Clarification Sent to The Collegian

CPRB Readers: Please find a clarification below, which CPRB Management posted to The Collegian website. As you can see, there is plenty of blame to go around. We regret the errors. -CPRB Management

*****

CSU Collegian:

Here is what I think happened regarding the misinformation related to your story:

1. The original Collegian story regarding the KCSU "transfer" was imprecise, and has since been removed from The Collegian’s website.
2. Colorado Public Radio Blog wrote a story based on the imprecise information from The Collegian.
3. Westword referenced Colorado Public Radio Blog.
4. Larry Steward, interim president of RMSMC posted the following information to the Westword Blog and to Colorado Public Radio Blog: "Just a note of clarification regarding KCSU-FM. Under the terms of the Operating Agreement with the soon to be incorporated Rocky Mountain Student Media Corporation, a 501(c)3 non-profit, Colorado State University will retain the KCSU license and enter into a brokerage agreement with the new organization. This agreement will be filed with the FCC in compliance with rules and regulations."
5. The Collegian removed the original story from The Collegian’s website, not clarifying the ambiguous reference to the word “transfer”.
6. The Collegian contacted Colorado Public Radio about CPRB because they thought that the Colorado Public Radio Blog is part of Colorado Public Radio. The Colorado Public Radio Blog front page clearly states the following disclaimer: “ColoradoPublicRadio.Blogspot.Com is not affiliated with Colorado Public Radio, Public Radio of Colorado, Inc., member stations, affiliates, or partners."

CPRB will correct the post.

Jimmy James Jr.
Colorado Public Radio Blog

*****

Correction to a Previous Post

The CSU Collegian story from May 18, 2008 (no longer available on their website), making vague references to a license transfer (of KCSU-FM), has been taken off The Collegian website. Today's story runs a statement leading one to believe that such a transfer of license is not in the works. Bottom line: still to be answered is whether or not a transfer of license will make it more or less likely that KCSU-FM could be sold to another non-commercial radio entity.

CPRB Management

Deadlines and Opportunites Gallore on behalf of Public Radio

YOU HAVE UNTIL JULY 15TH to provide comments to the FCC, regarding the proposal to expand the FM radio dial by 20 channels (advanced by Mullaney Engineering). The space would come from the digital conversion of TV channels five and six, and the abandonment of their analogue frequencies just below the existing FM radio dial. There currently exists a situation among public radio stations in Colorado which screams for expansion; even if it only expands the FM dial slightly.

When Colorado Public Radio moves Classical music KVOD from 90.1 to 88.1 next month, Classical Music devotees north of Longmont will be out of luck. The diminished signal of 88.1 can be improved slightly once channel 6 goes away next year, but only slightly because of KGNU at 88.5 (which recently applied to return to more than 3,000 watts after channel 6 audio departs, just left of the KVOD and KGNU signals.

Here is where a little more wiggle room would help everyone concerned. Current FM tuners can usually receive frequencies down to about 87.5 FM (if your tuner receives channel 6 audio you know this is true). If the authorized FM band were expanded by the FCC just down to 87.5 from the current 88.1, a quick fix for KVOD and KGNU would be possible, with KVOD moving to 87.7 and KGNU to 88.3 (so KGNU could move one channel away from KCME, in Colorado Springs at 88.7). All stations involved could then improve their signals substantially.

Since everyone has a different vision, regarding HOW the FM band should expand, your comments to the FCC should include such specifics for the sake of public radio.


IN OTHER FCC MATTERS, YOU WILL ALSO HAVE A CHANCE IN THE COMING WEEKS TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE FCC, REGARDING THE LICENSE TRANSFER OF KCSU, FORT COLLINS. The Colorado State Board of Agriculture, the governing body of Colorado State University, has announced it is relinquishing control of student-operated KCSU (as well as the student newspaper "The Collegian"), and will hand over the reigns of control to a non-profit Board of Directors. The FCC mandates that radio license transfers must undergo a 45 day public comment period.

As written several months ago, prior to the pending KCSU changes, one of Colorado Public Radio's (CPR's) options to continue serving Classical music listeners in Fort Collins-Loveland-Greeley (when KVOD is switched to 88.1 in July) is for CPR to gain control of KCSU. It is one of several options listed in the column on this page titled: "CRAZY EIGHTS: TAKING OFF IN 2008 WITH 88.1 IN PLAY". Now, if CPR has an interest in KCSU, they can participate in the FCC comment period. CPR's comments to the FCC, if any, would be interesting to say the least.

Another, less obtrusive option for CPR is possible in Northern Colorado. That would only require CPR to place KVOD on its' HD-2 signal for KCFR/ 90.1. But in order to ease the pain for listeners without HD capability, CPR could also bite the bullet and give KVOD contributors in Larimer-Weld a discount coupon, good for the purchase of HD receivers for home and autos. If that sounds a bit extravagant, consider the alternative: listener blowback that's about to occur in Fort Collins-Loveland-Greeley when 90.1 is switched to KCFR news. Another way to look at this option is to think of it as a race.... a race in which CPR tries to make loyal listeners comfortable with HD technology, versus letting once loyal supporters walk away, toward the satellite receiver route for their classical fix. In a recent column in Radio World Magazine, one public radio station in the Midwest has one of their staff; among them the station G.M., deliver and set up the HD radio to every member who buys one.

Is CPR willing to go that extra mile? In this case, we are talking about (by the year 2030) a Larimer-Weld population base of 750,000. The costs now could pay great dividends down the road.

HEALTHY PUBLIC RADIO, COLORADO STYLE

KDNK, CARBONDALE, CO IS CELEBRATING A MILESTONE THIS WEEK. LET'S JOIN IN SALUTING THEM. (www.kdnk.org) THEIR SUCCESS ILLUSTRATES THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO OPERATE A SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC RADIO STATION IN COLORADO, OR JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE.

KDNK STARTED DURING THE DAYS WHEN A LONG SHADOW WAS CAST UPON PUBLIC BROADCASTING BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION; NOT EXACTLY THE BEST TIME TO START A GRASS ROOTS RADIO STATION FROM SCRATCH. IT WAS A TIME WHEN MANY A PUBLIC RADIO STATION MANAGER AND PROGRAM DIRECTOR HIT THE PANIC BUTTON WITH DISTURBING TALK FROM WASHINGTON; THAT FUNDING FOR THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (CPB) WOULD CEASE. TOO MANY IN THE PUBLIC RADIO COMMUNITY BLINKED, AND WELCOMED WITH OPEN ARMS AUDIENCE BUILDING EXTREMISTS INTO THEIR INNER CIRCLE. ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN AROUND COLORADO FROM THE 1970'S TO THE PRESENT AND REMEMBERS HOW KCFR SOUNDED IN THE 70'S UNDERSTANDS THIS POINT ALL TOO WELL TODAY. FORTUNATELY, OTHER PUBLIC STATIONS IN COLORADO AND ACROSS THE NATION HAVEN'T BLINKED. THEY CONTINUE WITH THEIR (SOMETIMES) QUIRKY PROGRAMMING; PROGRAMMING THAT COMMERCIAL RADIO WILL NOT APPROACH. THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A VOICE FOR THE DISENFRANCHISED; ESSENTIAL PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARRY ENOUGH ECONOMIC CLOUT IN ANY GIVEN COMMUNITY. THESE TYPE OF STATIONS IN ESSSENCE HAVE CARRIED THE SPIRIT (OF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING ACT OF 1967) AND HAVEN'T LET UP IN THEIR EFFORTS TO FULFILL THE MISSION PRESCRIBED IN ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL PIECES OF LEGISLATION TO EMERGE FROM THE 1960'S.

The following appears on the Grass Roots Radio site (grc.org), a national organization interested in maintaining grass roots/community radio.


RECOLLECTIONS OF A KDNK FLOUNDERING FATHER

GUEST COMMENTARY
BY JIM GROH

I'm proud to be one of the four or five crazy guys who started KDNK.

After 25 years, I still consider it one of the niftiest things Ive done with my life. And I'm delighted to hear that, despite the digital age, its still hippie radio.

I moved from Chicago to Carbondale in the fall of 1981, the year they paved Main Street. The first night I ate dinner at the Village Smithy, I noticed a collection jar at the cash register. It had a phone number and the message, Help bring public radio to Carbondale. I'd been a fan of alternative radio for years, so I paid my bill, put a buck in the jar, and wrote down the phone number.

