Trump to PBS and NPR: I’m cutting you off…

[TheBigA]

My thinking (which may have been of the tunnel-vision variety) was that it costs money to run stations, and in an environment of severe budget cuts, some stations might have to go.

Read my posts on efficiencies in broadcasting. If you had a chance to stop iHeart from buying 850 stations and firing all local staff, would you do it? Or would you let the efficiency experts consolidate local radio into one national feed that gets heard everywhere? What makes better radio?

 

[TheBigA]

Again, regardless who’s President, should government be in the business of providing any funding of media — particularly media that has certain editorial leanings (either R or D)? That’s the overarching consideration regardless who’s in the White House.

My point is that they are. They're buying commercials right now that pay for the radio stations people listen to. Is that OK?

If you're going to rescind money for public broadcasting, then you should also say it's not OK for the government to buy advocacy advertising.

 

[TheBigA]

Let's review: The government shouldn't fund any media. However, they ARE funding commercial radio by buying advocacy spots.

The government shouldn't support biased media. However, they only do interviews with Fox News. Those same government officials refuse to speak with NPR or anyone else, and then complain about biased media. If they did interviews with NPR, they could get their point across, but they refuse. Who's fault is it that the media is biased?

The government shouldn't be in the media business. However they're withholding FCC approval on companies until the companies do them political favors. They're doing FCC investigations on all media companies that aren't Fox or OANN.

Public radio is inefficient. iHeart is very efficient. They cut local staffs and do more centralized programming. It gets them good ratings, although they still haven't turned a profit. So which system is better?

Public radio is tilted left. Is it really? Is classical music leftist? Is Sesame Street leftist? It all lost federal funding. Just because news questions the government doesn't mean the media is leftist. Someone needs to ask the tough questions, regardless of who's in the white house.

The discussion needs to be seen in context. That's all I'm saying. If it was simply about saving taxpayers money, then that should apply equally, and as I point out, it isn't. I pay taxes too.

 

[gr8oldies]

Again, regardless who’s President, should government be in the business of providing any funding of media — particularly media that has certain editorial leanings (either R or D)? That’s the overarching consideration regardless who’s in the White House.

I don't hear anything on NPR that explicity says "vote Democratic". It's not a mirror-image of Fox News or MAGA talk radio. It does have content that self-proclaimed World's Most Perfect President doesn't like, plus world news that commercial stations won't do. But I suppose if you live in the hinterlands you should have a choice of "vote Republican" or "God wants you to vote Republican" without a subscription.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

I don't hear anything on NPR that explicity says "vote Democratic". It's not a mirror-image of Fox News or MAGA talk radio. It does have content that self-proclaimed World's Most Perfect President doesn't like, plus world news that commercial stations won't do. But I suppose if you live in the hinterlands you should have a choice of "vote Republican" or "God wants you to vote Republican" without a subscription.

True it does not matter what NPR and PBS affiliates do to show that they are the place to find good journalism.

 

[TheBigA]

I don't hear anything on NPR that explicity says "vote Democratic". It's not a mirror-image of Fox News or MAGA talk radio.

As we said, NPR wasn't defunded by this. Local stations were. Including local stations owned by governments in red states.

But you're right, NPR doesn't do any talk shows or host-based shows like Hannity of Levin.

 

[davideduardo]

I read these comments about "inefficiency in broadcasting," and compare them to the complaints I hear about iHeart, Cumulus, and Audacy. They bought those radio stations, and saw a lot of inefficiencies. So they cut staff and programming. Is commercial radio better now because it's more efficient? Do you prefer the programming? There used to be more competition among stations and formats. Then ownership laws were changed and things became more efficient. You don't have four Top 40 stations in a market anymore. Is that better? It's certainly more efficient.

That's a false assumption based on inaccurate facts.

Up to consolidation, stations picked the most "salable" formats. So we had many AC and CHR stations and few Hot AC or Churban or Urban AC stations. Most operators picked the formats most capable of "big" numbers.

With consolidation, owners sold groups of stations. So if they had stations spread across the top 10 to top 15 positions in total rankers, they could create packages to sell to agencies and local accounts.

There was no longer a need to have the #1 position in a market. With a group, you could have a variety of big formats and lesser ones. By not competing directly with identical formats, there was less promotional expense and saving in other areas, too.

In the 60s in Cleveland, we had three Top 40 stations, three MOR ones and two "R&B" formats. That's it. Now, look at that one or any comparable market and you will find a much broader variety of formats

As I have mentioned, I had a cluster back in the 60's. In one market, I had 6 formats on 9 frequencies. One of them did not get ratings, yet it was profitable because the cluster dragged it onto combined buys. I could do things with a lower rated station only because I had the momentum of the group and the attention of buyers.

And remember that consolidation was pushed with the FCC by nearly everyone. That is because, after Docket 80-90, half of all stations were not profitable.

 

[davideduardo]

Again, regardless who’s President, should government be in the business of providing any funding of media — particularly media that has certain editorial leanings (either R or D)? That’s the overarching consideration regardless who’s in the White House.

Agreed. If the government wants to reduce spending, it has to remove itself from things that government does not need to do. In particular, there are many... irrespective of party.... who don't think the government should be involved in "the media" at all.

 

[TheBigA]

That's a false assumption based on inaccurate facts.

It's not an assumption. People just have to listen to the radio today to hear the result.

And remember that consolidation was pushed with the FCC by nearly everyone. That is because, after Docket 80-90, half of all stations were not profitable.

Which is exactly why public radio was created: So you'd have radio that wasn't motivated by profit.

Agreed. If the government wants to reduce spending, it has to remove itself from things that government does not need to do. In particular, there are many... irrespective of party.... who don't think the government should be involved in "the media" at all.

Except this government wants to be in media. They just want to be able to control it. But we'll see how long the government leaves public radio alone now that they defunded it. If all they cared about was taxpayer money, they should now allow NPR to say and do whatever it wants.

Meanwhile my local talk station gets government money all the time for the DHS spots it runs, and the government doesn't require it to be unbiased.

 

[davideduardo]

It's not an assumption. People just have to listen to the radio today to hear the result.

Yes, in most markets there is a wider variety of formats than prior to consolidation.

Which is exactly why public radio was created: So you'd have radio that wasn't motivated by profit.

This subject is about formats, not NPR... which existed long before consolidation.

Except this government wants to be in media. They just want to be able to control it. But we'll see how long the government leaves public radio alone now that they defunded it. If all they cared about was taxpayer money, they should now allow NPR to say and do whatever it wants.

That is your opinion. NPR is free to find private financing under a new structure that can included former functions of any government entity.

Meanwhile my local talk station gets government money all the time for the DHS spots it runs, and the government doesn't require it to be unbiased.

You are confusing advertising with content. Every station is an ad medium. An ad campaign buys all kinds of formats. In this case, they buy stations in a variety of languages, too. And the DHS is not the only government agency that buys advertising, either.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, in most markets there is a wider variety of formats than prior to consolidation.

Some of those formats are on public stations in formats that the commercial stations gave up on, and they were defunded along with the news stations.

This subject is about formats, not NPR... which existed long before consolidation.

Public radio is more than NPR, but all of public radio was defunded, including the music stations.

What you've seen since consolidation is the almost total change of classical radio from commercial to non commercial. It's also happening to AAA. All of those stations lost CPB funding. Plus these stations will have to find a new way to pay music royalties.

NPR is free to find private financing under a new structure that can included former functions of any government entity.

That assumes the government allows it to and doesn't change the rules they operate under. CBS News should be free to do whatever it wants, but the new owner was forced to make a deal with the FCC to get approval. I expect we'll see more of that. Yet the FCC says it doesn't get involved in content.

NPR has its own internal fundraising department, which is why it wasn't affected by the CPB cut. In fact NPR set up a fund to assist poor radio stations.

You are confusing advertising with content. Every station is an ad medium. An ad campaign buys all kinds of formats. In this case, they buy stations in a variety of languages, too. And the DHS is not the only government agency that buys advertising, either.

Government funding is the same regardless of how it happens. It all comes from the taxpayers. I pay taxes too.

 

[davideduardo]

Some of those formats are on public stations in formats that the commercial stations gave up on, and they were defunded along with the news stations.

Generally, formats have a shelf life, whether commercial or non-commercial. At some point, formats are not viable in either system of financing.

What you've seen since consolidation is the almost total change of classical radio from commercial to non commercial. It's also happening to AAA. All of those stations lost CPB funding. Plus these stations will have to find a new way to pay music royalties.

Classical ceased to be viable commercially and some public stations picked the option. But even in many of those situations, the support from the public is not enough to stay viable.

AAA died as a commercial format and a few non-commercial stations picked it up. In most markets, the format listeners are not prone to being donors.

That assumes the government allows it to and doesn't change the rules they operate under. CBS News should be free to do whatever it wants, but the new owner was forced to make a deal with the FCC to get approval. I expect we'll see more of that. Yet the FCC says it doesn't get involved in content.

Yet the new owner publicly stated that they had nothing to do with the change in the money losing late night show cancellation. Traditional wired OTA networks have major issues throughout the day, but with the "Big 3" all having very progressive late shows was obviously somewhere that a change is in order.

NPR has its own internal fundraising department, which is why it wasn't affected by the CPB cut. In fact NPR set up a fund to assist poor radio stations.

As I said, these organizations can reorganize or be reborn with more private fund raising.

Government funding is the same regardless of how it happens. It all comes from the taxpayers. I pay taxes too.

Buying advertising is not "funding". Funding applies to providing the money for organizations to exist. Advertising is no different than Twinkies: you buy it if you want it and there is no requirement to keep buying it.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Yet the new owner publicly stated that they had nothing to do with the change in the money losing late night show cancellation.

And I publicly stated I’m People’s Sexiest Man Alive winner for ten straight years. That’s a more plausible lie than what CBS is shoveling.

 

[TheBigA]

Classical ceased to be viable commercially and some public stations picked the option. But even in many of those situations, the support from the public is not enough to stay viable.

Depends on the market. The support in Boston is very good. Like commercial stations, public stations have combined their memberships so that the news station helps support the classical. The real direction for all of this is online, so the broadcast stations are part of an overall package.

AAA died as a commercial format and a few non-commercial stations picked it up. In most markets, the format listeners are not prone to being donors.

Once again, depends on the market. WXPN Philadelphia is a ratings and funding powerhouse. Their World Cafe syndicated show is heard on over a hundred stations. In Seattle, KEXP gets great ratings, often beating most of the commercial stations in the market in key demos. The format fits the image public radio wants of attracting college-educated listeners. The non-coms in Boston have made the rock format unviable for any commercial outlet. Same with WFUV in New York. All of these stations contribute to the viability of broadcast radio as a platform, employ citizens who pay taxes and contribute to the artistic community. If the goal of the rescission was to damage NPR, it was not successful. It will instead mobilize a broad range of educated people who feel that the music they love has been attacked.

As I said, these organizations can reorganize or be reborn with more private fund raising.

NPR doesn't need to reorganize or be reborn. It has millions in private funding. This defunding was of local stations, many of which are owned by red state governments. If the goal of the republican party is to get government out of broadcasting, how do states such as Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and more justify their ownership and full funding of public media in their states? The states obviously don't share the views of the president on this subject. It's why they supported federal funding for almost 60 years: To provide money for state government owned media. They will now be faced with multi-million dollar funding gaps that will hurt their ability to provide other services to their citizens. These states are going to find a way to return federal funding in some way.

Buying advertising is not "funding". Funding applies to providing the money for organizations to exist. Advertising is no different than Twinkies: you buy it if you want it and there is no requirement to keep buying it.

The point is the government is still in media, spending taxpayer money on radio & TV. If the goal was to get the federal government out of media, it didn't. If spending taxpayer money on radio & TV is waste, fraud, and abuse, then so are these DHS spots.

 

[b-turner]

So, Public Radio is doomed, going away and will be written about in history books. If I listen to the pro-public radio people, that's what I hear.

Can we be NON-POLITICAL for a minute. Why is the government funding any radio station in the lower 48? Does public radio suck so badly it cannot attract enough people and/or business and grant dollars to be self-sustaining? I know CPB doled out when you met challenges for funding. My question is why are we still doing this? Public radio, especially the NPR affiliate nationwide has turned the programming into a viable format that does quite well in the ratings meaning the listeners are there. This is no longer a performance of MacBeth followed by a lecture on the life of John Quincy Adams followed by a first time rcording of Sweden's Mozart. There's even talk the NPR styled format may work as a commercial format.

Public Radio has it's big boy pants and has for some time. Public radio in the lower 48 can handle covering it's own expenses and if that in depth story that takes two years to complete (no negative here as it sometimes takes that long), might need extra private dollars. Maybe an organization will cover that CPB money or a portion.

I disagree with how CPB Dollars were cut out. I think it would have been reasonable to do this over, say 10 years. That gives stations time to cultivate new resources. Instead stations are going into unneeded panic mode.

I know on the commercial side, you might have the dollars on the books but it is not counted until it clears the bank. In other words, nothing is funded until the bank account has the dollars in it to fund it. Promises are just that until the dollars materialize. It would seem public radio is operating too much on promises versus deposits.

I still contend if all the time and energy used to stoke the flames of division were used to find a solution for public radio, it would be very well funded but I suppose the old line some complain and so do rings true.

 

[TheBigA]

So, Public Radio is doomed, going away and will be written about in history books. If I listen to the pro-public radio people, that's what I hear.

Not from me.

Why is the government funding any radio station in the lower 48?

Didn't you see the news? The federal government no longer funds public broadcasting. This argument is done.

I know CPB doled out when you met challenges for funding. My question is why are we still doing this?

Once again, the congress has ended federal funding. However, in about 20 states, the governments there OWN the public radio & TV stations. They used to exist mainly on federal funding. We're talking about Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and more, run by Republican governors who now have major funding gaps to fill. This is no longer a federal issue. It's been moved to the states. It's up to them to decide if they want their taxpayers to support public broadcasting. Because the feds are gone.

Public radio in the lower 48 can handle covering it's own expenses and if that in depth story that takes two years to complete (no negative here as it sometimes takes that long), might need extra private dollars. Maybe an organization will cover that CPB money or a portion.

The big blue cities are all fine. No problem there. Same with NPR. There are lots of poor and underpopulated states in the lower 48. It's not just Alaska. You have Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, Montana, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and more that now have funding gaps to fill. People will be fired, they will go on unemployment, and that is an additional expense the states will have to pay.

It would seem public radio is operating too much on promises versus deposits.

Governments run that way too. That's why the federal government is trillions in debt. States are in trouble too for the same reason. The difference is that the states have balanced budget laws. So when they lose federal funding, as they have now, they have to fire people. They're firing teachers and other state employees too for the same reason. Federal funding for education, highways, and health care is going away. The states are in a lot of trouble. Local and state taxes will be going up next year to make up for the loss of federal funds. I've already received notices about this.

I still contend if all the time and energy used to stoke the flames of division were used to find a solution for public radio, it would be very well funded but I suppose the old line some complain and so do rings true.

Stoking the flames of division is what this administration wants. That's not going to change. They think if you don't report on it, the people won't know. They made it clear that they are only interested in half of the population, and half of the states. The problem here is that this cut will mainly hurt their people. Just like the cuts to medicaid. But I agree, for most of the country, they will find a way through.

 

[Gravel Switch]

So, Public Radio is doomed, going away and will be written about in history books. If I listen to the pro-public radio people, that's what I hear.

Can we be NON-POLITICAL for a minute. Why is the government funding any radio station in the lower 48? Does public radio suck so badly it cannot attract enough people and/or business and grant dollars to be self-sustaining? I know CPB doled out when you met challenges for funding. My question is why are we still doing this? Public radio, especially the NPR affiliate nationwide has turned the programming into a viable format that does quite well in the ratings meaning the listeners are there. This is no longer a performance of MacBeth followed by a lecture on the life of John Quincy Adams followed by a first time rcording of Sweden's Mozart. There's even talk the NPR styled format may work as a commercial format.

