US Trump’s FCC chief investigates NPR, PBS - FCC Chairman Brendan Carr says NPR and PBS may be "broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements."

JANUARY 30, 20253:15 PM ET
HEARD ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
David Folkenflik

1738285646459.jpeg
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr says NPR and PBS may be "broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements." The networks say their broadcasts comply with federal regulations and law.
Alex Wong/Getty Images/Getty Images North America


President Trump's new head of the Federal Communications Commission has ordered an investigation of NPR and PBS, with an eye toward unraveling federal funding for all public broadcasting.

"I am concerned that NPR and PBS broadcasts could be violating federal law by airing commercials," Chairman Brendan Carr wrote on Wednesday to the presidents and chief executives of NPR and PBS, Katherine Maher and Paula A. Kerger, respectively. "In particular, it is possible that NPR and PBS member stations are broadcasting underwriting announcements that cross the line into prohibited commercial advertisements."

The FCC does not directly regulate the two networks. Instead, it evaluates the actions of roughly 1,500 public broadcasting stations across the country, which hold licenses granted by the FCC for use of public airwaves for radio and television, even in the digital age.

Public broadcasting stations are prohibited from running commercials. Instead they present what are considered corporate underwriting spots, which are supposed to stop shy of a "call to action" telling listeners and viewers to buy a product or service.

Both CEOs rejected the claim that the public broadcasters had violated federal laws or practices that stretch back decades.

"PBS is proud of the noncommercial educational programming we provide to all Americans through our member stations," Kerger said in a statement shared with NPR. "We work diligently to comply with the FCC's underwriting regulations and welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that to the Commission."

In a statement posted publicly, Maher said NPR's corporate sponsorship credits and programs complied with federal regulations and FCC guidelines.

"We are confident any review of our programming and underwriting practices will confirm NPR's adherence to these rules," Maher stated. "We have worked for decades with the FCC in support of noncommercial educational broadcasters who provide essential information, educational programming, and emergency alerts to local communities across the United States."

Reviving debate about public funding​

Carr noted in his letter that he was sharing it with lawmakers on Capitol Hill because he thought it could inform their debate over whether to cut off all taxpayer subsidies of NPR and PBS programming.

"For my own part, I do not see a reason why Congress should continue sending taxpayer dollars to NPR and PBS given the changes in the media marketplace," Carr wrote. He argued that any sign that taxpayer dollars are supporting a broadcaster running what are effectively commercials further undermines the case to send federal dollars to public broadcasters.

In a statement, FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a Democratic appointee, said Carr's announcement was a source of "serious concern."

"Public television and radio stations play a significant role in our media ecosystem," Starks said. "Any attempt to intimidate these local media outlets is a threat to the free flow of information and the marketplace of ideas."

Carr's letter fits into Trump's calls for the end of public funding for NPR and for PBS and into the president's broader rhetorical onslaught against media outlets.

"There's no reason to believe there are significant or widespread violations of Section 399b of the Communications Act, as referred to in the letter, or of FCC guidelines adopted under that law," says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a public interest media lawyer who has represented consumer groups before the agency. "It leads me to conclude it's much more of a scare tactic than the identification of a genuine problem."

Reinstating inquiries of other major networks​

The FCC chair under former President Joe Biden, Jessica Rosenworcel, cited free speech principles in dismissing complaints earlier this month against local stations owned by three TV networks: CBS, NBC and Fox. Last week, Carr reinstated the complaints filed by a Trump-affiliated group against CBS and NBC for their treatment of the presidential campaign. He left untouched the dismissal of the one focusing on a Fox station owned by conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

Underwriting has been an increasingly important part of public broadcasting finances in recent decades as federal and state governments have pulled back from such funding. On average, NPR receives about 1 percent of its funding directly from the federal government each year, according to publicly available materials. PBS receives 16 percent, according to a network spokesperson.

On average, NPR's member stations get 10% of their funds from the U.S.-chartered Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Rural stations are generally among the most dependent on such federal largesse. As a result, public broadcasting has often enjoyed bipartisan support.

Trump has used the conservative Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 as an informal blueprint for his second administration, nominating one of its co-authors as his budget chief. The section on public broadcasting called for the elimination of all federal funding.

"The next conservative President must finally get this done and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary," Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at Heritage, wrote in the report. "To stop public funding is good policy and good politics."

In his first term, Trump repeatedly sought to eliminate federal funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, without success.
"There's an internal inconsistency with complaining about underwriting paying for public broadcasting and simultaneously objecting to public funding," Schwartzman adds. "There's an illogic to those two positions unless you don't really want the nation's audiences served by public broadcasting at all."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Source (Archive)
 
When I've dropped in on modern day PBS I'm actually shocked at how commercial-like the sponsor sections are. Used to be you got a static logo and a shout out, and that was it.
 
Does PBS accept sponsors as well? I didn't know they were federally funded. Those commercials have to be paid by somebody.
It's a complicated history. PBS back when it was NET got a huge amount of funding. That's lowered over the years. The CPB still funds a bit and helps with programming, but a lot of the heavy lifting has been done by sponsors and has done since the 70s or so.

I was actually shocked when I went home recently and found the local PBS station is now owned by the same group as the local newspaper. That also wasn't a thing at all in the old days.
 
It's a complicated history. PBS back when it was NET got a huge amount of funding. That's lowered over the years. The CPB still funds a bit and helps with programming, but a lot of the heavy lifting has been done by sponsors and has done since the 70s or so.

I was actually shocked when I went home recently and found the local PBS station is now owned by the same group as the local newspaper. That also wasn't a thing at all in the old days.
I'm guessing even when sponsored by local businesses, it cannot take federal funding if it still does local commercials? I would think local news afflictions would need the extra cash.
 
It's a complicated history. PBS back when it was NET got a huge amount of funding. That's lowered over the years. The CPB still funds a bit and helps with programming, but a lot of the heavy lifting has been done by sponsors and has done since the 70s or so.

I was actually shocked when I went home recently and found the local PBS station is now owned by the same group as the local newspaper. That also wasn't a thing at all in the old days.
Everyone knows the real lifeblood of PBS funding is an old Norwegian man, Fjohurs Lykkewe.

 
Does PBS accept sponsors as well? I didn't know they were federally funded. Those commercials have to be paid by somebody.

They don't call them sponsors, but there can be extensive commercial relationships with one large company that are effectively sponsorship agreements.

NPR also allows donating companies to sometimes fund specific types of reporting on specific ranges of issues.

But its all corrupt because someone is donating to PBS in exchange for specific segments which air on PBS programs that advertise their companies products. By any name, that is sponsorship.
 
PBS Kids app having fucking McCormick Spices commercials.

Pi-hole blocks it but on the rare occasion I turn it off that shit gets through.
 
Don't watch TV, so they can shut down PBS or make it commercial.

Only listen to radio in the car, so they can shut down the leftist NPR.

No fucks given.
 
Haven't listened to NPR in a long time, so unaware of the ad issue, but it is left wing propoganda, so anything that hurts them I support.

Promoting I am Jazz, interviewing the artist behind "it's hard out here for a pimp" (it won a music award btw, not suprised you don't remember) promoting a person who wrote a book supporting BLM looting, etc.

I was fed up at that point, but when they did a sports report about a hockey team, and made a jab about Trump (who was not at all related to it) I was done.

is this how the Brits feel knowing the BBC is paid with tax dollars?
 
Just bring down the hammer already. Their recent shows are bluesky level retarded. Let them scrounge for funding while none of their journo rat king organizations have money to spare.
Nova was a damn good show for a very long time. Around 2012 or so it turned into all global warming all the time. They got rid of all the good narrators around that time and got a love of very lousy black women. All the scientists were black, arab, or women. It turned into a farce, which really was sad. I threw in the towel around 2021 or so, it was about the last show on network TV I cared about. Looking at the last year and this year the subjects at least look a bit more interesting, so maybe I'll try some again.

It reminds me of Hank Green and Scishow on Youtube. For a long time they had a variety of interesting topics, then it was all global warming and then Covid propaganda nonstop.
 
I occasionally listen to NPR, but only at the dead of night when the local station broadcasts an orchestra performing classical music. I'd hate to see that go, but the idea of hearing about more trump bitching is also not appealing.
It reminds me of Hank Green and Scishow on Youtube. For a long time they had a variety of interesting topics, then it was all global warming and then Covid propaganda nonstop.
That's honestly tragic to hear, the "Fault in our Stars" guy, right? Not his douchey brother? He used to run this crash course learning channel i watched during high school, interesting stuff during those formative years, but i suppose TDS and the influence of his brother got the better of him.
 
I occasionally listen to NPR, but only at the dead of night when the local station broadcasts an orchestra performing classical music. I'd hate to see that go, but the idea of hearing about more trump bitching is also not appealing.

That's honestly tragic to hear, the "Fault in our Stars" guy, right? Not his douchey brother? He used to run this crash course learning channel i watched during high school, interesting stuff during those formative years, but i suppose TDS and the influence of his brother got the better of him.
Hank is the Scishow one, who actually had nearly fatal cancer and looks like he recovered. He showed PET scans of the spread and it was horrendous, all his lymph nodes were affected by it. https://x.com/hankgreen/status/1694515498518770038 I've seen some cancer recoveries online and IRL in the past 5 or so years that would've been fatal not long before within months.
Screenshot 2025-01-31 082956.png
Hank is a raging TDS shitlib. John is the Fault in our Stars brother, I never watched or cared about him but I'm sure he's left too.
 
Not the thing I was expecting them to be investigated over but I guess with with so much of the judiciary compromised they have to hit them where they can.
 
They aren't commercial advertisements, it's underwriting.

Also it should be said that both organizations get very little of their operating budgets from Federal grants.
 
I am going to be the naysayer. I have children and outside of the occasional really faggy episode or show, it is good programming with no ads directed at kids. I watched Disney Jr in a hotel and it was tons of toy and candy ads for preschool and kindergarten programming.
I understand the government is fat, but I don't feel like kids programming should be the first on the block. I would rather see Disney and Nick be fucked in the ass by laws that prevent advertising to kids.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo