Update: Just confirmed, no. Federal funds only makes up 15% of PBS's funding. [1]
1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end...
So if that's true, I guess not. If it was actually a mouthpiece, I guess so
It will drastically scale back the funding and coverage of public broadcasters, but they should (hopefully) survive.
That said, they effectively cease being public at this point. And ironically enough, they have no reason anymore to pander to wider audiences so if anything they will become more "left leaning" over time.
Most frustratingly, many people know how to be properly skeptical. To use Sagan's example, it comes out in full-force any time someone buys a used car. Never trust the dealer. Everybody knows that.
I really appreciate that Sagan refrains from looking down on anyone. It's all too easy to do and I am guilty of it at times. It also leads to a much more useful conversation. Sagan provides hope that we can educate better. Compared to say, Dawkins, who I think has ultimately hurt the cause. Nobody will listen when they feel insulted.
> So sad to see its worst predictions come true.
The most recent bit of the book I read involved James Randi. I was curious about the guy so I did some other reading. Randi gave out an annual "award" called the "Pigasus Award" to fraudsters and similar. Mehmet Oz received the award [1] three times. Now Oz runs Medicaid!
Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. Sometimes it feels like the world has lost any sort of check against gullibility. To paraphrase from the book, many scientists are particularly not equipped to call these scammers out. Scientists wrestle with nature - nature has laws. Trying to call out the Oz's of the world is hard because they don't play by the rules of reason.
---
[0] https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709
[1] https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-...
I had the privilege of meeting both Sagan and Randi at different points. Along with Paul Kurtz, also sadly gone now, these were some of the most in influential people in the beginnings of the modern skeptical movement. If you aren't familiar with Prometheus books and CSICOP (now CSI), look them up. You'll find years worth of groundbreaking skeptical reading material.
If the story is even remotely interesting and something you'd be willing to share I would really appreciate the read.
Will definitely look into those books. Thanks for the recs.
They were all from roughly the same time period, and I thought their focus on that particular issue was overblown. A relic of the time they'd lived through and their efforts, which efforts had gotten us here, where anti-intellectualism is a curiosity, periodically an annoyance, but not a threat. Sure, we could swing back toward that being a real concern, but it'd take a while. We'd see it.
What's weird is I could also list a bunch of ways that we were swinging back toward it. I think on some level I just didn't believe that these kinds of big shifts backwards could happen, actually and not just in shootin'-the-shit discussions with friends, in my lifetime. Bumps on the road of progress, sure, but going backwards entirely? I even shied away from labeling authoritarian-enabling changes, policies, or actions "fascist", even as I literally protested some of them in the street—well, that's alarmist, surely. It's silly and childish that I was embarrassed of the term.
It's so damn foolish when I look back on it. I had so many of the particulars right, but just couldn't believe in something so big actually happening, I guess. I'd have told you that sure, it could, if you'd asked, even outlined a plausible path from here to there based on recent and current goings-on... but I didn't believe it might happen. Not really.
1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end...
So this certainly won't be the death of PBS, as I had feared.
Update 2: For the record (easier to respond in this original post than to each response), I am not defending the decision at all. I grew up listening to NPR, and have been on recurring monthly donations to PBS for years.
I was genuinely curious about what percentage comes from federal funds. So I am just trying to level-set and get ahead of any hysteria about the actual impact.
They also state that the bulk of CPB funding pays for national NPR and PBS programs, so those will see cuts, too.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-appr...
I tried looking for sources on station audience sizes, alternatives they might have, etc. But it was difficult to find.
Sure, you can stream, but the content will be focused on another locale or won't address local issues.
I think it's, quietly and slowly, the thing that's going to doom our country to decline if something else doesn't get us first (which, there are certainly some things giving this one a run for its money). The Internet killed a pillar of democracy, replaced it with nothing that serves the same role, and we didn't even try to keep it from happening, so here we are, we doomed ourselves by embracing the Internet quickly and not trying to mitigate any harm it causes.
After all, the milenia old adage "bread and games" silences to many.
My local NPR broadcasts rarely actually cover anything that's happening in like city or county politics. Heck, even talking about state politics is pretty rare.
Watch this clip:
Sometimes streaming isn't an option. When Helene hit WNC we lost power, cell, internet, and water all at the same time. The local NPR stations were the only ones broadcasting updates on a regular cadence so we could learn what in the world was going on. And we're not far from downtown Asheville.
Some extremely rural areas only have spotty internet or no internet or cell at all and public radio is the only thing they have.
Having moved around my PBS districts always seemed to be a metro+rural zone.
I'm a big fan of PBS, but I wonder if this common stat is misleading. Don't a huge portion of PBS funds come from member stations, which get a portion of their funds from federal funding?
The federal money goes to member stations which then hands it right over to NPR to pay for programming, I believe it’s $500 per hour. It’s 1 layer of indirection but no one seemed to mention this in all of the reporting
So - does that mean a member station could just cut back on their NPR-sourced programming, then fill the air time by playing more Frank Sinatra, and broadcasting local HS football games, and such?
Are you suggesting that PBS is misinforming people about how much of PBS's funds are government funded?
I've no idea of that is at all the case with any of PBS' donations, but it seems like a hypothetical that might be true and that could be hidden despite you being diligent in finding out what PBS truthfully reported.
> Rural stations hit hardest
> Up to 18 percent of about 1,000 member stations would close
This is not a fiscal decision. This is a ideology that demonizes the open exchange of ideas and truth.
But I am just trying to set expectations of what people should expect to see. I'm trying to get ahead of the predictable hysteria about the death of public radio/tv.
That's a nice chunk of change, though low enough that a few friendly billionaires could put some pocket change into a trust today and make up for this funding in perpetuity. And there undoubtedly will be a massive surge in donations from small donors in response to this.
As long as the bigger fish are willing to subsidize the smaller rural stations, I don't think there is anything to be afraid of.
The removal of this Sword of Damocles is in my opinion a great thing for PBS and NPR.
ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox/Etc are big corporations that produce (or commission/license, it gets...weird) shows to be distributed on their affiliates, that, depending on the city you are in, can be owned by the network OR another company that operates it like a franchise. Their affiliate agreement governs how much of the network programming they play -- though there are other agreements for non-network programming -- Jeopardy/Wheel of Fortune, for example, are syndicated and NOT network.
PBS on the other hand is more of a consortium of public TV stations around the country. Shows that you might think of as "PBS Shows" are actually produced by these individual stations and then distributed to other stations that want them. Even PBS Newshour and Washington Week are produced by WETA in DC.
Radio gets even more complicated. Many of the shows I've seen referenced on this thread aren't even necessarily NPR. Marketplace, for example, is American Public Media, which is sort of an outcropping from Minnesota Public Radio.
So funding going to ACTUAL PBS is a tiny part of this. What happens to the money going to various stations? What happens to the grants to produce and run these stations, especially in rural areas?
But the little guys will suffer more. Ultimately, I think we can all agree that we hope the impact won't be catastrophic as far as the number of listeners impacted.
Probably not the biggest loss if I'm right, but still a major bummer, and yet another connection between the rural and the urban is severed.
Maybe the revolution will be televised after all.
This was entirely expected and predicted once neoliberalism took hold in the Democratic and Republican parties and began rotting out the central pillars of American Democracy and Empire.
A lot of people are learning that institutions aren’t these bulwarks against hostile actors, but in actuality are collections of people aligned on a given mission. For decades, Americans have neglected these people, cut funding to the helpful institutions, and granted far too much funding to negative ones. This culminated in the vilifying of these pillars and their members by a cadre of politicians backed by wealthy donors seeking change preferable to their personal agendas at the expense of the people, and it takes decades of continuous chipping away to get to the situation of today.
None of this is sudden, new, or shocking to those of us who have been staying informed, consuming legitimate news sources, and doing proper research with high-quality reference material. To the average person who merely consumes Cable News or mass media, this may all feel very sudden or surprising and therefore reversible.
It’s not.
I would say it isn't that our institutions were built on sand, more that its hard to stop a madman who broke into your house with a chainsaw (a la Musk) from knocking down a few load-bearing walls.
It is easier to destroy almost anything than it is to create it in the first place.
It's worse than that. PEPFAR was a signature initiative of the previous Republican president.
Everything really changed with the bailouts then the tea party movement. The republicans went from big business, lower taxes, exclusively to populism.
The dems are going through a similar bend currently and probably would have happened sooner if they hadn't undermined their voters nomination of Bernie in 2015.
The republicans (love um or hate them) didn't change the rules to scuttle Trump. One party is listening to their base the other is trying to control them (and imo is imploding because of it). I'm honestly a bit of a neo con so there isn't a place for me in a populist republican party. I'll just keep throwing votes at Chase Oliver / similar outsiders until we have a return to sanity.
This isn't due to one man (Musk) or a rogue government agency, or even the executive branch.
This is Congress, which tells you how bad things have gotten.
Ok, but to be clear, Congress gets to. Congress has done about-faces like this before, yet the Republic is still here.
Obviously - there's no implication of processes not being followed.
My point, which mirrors yours, is that this isn't the result of a rogue actor. It's a result of collective action.
If anything, government should have been cut AND revenues increased; but, that's not how either party works. (disgusting oversimplification: Republicans reduce revenue and reduce spend while Democrats increase revenue and increase spend).
There is no system you could structure rigidly enough that it would not be vulnerable to bad actors. You can insulate yourself by distributing authority as we have, but if those authorities stop playing following the laws, rules, and norms well you end up where we are at, devolving into facisim.
I think it's very fitting that you'd use this metaphor, because the people you oppose wouldn't even find that slightly challenging.
- Congress
- the Executive
- the Judiciary
- the States and their constitutional
institutions
- the jury
I wish anyone with even a little power were talking about ditching the position of "Supreme Court Justice" and just drawing for the role by lot from the "lower" federal courts each term. That could be done with a law, not an amendment-there has to be a Supreme Court, and federal judgeships are "during good behavior" (de facto "for life") but Supreme Court Justice per se doesn't have to be a permanent role. The closest I hear anyone talking about is court expansion, but that's a less-effective fix, and one more likely to draw strong push-back and to be unpopular, I think.
The better thing to do, in my mind, is to limit the term length of a justice and eliminate the pocket veto, but I can't think of any way in which the elimination of a pocket veto also can't be exploited in some way (eg: with a 6-3 court, if a Republican-aligned justice stepped down, a Republican president can knowingly put forward a candidate they know won't get approved to keep the margin 5-3 vs. 5-4).
These attacks are not unique to the United States; there is a coordinated effort across many countries by public policy groups and private interests. The United States are highly visible due to their ownership of global media, but the Republican party has been pursuing these objectives publicly and clearly for more than 30 years, and has made incremental progress to the point where they were able to re-engineer the Supreme Court and lower courts, as well as elect far right politicians who would tear up the rules to make it happen.
This is the sharp upwards curve of increase in velocity that is the result of sustained accelleration over the last few decades. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and not just in the United States.
Often these victories have contributed to further momentum—concentration of wealth means more money for the cause; death of the "fairness doctrine" opens up the possibility of wholly partisan media for propagandizing, which was instantly capitalized on with a boom in right wing AM radio; Citizens United decision de facto ending campaign finance regulation, well that's sure convenient; all kinds of things.
This has been more than a half-century in the making.
The books Democracy in Chains, Lobbying America, and Dark Money are three (of many, many) good intros to the conservative reaction to the The New Deal.
Norms are dead, you can just suggest assassination of your opponent and still win a Presidential election now, the batshit crazy stuff's not just for races in rural Montana or whatever. Like, IDK how this reads to younger folks, but I assure them that things are now happening practically daily that would have been unthinkable 15 years ago, let alone farther back. Things got visibly weirder fast.
It makes it hard to be optimistic that there is any plausible roadmap back to some form of normalcy in the medium term.
Turns out that was perhaps an incomplete argument.
However, NPR also receives funding from member station fees, and those member stations typically get about 13% of their budgets from the federal government.
Putting it all together about 10% of NPR's budget comes from the federal government.
For PBS about 15% of their budget comes from the federal government. Some local PBS affiliates, especially in rural areas, get up to 60% of their budgets from the federal government.
What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.
No it won't. The modern GOP is fueled by grievance. It needs an "other" in order to exist. They'll have a new enemy to rail against by this time tomorrow.
Removing federal influence in setting agenda while sending federal funding directly to states without federal oversight of programs would not be a bad thing. My 2c.
Support by donations is always dependent on the largest donor.
The US government was the largest donor until now. No single non-governmental donor will ever have that level of influence again.
You are probably right.
My apologies.
For you, probably, for me it means "from/for the people".
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/27/a-word-from-ou...
"Look, Bill [O'Reilly], I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
https://www.npr.org/2010/10/21/130712737/npr-ends-williams-c...
"NPR, like any mainstream news outlet, expects its journalists to be thoughtful and measured in everything they say. What Williams said was deeply offensive to Muslims and inflamed, rather than contributing positively, to an important debate about the role of Muslims in America."
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2010/10/21/1307132...
What does the "public" in public broadcasting mean to you?
No, I would like to eliminate corporate influence as well, but that might not be possible in a capitalist society.
It is certainly not programming with much mass market appeal.
The beautiful thing about public media is that it can broadcast things that don't have a profit-motive for being broadcast.
True, so one would expect to have heard much more about Bernie Sanders when he was making runs for president. Unfortunately the only coverage he usually got on likes of NPR was when it was something negative about him.
So much for straying from profit motive.
Pay attention to how many segments—even that are sort-of connected to an actual news event, which, many aren't—revolve around political strategy, poll numbers, and (in season, which is now like three years out of four) electoral race polling.
It's, like... a lot of them, outside the human-interest and arts coverage stuff. They consistently divert into talking about political media messaging strategy and poll numbers and crap, and they do it so very much that it's got to be something they're doing on purpose. This isn't news reporting, it's lazy, safe (because you don't have to engage with substantive questions of policy and outcomes, nor even questions of fact) horse-race bullshit. It's a complete waste of the listener's time, if they're there for actual news reporting.
On the flip side, though, I'm not seeing a lot of "sink or swim in the market" US media doing much better, so I wouldn't bet on them shifting to anything better (though shift they might).
(Also, did you mean the Charles Koch Foundation or the David H. Koch Foundation? The Koch Foundation is a different entity with a different mission.)
Why on earth do you think it will be free of interference? Obviously they will find other ways to pressure and censor them. As they have done in many cases already.
That's why this careless crusade against governmental institutions is so horrific. Institutions with decades of history are being destroyed, and it would take years to decades to spin up something even close to equivalent, in an insane political environment where every public institution is framed as horrible socialism.
Conservatives have wanted to defund public broadcasting for decades. What made it finally possible was that public broadcasting made their bias obvious and undeniable. Over the past 10 years, the stark shift leftward has been undeniable — they became what they’ve been accused of being for a very long time.
Which might still happen if rural PBS stations now need to take sketchy sources of money
In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. And the PBS kids apps are one of the few things I can hand to my kid worry-free. And the fact that it's money-free and ad-free to access in this modern age is a miracle.
The only people who could support this are not just wrong, they are people out of touch with reality. These are people who think public parks are a waste of space. Or that having nice things to share is elitist.
This is funny because BBC is a prime example of being a propaganda channel for the government of the day. And that's not new at all just look back at the coverage of the Troubles or the miners strikes in the 70s-80s.
Yes it's not on the level of CGTN or Russia Today but BBC is not neutral at all
https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...
I'm not sure anyone that is familiar with this has been able to take what they say seriously since because they are so clearly on such a short leash.
I highly suggest using Ground News (ground.news) for a week or a month as your sole portal into news stories, and then use their features to analyze bias in your selection of news stories and outlets.
I use it regularly to try to offset my own biases.
Leads to shallow discussion where all news sources are tossed out for bias leaving nothing (or what ground news wants you to listen to). God forbid we critically examine for ourselves the information we consume.
Ground news links all of their sources on a per article basis and you can simply scroll left/right through each news source. And you can add your own sources!
I'm not going to argue with them saying that Fox News is right wing or that MSNBC is more left wing. "Duh".
Maybe we're looking at this from a different angle, or maybe we just use the service in different ways.
The "bias" part that is relevant is showing you the difference in headline and contents between dozens or hundreds or thousands based on historical leanings of the news org, and which ones are even reporting on a particular topic.
It's not saying a particular article leans a particular way, it's saying the source does.
All national media services have their own bias and propaganda, but if you switch them up it becomes obvious very quickly. It also means that I miss out on most of the US political noise [1], which is a benefit to my mental health [2].
[0] Hot/lukewarm take: "consuming news" is a waste of time, and should be minimized. This really hits you like a brick to the head when you see the stuff that foreign countries are obsessing about, and how tiny it feels to you. Guess what: your news media is filled with the same crap.
[1] I still get the foreign opinion on it, obviously, but this is usually pretty mild. Most countries don't care about the US nearly as much as US citizens think they do.
[2] If you think that CPB/NPR don't have bias, I strongly suggest that you try this. You're probably in a bubble, and an "international perspective" is something that most NPR listeners claim to value. Removing US media from my life eliminated a huge source of angst (particularly after 2016), and revealed that all of the major US media sources are various forms of hyper-polarized clownery.
Indian media is broadly worse if anything, latin american media is a trip if you have any understanding of the complicated political landscape, Aus is central to the Murdoch news dynasty, and East asian media has lots of famously partisan organizations. Maybe middle eastern media, explicitly funded for soft power political goals or African media, which span the gamut from bloodthirsty factional rags to leftover colonial institutions to tightly controlled extensions of the state apparatus?
They're differently biased, but you can't escape consuming media critically. "Averaging" by listening to a lot of different perspectives is 1) a lot of effort and 2) also something that can (and is) manipulated by making sure there's lots of "both sides" messaging present.
I went out of my way to head off this exact criticism, but I guess I didn't put it in blinking, bold, 30 point font.
Again: every national media outlet has bias (indeed, every media outlet has bias). My experience is that it's pretty easy to notice when you switch your sources regularly.
It doesn't take me any effort to do this, and even if I hear a hyper-partisan take, it doesn't melt my brain. I go "oh weird, so that's what the Indian government thinks" -- which is still vastly preferable to hearing what some reporter at NPR or CNN or whatever thinks about what India thinks.
It’s pretty much the only place I know to find news on all the conflicts that Western media tends to ignore.
I'm not a fan of the continued reification of "left" and "right". I have heard conservatives lament that MAGA isn't truly conservative. I've heard economic reformers lament that liberal social policies are sucking the oxygen out of the room for real structural reform. In both cases the idea of a single "left" and "right" as a group, or even worse as the two sole options on the menu of how to think, is severely damaging to productive political dialogue.
Framing everything as left-vs-right is like doing PCA and taking only the first principal component - sure it might be contain some signal, but it flattens any nuance. Critically, it also pre-frames any debate into competing camps in a way that harms rather than serves. I would challenge groups like Ground News to offer other framings - why not "owners vs workers"? Why not "rural vs urban"? We should ask why they chose the framing they do. I have my own cynical opinion but I'll refrain from sharing.
of _course_ there is bias at the BBC. But to comparing it to Fox is uncharitable at best.
The thing is, though, there are a few components here: there's level of favorability toward a certain kind of politics, which some barely-popular left-leaning outlets roughly match Fox News on, plus propensity to lie and exaggerate. And there's reach.
Nothing left-partisan in the US that I'm aware of touches Fox on either of those latter fronts—propensity to just make shit up, and (certainly not) reach.
Nobody's putting Democracy Now! on in waiting rooms. Hell IDK maybe at Planned Parenthood, never been, wouldn't know, but not at a dentist's office or at the auto shop or what have you.
There are equivalents to Fox News on the Left (Fox News viewers think it's MSNBC because that's what Fox News and AM radio told them, LMFAO, no) in the US, in terms of level of commitment to supporting partisan causes. There's nothing like it as far as willingness to deviate from reality to do so, nor in reach. Nothing remotely close.
How is it not neutral ? I follow some of the news. They've criticized both Conservative and Labour governments. Of course there are problems like the whole Martin Bashir thing but recently I've seen the BBC be more self-critical than other private TV channels. If we're comparing mistakes from the past then in the 90s, Roger Ailes was molesting women behind locked doors. Lewd comments were the norm across several news rooms. Doesn't mean that all private media is bad.
this is really the main problem with the bbc. for example one week they publish a story talking about something horrible israel has done then the next they publish another seemingly taking their side on something. it just ends up annoying and confusing both sides instead of one
I think you could argue it had a sort of pro-Cameron lean to it for a while simply because he initially positioned himself as quite a boring centrist, but I don't believe there was any policy alignment generally.
Less sure re: the scottish independence vote but I think in that case the BBC was sort of paralysed by what the outcome would mean for it, and that may have made it difficult for it to comprehensively handle.
Channel 4 news is surprisingly now the better news source for actual events.
They're also living on borrowed time. Channel 4 is publicly owned but completely self funded, largely through ad revenue. Ad revenue for TV is not what it used to be.
There's been serious consideration given to the idea of merging Channel 4 into the BBC to share admin costs but keep it editorially separate.
Every household that watches BBC in the UK needs to pay £174.50 ($230) a year. (the wording here has to be done carefully, let's not digress into being exact on who has to pay it)
Federal funding for public media distributed out to $1.54 per person in the US last year.
There's... uh... a bit of a difference in the national funding for the BBC and public media in the US.
State media is inherently going to be pro-establishment and failures to report on their own internal scandals I think should give everyone pause about being all-in on something like the BBC.
PBS Newshour is pretty much the best/balanced news programming on US TV at this point. They take deeper dives into issues than most of the other shows out there. And then there's Frontline which is excellent and goes even deeper with a documentary format. The rest of PBS - there are a few good parts like Nova, but a lot of what plays on PBS stations these days is UK crime dramas - man, there seems to be a lot of mayhem going on in merry old England these days.
Haven't watched this since I was a kid. Just scrubbed through the latest episode. I was surprised, it's not bad. Left-leaning to my eye, but FAR less so than any other left-leaning mainstream TV media I can think of. And as you point out, more substantial and meaningful coverage than you typically get anywhere else. I would be happy to encourage anyone to watch more PBS Newshour based on that
.. Stephen Colbert
I'm not trying to be dismissive of your viewpoint, but why should anyone bother speaking to this? Absolutely nothing new was divulged. It's not the media's responsibility to give airtime over every government press release.
All you see are staffers at the Hillary campaign discussing the news of the Russian influence campaigns (which this report reiterates are real) and how they can use it for their campaign.
Nothing in here is novel or even that salacious. How is this newsworthy?
Epstein was not some Darth Vader or Joker (The Dark Night version) or Commodus (from Gladiator) or Sauron or Voldemort type of villain who was openly villainous and did not have a public good side (either an actual good side or a front to try to hide his villainy).
Epstein was more a Han from Enter the Dragon kind of villain.
Epstein had a fairly extensive public good side (maybe real, maybe just a front, probably a mix of both) appearing as a legitimate businessman and a philanthropist.
A big part of his philanthropy was directed toward supporting scientific research, universities, and the arts. He liked to invite top people from particular fields, like physics and AI, to events on his island where they (the invited people) would discuss major scientific and philosophical issues from their field. Get an invite to one of those, and it was a chance to go spend a few days for free in a resort setting, participate in some pop science level discussions to keep the rich guy happy, and maybe try to talk him into funding your lab.
Because of this most of the time it isn't all that interesting when some famous person shows up in Epstein's documents.
It becomes interesting with Trump because he spent a lot of time using his opponent's Epstein connections against them in ways that made his followers come to believe any association with Epstein is practically proof that you are an active pedophile.
He did this even though he knew he himself had connections to Epstein (including to people who actually were part of Epstein's villain side). And now that's biting him.
Ah yes, the news show that has a weekly politics round table that brings in a balanced approach to see issues from both sides: The side of an anti-Trump Democrat and the side of an anti-Trump Republican.
Good riddance!
This administration makes a point that they only do interviews with sources favorable to them. They can't opt out of the media and then pretend to be victims.
There's plenty to pick from. The problem is that having someone effective in that position would anger the one people that PBS actually cares about, their donor class. It doesn't matter that Trump won the popular vote in the most recent election, they'll still go out of their way to ensure that the token conservative voice is against him.
> This administration makes a point that they only do interviews with sources favorable to them. They can't opt out of the media and then pretend to be victims.
This is the most accessible and transparent administration in decades, if not longer. The POTUS has held more interviews, with just about every national media organization, and regularly holds open ended press conferences with pools of reporters.
