Alaska What The CPB Funding Cut Would Mean To Rural Alaska

[SomeRadioGuy]

Some leaders of various public radio stations across Alaska met for a roundtable discussion earlier this week about the very dire, impending funding cuts coming to public radio and what it would mean.

A 70 percent cutback in KSKO's budget would mean a staff cutback, which would mean I'd be out of a job and likely someone locally would be kept on on a very part time basis to be a caretake to the place. But if that funding can't be replaced, KSKO would eventually get shut down, transmitters turned off.. likely permanently.
This isnt hyperbole, this isn't maybe.. this is real, it is real life and what will happen. There's not going to be some special Alaska exemption here. It will happen to us.

70 percent of KSKO's operational budget comes from that Corporation For Public Broadcasting funding. CPB Gets about $3 from each taxpayer each year that gets distributed individually to NPR, NPR member stations, PBS and PBS member stations.

The 30 percent left over for KSKO comes from local/regional fundraising that we do. Memberships, bingo, underwriting and other methods of fundraising.
There would be near ZERO local information.. no local weather, no wildfire reports, no reports on when towns flood due to break up... no other critical information. In 5 years here, I've done so many things under the guise of health and safety, I've lost count.

Less than $2 goes to public radio out of the $3 or so tax money CPB gets.

1200 or so people in the west central interior would be without ANY local media source. Social media just won't cut it.... over my 22 years in radio, I've seen so many things posted on Facebook that are wholly incorrect, false/fake or very misleading/partially in correct.

It's public radios job to bring information people know they can trust.... I verify anything before it gets on the air locally
There are people out here who don't have and some who don't even want computers or the internet. I know some of them in McGrath and have spoken to them personally.

You know how many cell phones get emergency alerts for various life threatening emergencies? Well guess what?
Those Wireless emergency alerts don't work on 2G cell networks. Yup! I found that out when a national EAS test was done and none of the phones up here, even when on WiFi, none sounded the alert And Wireless Emergency Alerts on cell phones are voluntary and not required.

Also, several communities have NO cell service. None, still to this day. And those of us that do, its problematic at best days.
But guess what these communities do have? Public radio!

My background isnt in public radio, its in commercial radio.. but those who know me well would say my background is LOCAL RADIO.....I don't care how You get from studio to the radio, wether its a commercial or non commercial signal... I care about LOCAL RADIO. Ask around.. ask people in this town, ask people in the industry who've known me for years.. you're not going to find many if any people more passionate about, with knowledge of what local radio is and how to do it.. than me!
I've been here 5 years because I 150 percent believe in the mission of KSKO.. to keep the west central interior informed with information they can trust and entertainment they want. I saw first hand back in 2016 when I was at KIYU in Galena, AK how vital public radio in rural Alaska is.

KSKO is bar none the most fun, rewarding, unique, learning expierience of my career. That is no exageration whatsoever. I have learned so much here just in the process of doing my job.

The state used to provide some funding for public radio, but it was only $1 to 2 million and they've veto'd it for 10 years or more. That money was spread amongst all the public stations in the state, so it wouldn't sustain us for long.

If every single living breathing person in our listening area, including babies, donated $200 a year and all businesses and organizations we do business with converted memberships to straight cash every year, we might be able to survive on that.. but would run the risk of not having enough money for repairs/upgrades, etc.

Just because people choose to live here, doesn't mean they should be deprived of necessities when it comes to news and information.
Don't say "well start selling commercials".. that would take an act of congress, literally... and there arent enough businesses in our region to sustain that type of operation. I've had people suggest that while in a prior breath telling me commercial radio in the lower 48 is suffering.

I don't wanna get into the debate of where.. little stations should get it, big stations shouldn't get the funding because then who gets to draw the line?
I highly suspect, though can't prove if public radio's news came from Fox News or OANN you wouldn't have the outcry you are now about the "woke, liberally biased" arguments about NPR news.

Think that's crazy? Kari Lake, head of the US Agency For Global Media signed a deal with OANN to provide news and video to VOA and it's affiliates. Yeah, that allegedly isn't a paid deal, but still.. I doubt they outcry was there about that.

