• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Should NPR seek a broader audience?

FreddyE1977 said:
You've just made the Conservative case that they don't need taxpayer subsidies.
Click to expand...

That would absolutely be the case if NPR could run commercials. But they don't/can't. All they can get are little sponsorship mentions. And I doubt those "influential, affluent" people are donating money directly to NPR.
 
TheBigA said:
Also, conservatives, as we've seen, are not all of one mind. Rand Paul might agree with you. But Susan Collins might not. This idea that all conservatives think alike doesn't really exist any more.
Click to expand...


Very True though. But back to this thread

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2016/08/17/bye-bye/

Its like this argument the PBS Ombudsman made last year that PBS Don't produce shows but PBS Distribute shows from the local affiliates for national broadcasts. The Article noted that WTTW Chicago and Oliver productions were the distributor of "The McLaughlin Group" a pundit show that aired on PBS affiliates plus a CBS Affiliate in Washington DC(Tegna owned WUSA) in the article and PBS had no contract with the show.


Its Similar to Public Radio shows NPR does not own the majority of their shows except (All Things Considered and Morning Edition the only shows owned and produced by NPR). NPR has to have a distribution contract with their affiliates to air shows nationwide such as WBEZ, WAMU, KQED and WBUR. Like Here and Now a WBUR productions show but is distributed nationally on NPR, Segments of the California Report and Newsroom although aired locally on KQED some segments will re-air nationwide on NPR's All things considered if it has national significance, 1A with Joshua Johnson a WAMU talk show and Wait Wait Don't Tell Me a WBEZ game show but distributed nationwide on NPR.

Its similar to how APM, PRI and PRX operates. like APM Marketplace its produced by KPCC Los Angeles (Note KPCC and Minnesota Public Radio are directly owned by APM) they air on Public News/talkers around the nation.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
So your position is that NPR should be allowed to use the vast powers of the US Government
to take their money by force?
Click to expand...

My position is that Congress passed a law that sets out the federal funding plan for public broadcasting. All they have to do is follow their own law.

If they now have a change of mind, they just need to repeal the law. We've just seen how successful they are at that.
 
TheBigA said:
My position is that Congress passed a law that sets out the federal funding plan for public broadcasting. All they have to do is follow their own law.

If they now have a change of mind, they just need to repeal the law. We've just seen how successful they are at that.
Click to expand...

If they cut funding to NPR and Public Broadcasting, those NPR and PBS stations should be allowed to sell airtime, whether it be commercials or lease space.
 
By FCC law, there is a non-commercial portion of the band on the FM dial. That portion plays by a different set of FCC rules than the commercial station. In fact, it is very different.

Non-commercial educational (NCE) frequencies are not auctioned to the highest bidder. I think a NCE is not subject to 'spectrum use fees' and if they are charged for filing fees, they are minimal compared to commercial stations. To allow the NCE station to run commercials would take an act of Congress and then subject every NCE station to additional costs each year. This even extends to non-governmental fees and costs. Non-profits, the only entity that can hold a NCE license, gets 'breaks' the commercial station could only hope of. Plus consider the non-profit's income through the sale of commercials might be considered 'taxable income' in the eyes of the IRS if it doesn't void their non-profit status.

As for Public Radio, including NPR, I would contend Public Radio is seeing greater success in gaining listeners today than at any point in the past. I'd say it does not need fixing at this point. A major market NPR I know of was doing about 8.5 million a year in revenue. Not bad considering the top station in the market was doing about 24 million.

For all those thinking commercial radio station owners feel like they won the lottery, a friend bid on and won an FM covering a county of about 45,000 people in a small market. The winning bid was $126,000 or around that. By the time he got on the air he was in over $300,000. For his investors, that meant buying land, erecting a tower and building a building for the studio/office. At least if he goes under there are assets to sell and the station has greater value if sold. His stand alone FM does about $130,000 to $135,000 a year in revenue. His share of the listeners is about 5%. This beats the audience size of one local FM and an AM in the county. The dial is populated by 32 stations between AM and FM. His revenue share is about 7.5% of what is spent on radio in his small market. He beats two other stations in the county on revenue. In this respect he 'over performs' on revenue. 1.7 million is spent in radio among all the stations in the county: 6 stations and 7 translators. Stations outside the county actively sell here. Even so, he works for his lender for about another 7 years if he and his wife can get by on a salary that is not even minimum wage given the hours he and his wife puts in. He sees room for improvement in the coming years.

And if you're interested in an AM fulltime stand alone, I know of one with a history of billing $24,000 a year that is for sale cheap, but it must move it's tower to a new site. I'm guessing they don't have any 'owned' studio or tower site. Anybody got too much money burning a hole in your pocket? Oh yes, it hits over 100,000 people in a very over-radioed market.

And if a non-commercial FM is in the cards, a class A FM in a county of 30,000 that brings in almost $15,000 a year could be yours. They are not NPR. You can bet they do much better than the AM station above. No spectrum use fees, taxes and less maintenance since FMs are cheaper to maintain.
 
TheBigA said:
My position is that Congress passed a law that sets out the federal funding plan for public broadcasting. All they have to do is follow their own law.

If they now have a change of mind, they just need to repeal the law. We've just seen how successful they are at that.
Click to expand...

According to the Constitution, the Legislative Branch has the Power of the Purse.
And it cannot be bound by the actions of a prior Congress.

So Congress could have passed a law in 1965 decreeing that money would be spent on something,
but the current Congress does not have to actually appropriate the money. The courts do not
have Constitutional Power of the Purse, so there is no way to make them spend it if they don't want to.

There are Supreme Court precedents for this (President Nixon wanted to cut Federal spending, so he
impounded money appropriated by Congress and did not spend it. The Court ruled that he could not
do this, as Congress has Power of the Purse)

(As an aside to our host, Mr. Berry, as this thread is about a government-funded broadcast organization
I hope you can appreciate that veering into the verboten territory of politics is impossible to avoid).
 
FreddyE1977 said:
So Congress could have passed a law in 1965 decreeing that money would be spent on something,
but the current Congress does not have to actually appropriate the money.
Click to expand...

However, as I've said several times in this thread, the House appropriations committee, who handle this kind of thing, have already approved the funding.

The only person who wants to cut the funding is the President, and as you said, it's not his call.

If they want to make changes in the system, such as shutting down CPB or NPR, it needs a change in the law.
 
Last edited:
You are correct on that point. All Trump can do is veto the entire Federal Budget, and he is not
going to do that just to defund NPR. In the case Clinton v. City of New York in 1998 the Supreme Court struck down the President's ability to make a line-item veto as unconstitutional.

The funding can always be pulled by Congress if they manage to round-up a few more votes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom