to this).

By the 80's, I saw Superpacs and other initiatives formed by "interested parties" that were not a direct function of candidacies or political parties. They bought ads, and stations liked them as they were not candidates, so "lowest unit rate" applied. That meant more money.

It's unfortunate that the "lowest unit rate" (or "lowest unit charge") rule was applied. It meant that, in essence, the same rate that your best, favored long-term advertiser got had to be applied to candidates.

https://www.nab.org/documents/advocacy/lowestUnitCharge/LUC_IssueSheet.pdf

It meant that stations could "fill up" at campaign time with noisy, assertive political ads. And many of the "good" accounts would not advertise during the lowest unit rate window. At NAB conventions, owners and managers would comment that the ruling was "politicians making rules that favored politicians" and I think we were right.

 

[TheBigA]

I have a question for anyone. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting started out as an educational endeavor, to provide educational programming without commercial interruptions. It was seen as public service programming, which is why the govt. funded it. Correct ?

Before CPB, there were several educational organizations. The main one was NET: National Educational Television. You may be talking about that. A lot of colleges and universities owned radio & TV stations, so there was an idea to collaborate on programming. CPB came out of the Ford Foundation and the Rand Corporation in the 60s. The intent was to professionalize non-commercial media, so there were alternatives to commercial networks. It was mainly about TV. Radio was an afterthought. The idea of government funding was related to publicly funded education, which is also under attack now. As for educational programming, it depends on what you mean. At the time, there was a lot of classical music, jazz, and folk programming. These were the genres that were becoming harder to get ad support. There was a view that these things needed to be preserved, so a publicly funded institution was a way to provide the programming and make it all alive and free for everyone. No paywalls or other limits. The news coverage was to fill a void because commercial radio was doing less news on the radio. Commercial broadcasting has been doing less and less public service programming, so this all seemed like a perfect opportunity. It was all going great until a small group of ideologues took over the government.

 

[The Beat]

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

I wonder how you'd feel if the government funded Fox News or NewsMax? Probably like the conservatives feel about the funding of NPR.

Public broadcasting serves no purpose in 2025. If you are a liberal, I understand why you are fighting so hard, but you are only proving the point. NPR news is very partisan and it speaks your truth. You don't want it to go way. Yeah, we get it.

Most NPR reporters are liberal. 87 to zero. That's 87 reporters who claim to be liberal and zero who claim to be conservative. Uh, yeah. Nothing to see here.

Broadcasting that truly serves the public will be supported by the public and not need government funds to survive. Broadcasting that doesn't serve the public is just a waste of spectrum.

Defund that partisan cesspool, today.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

The argument to defund Public Media came as far back as the 1960's when Net Journal and Public Broadcast Laboratory was on. The defund threat can be traced back to when South Carolina and Georgia statewide public broadcasting affiliate refused to air episodes of Net Journal and Public Broadcast Laboratory because it "Too Controversial" to air in the state given the politics of that time. Public Broadcast Laboratory and Net Journal equivalents of today are PBS Frontline, PBS Newshour and their local editions.

Public Broadcast Laboratory

americanarchive.org

PBL, produced by the Public Broadcast Laboratory and funded by the Ford Foundation, was the first regularly scheduled educational television program, airing at the same time on the same day on National Educational Television (NET) stations across the country. It premiered on Sunday, November 5th, 1967 running from 8:30-11PM (stations likely could offer it at different times if necessary). Although the Laboratory had hoped a total of 119 stations would air the program it was only seen on 89. The state educational networks in South Carolina and Georgia refused to air the debut of PBL due to its controversial content [1].

 

[davideduardo]

I don't bring in Soros to praise him. He was, however, a name that frequently was used to accuse our reporters and anchors of being paid to spread propaganda or promote COVID vaccines. I'm not speaking to his character or politics, I'm merely pointing out that his name was used as shorthand for this supposed "agenda" this privately owned, highly commercially successful radio station was believed to have had by the extremists.

I am glad to see your clarification. That is a very valid point.

Yes, there's fanatics on the far left. They weren't the ones targeting my coworkers. The worst we got from them was that "Trump should be jailed." Far-left anarchists don't generally trust commercial media either. But at least in my market in the United States, they ignored us. The far-right seemed to really enjoy harassing our newsroom.

Did you ever engage in any dialogue with those goofballs? Enough to determine based on vocabulary, diction and the like whether they were young or old, lacking in basic education, and otherwise prejudiced, racists or the like? I find, unfortunately,, that those that hold vile racial and cultural attitudes and also have poor abilities to engage in coherent speech inhabit the far, far, far right.

My point is not that fanaticism is ideologically one sided. It's that certain camps of it right now, and at least since the pandemic, feel particularly angry at the news media and desire to intimidate them. This plays right into the current war on the media by Carr and company.

I agree here. My argument, which I lament having expressed due to the emotions it has produced, is that government should not be involved in the media. Heck, for several hundred years the federal government got along without owning newspapers or news services, so why should "we the people" own radio, TV or content production entities?

Even if we admit that the funding mechanism for NPR is a worthy debate, the culture war is on all fronts. It's NPR, CBS, and on and on. And that's what I have a problem with because it's actively pouring fuel on the fire at a time when, particularly with social media as big as it is, that we need people who report these stories and provide a counterpoint to any administration's narrative. And their lives and livelihoods shouldn't be put in danger simply for expressing views this president doesn't agree with.

The real issue is perhaps simpler if we look at the several individuals that have been appointed to the relevant agencies. If we look at Kari Lake, we find a loudmouth who could not even be elected by her own party in Arizona where Trump won rather well. She's a "grandstander" telling (pardoning Macbeth) "... a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”

Rather than making a point about the need to keep the government away from all media... and the resultant budget savings... she has politicized the issue without any fundamental knowledge of her appointment's job.

Which is why, in the big picture, this does remind me of Putin's Russia. Because there were private broadcasters that didn't toe the line and they got shut down. RT is an apologist for him and a propaganda outlet that was allowed into the United States. No disrespect to your experience, David, but our current President and many of his followers believe you can or should use methods that are far too close to that line for the comfort of many of us posting here. Thus, the comparisons.

I've been in situations where I had two armed soldiers in each studio of my largest cluster, making sure that none of my staff said anything that they could shoot them for (I exaggerate, but the staff was frightened for sure!) and I have been in a station that was bombed (with a fortunate lack of skill) and been with my news staff when the building we were in was firebombed by student mobs and....

I cite these and could go on with many more in a wide variety of countries but my point is that I do not see the intensity that requires comparisons with Russia. This is just as I fail to see the riot at the Capitol (I guess that word is capitalized.... Maybe I should write in German Whereeverythingiscapitilized and made into one word.)

No broadcaster should be pressured by the President via the FCC because they don't report the news about him the way he feels they should.

What scares me is the lack of understanding that networks, internet streams and the like are not FCC licensed. Some of the appointees just don't get this. Beyond that, the case we see as most interesting is the KCBS inquiry: if they broadcast information prior to a "confidential" operation was to be conducted, they were in the wrong just as the media did not pre-announce the Normandy invasion. But if they were reporting a valid news event, that is government interference with media.

And the discussion about NPR should be content-neutral. But it isn't, because it's more advantageous to the current president and his most avid supporters, to frame it as a cultural and moral issue and make them the enemy of the people.

In my case, I agree with the separation of media from government at even the state levels. But politicizing it based on how news writers and reporters voted is not correct. Yes, there a belief that the majority of such newspeople are Democrats, but that should not be the focus; removing government from media should be the target instead.

 

[davideduardo]

Broadcasting that truly serves the public will be supported by the public and not need government funds to survive. Broadcasting that doesn't serve the public is just a waste of spectrum.

