China keeps telling us the US accounts for only 15% of their exports and 3% of their GDP yet after just 3 weeks of tariffs they have 10,000's of factories closed, millions of unemployed, in general chaos in the cheap export sector. TL;DR is this: don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
"China has quietly started to exempt some U.S. goods from tariffs that likely cover around $40 billion worth of imports, in what looks like an effort to soften the blow of the trade war on its own economy." -- Detroit News, 5/2/2025
Asia has a "save face" culture. CCP can't just turn around and accept our terms. But by quietly dropping reciprocal tariffs they are. They have also offered to restrict fentanyl exports however the elephant in the room is fair 2 way trade and no more stealing IP. They have to find a way to accept this without admitting it, however the tariffs are hurting them a lot and other countries are starting to pile on. Give it 3 months and it'll be over.
Although I support them the problem with the Chinese tariffs is that China has 1.3 billion people with a government not accountable to them. The government will happily sacrifice millions of them for the communist cause.
Are you really naive enough to believe that the American government cares more about you than any other government? You are more accountable to the government than it would ever need to be to you.
No. But at the very least that's our ideal codified in the constitution. Ironically, we have a president actually trying to serve the people and the government and its benefactors won't let him. As far as China goes, my point was they are likely to prevail, we do have representatives and senators with entrenched interests that will oppose as time goes on, China doesn't.
There is no longer any way they can claim to not be propaganda funded by the government. Their listeners and viewers could easily be given the choice to see commercials like the commercial channels are offering to suspend, for a price. As time goes on, those who understand the FCC's differences between commercials and sponsorship announcements can see those differences disappearing with the FCC's failing enforcement of their own rules. The FCC would be on my short list of government agencies to end, having worked as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician, and being a licensed amateur radio operator.
"...The FCC would be on my short list of government agencies to end, having worked as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician, and being a licensed amateur radio operator."
lol. "Ham radio operator calls for gutting FCC"
As an airline pilot, and having never crashed a plane, the FAA is on my short list of government agencies to end.
Any reasonably knowledgeable working pilot would be able to tell that a minimally competent AI would be more able to prevent Army helicopters from running into commuter jets than the single controller working at Reagan the night that happened.
I took a tour of the tower at Stapleton Airport when I was a two-way radio student at EGOS in the mid 1970s and saw the decades old mainframe that was being used for ATC at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are still in use and running COBOL.
Fun fact: White males can't apply for FCC licensing. My husband used to work in telecommunications and worked with radio stations. Most use their wives or daughters as shills. Even then it's far easier for a POC to get a license in the US today.
You blightly refer to NPR and kin as "propaganda funded by the government."
"The government."Hmm. If you mean the administration, we change that every 4 or 8 years, sometimes sharply, sometimes only barely (as,say, from Obama to Biden: samo-samo, except the former didn't shake hands with air).
The broadcast services we're talking abot most definitely are not working for the presently in-office Trump "government."
If by "government" you mean the "Deep State," the nameless-faceless bureaucracy, you have a point. That "government" can be called as leaning Left, but in the most anti-human "intersectional" way.
If serving the "Deep State" was all NPR did, I would support eliminating, or privatising it.
My argument is that NPR does a hell of a lot more. So I remain a fan.
Trump is nothing more than the ignorant moron in charge of an executive branch he barely understands. The CIA controls all of the broadcast media in the US and they are completely able to deal with Trump a la JFK, should the need develop. I used to host All Things Considered as a news volunteer at an NPR affiliate. They still owe me for three voicers that I submitted to the program that were accepted and run on the program, letting me listen to myself thrice. You can't tell me anything about NPR that I haven't known for decades. They are a mouthpiece for America's 17 intelligence agencies.
The combined budgets for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), NPR, and PBS are a complex mix of federal funding, private donations, and other sources. The CPB, which distributes funds to public media organizations, received approximately $535 million in federal appropriations in fiscal year 2025. NPR and PBS, while receiving some CPB funding, also rely on member station dues, corporate sponsorships, donations, and foundation grants. Specifically, in fiscal year 2025, the CPB allocated funds as follows: $267.83M for direct grants to local public television stations, $96.78M for television programming grants, $83.33M for direct grants to local public radio stations, and $28.63M for the Radio National Program Production and Acquisition." Add the numbers together and there isn't much space left before a billion.
Small point of clarification. Using the numbers you listed, the CPB RECEIVED $535M (appropriations) from Congress in FY2025 and then allocated (SPENT) that appropriated $535M as listed in your comment. It's $535M total, a little over a HALF of a billion. One can credibly argue that the Feds have sent them "a billion" in aggregate every two or three years, looking backwards. But not "billions" in any one year.
relatively speaking 1% is small. everyone, including them, can find ways to save 1% of spending. or since they are so popular - raise 1% more in donations. taxpayers don't need to pay for this
More than half of most NPR stations income comes from their listeners and grants. About the same percentage of most PBS stations come from the CPB. PBS isn't as popular as they were when they were one of four or five choices over the air, before cable got laid everywhere and then went digital.
Adding up indirect contributions from the Feds, about 33 % of NPR is "public-"supported."
Go ahead, "defund" NPR.
There are still enough corporations etc who have enough tax-deductable spare $$$, and enough good taste, to support quality music for everyone's enjoyment and improvement.
Such programming is produced by NPR. It is up to your local affiliate to decide to carry it. Many do overnight so they don't need an operator in charge of the airing. Others put both the classical and jazz offerings on their HD channels 24/7. Contact your local affiliate and ask them to air NPR's classical music channel.
I question why there are three separate streams now. KERA in Dallas runs children's programming 24/7. What kids are awake at midnight? I can find America's Test Kitchen and Black Books and more on Pluto or Tubi. Those programs are supported by views. But I suspect some of the most strident and biased political programming is not, which is why they have pledge breaks four times a year now. If they had to be accountable to the viewers most of their news department would be smaller and their news shows shorter and fewer.
You must have never raised a child from birth to be unaware of which one would be awake at any time of the day or night.
It won't be very long before television programs will have URLs that are active 24/7 instead of streams. Eventually television stations will be converted into broadband distribution transmissions.
I listened to several NPR stations (all things but news!) in Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, South Caroline, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois.
I discuss NPR-broadcast music with colleagues in another 20-or-so states.
I realise that this leaves out a number of the United States.
So, please do tell the readers here:
Where does NPR not broadcast "classical or any other 'quality' music?"
All classical .org gets about 10% of its budget from federal government, the rest is listener supported. It’s not part of NPR and you can stream it near anywhere in the world. I listen to it daily:
If you don't listen to their news, how do you know anything about it?
You've only listened to NPR in 8 states and you know what they do in the other 42? It is all up to their affiliates to carry or not, having little to do with NPR corporate.
Mostly true of Baltimore, too. Classical music on FM radio comes from a decades-long operating local college station WBJC - Baltimore City Community College (formerly Baltimore Junior College hence the call sign).
However WYPR-FM is the local public broadcasting outlet (run by "Your Public Radio" under "Baltimore Public Media") which provides some classical music among a variety of content. That station's signal is also simulcast in three other Maryland small cities - Frederick, Hagerstown, and Ocean City.
Even though UNT has one of the premier jazz studies programs in the nation, you have to go to their alternative station KNTU2 to find jazz played on the radio. Of course, try to find music anymore that isn't limited to a 20 song playlist regardless of genre.
There is exactly one classical music station in NYC. Which seems to be affiliated with an NPR outfit; it does the same nauseating fund drives. I should dig into it further, I suppose.
Excellent question. And, of course, NPR will survive, For ever.
(I gave reason for that prediction in another post of mine.)
But may I call everyone's attention to the repulsive habit of straying off, way off, the topic of discussion. The following dozen or so posts keep bringing up China, as if . . .
Their “sponsorships” graze the line (and often go over the line) of what is considered advertising already. They are nothing but subsidized propaganda for the leftist agenda. I can’t tell you how many times I started to watch what I thought would be an interesting science or history documentary on PBS, just to turn it off within ten minutes because it was just steeped in leftism.
Have you ever bothered to read the FCC's regulations where the legal distinction is made between advertising and sponsorship announcements? You'd have to be a bar member to see it.
I think the subscription model, like the streaming services, fits better. Apparently, we can twist the first amendment to mean nothing.or anything or everything. Is Congress, by failing to appropriate funds to "public" radio, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"? I think the answer is no, because stopping funding is not stopping speech.
Ask any listener to Christian radio, and they'll tell you when Pledge Weeks are. Those stations receive $0 from the government. If they can do it, so can PBS/NPR. The difference is socialists expect everyone else to pay for their choices.
To speak, yes. However to be "heard" by more than the people standing or sitting physically near you, you need a megaphone / amplified PA system, or printing press, or a broadcast radio or tv transmitter with antenna, or an internet streaming service.
How did the United States ever come to be before anything but speaking in the same room became available?
Having been a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician for a decade, I can tell you that few public speakers know much about electronic options. Audio quality sucks online.
During the Apollo program, the Fisher Pen Company spent a million developing a ballpoint pen that would work in zero gravity. The Soviet space program put pencils in their spacecraft.
I would like to see them become truly BiPartisan & fair & balance, but that is probably a pipe dream. I would like to see that for CNN and MSNBC but I know it won't happen
Do you know how much commercial broadcasters pay into the FCC's slush fund?
It is impossible to put a minimal radio station on the air for less than a $million in FCC fees for the license, alone. Pirate broadcaster are now felons, even if they didn't harm licensed broadcasters. The radio frequency spectrum should be first come first served like breathing.
It *IS* so by the very nature of human beings. We each bring our individual perspectives (from our individual unique experience) into politics and thus have differing opinions for defining problems or developing solutions. That cannot result in anything BUT partisanship in a large democratically elected federal republic's government. Smaller local governments may be less affected by partisanship once elected, but statewide and federal elections involve millions of voters and multiple partisans pursuing their preferred "optimum" solutions.
Are you saying that human perspectives fall into only five political categories?
I prefer the premise advanced by The World's Smallest Political Quiz that they fall across a two-dimensional Venn diagram rather than along a line of socialism between communism and fascism.
But they were still broadcasting, no? How is it possible that they were unprofitable yet still broadcasting?
It's a peculiar assertion to make, especially when it collides with your startling finding that "the first broadcasters didn't make profits."
How can you now say that advertising dollars is what made broadcasting possible in the first place when you have unearthed evidence that suggests something quite different was at work?
Are you the first person to stumble across this mess? That there were broadcasters broadcasting when they "didn't make profits?
So, here we are...broadcasting up a storm yet with no advertising jingles flowing from from the station's Spark Transmitters (32KB) to our crystal sets and superheterodyne receivers at home.
How in god's name did these "first broadcasters" even become the first broadcasters when they weren't earning profits? Were they earning any goddamn money at all?
If I were you, I'd keep this under your hat. At least until things blow
over. Or cool down. Or until everything solid melts into air...
If you'd done any research at all, you would know that the first broadcasters were store owners creating a demand for the radio receivers they sold in their stores. Not only were they not making profits from broadcasting, the only things they were advertising was the radio receivers that their stores were selling. Crystal sets didn't work very well with the original low powered broadcasters because they rely on the power in the radio signal itself. Superheterodyne receivers came a long time after spark transmitters, which only broadcast Morse code, were gone.
Correct. They are propaganda against conservative ideology now. In fact, it violates the first amendment for the government to fund them. Turns them into state run media which is the opposite of the first amendment.
I'm no constitutional scholar or an expert on the Federalist papers. But, as the 1st amendment also guarantees freedom of religion, the government can't create a central government approved religion. I would assume the guarantee to freedom of speech is the same interpretation. The government can't create a central government speech source (i.e. funding state sponsored news outlets).
Yes, you've make it painfully plain that you're "no constitutional scholar or an expert on the Federalist papers." I'm in one of my rare, expansive moods, so we'll leave it at that.
Perhaps not. If you're going to discuss the 1st amendment, it might be wise to actually read the the thing first. Or maybe you did read it but didn't understand it. Reading and understanding the 1st amendment is actually the first step in becoming a constitutional scholar and the envy of all your MAGA cohorts!
Ok, ok, no more cavilling on my part. However, if you wish to make yourself useful:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Russell Vought? You're buddies, yes? Next time you have lunch with him, while he's drooling Thousand Island dressing down his chin, you might slowly begin chanting, in a sort of low growl..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Yeah 2 multi-billionaires are "looting" the government for profit. Both have lost money by trying to improve government. Man, our schools are worse than even I thought.
Do you think that commercial broadcasters get to use the "public owned airways" (communism) for free? What is paid are fees to the FCC that don't get shared with anyone else, let alone the public that supposedly own the airways created by the creator.
I’ve never understood the government funding for NPR, PBS, CPB. I used to think it was nice that they made nature shows, filmed some concerts, and I loved the original Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but I also remember there were a lot of corporations and charities that donated to make shows possible. If they offer products that people value, people will donate to continue enjoying those products. Or they can advertise like every other media company does. With a nation that is $35 trillion or more in debt, cuts have to be made across the board. Some areas will be more painful than others but it has to be done. I’m tired of subsidizing left wing propaganda.
The original reason for having public stations was to prevent private commercial interests from completely driving coverage, thus interfering with democratic access.
But instead, we now have what amounts to a private, if non-commercial, *undemocratic* interest completely driving *its* coverage. Meanwhile, it claims it is actually democratic because it hawks for random donations, even though it adds those to the patently undemocratic choices for funding organizations who can effectively control and use those small donations.
Same pattern as field Marxism: "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, proles -- the vanguards are fighting for you, and we've got it all under control!"
Not to mention the infrastructure they have accumulated over five decades. When will half of that be re-distributed to other deserving groups, representing other points of view?
First sentence sas it all once you give out a cookie then you have to give a cookie to everyone..Only fair right,,well Im starting a show so give me cookies
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy NOVA, Masterpiece Theater and even Britcoms like Upstart Crow and Black Books and Chef. But that's not what public broadcasting was intended to do. When you can find all seasons of Midsomer Murders on Pluto for free, why are they showing it on PBS like it's a rare commodity?
Re: Trump's sense of humor. My husband and I are on a cross country trip and out of nowhere today I remembered Trump in the garbage truck. We couldn't remember exactly why Trump did it, but seemed to remember it had something to do with Joe Biden calling all Trump voters garbage. We laughed uproariously for a good 20 miles.
I just engaged in a FB kerfuffle over this issue. They kept mocking me for saying that NPR and PBS are biased left. They insisted that much of the programming is not left, but conservative. It's increasingly clear to me that people live on different planets, and neither the twain shall meet.
1. Yashar is soooooo triggered. What a moron. Like he ever has cared about the Pope. 🙄 2. The moment NPR and PBS became BRANDS they should been defunded, OR alternative-content stations should have been licensed at a minimum. But they should have been defunded decades ago.
NPR and PBS overtly impacted the 2020 election by refusing to run stories on Hunter Biden's laptop. In fact, they did more than that - they repeatedly propagandized that intelligence officials had declared the laptop Russian Disinformation, and ignored telling their listeners and viewers that Hunter admitted it was his laptop.
You quoted Christopher F. Rufo's tweet - and I really connected to his follow up to this one where her further analyzed the NPR CEO statement:
"from “free speech means I can say what I want” (correct) to “free speech means you have to listen to me” (incorrect) to, finally, “free speech means you must be forced by law to fund my writing career” (absolutely insane). not interested, but thanks for playing."
One-sided journalism should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. And that is what NPR has become. Uri Berliner pointed it out and was skewered by his colleagues.
Journalism is supposed to give you food for thought so that you can draw your own conclusions, not tell you what your opinions MUST BE.
Yep, that unconditional conditions argument seems to apply to the recipients of the government service, not the providers. In this case, the government can't withdraw PBS services from Chris Rufo because they don't like what he says. Nothing about they can't withdraw a service that doesn't serve half the populace fairly. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So, the left is now claiming that federal money IS speech, right?
NPR is a wasteland of left-wing propaganda. Gave up on it 20 years ago. I like most of the programming on PBS, but think all of it can stand on its own feet or sold to Discovery or Disney or other streaming/cable channels. The Newshour has become as bad as NPR. For example, here is a current leading headline on their website:
"Waltz ousted as national security adviser, nominated for UN role in White House shakeup"
A headline reflecting reality would read: "Waltz promoted to UN Ambassador."