You don't want your tax paying money going to public radio? Give me your address, I'll mail you $3 out of my own pocket.
Better yet, fly up here for a week.. spend time with me and you'll see what we do up here and get a better understanding of it.
Most people complaining about the news bias or the money have never lived rurally, never had to depend on just one radio station. and in many cases, many have never listened to public radio at length.

I am more than willing to have a discussion about this, I will respond when I can, BUT BUT.... please, remain civil, and come to me with facts that can be backed up, not talking points, not what aboutisms. If you're going to make a point, prove it. Please

Those of you who are for this and cheering it are cheering for me and people like me to lose our jobs. This will result in people you know/love/care for being hurt. You are cheering for stations like KSKO to go off the air entirely.

BTW, if you reply, i'll be able to tell if you didn't read this whole thing.

Wanna message me privately? That's ok too, especially if you have questions and wanna remain out of the public eye.

 

[TheBigA]

The problem with this is that the public doesn't vote on this. If it was, it wouldn't be an issue.

We're talking about radio. Every radio board is filled with posts from people complaining about radio ownership. The complaints are about corporate radio, local staff cuts, homogenous music formats, and all the rest. We know what corporate radio sounds like.

For years, the people have had an alternative: Locally owned and staffed public radio. To do what they do, the stations have received some federal funding. Why? Because that's how the legislation was written. They saw what happened when radio is paid for by advertising, and they wanted to have an alternative funding source.

Now, because the president is waging war on the media, he's stirred up his base to vote to cut funding for radio. If he really wanted to end federal funding for just NPR News, he could have congress amend the bill. But that's not what he's doing. He's blowing the whole thing up. That's like demolishing Trump Tower because it needs new carpeting. Crazy. Nobody would ever approve this. No sane person in congress would vote to cut funding for their own state and their own constituents. But that's what's about to happen.

Unfortunately, for things to change, people have to feel the pain. So if these stations go away or become repeaters of a national feed (like K-Love), we'll see if that changes things. If you had a chance to stop corporate radio from happening, what would you do? That's the question the people of this country should ask themselves.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

The problem with this is that the public doesn't vote on this. If it was, it wouldn't be an issue.

We're talking about radio. Every radio board is filled with posts from people complaining about radio ownership. The complaints are about corporate radio, local staff cuts, homogenous music formats, and all the rest. We know what corporate radio sounds like.

For years, the people have had an alternative: Locally owned and staffed public radio. To do what they do, the stations have received some federal funding. Why? Because that's how the legislation was written. They saw what happened when radio is paid for by advertising, and they wanted to have an alternative funding source.

Now, because the president is waging war on the media, he's stirred up his base to vote to cut funding for radio. If he really wanted to end federal funding for just NPR News, he could have congress amend the bill. But that's not what he's doing. He's blowing the whole thing up. That's like demolishing Trump Tower because it needs new carpeting. Crazy. Nobody would ever approve this. No sane person in congress would vote to cut funding for their own state and their own constituents. But that's what's about to happen.

Unfortunately, for things to change, people have to feel the pain. So if these stations go away or become repeaters of a national feed (like K-Love), we'll see if that changes things. If you had a chance to stop corporate radio from happening, what would you do? That's the question the people of this country should ask themselves.

I know all of that, but im sharing what it means for us because the people who voted for trump by in large support this funding being cut.

 

[TheBigA]

I know all of that, but im sharing what it means for us because the people who voted for trump by in large support this funding being cut.

Because they've been told their money is supporting NPR news, which isn't true. The fact is the money supports local stations and staff.

“Today, we sent the first rescissions package to Capitol Hill. This package contains BILLIONS in wasteful foreign aid and federal funding for NPR and PBS,” the White House Office of Management and Budget announced Tuesday afternoon.

That isn't true. If they told congress the truth, the bill wouldn't pass.

 

[yeoldeschool]

Because they've been told their money is supporting NPR news, which isn't true. The fact is the money supports local stations and staff.

This.

To swap the political interests for juxtapositional clarity, it's like someone on the left ran for office promising to take Alex Jones off the air, and upon getting in, aimed a ballistic missile at the XDS platform's satellite followed by counting backwards. Too few people are seeing what's about to happen, and the feces are going to hit the fan when all of that person's supporters see their content, plus countless entirely non-political things, go nova above their heads along with Alex.

I don't know what to tell you, SRG, except that my personal instinct, were I in your shoes, would be to identify as many rural, CPB-funded stations as possible that carry little to no "disfavored" programming, and try rallying them into a united front whose collective dB level is audible to the Trump administration's ears. Showing them evidence they are "over cutting," and seeking a defunding exemption for "neutral" public broadcasters (especially rural ones serving areas with high constituent populations and few alternative means of obtaining news -- hint, hint) may constitute an unsavory but at least tolerable stop-gap measure for keeping some stations funded until a different administration, with a less scorched earth approach to all this, can take office.

The alternative is letting the aforementioned feces hit the aforementioned fan, and waiting for the administration to reverse course whiplash-style in response to all the "unforeseen consequences." But that would imply entering a dark tunnel during the interim portion, and in all that darkness, many stations would go bankrupt, and would not be able to resurrect themselves later.

I wish you luck.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

This.

To swap the political interests for juxtapositional clarity, it's like someone on the left ran for office promising to take Alex Jones off the air, and upon getting in, aimed a ballistic missile at the XDS platform's satellite followed by counting backwards. Too few people are seeing what's about to happen, and the feces are going to hit the fan when all of that person's supporters see their content, plus countless entirely non-political things, go nova above their heads along with Alex.

I don't know what to tell you, SRG, except that my personal instinct, were I in your shoes, would be to identify as many rural, CPB-funded stations as possible that carry little to no "disfavored" programming, and try rallying them into a united front whose collective dB level is audible to the Trump administration's ears. Showing them evidence they are "over cutting," and seeking a defunding exemption for "neutral" public broadcasters (especially rural ones serving areas with high constituent populations and few alternative means of obtaining news -- hint, hint) may constitute an unsavory but at least tolerable stop-gap measure for keeping some stations funded until a different administration, with a less scorched earth approach to all this, can take office.

The alternative is letting the aforementioned feces hit the aforementioned fan, and waiting for the administration to reverse course whiplash-style in response to all the "unforeseen consequences." But that would imply entering a dark tunnel during the interim portion, and in all that darkness, many stations would go bankrupt, and would not be able to resurrect themselves later.

I wish you luck.

We all carry some level of npr/disfavored programming.

They think npr is where all the money goes and they don’t wanna hear otherwise. They also think npr distributes the money… and don’t wanna hear otherwise

 

[TheBigA]

And this is only the beginning.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

So let’s say CPB funding is rescinded, and KSKO has to eliminate all local programming and eventually shut down… where will KSKO listeners get emergency information such as flooding, wildfires threatening a town or some other life threatening info?

 

[TheBigA]

So let’s say CPB funding is rescinded, and KSKO has to eliminate all local programming and eventually shut down… where will KSKO listeners get emergency information such as flooding, wildfires threatening a town or some other life threatening info?

That's sort of up to the politicians to figure out. They're the ones responsible for protecting people. If people feel unsafe because of cutbacks, they might be motivated to replace the current politicians.

But I wouldn't expect commercial radio companies to step in and fill the gaps. Especially in rural areas. They've already abandoned most of them.

 

[davideduardo]

That's sort of up to the politicians to figure out. They're the ones responsible for protecting people. If people feel unsafe because of cutbacks, they might be motivated to replace the current politicians.

I am curious about how many towns and hamlets exist that have a public radio station but no commercial station there or even nearby. It almost seems that such situations deserve a separate treatment and financing entity.

But I wouldn't expect commercial radio companies to step in and fill the gaps. Especially in rural areas. They've already abandoned most of them.

Commercial radio began losing profitability in rural areas when the Walmarts and K-Marts and Walco's came to town. As those big box stores drove down many local merchants, small market stations just could not make money. And then Docket 80-90 overpopulated many rural and small markets, making local service to expensive to provide and driving many if not most to the satellite services of the later 80's and 90's.

Don't blame the radio industry for not serving rural areas; this is just part of a change in America's merchandising and buying patterns.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

I am curious about how many towns and hamlets exist that have a public radio station but no commercial station there or even nearby. It almost seems that such situations deserve a separate treatment and financing entity.

almost all of alaska.. commercial stations exist in anchorage, fairbanks, parts of the SE )Juneau, sitka) and the kenai peninsula

 

[TheBigA]

I am curious about how many towns and hamlets exist that have a public radio station but no commercial station there or even nearby. It almost seems that such situations deserve a separate treatment and financing entity.

That's not the way this is being handled. The rescission bill that has already been passed by the house simply eliminates all funding for CPB. They see it as "wasteful government spending." Nobody is discussing communities in need. They say there are lots of options for people to get this information. This is what the conservative Media Resource Center says:

As a coalition of conservatives explained in a letter to Pres. Trump back in April, public media have both outlived their necessity and violated their charter. Publicly-funded media were created at a time when (unlike today) many Americans, particularly those in rural areas, had limited access to news and information. Today, however, Americans have a virtually unlimited number of sources of news, entertainment and educational programing, thanks to the internet, cable and satellite services, etc.

These politicians have decided it's unnecessary and wasteful. According to them, the internet has made broadcasting obsolete.

Don't blame the radio industry for not serving rural areas; this is just part of a change in America's merchandising and buying patterns.

Nobody's blaming the radio industry. What I'm saying is we have a system that has been serving the public, and a group of politicians are about to blow it up. One would think there would be an outcry about such a thing, especially from a message board about radio.

 

[davideduardo]

That's not the way this is being handled. The rescission bill that has already been passed by the house simply eliminates all funding for CPB. They see it as "wasteful government spending." Nobody is discussing communities in need. T

My point is whether there are enough such stations and communities to warrant an effort to create a separate entity. In some cases, it might best be done on the state level.

These politicians have decided it's unnecessary and wasteful. According to them, the internet has made broadcasting obsolete.

That is a bit too generalized a statement for me to accept.

Nobody's blaming the radio industry. What I'm saying is we have a system that has been serving the public, and a group of politicians are about to blow it up.

"Blow it up" is also too generalized. In the case of the Alaskan station we have all come to love, it would have that effect. In others, it's a decreasing percentage of station budgets and content.

One would think there would be an outcry about such a thing, especially from a message board about radio.

There are many who believe that the federal government, anywhere, should not be in broadcasting. The issue of greatest importance is when "only local service" stations are sacrificed.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is whether there are enough such stations and communities to warrant an effort to create a separate entity. In some cases, it might best be done on the state level.

I don't know. You would think someone in charge would ask that question before they shut something down, forcing people out of work, and eliminating radio stations. Right now, the only choice is eliminate the funding. Make it someone else's problem.

There are many who believe that the federal government, anywhere, should not be in broadcasting. The issue of greatest importance is when "only local service" stations are sacrificed.

The money has to come from somewhere. The public broadcasting act says the money should come from CPB. If that's what the law says, shouldn't the law be followed? CPB can't raise money on its own. It had to come from the government. Those were the rules that were set up. Just because congress provides some grant money doesn't mean they're in the broadcasting business. They also provide grant money to the solar power business and the electric car business.

The reality is once CPB is shut down, stations will have the rest of 2025 to figure out how they're going to replace the money. It's up to the stations to figure it out. The administration just wants to be rid of the expense.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

My point is whether there are enough such stations and communities to warrant an effort to create a separate entity. In some cases, it might best be done on the state level.

That is a bit too generalized a statement for me to accept.

"Blow it up" is also too generalized. In the case of the Alaskan station we have all come to love, it would have that effect. In others, it's a decreasing percentage of station budgets and content.

There are many who believe that the federal government, anywhere, should not be in broadcasting. The issue of greatest importance is when "only local service" stations are sacrificed.

its not that we exist but its that NPR news does and this is an attack on free speech/news/journalism

 

[davideduardo]

its not that we exist but its that NPR news does and this is an attack on free speech/news/journalism

Technically, this is just a budget cut. You may be de-funded all or in part, but that does not mean you can not continue to broadcast with funding from other sources. "Free Speech" does not mean "free money".

If you are actively trying to find such funding, I'd suggest emphasizing all the good things you do (and that we have seen in your posts) so that some type of rural radio entity can be created or some other organization can step in.

If you have an entity ready to accept donations, let me know as you are just a PayPal click away!

 

[TheBigA]

Technically, this is just a budget cut. You may be de-funded all or in part, but that does not mean you can not continue to broadcast with funding from other sources. "Free Speech" does not mean "free money".

If the stated reason for the defunding is because they don't agree with the speech, then it's a speech issue. Quoting the MRC:

Trump’s rescission proposal seeks to stop funding public media because American taxpayers should not be forced to finance the well-documented and egregious bias of the content produced by PBS and NPR, which caters to only one side of the political spectrum.

So Paul's budget is being cut because the party in power says NPR news is biased. That's a speech issue. The lawsuit will be based on free speech.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Technically, this is just a budget cut. You may be de-funded all or in part, but that does not mean you can not continue to broadcast with funding from other sources. "Free Speech" does not mean "free money".

If you are actively trying to find such funding, I'd suggest emphasizing all the good things you do (and that we have seen in your posts) so that some type of rural radio entity can be created or some other organization can step in.

If you have an entity ready to accept donations, let me know as you are just a PayPal click away!

We dont do paypal, but we do sell swag and memberships on our website

The problem is that new entity and getting it funded.. it would take longer than we have. the problem is for us smaller stations, derive so much of our funding from the CPB.. bigger stations will be harmed too, but will survive

 

[b-turner]

Let's look at what radio gets of this money. Then let's look at what percentage of the audience listens to public radio. That will give us a dollar amount and number of people. Since Paul has told us $3 a year per person, we take this amount and divide by number of listeners. Now we look at percentage of listeners that are donors.

For example If radio gets, say $600 million and 5% listen to public radio. Each listener needs to generate an extra $60. Not everyone will donate so that figure needs to be adjusted.

We know the monies are not distributed equally by station/listener.

I see Alaska and a couple of other spots where help is essential. Most spots that is not the case.

I really don't see public stations going dark or very much changing. I doubt they become the new K-Love affiliate. From the financials I have seen, about 5% is average for CPB dollars. If a properly run station takes a revenue loss of 5% you'd never know it until they ask for additional financial help.

What we have here is political fear mongering from both sides and the truth is well hidden because it is not drastic enough to get you riled up.

States can fund stations and maybe that is where it should be. It has been pointed out many CPB recipients are state owned and in Republican states. Regardless of what some posters here think, Republican states are not what the left says they are. The state would get the money in the hands of the stations.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Let's look at what radio gets of this money. Then let's look at what percentage of the audience listens to public radio. That will give us a dollar amount and number of people. Since Paul has told us $3 a year per person, we take this amount and divide by number of listeners. Now we look at percentage of listeners that are donors.

For example If radio gets, say $600 million and 5% listen to public radio. Each listener needs to generate an extra $60. Not everyone will donate so that figure needs to be adjusted.

We know the monies are not distributed equally by station/listener.

I see Alaska and a couple of other spots where help is essential. Most spots that is not the case.

I really don't see public stations going dark or very much changing. I doubt they become the new K-Love affiliate. From the financials I have seen, about 5% is average for CPB dollars. If a properly run station takes a revenue loss of 5% you'd never know it until they ask for additional financial help.

What we have here is political fear mongering from both sides and the truth is well hidden because it is not drastic enough to get you riled up.

States can fund stations and maybe that is where it should be. It has been pointed out many CPB recipients are state owned and in Republican states. Regardless of what some posters here think, Republican states are not what the left says they are. The state would get the money in the hands of the stations.

If we lose funding, my job gets axed, local life saving programing is eliminated and if funding cant be replaced, the transmitters get turned off, likely permanently.

alaska wont fund us, as i explained in my original post