The issue is not "how many reporters are of one or another party?" but whether government should be involved in media ownership and content creation.

Today, there are many Republicans who believe that NPR and friends are all Democrats. Sometime in the future, the Democrats may find that, power having shifted, most are Republicans. The best way of avoiding partisan politics in government owned or supported media is for government not to be there in the first place.

 

[The Beat]

The issue is not "how many reporters are of one or another party?" but whether government should be involved in media ownership and content creation.

Today, there are many Republicans who believe that NPR and friends are all Democrats. Sometime in the future, the Democrats may find that, power having shifted, most are Republicans. The best way of avoiding partisan politics in government owned or supported media is for government not to be there in the first place.

I agree. The government should defund NPR or fund ALL broadcasters.

 

[TheBigA]

I wonder how you'd feel if the government funded Fox News or NewsMax?

In a way they do. They provide loads of free content that the taxpayers pay for. There are direct conversations between people in the government and the TV hosts. We found all that out in the Dominion lawsuit.

Public broadcasting serves no purpose in 2025.

There are a lot of people who are unhappy with the state of commercial radio and don't want to pay for streaming. A lot of them find the music they want on non-commercial radio. Not everything in public broadcasting is news. A lot of it is music. It's free and available to everyone. No username or password.

Most NPR reporters are liberal. 87 to zero. That's 87 reporters who claim to be liberal and zero who claim to be conservative. Uh, yeah. Nothing to see here.

You really don't know that. A former editor had some theories, but he truthfully didn't know. His article was shot down by a lot of more knowledgeable people. Plus he used to work there. What does that tell you about him? There has been no factual political assessment of reporters. But the fact of the matter is it doesn't matter. The 1st amendment applies to everyone. There are no exceptions. So they could all be communists, and it wouldn't matter. We're all free to believe what we want with no retribution from the government. Right?

Broadcasting that truly serves the public will be supported by the public and not need government funds to survive. Broadcasting that doesn't serve the public is just a waste of spectrum.

We wish that was true, but these message boards are filled with complaints about commercial stations playing the same songs or firing local staff. The federal money helps these stations hire local staff. What's wrong with more local radio?

 

[TheBigA]

I agree. The government should defund NPR or fund ALL broadcasters.

Keep in mind the only reason the government has funded public broadcasting for almost 60 years is because congress passed a law to make it so. Congress could amend the law to give everyone money, but that doesn't seem to be where things are going. My view is the president should follow the law. Anything wrong with that?

 

[TheBigA]

The issue is not "how many reporters are of one or another party?" but whether government should be involved in media ownership and content creation.

That's really not the issue. If you read any of the filings from the white house, it's all about biased reporting. They want to end funding for Sesame Street and classical music because a biased president is angry about biased reporting. And as I've said many times, the government isn't involved in ownership or creation. That would be socialism.

 

[davideduardo]

We wish that was true, but these message boards are filled with complaints about commercial stations playing the same songs or firing local staff. The federal money helps these stations hire local staff. What's wrong with more local radio?

What is wrong is government ownership of media. In fact, a major issue in budget discussions is "what should the government be involved with and what should they stay out of?"

In other words, how much money should go into the study of non-binary carnivorous reptiles in the Amazon jungle or, back home, NPR or programming for NPR affiliates?

 

[The Beat]

What's wrong with more local radio?

NPR is rarely local. Maybe in major markets where there isn't a need for them anyway. The "local" I see more than often are statewide networks with one local broadcast point, the state capital. The network stations are just repeaters. NPR is not reporting about the traffic light that is out on Main St. or the new restaurant in town.

Local radio is, at least accountable, due to the fact that the community won't fund them unless they serve the local public. NPR should play by the same rules.

The reason why most liberals don't want NPR defunded is that, in many conservative areas, their stations will go off the air as they don't serve the local public. No one is listening and no local advertisier would buy underwriting.

Why else would NPR advocates be fighting so hard for government funding?