As a leftist, I found NPR refreshing amidst tens of right wing radio stations. But this changed about fifteen years ago. I haven’t listen to NPR since then.
NPR/PBS ooze sanctimony — they are also doctrinally rigid adherents to golden calf edicts. As a result, many of their parishioners have left the congregation and only true believers remain in the pews. It’s nice to have choices, it’s unrealistic to think that everyone be made to pay for niche programming.
You took the words right out of my mouth...it was the sanctimony that finally pushed me over the edge. I found myself screaming at steve innskeep and my BP was going up...not good
Julie is wrong about NPR and CPB. They need to not get any federal funds. They chose a side and became political, alienating half the potential viewing audience. They obviously don't need the money, and they shouldn't get it. Use that money to pay off the debt.
Seemd like they got in a negative feedback loop. Their producers and journalists tended to be left wing. They started accepting donations and sponsorships. These also tended to be slightly left wing. Over time, it was convenient for them to cater more to the donor classes, and the donor class became more left wing, because they were the ones increasingly enthused about the perspective of the content ... and so the feedback loop facilitated the shift to the extremes.
NPR AnaD PBS have always been democratic/liberalism .
I never remember a time conservatives did not want to defund it. It exudes the smugness and superiority of elites and academia. And yet, they say they are necessary for rural communities. I grew up in rural communities- it is an insult drizzling in arrogance. Let us educate the little people.
How would liberals feel if Breitbart or you, Sasha, were getting government funding?
What's most annoying about PBS is sitting down to watch a documentary.... let's say it's about, lizards. Sounds like an apolitical propaganda-free good time right? Nope. Undoubtedly they'll find a way to work in global warming, or capitalism and how the lizard is dying because of Trump.
PBS was a mainstay for me. Frontline was always at the top of my watch list. For 20 years or so.
Then, I noticed the bias, the manipulation. It always went in subtle, but determined direction. It always had an anti-capitalist message, pro liberalist, leftist point of view. A certain disdain for all things conservative, and most certainly slanted towards anything that would put Reagan or Bush in a bad light.
So, in early 2000's, I stopped watching. It lost its value to me, too! I don't support use of my tax dollars to propagandize a leftist, mostly white liberal woman's mindset.
NPR and PBS should be privatized and become commercial broadcasters supported by legitimate advertisers like the rest.
They keep telling us that the contribution of federal funds is miniscule, so they shouldn't miss it when it's gone, right?
China keeps telling us the US accounts for only 15% of their exports and 3% of their GDP yet after just 3 weeks of tariffs they have 10,000's of factories closed, millions of unemployed, in general chaos in the cheap export sector. TL;DR is this: don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.
"China has quietly started to exempt some U.S. goods from tariffs that likely cover around $40 billion worth of imports, in what looks like an effort to soften the blow of the trade war on its own economy." -- Detroit News, 5/2/2025
Asia has a "save face" culture. CCP can't just turn around and accept our terms. But by quietly dropping reciprocal tariffs they are. They have also offered to restrict fentanyl exports however the elephant in the room is fair 2 way trade and no more stealing IP. They have to find a way to accept this without admitting it, however the tariffs are hurting them a lot and other countries are starting to pile on. Give it 3 months and it'll be over.
Excellent comment and I believe you're right about the outcome.
Although I support them the problem with the Chinese tariffs is that China has 1.3 billion people with a government not accountable to them. The government will happily sacrifice millions of them for the communist cause.
Are you really naive enough to believe that the American government cares more about you than any other government? You are more accountable to the government than it would ever need to be to you.
I think we finally realized that with this last election. Like Trump said "in the end they're coming after you - and I'm just standing in their way"
Truer words were never spoken!
This is true and simple but nobody seems to be getting it?????
The problem is that no one is standing in the way of Trump being a dictator.
Not much different than the U.S now.
No. But at the very least that's our ideal codified in the constitution. Ironically, we have a president actually trying to serve the people and the government and its benefactors won't let him. As far as China goes, my point was they are likely to prevail, we do have representatives and senators with entrenched interests that will oppose as time goes on, China doesn't.
China has millions of people out of work with no income safety net. Trump is less likely to fold to the deep state than CCP is to their hungry people.
The U.S. is not different than Communist China?
It's different, yes.
....watch what they do, or as Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruit."
It takes more time to watch than to read the transcript.
....which is why I 'watch' very little.
Kindly cite your sources for the precarious statistics.
Got any links thereof or therein?
How is 1% of billions minuscule?
It ain't. That's why they're panicking, despite their lies.
There is no longer any way they can claim to not be propaganda funded by the government. Their listeners and viewers could easily be given the choice to see commercials like the commercial channels are offering to suspend, for a price. As time goes on, those who understand the FCC's differences between commercials and sponsorship announcements can see those differences disappearing with the FCC's failing enforcement of their own rules. The FCC would be on my short list of government agencies to end, having worked as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician, and being a licensed amateur radio operator.
"...The FCC would be on my short list of government agencies to end, having worked as a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician, and being a licensed amateur radio operator."
lol. "Ham radio operator calls for gutting FCC"
As an airline pilot, and having never crashed a plane, the FAA is on my short list of government agencies to end.
Any reasonably knowledgeable working pilot would be able to tell that a minimally competent AI would be more able to prevent Army helicopters from running into commuter jets than the single controller working at Reagan the night that happened.