What you're describing is the previous administration which not only hand selected the reporters, they even gave Biden a cheat sheet of reporters (with pictures!) so he would know exactly who to call on: https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-defends-bidens-cheat-sh...
Is that your paragon of media transparency?
No there's not. Name three.
>This is the most accessible and transparent administration in decades, if not longer. The POTUS has held more interviews, with just about every national media organization, and regularly holds open ended press conferences with pools of reporters.
This is simply an absurd lie with no basis in reality, I really don't know why you even spouted it. It contradicts observable truth. Strange.
Do you have a specific grievance? How could it be better?
I totally support public broadcasting of all stripes, and do not advocate for this POV at all, but ... there are people who claim the opposite. Sesame Street is 'full woke', apparently, because it has talked about skin color and race with muppets.
What many people consider normal... is 'full woke agenda' to others.
I dunno, the Odd Squad has almost as much green screen as a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. If that's not flashy, I dunno. And Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman was pretty out there; a space ghost style host ordering kids around the streets of Boston.
Also, the reboot of CyberChase was pretty clearly on the Ag agenda, all about Organic this and that. Maybe that doesn't count as an Agenda because the department of agriculture was funding it.
Also, Sesame street has always been in the pocket of those letter and number sponsors.
It really surprised me to learn this; it always felt so Ohio to me.
Peg + Cat relies on numerology and emphasizes DEI above all else.
Alma’s Way is pro-illegal immigration and unbelievably on the nose about it.
I can keep going. Point is, PBS Kids should have been shutdown a long time ago.
/s
The local stuff though was quite questionable. For example they’d support different causes or efforts by referencing a single poorly supported research paper. Usually those research papers supported some narrative. It could be homelessness, drug treatments, etc., however there was little if any scrutiny of the paper the whole effort or narrative was based on.
They also had annoying presenters like Kai Ryssdahl. He was insufferable but hardly the only one.
Also, despite being a public system, individual comp is high relative to their listeners', I'd say[1]. I'd guess most listeners would not imagine their comp being as high as it is, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Public_Radio
[1] In addition, those at the top enjoy perks like being invited to elite events, and the perks of schmoozing for donations. Those are experiences that are alien to the average listener.
The other tragedy is the PBS Kids Games app on iOS and Android. It is chock full of educational games that tie into the various shows.
I wasn't very happy with the PBS defunding. One of their best shows was Frontline and the amount of just straight down the middle documentaries they did was great. For a lot of the issues that became very politicized, I would regularly turn to them for an unbiased view of what was going on.
I agree on the educational stuff as well. How many generations of kids grew up watching PBS kids shows? My parents donated regularly and supported PBS the whole time.
Hopefully they can continue, I'm sad to see such a pillar of goodness go away.
I’m rather looking forward to public radio programming that would strike you as liberally biased, now that public radio productions no longer have to please Republicans in government.
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...
It's like if you wanted a diversity of opinions designing a rocket so you decided to pull in flat earth's as well as new earth creationist. You're not getting a better rocket. Perhaps a better fireworks show, though.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-trump-bump-the-republican-fer...
Next you're going to tell me the New York Times has a liberal bias, right? Save it.
The “left” in terms of voters is against the genocide in Gaza and for socialist policies and candidates like Mamdani. Plenty of polls and evidence supports this.
NYT undid their endorsement policy to specifically Not endorse mamdani and is very biased against Palestine. Their opinion columns like David Brooks etc are blowhard conservatives too.
In terms of mainstream news sources, I consider the Guardian US to be a reasonable big tent news source for the center left.
NPR is centrist. They take no sides even if (imo) one is obviously correct.
NYT and WaPo is the ‘reasonable right’ (still report facts but with a right wing spin- see their billionaire owners).
Fox etc. are not news they are ‘entertainment’ and do not report facts and are a vile propaganda engine that must be destroyed
https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
> When I asked Uri, he said he “couldn’t care less” that I am not a Democrat. He said the important thing was the “aggregate”—exactly what his 87-0 misrepresented by leaving out people like me. While it’s widely believed that most mainstream journalists are Democrats, I’ve had colleagues that I was pretty sure were conservative (I don’t ask), and I’ve learned just since Uri’s article that I am one of several NPR hosts of “no party” registration.
To a broader point, viewpoint diversity != unbias. If I staff half a newspaper with Stalinists that doesn't mean the reporting is going to become more factual or the coverage less biased. If it's become a Republican party position to attack mainstream media, we shouldn't expect them to even be applying for these jobs.
Do a mental exercise, if they had joined the MAGA loving trump train, would that have saved them?
Now you have your real answer. They're not going to fund anything unless it's a bunch of lackeys
> I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available
> kids programming is the absolute best
Fixed that for you:
> I USED TO FIND public broadcasting provided the least biased sources of headline news and information available
> kids programming WAS the absolute best
There is a degree of quasi-political messaging in PBS children's shows. I can say this because I've watched more hours than I'd like of several of them, but I'd like to focus on on Molly Of Denali. It's a good children's show about an inuit girl who lives in Alaska and teaches children general good morals and specifics of inuit and Alaskan culture.
When I say it's political, I mean that it makes points without nuance on historical and current issues which range from widely accepted and important ideas (example: They didn't let Native Alaskan People vote in the past, so it's important to exercise the right to vote now), to what I would consider less widely agreed upon and important ideas, such as it being deeply upsetting and disrespectful for a "white" teacher to call a native child "T", because she had trouble pronouncing his native name. Another example is them introducing the importance of "land acknowledgements" in a children's show. A final example is the "clueless white" trope wherein the offensive rude white visitor has to be educated by the wise natives over and over and over.
I'm not trying to say that any of these examples are "right" or "wrong", but they do represent "politics" in the mind of wide sections of the population.
This said I like the show and of course we need to fund public broadcasting, I would just prefer if we did our best to keep the most controversial stuff for when the kids are a bit older to make it a smaller target for outrage (from the right or left).
The most jarring part, to me personally, is the drastic shift in tone and presentation for injustices with wildly different levels of impact. Perhaps rudely, I think to myself in the voice of the Inuit grandfather from the show "The white man took me from my family, did not allow me to speak my language, beat me and did not allow me to vote, and worst of all...... He did not let me smile in photos"
I don't mean any of this as racist or disrespectful and I hope this is a nuanced comment for consideration and not a kneeejerk reaction or evidence of my subconscious biases run wild.
Where I might disagree with you, if I understand you correctly, is in how applicable your comment is as a response to my mine. At the outset I attempted to communicate that some of the things that the most likely to be outraged people would take issue with (the importance of exercising the right to vote - especially if your ancestors didn't enjoy the right) are pretty universally accepted and even presenting it without nuance inside of a children's show is acceptable because it is done so with a positive focus (be involved in the democratic process).
If I misunderstood you I apologize.
And since PBS has backed away from making episodes like these.
Offensiveness of difficultly in pronouncing native Alaskan name - I believe this would be grouped under the umbrella of something like "linguistic imperialism" by people of particular political bents, which is an issue that at least heavily relates to politics.
Land acknowledgements - As far as I can tell, these have always been politicized because they originated "with indigenous Australian political movements and the arts" at least according to Wikipedia. I don't know much about the subject
Rude clueless white trope - I think this is to some extent a "positive" inversion of the "noble savage" trope, which Wikipedia tells me was historically political.
They have several shows that depict interracial marriages, while some people might try to take this as a political statement, most of us would not see it that way.
In a similar vein, I don't see how pronouncing names correctly could be a political issue.
I would also agree with you that pronouncing names generally is not (and largely probably should not be) a political topic, but that it necessarily is in this context because of it being included in a show about native Alaskans. If the teacher were inuit, or the student also white, or it was presented a simple misunderstanding along the lines of "can I call you T" "No please don't" "okay sorry I'll do my best" it would not be "political". Because it's in this show in this context and explicitly connected to previous abuses of native people being made to use "white names", my contention is that the creators of the show intend for it to be political .
Another example of this: when Mr. Rogers invited an African American neighbor to share his pool. It certainly wasn't widely agreed upon at the time.
I disagree that this is a useful or accurate way to engage in discussion about an entirely different and specific subject in an entirely different context. The only way they are related is with this "chain of social progress" framework, and even within that framework, they are not the same issue.
I perceive it to be a dismissive approach which shuts down conversation, and I think it's clear when viewed plainly in the opposite direction: "If you have concerns with any of the political messaging in children's shows, you would not allow a person of a different race into your swimming pool", or in a slightly different way, "If you have concerns about this you are explicitly the "bad guy"".
The way that they are related is that PBS childrens' shows deliberately address political content, and have done so for many years, and that is both important and good that they do so.
Imagine not finding it disrespectful for your teacher to just completely ignore and disrespect your heritage and you're expected to just accept it and be totally OK with it.
IMO kids should be taught to be proud of their names. Apparently, that's a political stance.
I have many coworkers who I have trouble saying their names. I try as best as I can to say their names and be as respectful as possible. I wouldn't just go "I can't say your name, so you're just T now."
I find, if we strip this from the colonial context, or remove it from the racial context entirely (this is now a conversation between two Han Chinese people of the same social class, for example) there is some relationship between what I perceive to be an increasing focus on the critical importance of a child being called their exact name and no abbreviation, mispronunciation, standard nickname, or contextually assigned nickname, to be a symptom of an American hyper individualism and "rights culture".
As an aside I have been told by more than one person with a foreign name before even attempting their name that they would prefer I just call them an Americanized abbreviation of their name for convenience. Obviously I want to try to do what they would like, but if they were to insist on a name I struggled with, I would consider them to be a generally annoying person.
It is literally someone over you stripping you of your own choice of identity.
Even if we removed the idea of teacher/student relationship from this, are you still fine with people just arbitrarily renaming you? That someone respects you so little they won't even respect your own choice in name, that's fine?
I'm absolutely fine with someone who has a name which could be difficult to pronounce in the local language choosing to go with another name. It is their choice. That's the big difference. They're choosing to go by that name in those contexts. It wasn't just arbitrarily chosen for them.
Can we break this down?
You open with a effectively derogatory accusation about conservatives making things up…which I have no opinion on.
That immediately shows your own likely liberal bias and then you say you saw no problem with the programming.
Isn’t that exactly the issue? That you saw no issue and everyone that disagrees is just wrong?
How do you know? How would you know if CBP’s biases weren’t just your own?
Do you know the arguments against the biases of CPB, NPR, PBS from the people that can make their most effective arguments against those orgs, or do you know the lines of the people that already agree with you?
Jon Stewart Mill’s On Liberty has a great part about this… [It is not enough to know the refutations from your own teachers, you must learn them from the people that present them in their truest form].
Maybe these are true, but I don’t see the basis for it here.
All free.
Donate. Recurring is better.
I’m pretty sure that’s the fundamental problem they have with it. They want media whose content they control.
(All of this is about control/power, not making things nice or doing things right.)
I hated Fox News because it's so full of lies. I hated CNN because it's making mountains out of molehills and manufactured outrage. MSNBC was less yellow, but it's still full of opinion shows engineered to make you upset. NPR didn't do that, ever. They'd say when democrats screwed up just as much as when republicans did. It was true.
Right now I'm drinking out of my NPR mug that I pay $12/month for. I've been a daily listener since college, it's my default radio station in the car, and when I road trip I like searching for the local station. But I disagree with this. There are a number of nationally syndicated shows (at least, in all the markets I've lived in) that I'd put in this category. 1A just off the top of my head. Reveal is another, but that's because their mission is to find things that need to be revealed and they're usually pretty upsetting.
I didn't mean to say there's never incorrect or partisan content.
That’s not true. It just matches your agenda which you feel is no agenda. Of course you are against getting rid of instruments of persuasion that agree with your world view.
In the end it’s better for you too. Government shouldn’t support media.
shake my head
I feel the current rules against earmarking has made it so they negotiate less.
I just wish Americans saw some of that saved money either in their pocket or public works. But the reality is probably just going to be one more missile shipped to a foreign country.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20170300
https://tonicrowewriter.medium.com/did-maga-farmers-believe-...
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanista-tal...
If that was true, losing the CPB would be a travesty. But as a loyal NPR listener for decades, I've found their stuff lately to be unlistenable. It's Fox, but for the Left, and with a bit more of an intellectual spin. What makes it most annoying is their utter blindness to their own bias. The Fox hosts know that they're taking one side of a story. I've never gotten the impression that any of the NPR hosts are even that self-aware.
See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB.
As you can see, it’s mostly gotcha quotes and unfair glosses. For example:
> NPR also called America’s interstate highways racist. I did not know our highways were racist. I thought they were concrete, but not according to NPR.
Of course, it’s a historical fact that many minority neighborhoods were bulldozed to make room for interstate highway development, among them Cincinnati, OH and St. Louis, MO.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-freeways-flattened-black...
But of course this history that actually happened is interpreted as Reuters’ liberal bias. There’s no winning this.
Robert Moses was racist.
What was done to some communities was messed up.
The highway system isn't racist.
I'm not against abortion. In fact, I actually see the legal necessity of it in an overpopulating world. But NPR's bias on the front does not align with my own bias or, I think, with most people.
Everyone has bias and that's perfectly human. The problem is when we don't own up to it. NPR tries to cover theirs with circuitous language and lies-by-omission, https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2019/05/29/7280694.... That double-talk served well in insulating them from criticism, but it ended up costing them the public trust.
This is a factual statement with accurate medical terminology.
We don’t call them meteorites until they hit the earth, either.
Meteorites don't have that baggage.
(I'm pro-choice but think the "acksually they're fetuses" angle is fucking gross, both on an intellectually-honest debate level because it's semantic bullshit, and because it absolutely reads as a move toward dehumanization, and I hate to provide reasons for those kinds of accusations from pro-lifers to ring true)
Read https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru... by NPR veteran that shows how NPR developed a left wing bias over time. Also at https://archive.is/H7QNM
https://washingtonstand.com/news/npr-has-zero-republicans-87...
NPR Has Zero Republicans, 87 Democrats on Editorial Staff
https://steveinskeep.substack.com/p/how-my-npr-colleague-fai...
How many "Republicans" applied?
How many "Republicans" apply for jobs in gay bars?
Nice false-equivalency attempt.
You understand there are many gay republicans right?
--
FWIW:
"The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC."
There was a distinct shift to the right at NPR when Obama took office, and by the time he took his second term, NPR News' social media was posting clickbait trash instead of real headlines. "The liberal media" is an irrational boogeyman used to whip ownership in line. Everyone who complains about "bias in the media" is arguing in bad faith while they continue to turn a blind eye to the overwhelmingly dominant conservative slant of the 21st century American media.
NPR has turned rightward. The entertainment shows are, without a doubt, liberal, on the American political spectrum. There are countless discussions and papers about the role empathy plays in successful entertainment.
The editorial content has turned rightward - and the leadership has turned rightward. This has been ongoing for at least two decades, probably longer, but I wasn't paying attention at that level when I was under 20.
Because to me, that midpoint looks to be way to the right of, say, Mitt Romney or George Bush Jr or Reagan.
I don’t mean to be dismissive, as I think your reading is also accurate. The center of mass is shifting, but I’m not sure the locus of control is as much.
It is the rise of media org like Fox news where these kinds of comments have started surfacing. Because for Fox news is more commentary than facts. And then the narrative trick from Fox and other conservative media outlets have constantly pushed an agenda - "others do it too".
It has led to comments like these and this is fine.
> It's Fox, but for the Left
But then when you start adding stuff like this:
> and with a bit more of an intellectual spin. What makes it most annoying is their utter blindness to their own bias. The Fox hosts know that they're taking one side of a story. I've never gotten the impression that any of the NPR hosts are even that self-aware.
It becomes clear you are regurgitating RW talking points and both side-ism. And because Fox is worse, the only saving argument is that Fox at least knows their bias. God help this country if this is level of intellectual spin people can give to reinforce their points.
America and many Americans have lost their way, and have always struggled to get perspective on a topic.
As out outsider looking in, let me be clear.
This IS a travesty, and will be a notable mark in the history books when people look back in 50 or 100 years and ask “how did it happen?”
See: COVID, vaccines, climate change. You have one side explicitly denying what we can do with the scientific method and decades of peer reviewed research, and then blaming anyone who contradicts them as biased sources.
Comparing to Fox News is even more ridiculous. You say that them knowing they're spouting bullshit is better than the people not spouting bullshit at all?
Cmon now. Take the group that is actually trying to engage in good faith rather than the one that is knowingly producing crap. Maybe this is why people voted for Trump: he told them what he is, and they liked the honesty.
The real narrative problem is that relying on "science" as truth.
Science has been weaponized by all sides it is incredivly easy to manipulate research into a narrative. But the left's media empire is by far the most effective at doing this and with heavy left bias in academia it's a corrupt system.
Data has a priority say in everything we do but dropping context and information then calling everyone dumb for not "trusting the science" is propoganda. The response of the left is to simply call everyone who denies today's science as ignorant.
This is how you get climate deniers. Weaponize science and unsuprisingly you get countless people who stop believing ANY politically angled research.
Not sure how much you've spent in academia but modern science is nasty buissness. Incentive structures are completely warped.
Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter the butterfly revolution:
1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change.
2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation.
3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience.
4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term.
5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance.
Resources:
"The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen...
Freedom Cities in Trumps presser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE
Billionaire example: https://www.praxisnation.com
Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel on Ancient Prophecies and Modern Tec, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig
A.I., Mars and Immortality: Are We Dreaming Big Enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p...
The thing about PBS and NPR: I just don't have any alternatives! Wherever I've lived, all the other radio stations/channels just suck - liberal or not. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News totally suck. ABC, CBS, NBC mostly suck. The half-good radio stations are just way too biased and make NPR/PBS appear like paragons of neutraltity. I can tolerate losing NPR/PBS if I had alternatives. I simply don't.
Conservatives lump NPR/PBS viewers with other liberals. It's generally not true. All my liberal friends declare NPR to be "part of the problem". NPR/PBS viewers are just in another category altogether. They don't have choices.
I'd really like to hear from conservatives: Are there any channels/radio stations they like? Their complaint is continually that NPR/PBS is too left wing (which I can dispute but won't). But do they have a gaping hole in their choices the way people like me are about to have?
I like hearing perspectives on stories that I won’t hear elsewhere but in general, I don’t need very much political news in my life. I’m happier spending my time on audio books and podcasts.
I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged with NPR beyond seeing conservatives mock some of their silliest propaganda headlines in the past few years.