I called and got the town locksmith, Lee Swidler. Lee described the dream to serve and unite the community with a radio station, like KOTO in Telluride or KVNF in Paonia. He invited me to the next meeting, where I met the others: Bruce Stolbach, Brenda Jochems, Brian Vancil, Mike Speer, and Bill Phillips.

As a new employee of Audiolab down the street, I was the only one who knew anything about electronics, and only enough to fix stereos. I was immediately voted technical director. I heard the universe speaking, got some books and started teaching myself broadcasting technology.

By the winter of 1981, we had: the dream, a place to meet (Valley Lock and Key), a CPA (Brian), an attorney (Bill), a blank copy of the FCC application, and a copy of Sex and Broadcasting, the irreverent manual on underground radio by Lorenzo Milam.

So line by line, we started filling out the application. How hard could it be, right? Uh-huh. But Brian made the numbers work, Bill kept us legal, and I attacked the technical details. At some point, we had to predict our coverage the geographic area that would pick up the station. For that, we needed to know the location of the tower and the nature of the terrain around it. Uh-oh.

In Kansas it would have been simple. The coverage of a tower in the middle of a prairie is easy to predict. But poor old Carbondale sits in a Y-shaped hole formed by the river valleys. Predicting our
coverage involved a careful study of topo maps along these damned things called radials straight lines drawn 10 miles out from town in eight directions. I'll never forget the late nights in the lock shop,
crawling around on maps on the floor, getting sore knees and going cross-eyed.

We also had to make a study of the other stations in the area, their programming, and their locations on the FM dial, so we wouldnt interfere. We also had to submit a list of desired call letters. All the cool ones were taken, but because we had found a home in the Dinkel Building by then, we were approved for KDNK. Get it?

So, by spring of 1982 we'd completed the application in triplicate, and off to the FCC went a 3-inch stack of paperwork.

Be-Careful-What-You-Wish-For Dept.: We were approved! We then used the same information to request a grant from the NTIA-PTFP, the national funding agency for community radio. Success again! We got $38,000! The fundraising picked up steam with events and publicity, and what had been Carbondale Community Access Radio (CCAR) became allied with the Carbondale Council on Arts and Humanities (CCAH). At the Mountain Fair that year, sharp-aiming throwers could soak their favorite town solons at the KDNK dunking booth.

By then, Pat Noel, Brad Hendricks, John Palmer and Wick Moses stepped up to do the construction and the equipment selection.

We began ordering the equipment: a transmitter, an exciter, an equalizer, a monitor amplifier, and an equipment rack to put them all in; an antenna, a tower, the cable, and all the mounting hardware; the audio mixing board, some turntables, microphones, a cassette player, speakers, wires, and connectors for the studio. Over the winter, a flurry of building and wiring. We turned four rooms in the back of the Dinkel Building into a studio, a record library, a transmitter room, and an office.

The volunteers continued to appear: Virginia Squier, the first station manager, Donna Wolfe, the volunteer coordinator, and a host of others: Frank Smotherman, Lucy Blake, Jenny Diaz, Sid Lincicome, Jerry Weinstock, Jerry and Gayla Duckowitz, Jeanne Mulcahy, Richard Flaven, Tim Montgomery, and eventually scores more.

April 7, 1983. We throw the switch. Folks, the very first emanation from your beloved KDNK was a loud, obnoxious hum. Back to the wire cutters, soldering irons and voltmeters. But by then we also had a real radio engineer (Alan Bell of KMTS, I believe) to fix the problem, sign some forms, and make a final blessing on our efforts.

And that takes us to April 15, the date we celebrate this week. I'll leave it to others to talk about the life of KDNK since then. For now, be assured that your founders had all the joys, frustrations, parties, personality conflicts, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, that you know are part of any well-loved and worthwhile project.

To the small army of people whose names Ive forgotten, and those Ive remembered: I'll see you at the party.

CRAZY EIGHTS UPDATE: Does expanding the FM radio dial fall into the category of “All the news that's fit to print“?

Watching how newspapers cover more heady technical matters involving radio continues to amuse and puzzle some of us. Weeks after the FCC posted its plan to seek public comment on expanding the FM radio band by 60 channels (see the previous column), Colorado newspapers and those around the country have yet to broach the subject. The standard bearers of journalistic integrity, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, have done nothing but cloud pending FCC action that, if enacted, will be monumental.

On March 17, those prestigious newspapers from the Big Apple ran a story, poorly describing how the FCC raked in $19 Billion through a fire sale of what was deemed "radio" frequencies located in the analogue television spectrum (soon to be vacated by television stations in their conversion to digital by next February) to telecommunications companies for cell phone and related uses. The reports did not divulge the frequencies sold (in the 700 Megahertz range; most suited for cell phone operations, etc.), leaving the impression that the "radio" frequencies sold in the television spectrum could have included channels five and six, where the FCC is floating the plan to expand the FM radio dial.

The FM expansion plan is still alive and well, even if the New York Times doesn't consider this "news fit to print", thus the Times is doing big business a favor. A lot of the big players in radio love this kind of public negligence. In the FM radio expansion arena they are banking on people like you and me to sit back and passively let things unfold in the way that the Clear Channels, and state-wide public radio networks (without true, LIVE local access for their network stations) would like. Without changes in the way radio station licensees are selected, the fat cats will continue hogging new frequencies at the expense of smaller, community-based operators. If the small guy is to get a fair shake, the FCC will have to roll back the clock to a time before media consolidation and radio station empire building became commonplace in the 1990’s (following the 1994 butchering/ re-writing of the Communications Act of 1934).

We can stop the backslide of the last fourteen years and make sure new radio frequencies are distributed for people; not insensitive, bottom line-only mega corporations or public entities which act like them. It’s easy, if we all get involved. In this amazing political year, consider the following questions that you could be asking anyone running for Federal office:

1) Do you think all of the consolidation of radio stations in recent years has been a good or bad idea for serving the public interest?


2) Do you support the licensing of more locally-owned and operated radio stations?

3) In order to give more local community groups and small business owners a chance at obtaining an FCC FM radio license, would you support an expansion of the FM radio band in which the FCC reviews applicants on their community service merits, rather than placing new frequencies on the auction block for the highest bidder from anywhere?

Some have written in recent days that all of the people running for Federal office are already in the pockets of the Clear Channels of this world, so why bother? Asking the questions listed above in a public forum will help everyone see the issues much clearer than before; and will make it that much harder for anyone in Washington to carry on business as usual.

Please chime in. There are more questions to ask. Don't let other interests keep you from having your say.

WE CAN GET THIS ISSUE ON THE FRONT BURNER. We don’t have to put up with monolithic sources of news, information, and cultural programming on the radio. We can move forward, and away from the mostly stale or distorted offerings coming from too many spots on the radio dial. If you care enough about this to get involved, we can make radio relevant again. We can even make the New York Times sit up and take note of the groundswell.

CRAZY EIGHTS UPDATE - A HUGE DEVELOPMENT

Those of us looking for new radio venues with more innovation, creativity, chutzpah, and spontaneity are ecstatic with a new directive from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Last week, the FCC announced it will be seeking public comment on a proposal (identified as MB Docket 07-294) to expand the FM radio band by reallocating FM frequencies currently used by Channels 5 and 6 television; these frequencies will become vacant next February when television converts to digital broadcasting. Under the plan, sixty new FM channels will become available. The alternative to this option, as written in an earlier column on this page, is another idea floating in Congress that would place these frequencies up for auction to the highest bidder (under the guise of helping to retire the national deficit; a drop in the bucket which does not address another kind of DEFICIT heard over much of the public's airwaves).

Let’s hope forces at our national's capitol will opt for a long over-due infusion of new blood into the radio world. It's really no choice at all.

Now, it really is UP TO US. Isn't it time to send your Congressman/Congresswoman and U.S. Senators some friendly and pertinent correspondence?

CRAZY EIGHTS – PART TWO: "RAIDERS OF THE LOST FREQUENCIES (THE SEQUEL)" - OR -----

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS FOR NEW PUBLIC RADIO OUTLETS AND EXISTING ONES LIKE KGNU AND KVOD/ 88.1 ARE ON THE HORIZON, IF WE ACT SOON!

We’re only two months into 2008, and for the “radio-conscious” here’s one issue in this highly-charged political year that’s still “beneath the radar”: another possible round of selling-off some of the public’s airwaves to the highest bidder. It could happen again, much like the fire sale of radio frequencies following the re-write (butchering) of the Telecommunications Act of 1994 (thanks, Uncle Newt).

Rather than have the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) -- the “guardian” of the public’s airwaves -- set fair market prices for frequencies placed on the block in ‘94, Congress pushed to allow telecommunications companies to bid for designated radio frequencies so companies could use them for cell phone and data transmission purposes. (The same mindset setting the table for this corporate feast allowed radio empires to own, in the case of Clear Channel, 12-hundred radio stations). Now, under the guise of doing something to help retire the national debt (a drop in the bucket), talk has been brewing in Congress to “sell the farm“ again. True, the ’94 bidding process helped keep the cost of owning and operating a cell phone relatively low, but can the same type of public benefit be realized in what could unfold next? This time, rather than high-end frequencies needed for optimal cell phone and other high-tech use, FM radio signals could be up for grabs; that portion of the FM spectrum between 82 and 87 megahertz. They are frequencies far less attractive to the telecommunications industry, thus giving us hope that this time the government can act in the public’s interest.

Currently, the biggest hang-up to the idea of selling the 82 to 87 FM frequencies, adjacent to the low-end of the FM radio band, remains the existence of television Channel 6 audio which takes up this portion of the radio spectrum. Most FM radio tuners can receive a portion of this spectrum at the upper end near 88FM. By next February, television broadcasters are supposed to convert from current analogue signals to digital technology; meaning channel 6 audio will vacate the FM band in question. In the case of KRMA, Denver TV - 6, they are planning on moving to Channel 18 in the UHF band.

While 82 to 87 FM is being vacated by Channel 6, radio engineers across the country have no idea what will happen in the new audio playing field, and whether FM radio stations between 88 and 90 FM will be able to make substantial gains in power once channel 6 interference issues are gone. Part of the problem involves FM stations converting to digital signals with wider bandwidth requirements that may need more space between existing stations on the dial. Confused? So is everyone who is somehow involved.

In a much saner time, when the FCC and Congress actually paid attention to how the public good was being served by radio and TV, the idea of a fire sale of frequencies so close to the FM band would be toast – the powers-that-be would favor other options, such as expanding the current FM band from 88, down to 82 FM or somewhere in between. WHY has this idea received little or no traction to this point? Can you say influence from Washington DC lobbyists? With a fire sale, who benefits? Existing radio station conglomerates and networks (both public and private) who don’t want extra competition from an expanded radio dial; and potential users other than broadcasters.

LISTEN UP: KGNU AND CLASSICAL MUSIC DEVOTEES

In my previous CRAZY EIGHTS piece, I listed four options that Colorado Public Radio (CPR) has to continue bringing classical music to Larimer and Weld Counties once KVOD goes to lower-powered 88.1 FM. Here is option #5:

Expand the FM band. Who benefits? Upstart commercial and non-commercial stations, and existing FM stations in the 88 to 90 FM range that could substantially increase their power and outreach, but have been limited up to this point, largely due to Channel 6 interference issues. Among stations caught in this power limitation are CPR with their new 88.1 spot for KVOD, and KGNU, Boulder at 88.5. Expanding the FM band could enable one of these stations to move, for instance, KVOD to 87.7 or lower. Without channel 6 concerns and a greater separation between KVOD and KGNU, both stations could substantially increase power.

It is imperative that everyone interested in a possible expansion of the FM dial to let their opinions be known to people in Congress. It may be that expansion of the FM dial will be needed, just to accommodate expanded bandwidth for existing stations as they convert to digital broadcasting. Let’s hope there will still be some room for new radio voices. This vision will be easier to achieve if you get involved. In a vacuum without public diligence, monopolistic or big business forces could again dictate the terms.

USEFUL BACKGROUND - SOME IMPORTANT HISTORY

As we push for expansion, bringing new ideas, formats, and public openness, remember this: A battle will be nothing new on the radio front. In the 1920’s as radio broadcasting was beginning, educators tried to get the Federal Radio Commission (FRC), predecessor to the FCC, to reserve 20 AM channels for educational non-commercial purposes. Commercial interests wanted nothing to do with that idea and successfully lobbied to shelve the plan. Then in the late 30's and early 40's along came FM, but this time, educational broadcasters had their act together enough to get the FCC to reserve 20 channels between 88 and 91 FM for educational purposes. At the time, commercial radio forces didn't care because they thought then that FM wasn't going to matter. In fact, it wasn’t until the mid 1960’s after signal coverage issues were addressed with the invention of circular polarization for FM radio that it started to become attractive to the industry. The 1960’s also saw the FCC establish a mandate which prohibited owners of AM and FM stations to simulcast the same programming on both stations. FM formats started to grow, and by 1974 FM was the “king” of radio.

Getting the FCC to allow some or all of the old Channel 6 audio frequencies between 82 and 87 FM to become a part of the current FM radio band will require a paradigm shift in the way the FCC has conducted business in recent years. With direction or mis-direction (depending on your point of view), from Congress in recent years we have seen the FCC’s auctioning mentality in full swing, while the public’s choices of radio formats continue to shrink. All hope is not lost in an election year promising change. It’s not impossible to get Congress and the FCC to take the expanded FM band idea seriously.

LOOK AT THAT NEW FM TUNER!

After battles along the Potomac, the biggest obstacle to the expansion would be convincing FM radio receiver manufacturers to add new frequencies to their tuners. To speed up this process, Congress would probably have to step in, the way it did in the 1960’s when two monumental things happened: 1) public policy forced broadcasters of AM/FM operations to stop simulcasting their AM signal over their FM stations; and 2) a Congressional mandate, requiring television manufacturers to include UHF as well as (at the time) more conventional VHF channels on television tuners. The same kind of action for an expanded FM band may be needed to bring new FM frequencies into your home and car.

This is all very speculative, and there may be other scenarios for the 82 to 87 FM frequencies. But it’s not too late to dream, plan, and act for something we’d all like to see. It can start with your letter, or a call to you local Congressional representative’s office. What do we have to lose?

HD Radio: Chickens and Eggs

Here is an article from The Washington Post about HD Radio. The HD radio boosters at iBiquity keep saying the same thing--it's the auto dealers and satellite radio (XM and Sirius) services fault. Sure it is.

There are really only a few parts to this issue: technology, programming, portability and on-demand content. HD Radio is getting aced out on all of these by competing products and services--no matter how much branding, marketing and advertising stations do. And generally, public radio stations are not inclined to do excessive self promotion. Colorado Public Radio seems to be the exception in Colorado.

Radio stations--commercial and non-commercial--that offer truly alternative programming may succeed in winning over listeners who care less about portability or on-demand content--that is, if they own HD radios for both their car and their home (portable HD radios are not common). But producing compelling programming requires creativity--and cash. Most public radio stations are not flush with either. Even fewer are flush with both. And what does iBiquity recommend? More HD radio promotion by stations? How innovative!

Treading Water: The Annual Fight over Funding for Public Broadcasting has Started

I know some of you were waiting for this annual event, which has occurred in our nation's capitol for the last 27 years. Every year since 1981 we've seen the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) Tango between Congress and the Executive Branch. It started with Reagan Budget Director David Stockman (who proposed to eliminate all funding for CPB), and it continues today with the latest from the Bush Administration.

The President has submitted his Fiscal Year 2009 budget to Congress, recommending the following for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB):

1. a $200 million rescission from the $400 million already appropriated by Congress for FY 2009;
2. a $220 million rescission from the $400 million already appropriated by Congress for FY 2010;
3. no advance appropriation for FY 2011; and
4. no additional funding in FY 2009 for public television and radio digital conversion or upgrades to the Public Radio Satellite System (although CPB would be permitted to use a portion of its FY 2009 regular appropriation for these purposes).

If enacted, these cuts would represent a 56% reduction in funding from CPB’s FY 2008 levels, and would be felt in all CPB programs, beginning with the station Community Service Grants. The proposal also comes as CPB was preparing a request for supplemental funding of $483 Million to help pay for digital television conversion for public television stations.

*See a response from the CPB to the President's 2009 Budget here.

Before you get really upset, don't. It's part of the dance we see each year since Congress abandoned the idea of insulation for CPB funding. Insulation was a concept briefly championed by members of Congress following the impeachment of Richard Nixon, who hated public broadcasting and tried in his own manipulative ways to silence the beast while it was still in its infancy (see here).

By the time Ronald Reagan was sworn in, the concept of insulating funds for three to five years beyond the current budget period for CPB was toast. It would have insured that no meddling would take place with CPB decisions and programming content (to keep the CPB system of public television and radio stations insulated from political pressure). The Public Broadcasting system could continue to be bold in programming choices, and continue to serve under-served audiences that commercial radio and television ignores.

What we have instead of insulation is a short circuit each year, as Congress and the President fight over funding levels for CPB. Year to year, hand-to-mouth funding means we continue to have status quo public radio and television. So at least we have drive time public radio news programs and weekend radio favorites. It is better than no funding at all. But it means that ongoing innovation and being able to adapt to new audiences and new public interests is severely compromised.

Ultimately, that is why the Bush team came up with their current proposal. They know that when David Stockman tried to eliminate funding in 1981, public outcry kept it from happening. They also know that the annual budget anxiety keeps Public Broadcasting on a short leash. And it steers too many in the public radio system into what can best be described as the audience building extremist camp, where process and heavily-researched or refined programming usually trumps innovation and substance.

We can argue about news content; whether NPR is too liberal or too complacent, but perhaps the best gauge of the health of the system comes when looking at something other than news programming. Let's look briefly at the arts on public radio for a moment. The last time public radio carried a successful series of theatre programming came in that fateful year of 1981 when the radio production of Star Wars from KUSC, Los Angeles was already produced. It was successfully carried by hundreds of public radio stations.

That marvelous production was complimented that year when many public radio stations across the land also carried the BBC series The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy, which dwarfs the television production of same. Nothing since 1981 comes close in the number of stations that carried such programming, and nothing approaches the positive public response to such programs. It's no accident that this kind of programming ceased after 1981, due to uncertain funding levels from year to year. Long term planning is out the window. As a result, we have a national system that is treading water--at best.

So, if you are a public radio or television devotee, concerned about losing your news fix, don't worry about the new volley of budgetary insults from the White House. Congress will counter with funding levels more to your liking, and they will pass Continuing Resolution amendments, probably long enough to hold current funding levels until a new occupant is in the oval office. Ultimately, the future of the system rests with the results of this year's election, not with the current whims of a lame duck. But ask yourself, how long can this system continue to hobble along? And will it ever live up to its potential?

New Song; New Logo: Is a Merger in the Works?

Colorado Public Radio's news and information service, branded--quite haphazardly--as KCFR and KCFR News--broadcasts a 5-times-per-week, 30-minutes-per-day* program called Colorado Matters (from 10:00 to 10:30 a.m., with regular repeats during that week and on weekends, and with repurposing during Morning Edition). Last week, Colorado Matters introduced a new theme song, which sounds about as exciting as the the them song from the movie Broadcast News. Do you remember the scene? Big finish!

This week, CPR, KCFR, KCFR News (you choose) rolled out a new Colorado Matters logo, which doesn't at all match their current and confused website. I am using the word logo quite loosely here. Isn't their picture mostly just fonts?

Surprisingly, the new Colorado Matters logo looks just like KUNC's website color scheme. This made me wonder, is there a public radio merger in the works? If so, that may explain why CPR wants 88.1-FM in Denver for $8.2 million. If not, then maybe the "C" in CPR simply stands for confused. Does anyone know a good brand manager? CPR needs guidance.

Here's the way I understand it. KCFR is the news and information service. KVOD is the classical music service (at least for now). And CPR is the promotions service for both KCFR-AM and KVOD-FM. So when you donate to Colorado Public Radio, do you suppose that you can decide which service gets your money?

CPR spends a lot of air time and web space on self-promotion. Have you checked out their website? It's like the Public Insight Network (provided to CPR by Minnesota Public Radio) is it's own show! Have you listened to their on-air appeals? Pumping the PIN and pimping Colorado Matters produces as much on air content as the show Colorado Matters! I guess that is what the organization gets when it elevates a marketing genius to head the news broadcast division of a statewide network which does little more than repeat NPR.

*The show length is shorter if you consider that CPR broadcasts NPR news at the top of the hour.