Public Radio has it's big boy pants and has for some time. Public radio in the lower 48 can handle covering it's own expenses and if that in depth story that takes two years to complete (no negative here as it sometimes takes that long), might need extra private dollars. Maybe an organization will cover that CPB money or a portion.

I disagree with how CPB Dollars were cut out. I think it would have been reasonable to do this over, say 10 years. That gives stations time to cultivate new resources. Instead stations are going into unneeded panic mode.

I know on the commercial side, you might have the dollars on the books but it is not counted until it clears the bank. In other words, nothing is funded until the bank account has the dollars in it to fund it. Promises are just that until the dollars materialize. It would seem public radio is operating too much on promises versus deposits.

I still contend if all the time and energy used to stoke the flames of division were used to find a solution for public radio, it would be very well funded but I suppose the old line some complain and so do rings true.

Agree — looking at it straight down the middle and regardless who’s in the White House begs the question, should government/taxpayer funding be involved in things that are not the core competency and purpose of government?

Decades ago, I had a 30-mile-plus one-way drive to work and would listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. While the coverage wasn’t always perfectly balanced back then, I baked that into my listening. However, decades later, to any objective listener, any reasonable sense of balance is no longer the case in that programming.

While I’m a down-the-middle (registered “unaffiliated”) person and always seek to see both sides of an issue, a media entity that pursues a particular one-sided narrative is no more deserving of public funds than a Fox News or MSNBC version of it.

 

[TheBigA]

Agree — looking at it straight down the middle and regardless who’s in the White House begs the question, should government/taxpayer funding be involved in things that are not the core competency and purpose of government?

Ask that question of the people who live in Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and more. Their state governments OWN the public radio & TV stations. The employees of those stations are state employees. This funding cut will directly affect them. The president has moved this debate to the states, and they're mostly red states. A lot of other public stations are owned by state colleges and universities. Once again, state governments with taxpayer support. All of that still exists now.

As I said before, the only thing the federal government did for public broadcasting was provide funding. That is very much within the core competency and purpose of government. That argument was debated when the original law was passed in the 60s. This isn't a new thing. People have been arguing about it for a long time. But now the question is being put to the states: Do you still want to OWN & operate all these radio & TV stations? The answer will have a great impact on the future of broadcasting as we know it.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Ask that question of the people who live in Oklahoma, Nebraska, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and more. Their state governments OWN the public radio & TV stations. The employees of those stations are state employees. This funding cut will directly affect them. The president has moved this debate to the states, and they're mostly red states. A lot of other public stations are owned by state colleges and universities. Once again, state governments with taxpayer support. All of that still exists now.

As I said before, the only thing the federal government did for public broadcasting was provide funding. That is very much within the core competency and purpose of government. That argument was debated when the original law was passed in the 60s. This isn't a new thing. People have been arguing about it for a long time. But now the question is being put to the states: Do you still want to OWN & operate all these radio & TV stations? The answer will have a great impact on the future of broadcasting as we know it.

I respectfully question whether providing taxpayer funding for public broadcasting is “very much within the core competency and purpose of government”? Just because that funding program was instituted more than 50 years ago doesn’t mean it should continue regardless — which gives rise to the notion that government programs/funding once instituted can’t be re-evaluated/altered, etc.

State funding of public media should be evaluated through the same lens, as should the continuance of any other government programs/funding.

 

[TheBigA]

I respectfully question whether providing taxpayer funding for public broadcasting is “very much within the core competency and purpose of government”?

This was debated when the original act was passed. The constitution gives the government the power to tax and spend for whatever needs it has. That includes things like education. At one time, that was also debated as to whether or not it's the purpose of government to provide a free education. But it does. The purpose was for an educated electorate. Public broadcasting is funded under the exact same provision as education. This president is also attacking and defunding public education.

State funding of public media should be evaluated through the same lens, as should the continuance of any other government programs/funding.

The point though is government is in media. Just because it stopped funding CPB doesn't change anything in those states. They are still in the broadcasting business. This federal funding cut will affect those states. They will have to fire people and raise taxes to continue to provide local services.