I took a tour of the tower at Stapleton Airport when I was a two-way radio student at EGOS in the mid 1970s and saw the decades old mainframe that was being used for ATC at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are still in use and running COBOL.
Fun fact: White males can't apply for FCC licensing. My husband used to work in telecommunications and worked with radio stations. Most use their wives or daughters as shills. Even then it's far easier for a POC to get a license in the US today.
You blightly refer to NPR and kin as "propaganda funded by the government."
"The government."Hmm. If you mean the administration, we change that every 4 or 8 years, sometimes sharply, sometimes only barely (as,say, from Obama to Biden: samo-samo, except the former didn't shake hands with air).
The broadcast services we're talking abot most definitely are not working for the presently in-office Trump "government."
If by "government" you mean the "Deep State," the nameless-faceless bureaucracy, you have a point. That "government" can be called as leaning Left, but in the most anti-human "intersectional" way.
If serving the "Deep State" was all NPR did, I would support eliminating, or privatising it.
My argument is that NPR does a hell of a lot more. So I remain a fan.
Trump is nothing more than the ignorant moron in charge of an executive branch he barely understands. The CIA controls all of the broadcast media in the US and they are completely able to deal with Trump a la JFK, should the need develop. I used to host All Things Considered as a news volunteer at an NPR affiliate. They still owe me for three voicers that I submitted to the program that were accepted and run on the program, letting me listen to myself thrice. You can't tell me anything about NPR that I haven't known for decades. They are a mouthpiece for America's 17 intelligence agencies.
Then you pay for them yourself,,they are commie pigs
.. .. 😉
Ask Elon Musk, he'll tell you. Or Jeff Bezos. Or...
They'll tell me what?
"How miniscule 1% of billions..."
Please provide the source for your "billion."
You aren't smart enough to look it up?
My search services begin at $75 an hour, if you want me to do for you something I don't need to do for myself.
Make claim; have data ready to back it up. Or qualify the claim, saying perhaps: " A lot of money" or "Approaching XXX..."
Or just stew in your own juices.
Ad hominem attacks don't require any back up.
Snide much? Or just ran short of facts?
As least I didn't have to stoop to ad hominem attack as you did.
"AI Overview
The combined budgets for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), NPR, and PBS are a complex mix of federal funding, private donations, and other sources. The CPB, which distributes funds to public media organizations, received approximately $535 million in federal appropriations in fiscal year 2025. NPR and PBS, while receiving some CPB funding, also rely on member station dues, corporate sponsorships, donations, and foundation grants. Specifically, in fiscal year 2025, the CPB allocated funds as follows: $267.83M for direct grants to local public television stations, $96.78M for television programming grants, $83.33M for direct grants to local public radio stations, and $28.63M for the Radio National Program Production and Acquisition." Add the numbers together and there isn't much space left before a billion.
Small point of clarification. Using the numbers you listed, the CPB RECEIVED $535M (appropriations) from Congress in FY2025 and then allocated (SPENT) that appropriated $535M as listed in your comment. It's $535M total, a little over a HALF of a billion. One can credibly argue that the Feds have sent them "a billion" in aggregate every two or three years, looking backwards. But not "billions" in any one year.
Source: https://cpb.org/funding/
PS - I have always and still support cutting them off from federal funding.
How much did they receive from NGO's?
Then why are you quibbling over numbers?
give me a couple Mill,,,I'm doing a documentary on snails
Escargot
relatively speaking 1% is small. everyone, including them, can find ways to save 1% of spending. or since they are so popular - raise 1% more in donations. taxpayers don't need to pay for this
More than half of most NPR stations income comes from their listeners and grants. About the same percentage of most PBS stations come from the CPB. PBS isn't as popular as they were when they were one of four or five choices over the air, before cable got laid everywhere and then went digital.
Adding up indirect contributions from the Feds, about 33 % of NPR is "public-"supported."
Go ahead, "defund" NPR.
There are still enough corporations etc who have enough tax-deductable spare $$$, and enough good taste, to support quality music for everyone's enjoyment and improvement.
"Public" doesn't have to be a dirty word.
No classical -- or any other "quality" -- music around here on NPR
Such programming is produced by NPR. It is up to your local affiliate to decide to carry it. Many do overnight so they don't need an operator in charge of the airing. Others put both the classical and jazz offerings on their HD channels 24/7. Contact your local affiliate and ask them to air NPR's classical music channel.
I question why there are three separate streams now. KERA in Dallas runs children's programming 24/7. What kids are awake at midnight? I can find America's Test Kitchen and Black Books and more on Pluto or Tubi. Those programs are supported by views. But I suspect some of the most strident and biased political programming is not, which is why they have pledge breaks four times a year now. If they had to be accountable to the viewers most of their news department would be smaller and their news shows shorter and fewer.
You must have never raised a child from birth to be unaware of which one would be awake at any time of the day or night.
It won't be very long before television programs will have URLs that are active 24/7 instead of streams. Eventually television stations will be converted into broadband distribution transmissions.
I listened to several NPR stations (all things but news!) in Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, South Caroline, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois.
I discuss NPR-broadcast music with colleagues in another 20-or-so states.
I realise that this leaves out a number of the United States.
So, please do tell the readers here:
Where does NPR not broadcast "classical or any other 'quality' music?"
New York City -- or anywhere else in the "tri-state." (They don't call flyover country the Heartland for nothing.)
In order to get classical music from NPR, I needed to use a satellite service in my former home in Florida.
All classical .org gets about 10% of its budget from federal government, the rest is listener supported. It’s not part of NPR and you can stream it near anywhere in the world. I listen to it daily:
https://player.allclassical.org/
Because your local affiliate doesn't carry it.
