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

[TheBigA]

Another key part of the ruling is "viewpoint discrimination," where the EO singles out only NPR & PBS:

Judge Strikes Down Trump's 'Unconstitutional' NPR Funding Cuts - Radio Ink

A federal judge has permanently blocked the Trump administration from implementing Executive Order 14290, ruling its directive to cut all funding to NPR and PBS violates the First Amendment.

radioink.com

The court found the executive order “singles out two — and only two — speakers for adverse treatment based on the viewpoint of their speech,” leaving all other public broadcasting entities free to seek federal funding that NPR and PBS are now ineligible to receive.

The administration seems unaware that there are competitors to NPR & PBS in the public media world, and their EO gives an advantage to the competitors.

 

[Larry]

I just received an email from our local PBS/NPR station WHYY-TV/FM with the subject line “A Message on Federal Funding” which includes the following:
“However, this ruling does not mean federal funding will be restored. Congress had already approved the removal of those funds, and the system that distributed them, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, no longer exists. In practical terms, public media stations like WHYY do not expect those dollars to return.”

 

[TheBigA]

In practical terms, public media stations like WHYY do not expect those dollars to return.”

I think that's the general view in public broadcasting. Certainly how NPR & PBS see things.

While I brought up the idea of challenging the recission, the question is who would bring that challenge? Not CPB, since they're dissolved. The recission will end when the new congress takes office. They will address the situation moving forward at that time.

 

[umfan]

Of course there will be an appeal. There is no such thing as an "objective court," according to this president. When the supreme court ruled against him in the tariff case, he attacked them as being corrupt, disloyal, and unfair. That's the way he sees it. Courts are good when they rule in his favor. They're bad when they don't. The media is fake when it doesn't report what he wants. Regardless of who it is. He's welcome to his opinions. But he can't use his office to restrict free speech.

There's no entitlement for funds to be appropriated for the broadcast of 'free speech', no matter how much you wish that were not the case.

 

[TheBigA]

There's no entitlement for funds to be appropriated for the broadcast of 'free speech', no matter how much you wish that were not the case.

The judge addressed that in his ruling

As the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government ‘may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.

However, there is language in the public broadcasting act that specifically addresses that funds shall be appropriated for this purpose.

 

[umfan]

The judge addressed that in his ruling



However, there is language in the public broadcasting act that specifically addresses that funds shall be appropriated for this purpose.

No there's not, and Congress which implemented the law, chose to rescind the funding. You've been pulling on this thread for years that the Act somehow compelled funds to be appropriated and made many prognostications that CPB would never be without funding. And then it happened.

 

[TheBigA]

Congress which implemented the law, chose to rescind the funding.

Based on something that has been ruled unconstitutional. If that holds, that calls into question their recission. But by the time it goes through the appeals process, this congress will be done. So it's pretty much a moot point. That leaves it up to the next congress to address.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Long before Trump, I stopped listening to NPR et al because I wasn't the only one to notice a strong editorial tilt in their programming. (And I'm a registered independent.). I've said it before and I'll say it again, the many on this board aghast that Federal funds were pulled from public broadcasting would be equally aghast had public broadcasting instead had the editorial tilt of conservative media. If that had been the case, we all know public broadcasting would've been defunded years ago.

 

[TheBigA]

If that had been the case, we all know public broadcasting would've been defunded years ago.

You keep looking at it from a political point of view. Public broadcasting is more than NPR & PBS. It wasn't just the news that got defunded. It was classical music and lots of other non-news programming. The majority of the programming on PBS is for children. That's not political either.

The reason it kept getting funded was because it was money for the states. A lot of these public stations are owned by state governments. Now those people are trying to figure out how to keep the parts of public broadcasting they like, as those stations restructure their budgets due to funding cuts. They end up firing local people, which is not what they intended. That's why I say it's likely that some form of funding will return with the next congress. They realize they went too far.

 

[TheBigA]

You've been pulling on this thread for years that the Act somehow compelled funds to be appropriated

I didn't say that the act "compelled funds to be appropriated." The appropriations process is completely voluntary, and congress has voluntarily appropriated money for public broadcasting since its inception. There are rules about how the money gets used, and those rules were followed. Every year, CPB made a presentation to the appropriations committee explaining how the funds would be used.

