Advertisement

Feb 9, 2011

APTS mobilizes stations as House vote nears on pubcasting funding

Anticipating a floor vote to eliminate funding for public broadcasting next week, the Association for Public Television Stations today (Feb. 9) called for stations to join the first big push to build political support in the House of Representatives.

The House Appropriations Committee is preparing to debate a Continuing Resolution that would fund the government after the current CR expires next month, and CPB is among many federally-funded entities that could be zeroed out. The bill is expected to come to the floor during the week of Feb. 14. House leaders have said it will be debated under open rules that allow lawmakers to offer amendments targeting specific programs, according to APTS.

But CPB is already included in a list of $35 billion in recommended spending cuts that Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) shared with rank-and-file Republicans today.

APTS is advising stations to "exercise your First Amendment right to use your broadcast resources to marshal your community supporters to advocate for continued federal funding." It also provided detailed talking points for use in communicating the message, particularly to station boards, and a briefing on the do's and don'ts of making on-air appeals for political support.

According to APTS, there are now six bills in Congress to either defund or reduce public broadcasting support:

– H.R. 68, by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit federal funding for CPB after fiscal year 2013;

– H.R. 69, by Lamborn, which separately targets public radio programming funding;

– H.R. 235, the "Cut Unsustainable and Top-Heavy Spending Act of 2011," by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas);

– H.R. 408, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan's "Spending Reduction Act of 2011";

– S.178, the Senate version of that bill, by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and

– S. 162, the Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011 by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Read the full story. The hand that feeds you....you do not bite.
Government funding ..local..state..federal..the hands that feed... Journalisim ..a rule...you do not accept payment for that which you report. When the feeders..feed..the programs are not fair and equal in their presentatons. If they cannot raise their money from "contributors" and they have many..our tax money for that? Use our first Amendment people..we are taxed to death...
"APTS is advising stations to "exercise your First Amendment right to use your broadcast resources to marshal your community supporters to advocate for continued federal funding." It also provided detailed talking points for use in communicating the message, particularly to station boards, and a briefing on the do's and don'ts of making on-air appeals for political support"

dgb said...

Published after blog owner approves.. where is the first Amendmendant here?

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who couldn't make much sense of the previous anonymous comment? You keep using that punctuation (...); I do not think it means what you think it means.

Perhaps you are confusing PBS with FOX or MSNBC. Yes, public broadcasting has contributors, but more on the individual level than the corporate level. Should PBS/NPR have federal funding cut, they would have to rely on corporate funding to remain on the air. This means corporate censorship and commercials interrupting Sesame Street. You think the government's bad about censorship? Wait until McDonald's has a say in children's programming, or big oil has a say in NPR's shows.

I don't know about you, but I'm not taxed to death. I can still feed and clothe my family. I can still afford my small apartment. Chances are, so can you. You've even got a computer with access to the internet (which, if it's not yours, means you're probably at the PUBLICLY FUNDED library). The people who can't do these things are not in that position because of taxation, but because they simply can't (or don't) work or have spent beyond their means. Cut the melodramatics, and spend your ample outrage on something that makes sense.

Historywriter said...

Unfunding public radio and TV would be a disaster. Many of us rely on both of them for good, accurate, neutral information and facts--that's the only place we can find to get it.
Since the savings are not that great, it looks as though some congresspersons are trying to kill the best source of news.
After all, if people learn the facts, where will they be?

Momma Jan said...

We saw what happened in Egypt. Information is the first thing that is suppressed. Both of our major networks are owned by huge corporations. How is a person / public supposed to compete? Information is more important that toilets in the national parks. Let's cut back on funding the past presidents memorials, etc.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous: Taxed to death... really? Then how come federal spending as a percent of GDP is flat since 1962 (except for the recent & successful efforts to counteract the Repugs recession). In fact, discretionary spending is down 40% since 1962... so much for "big gov't." Of course, what's out-of-balance is that millionaires & billionaires have had a 75% tax cut, while most families have seen their taxes rise 5-fold. In a country where the richest 1% controls as much financial wealth as the bottom 95%, your "remedy" of letting stations raise their own funding would just lead to... well... Faux news. It don't take much in the grey matter department to figure that out (as you know).

Anonymous said...

If, as the opening comment says, these are the "mosted sources" for news, etc., thne why are they not economically viable. If FOX or CNN run into financial difficulties, should they not get government funding? Folks, there is not bottomless pile of money out there. The "extremest politicians" kn know that.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, they are ending government payments to the commies mouth piece.

Good.

Arby said...

Why is it that those in the extreme right are the least literate and the most ill-informed?


"Commies mouth piece"? "mosted sources"? Sorry, PBS is not a "commies mouth piece". NPR has gotten very mainstream in its reporting, as a reaction to corporate interests. What's next for the extremists, abolition of the public school system? A decaying infrastructure? Oh right, we already have that.

Anonymous said...

NPR and PBS get only a small portion of their funding from the government, and are able to stand on their own. Their funding sources and the quality will not change with this funding cut. Since we have such huge deficits, this is a good place to cut. A cut that will have little drawback.

I like NPR and listen every day, but I still agree with this cut. It's not just extremists, it's also those that actually understand the situation.

It's hard to argue against the cut when NPRs own coverage makes it sound like it will be no big deal.

Anonymous said...

Sorry but I agree that all such funding should be cut. This is not something our government "must" do, nor is it something they "should" do, this is a "nice to do" item and we don't have money to fund nice to do programs. Cut it!