If you don't listen to their news, how do you know anything about it?
You've only listened to NPR in 8 states and you know what they do in the other 42? It is all up to their affiliates to carry or not, having little to do with NPR corporate.
Mostly true of Baltimore, too. Classical music on FM radio comes from a decades-long operating local college station WBJC - Baltimore City Community College (formerly Baltimore Junior College hence the call sign).
However WYPR-FM is the local public broadcasting outlet (run by "Your Public Radio" under "Baltimore Public Media") which provides some classical music among a variety of content. That station's signal is also simulcast in three other Maryland small cities - Frederick, Hagerstown, and Ocean City.
Even though UNT has one of the premier jazz studies programs in the nation, you have to go to their alternative station KNTU2 to find jazz played on the radio. Of course, try to find music anymore that isn't limited to a 20 song playlist regardless of genre.
There is exactly one classical music station in NYC. Which seems to be affiliated with an NPR outfit; it does the same nauseating fund drives. I should dig into it further, I suppose.
Sure, but you can find that online for free.
Really.
Are you going to deprive them of their broadcast licenses in the process?
I think they have the right to put out whatever nonsense they choose to, and they can pay for it.
If they can get enough donations from their listeners to stay on the air.
Excellent question. And, of course, NPR will survive, For ever.
(I gave reason for that prediction in another post of mine.)
But may I call everyone's attention to the repulsive habit of straying off, way off, the topic of discussion. The following dozen or so posts keep bringing up China, as if . . .
Which just goes to disprove what you've said before.
Their “sponsorships” graze the line (and often go over the line) of what is considered advertising already. They are nothing but subsidized propaganda for the leftist agenda. I can’t tell you how many times I started to watch what I thought would be an interesting science or history documentary on PBS, just to turn it off within ten minutes because it was just steeped in leftism.
Have you ever bothered to read the FCC's regulations where the legal distinction is made between advertising and sponsorship announcements? You'd have to be a bar member to see it.
In fact, I have, which is why I made the statement I made. I worked in public radio for years.
I think the subscription model, like the streaming services, fits better. Apparently, we can twist the first amendment to mean nothing.or anything or everything. Is Congress, by failing to appropriate funds to "public" radio, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"? I think the answer is no, because stopping funding is not stopping speech.
Ask any listener to Christian radio, and they'll tell you when Pledge Weeks are. Those stations receive $0 from the government. If they can do it, so can PBS/NPR. The difference is socialists expect everyone else to pay for their choices.
They'd shut down with the churches that fund and operate them.
Freedom of speech requires nothing more than a mouth.
Tell that to people in North Korea. Or Iran. Or ... The list is still quite long.
The United States is being added to the list by Trump's censorship of foreign students by way of immigration malfeasance.
To speak, yes. However to be "heard" by more than the people standing or sitting physically near you, you need a megaphone / amplified PA system, or printing press, or a broadcast radio or tv transmitter with antenna, or an internet streaming service.
How did the United States ever come to be before anything but speaking in the same room became available?
Having been a broadcast engineer and two-way radio technician for a decade, I can tell you that few public speakers know much about electronic options. Audio quality sucks online.
Or writing instrument.
During the Apollo program, the Fisher Pen Company spent a million developing a ballpoint pen that would work in zero gravity. The Soviet space program put pencils in their spacecraft.
LOL
I would like to see them become truly BiPartisan & fair & balance, but that is probably a pipe dream. I would like to see that for CNN and MSNBC but I know it won't happen
I'd prefer non-partisan as politic should be.
Do you know how much commercial broadcasters pay into the FCC's slush fund?
It is impossible to put a minimal radio station on the air for less than a $million in FCC fees for the license, alone. Pirate broadcaster are now felons, even if they didn't harm licensed broadcasters. The radio frequency spectrum should be first come first served like breathing.
Partisanship is the essence of politics.
If that were so, there'd be more parties than anyone would have time to join.
If you make it so.
It *IS* so by the very nature of human beings. We each bring our individual perspectives (from our individual unique experience) into politics and thus have differing opinions for defining problems or developing solutions. That cannot result in anything BUT partisanship in a large democratically elected federal republic's government. Smaller local governments may be less affected by partisanship once elected, but statewide and federal elections involve millions of voters and multiple partisans pursuing their preferred "optimum" solutions.
Are you saying that human perspectives fall into only five political categories?
I prefer the premise advanced by The World's Smallest Political Quiz that they fall across a two-dimensional Venn diagram rather than along a line of socialism between communism and fascism.
In other words destroyed then. OK....I'm in.
Come on now. Really, who likes commercials?
The ones that don't pay for them to disappear.
Commercials made broadcasting possible in the early 20th century.
The Internet is making commercials unnecessary options.
It won't be long before channels will disappear and be replaced by URLs.
Commercials made broadcasting profitable in the early 20th century, not "possible."
The first broadcasters didn't make profits.
Your ignorance of the history should be painful.
"The first broadcasters didn't make profits."
But they were still broadcasting, no? How is it possible that they were unprofitable yet still broadcasting?
It's a peculiar assertion to make, especially when it collides with your startling finding that "the first broadcasters didn't make profits."
How can you now say that advertising dollars is what made broadcasting possible in the first place when you have unearthed evidence that suggests something quite different was at work?
Are you the first person to stumble across this mess? That there were broadcasters broadcasting when they "didn't make profits?
So, here we are...broadcasting up a storm yet with no advertising jingles flowing from from the station's Spark Transmitters (32KB) to our crystal sets and superheterodyne receivers at home.
How in god's name did these "first broadcasters" even become the first broadcasters when they weren't earning profits? Were they earning any goddamn money at all?
If I were you, I'd keep this under your hat. At least until things blow
over. Or cool down. Or until everything solid melts into air...
If you'd done any research at all, you would know that the first broadcasters were store owners creating a demand for the radio receivers they sold in their stores. Not only were they not making profits from broadcasting, the only things they were advertising was the radio receivers that their stores were selling. Crystal sets didn't work very well with the original low powered broadcasters because they rely on the power in the radio signal itself. Superheterodyne receivers came a long time after spark transmitters, which only broadcast Morse code, were gone.
Correct. They are propaganda against conservative ideology now. In fact, it violates the first amendment for the government to fund them. Turns them into state run media which is the opposite of the first amendment.
Whose freedom of speech does funding a propagation service infringe on, and how?
I'm no constitutional scholar or an expert on the Federalist papers. But, as the 1st amendment also guarantees freedom of religion, the government can't create a central government approved religion. I would assume the guarantee to freedom of speech is the same interpretation. The government can't create a central government speech source (i.e. funding state sponsored news outlets).
Yes, you've make it painfully plain that you're "no constitutional scholar or an expert on the Federalist papers." I'm in one of my rare, expansive moods, so we'll leave it at that.
Perhaps not. If you're going to discuss the 1st amendment, it might be wise to actually read the the thing first. Or maybe you did read it but didn't understand it. Reading and understanding the 1st amendment is actually the first step in becoming a constitutional scholar and the envy of all your MAGA cohorts!
Ok, ok, no more cavilling on my part. However, if you wish to make yourself useful:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Russell Vought? You're buddies, yes? Next time you have lunch with him, while he's drooling Thousand Island dressing down his chin, you might slowly begin chanting, in a sort of low growl..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Do you need help paying for your medication?
How much can you spare?
If NPR and PBS were privatized, do you think it would more, or less, attractive to Musk and Trump for purposes of looting?
It's an interesting question to ponder.
"Looting" 🙄
It's a ludicrous premise.
Yes, I agree. Nevertheless, looting is exactly what Trump/Musk are engaging in. Rather obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention.
That is ridiculous. That would require a team effort. How much have they "looted" and where are they transferring and storing their loot?
The loot? Resting comfortably on a few TSMC 2 nanometre (2nm) microchips.
You'd be surprised how much storage space is on one of these things. Even room left over for the kitchen sink.
And it was all a team effort...
....and your evidence for your fantasy is what? Please describe make and model of that kitchen sink.
Yes, they are looting and then going on TV and telling us about it, right?
Pretty amazing, isn’t it?
Yeah 2 multi-billionaires are "looting" the government for profit. Both have lost money by trying to improve government. Man, our schools are worse than even I thought.
Did I mention money? No, I don't believe I did. Plenty of other things to loot other than money.
Only Republicans and undereducated folk think this way. About money. It's fuzzy thinking and a roadblock to coherence.
"Both have lost money trying to improve government." I see.
Question: Have you ever even attended school? Or you were homeschooled, which is realistically the same thing...
Ahh, they're looting Democracy. OK.
Your favorite word.
What do either of them have to do with any kind of broadcasting?
They are using public owned airways, don't think we can give it to them for free.
Who is them?
NPR and PBS
Do you think that commercial broadcasters get to use the "public owned airways" (communism) for free? What is paid are fees to the FCC that don't get shared with anyone else, let alone the public that supposedly own the airways created by the creator.
I thought David Sarnoff created the airwaves.
I’ve never understood the government funding for NPR, PBS, CPB. I used to think it was nice that they made nature shows, filmed some concerts, and I loved the original Cosmos with Carl Sagan, but I also remember there were a lot of corporations and charities that donated to make shows possible. If they offer products that people value, people will donate to continue enjoying those products. Or they can advertise like every other media company does. With a nation that is $35 trillion or more in debt, cuts have to be made across the board. Some areas will be more painful than others but it has to be done. I’m tired of subsidizing left wing propaganda.
The original reason for having public stations was to prevent private commercial interests from completely driving coverage, thus interfering with democratic access.
But instead, we now have what amounts to a private, if non-commercial, *undemocratic* interest completely driving *its* coverage. Meanwhile, it claims it is actually democratic because it hawks for random donations, even though it adds those to the patently undemocratic choices for funding organizations who can effectively control and use those small donations.
Same pattern as field Marxism: "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, proles -- the vanguards are fighting for you, and we've got it all under control!"
"Or they can advertise" They do! (Or did they stop with those noxious "pledge" drives?)
All that content is worth hundreds of millions.
Not to mention the infrastructure they have accumulated over five decades. When will half of that be re-distributed to other deserving groups, representing other points of view?
I'll take, "When does h3ll freeze over?" for $500, Alex.
They could be donated to the MAGA gulags?
Which gulags are those?
First sentence sas it all once you give out a cookie then you have to give a cookie to everyone..Only fair right,,well Im starting a show so give me cookies
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy NOVA, Masterpiece Theater and even Britcoms like Upstart Crow and Black Books and Chef. But that's not what public broadcasting was intended to do. When you can find all seasons of Midsomer Murders on Pluto for free, why are they showing it on PBS like it's a rare commodity?
Re: Trump's sense of humor. My husband and I are on a cross country trip and out of nowhere today I remembered Trump in the garbage truck. We couldn't remember exactly why Trump did it, but seemed to remember it had something to do with Joe Biden calling all Trump voters garbage. We laughed uproariously for a good 20 miles.
That was hilarious!
I just engaged in a FB kerfuffle over this issue. They kept mocking me for saying that NPR and PBS are biased left. They insisted that much of the programming is not left, but conservative. It's increasingly clear to me that people live on different planets, and neither the twain shall meet.
1. Yashar is soooooo triggered. What a moron. Like he ever has cared about the Pope. 🙄 2. The moment NPR and PBS became BRANDS they should been defunded, OR alternative-content stations should have been licensed at a minimum. But they should have been defunded decades ago.
Trump's Pope pic had exactly the desired effect upon Yashar and his pals.
NPR and PBS overtly impacted the 2020 election by refusing to run stories on Hunter Biden's laptop. In fact, they did more than that - they repeatedly propagandized that intelligence officials had declared the laptop Russian Disinformation, and ignored telling their listeners and viewers that Hunter admitted it was his laptop.
I mean, these people. You can't hate them enough.
Swing voters don't watch NPR or PBS. If they do, it is for a non-news show. It literally does not move the needle what NPR or PBS says.
You quoted Christopher F. Rufo's tweet - and I really connected to his follow up to this one where her further analyzed the NPR CEO statement:
"from “free speech means I can say what I want” (correct) to “free speech means you have to listen to me” (incorrect) to, finally, “free speech means you must be forced by law to fund my writing career” (absolutely insane). not interested, but thanks for playing."
One-sided journalism should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. And that is what NPR has become. Uri Berliner pointed it out and was skewered by his colleagues.
Journalism is supposed to give you food for thought so that you can draw your own conclusions, not tell you what your opinions MUST BE.
Yep, that unconditional conditions argument seems to apply to the recipients of the government service, not the providers. In this case, the government can't withdraw PBS services from Chris Rufo because they don't like what he says. Nothing about they can't withdraw a service that doesn't serve half the populace fairly. Quite the opposite, in fact.
So, the left is now claiming that federal money IS speech, right?
NPR is a wasteland of left-wing propaganda. Gave up on it 20 years ago. I like most of the programming on PBS, but think all of it can stand on its own feet or sold to Discovery or Disney or other streaming/cable channels. The Newshour has become as bad as NPR. For example, here is a current leading headline on their website:
"Waltz ousted as national security adviser, nominated for UN role in White House shakeup"
A headline reflecting reality would read: "Waltz promoted to UN Ambassador."
As a leftist, I found NPR refreshing amidst tens of right wing radio stations. But this changed about fifteen years ago. I haven’t listen to NPR since then.
Were there any right-wing radio stations on the FM band?
what changed I'm curious,,???
I listened to NPR after the November election. First time. And it was hilarious!
they will say anything,,they don't care look how much they have gotten over the decades and the universities thats criminal..
I tend to refer to NPR as Not Particularly Reliable! ...and PBS as Pure Bull Shit!
National Propaganda Radio or National Pravda Radio
National public relations firm
National Socialist Radio is my favorite.
Not bad,,and noone should pay for it
NPR/PBS ooze sanctimony — they are also doctrinally rigid adherents to golden calf edicts. As a result, many of their parishioners have left the congregation and only true believers remain in the pews. It’s nice to have choices, it’s unrealistic to think that everyone be made to pay for niche programming.
You took the words right out of my mouth...it was the sanctimony that finally pushed me over the edge. I found myself screaming at steve innskeep and my BP was going up...not good
Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Julie is wrong about NPR and CPB. They need to not get any federal funds. They chose a side and became political, alienating half the potential viewing audience. They obviously don't need the money, and they shouldn't get it. Use that money to pay off the debt.
Seemd like they got in a negative feedback loop. Their producers and journalists tended to be left wing. They started accepting donations and sponsorships. These also tended to be slightly left wing. Over time, it was convenient for them to cater more to the donor classes, and the donor class became more left wing, because they were the ones increasingly enthused about the perspective of the content ... and so the feedback loop facilitated the shift to the extremes.
NPR AnaD PBS have always been democratic/liberalism .
I never remember a time conservatives did not want to defund it. It exudes the smugness and superiority of elites and academia. And yet, they say they are necessary for rural communities. I grew up in rural communities- it is an insult drizzling in arrogance. Let us educate the little people.
Haven’t listened since Click n Clack. 9:00 on Saturday morning. They were Funny!!
Devoted listener for many years, here.
How would liberals feel if Breitbart or you, Sasha, were getting government funding?
What's most annoying about PBS is sitting down to watch a documentary.... let's say it's about, lizards. Sounds like an apolitical propaganda-free good time right? Nope. Undoubtedly they'll find a way to work in global warming, or capitalism and how the lizard is dying because of Trump.
I notice that on all channels
They would work in racism, too.
PBS was a mainstay for me. Frontline was always at the top of my watch list. For 20 years or so.
Then, I noticed the bias, the manipulation. It always went in subtle, but determined direction. It always had an anti-capitalist message, pro liberalist, leftist point of view. A certain disdain for all things conservative, and most certainly slanted towards anything that would put Reagan or Bush in a bad light.
So, in early 2000's, I stopped watching. It lost its value to me, too! I don't support use of my tax dollars to propagandize a leftist, mostly white liberal woman's mindset.
"If Biden or anyone besides Trump tried that you would be devoting several pages of that in your blog."
If Joe Biden or any Dem pulled PBS and NPR off the governmental teat, I'd be saluting them.
After I picked myself off the floor from the shock.