There's a new organization that may replace CPB in approaching congress next year:

Public Media Bridge Fund Launches Program To Sustain Local Stations.

The Public Media Bridge Fund has launched a new Sustainability Program aimed at helping public media organizations remain operational while preserving essential local service. The program builds on the Bridge

www.insideradio.com

The federal money went to the states for local staffing and programming, and isn't intended to be used for NPR or PBS. If stations used it that way, and didn't report it, they committed fraud.

 

[kevtronics]

Long before Trump, I stopped listening to NPR et al because I wasn't the only one to notice a strong editorial tilt in their programming. (And I'm a registered independent.). I've said it before and I'll say it again, the many on this board aghast that Federal funds were pulled from public broadcasting would be equally aghast had public broadcasting instead had the editorial tilt of conservative media. If that had been the case, we all know public broadcasting would've been defunded years ago.

When you have a MAGA president who tells thousands of lies, then yes, covering the news objectively and countering his statements with the facts will seem to have an anti-MAGA bias.

Why PolitiFact has labeled 2025 the 'Year of the Lies'

For the past 15 years, the fact-checkers at PolitiFact have sorted through hundreds of statements by politicians to name the "Lie of the Year." This year, the editors dubbed 2025 the "Year of the Lies." Lisa Desjardins discussed more with PolitiFact Editor-in-Chief Katie Sanders. A warning: some...

www.pbs.org

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

When you have a MAGA president who tells thousands of lies, then yes, covering the news objectively and countering his statements with the facts will seem to have an anti-MAGA bias.

Why PolitiFact has labeled 2025 the 'Year of the Lies'

For the past 15 years, the fact-checkers at PolitiFact have sorted through hundreds of statements by politicians to name the "Lie of the Year." This year, the editors dubbed 2025 the "Year of the Lies." Lisa Desjardins discussed more with PolitiFact Editor-in-Chief Katie Sanders. A warning: some...

www.pbs.org

True and also yes this is the very thing we keep saying about this whenever the president talks about defunding public media, we always have to look at which PBS Newshour and Frontline segment the White House wants banned for some reason.

 

[Gravel Switch]

When you have a MAGA president who tells thousands of lies, then yes, covering the news objectively and countering his statements with the facts will seem to have an anti-MAGA bias.

Why PolitiFact has labeled 2025 the 'Year of the Lies'

For the past 15 years, the fact-checkers at PolitiFact have sorted through hundreds of statements by politicians to name the "Lie of the Year." This year, the editors dubbed 2025 the "Year of the Lies." Lisa Desjardins discussed more with PolitiFact Editor-in-Chief Katie Sanders. A warning: some...

www.pbs.org

I'm NO fan of Trump, but NPR's/public broadcasting's editorial tilt began long before Trump. From a former Morning Edition/All Things Considered listener of decades past, and to any objective listener, public broadcasting's slide to the left was more than apparent. (And I would say the same thing if the tilt was to the right.) Editorial/political tilts in public broadcasting are not proper when taxpayer funds are involved.

(And this comes from a listener who supports all-classical KVOD-FM with my donations. But that's my choice and how it should be, regardless of the processes of how the taxpayer funds were appropriated for public broadcasting in the past.)

 

[TheBigA]

Editorial/political tilts in public broadcasting are not proper when taxpayer funds are involved.

But no taxpayer funds were used in news coverage.

 

[Gravel Switch]

While direct federal funding for its operating budget was small (around 1%), NPR received significant indirect federal funds, as local member stations receive government grants via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), using those funds to pay dues for NPR content.

Whether it's operations, content, grants, or all the above, Federal funds were involved. Similar to newspapers, pay TV services, etc., etc., if readers/viewers/listeners find value in certain communications services, they can choose to pay/subscribe (just like me choosing to donate to KVOD-FM). But just because I like something doesn't mean taxpayers should fund it, no matter how small/large the percentage of taxpayer funds involved. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial concept.

Again, if the editorial-tilt shoe was on the other foot, there would be caterwauling to defund. And I would agree with that, too.

 

[TheBigA]

While direct federal funding for its operating budget was small (around 1%), NPR received significant indirect federal funds, as local member stations receive government grants via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), using those funds to pay dues for NPR content.

Nope. The federal funds were called "community service grants." The money was intended to support LOCAL programming, and hiring of local staff. The stations had to report back to the government how the money was used. If in fact they used it for NPR dues, they were fraudulently using federal funds. Stations used membership money to pay for NPR programming. That's in fact how they fundraise. They tell listeners on air that their pledges to the station will go to support NPR programming. A lot of radio & TV stations received federal funding that carried no NPR programming at all. That funding was cut as well. This recission had no effect on NPR or PBS. But it hurt local non-commercial stations.

Again, if the editorial-tilt shoe was on the other foot, there would be caterwauling to defund.

Congressional support for public broadcasting has ALWAYS been bipartisan. Public support has also always been bipartisan. Less than a quarter of the population opposed federal funding.

A Pew survey found that 24% of Americans oppose continuing taxpayer funding for NPR and PBS, while 43% support maintaining the current funding levels.

 

[Gravel Switch]

Perfect. If the "public" supports "public" broadcasting, then they should support it with their individual donations, just like any other communication service in this day and age. Just because I would like the "public" to help pay my mortgage, doesn't mean that taxpayer funding should be used, regardless of the direct/indirect appropriation machinations behind the Federal funding that you've laid out over numerous posts.

At the end of the day, Federal funding was involved in public broadcasting, no matter how it's divvied up amongst affiliates (which NPR obviously needs) or other related support systems. And I don't hear hue and cry amongst the listening/viewing public -- and in some instances, individuals donations are up (over 120,000 new donors, contributing $20 million in annual value, tracking over $70 million higher than the previous year, according to some news outlets).

Prior to this, Federal funding was used to help support a very inefficient system, with multiple NPR signals available in multiple markets, as well as up to four (!) PBS signals available in some markets, such as Cincinnati, Dayton, etc., etc. Yes, while some stations have taken hits, some pruning was in order as that multi-signal model wasn't sustainable or efficient.

 

[TheBigA]

If the "public" supports "public" broadcasting, then they should support it with their individual donations

They do. But the congress has been supporting public broadcasting with federal funding as well. If you read the public broadcasting act, it explains why. Every year, CPB went to congress to justify the money, and every year, a bipartisan vote supported the money. Every year until now.

At the end of the day, Federal funding was involved in public broadcasting, no matter how it's divvied up amongst affiliates

But the issue here was using the funding for news programming. That's what the recission order says. Yet none of the money was used for news programming.

What happened here is a small minority (24%) has forced its will on the total population. The net result is that states that own public broadcasting stations have to cut local staff and programming to the public.

I doubt very much you can find a majority to support the current war. But it doesn't matter. Your money is being used to pay for it anyway. Nobody asked you for permission. That's how public funding of everything works.

Prior to this, Federal funding was used to help support a very inefficient system,

None of that was part of the recission. It was all because the president says the news is biased.

Broadcasting itself is an inefficient system. That's not the point. If the congress wanted to change it, all they have to do is repeal the public broadcasting act. But they don't have the votes to do it.

 

[Gravel Switch]

I find it interesting that many on this board (a radio board, no less) have pronounced radio and traditional broadcasting as basically dead/irrelevant, etc. given this new world of streaming. However, when the subject matter turns to the Federal defunding of that very medium these posters previously proclaimed dead/irrelevant, etc., then they howl that taxpayer funding MUST continue regardless! 😉

 

[TheBigA]

I find it interesting that many on this board (a radio board, no less) have pronounced radio and traditional broadcasting as basically dead/irrelevant, etc., in this new world of streaming -- however, when the subject matter turns to the Federal defunding of that very medium these posters previously proclaimed dead/irrelevant, etc., then they howl that taxpayer funding MUST continue regardless! 😉

You realize that the radio spectrum is a public resource? It's owned by the people. The companies don't own the spectrum. They just get licenses to operate. As the profit-making companies go bankrupt and shut down stations, how will we keep the public's airwaves alive? Who will pay? It's a very obvious place for the government that represents the owners of the spectrum to provide that support. Because all the media companies are moving to streaming.