What about all the nonpolitical shows on NPR/PBS? Snap Judgement, This American Life, Prairie Home Companion, Nature, NOVA, etc.
Lots of people watch PBS/NPR not for politics, but for the entertainment/educational content.
PBS/NPR will be fine. Their business model might have to change but that might ultimately be a good thing.
I remember being in the gym and catching some coverage of Fox News on Trumps trade war and potential deals. I believe the quote from one of the people talking was something like:
"We don't know the specifics about what's in this deal but we do know that this is a huge win for American businesses and the American people."
If you've access to streaming media, podcasts, or shortwave, you still do have options.
There are several excellent national broadcasters, with the CBC, BBC, and ABC (Australia) operating in English, or a reasonable facsimile. There are often English-language broadcasts from non-anglophone countries, including France (France-24) and Germany (Deutsche-Welle English service), off the top of my head.
Of course, these will get you international news (and occasionally national stories from the broadcaster's home state), but you're straight outta luck for journalism local to your area. OTOH, NPR and PBS have struggled to deliver that (as has commercial news media) for the past decade or two.
If you've always wanted to learn a foreign language but never quite had the inspiration to do so, a further option is to start listening to non-anglophone country's native programming, whether broadcast (shortwave or Internet streaming) or podcast. There are many excellent options. I'm particularly fond of German radio's programming (Deutschlandfunk and its variants, the federated public broadcasting model might offer some lessons and learnings to PBS and NPR going forward), though there are others on top of that.
I round things out with text-based news, typically major newspapers (e.g., NYTimes, Guardian), or newswires (Reuters is pretty good).
But yes, the state of streaming / OTA / linear-programmed news media in the US is absolutely abysmal.
To me the bright line of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is crossed at least in spirit when the state seizes a dollar from a taxpayer and spends it on speech, because that abridges the taxpayer's resources for speech by a dollar. "You have free speech but I can take the money you use to be heard to speak against you" is a big loophole.
The number of steps that “Pay Taxes” is removed from “Literally At Fucking Gunpoint” is not as many steps as you might think.
Without limit? If Trump and the Congressional GOP force a bunch of tax-funded in-your-face right-wing propaganda that would be ok with you because "[y]ou pay taxes, which your legally-elected representatives decide how to spend"?
Public libraries do already exist and they are labeled "woke" and "socialist" and are dealing with both assaults on their funding and on their function.
I’m glad libraries exist but a lack of traction if the idea were introduced today would have more to do with the impracticality of them than any political leanings.
My town spent millions on a small expansion to the library this past year. A project that if it was in the private sector would have cost a couple hundred grand at most. I can’t tell how they managed to spend as much as they did.
Still, it's nice that there are third spaces like libraries in the community where you can go and aren't expected to have to engage in any commercial activity. That requires buildings. Our library hosts all manner of groups & activities. I went to a seminar on seed-saving the other day at our library, for example. I've gone to others on the art of making Japanese tea, candidate debates for local races, local author book fairs, Taiko drumming, etc. All of that requires some kind of physical infrastructure.
And I'll be the first to admit that NPR has completely lost its mind, it's losing its listenership, and it needs to be humbled a bit. But audio is much cheaper than video and NPR's remaining listeners will easily be able to make up the shortfall. Meanwhile we're going to see PBS, whose news coverage mostly avoided the pitfalls NPR fell into and who run a lot more non-news programming, take a huge funding hit and resort to even more pledge drives and reruns, while local affiliates in large swaths of the country have to close entirely.
This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and not even throwing out the bathwater.
Absolutely embarrassing for a site like this that claims to value education and democratizing it (and always jumps into threads about childrens education with all of their anecdotally built ideas, of course!) isn't condemning this.
Some things (defense, diplomacy) perhaps can only be done through the federal government. But so many things (national weather service operations, HUD housing assistance, grants for local PBS stations, SNAP benefits) have a largely local or regional benefit. Rather than disassembling these things entirely, why not allow them each to be run by and for a coalition of states (or even cities?) which opt to participate?
You should look up which states/regions/counties provide the funding and which states/regions/counties receive the benefits, it's disproportional. Unironically, unbundling HUD, SNAP, and NWS would probably cause famine in Mississippi.
But it's pretty messed up that presently the places that _were_ willing to pay for these things are deprived of the benefits. If instead we kept things alive on an optional basis, the participating states might get _better_ services and outcomes for a while because some poor red state communities would not be a sink for funds. But also, if the political pendulum swings the other way in a future election cycle, and more places opt-in, then having kept these programs alive in a reduced form would put them in a better position to resume activity.
It will regain its trust, but it has a long, uphill battle to get there since, especially since the months leading up to 2016.
Why do you think that? Do you imagine that the individuals and institutions pushing the idea that the media is untrustworthy will suddenly stop pushing their agenda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca...
The Wikipedia page looks almost entirely about politics and funding.
The actual PBS and NPR shows you're familiar with are generally developed and produced privately, and then purchased by local PBS stations (streaming access to PBS content runs through "Passport", which is a mechanism for getting people to donate to their local PBS station even while consuming that content on the Internet). This (and other streaming things like it) is how most people actually consume this content in 2025. If your local PBS affiliate vanishes, you as a viewer are not going to lose Masterpiece Theater or Nova, because you almost certainly weren't watching those shows on linear television anyways.
The cuts are bad, I just want to make sure people understand what CPB ceasing operations actually means.
If those stations go off the air, who is buying that content?
It's like arguing it doesn't matter if the stream dries up the plants don't get water from the stream, the plants get the water from the ground. Where did that water in the ground come from? The stream!
You're right, these shows aren't going off the air tomorrow. But this does affect the funding for the shows produced by PBS and NPR.
Off the top of my head, two programs I watch that get CPB funding include: Frontline https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/about-us/our-funders/ NOVA https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/funders/
This is one place some sorta "trickle down" economics worked. CPB contributed to developing the content on PBS. Now PBS either has to cut costs by either canceling programs or ordering cheaper content that corporate sponsors like, run more pledge drives, or seek more corporate sponsors. None of those are appealing to me.
Also CPB helps keep rural stations open means all the niche local productions about state history or geology or whatever can happen.
It's a cut to the already strained budget of a wonderful resource. I'd be surprised if there weren't lost jobs and less quality as a result.
Edit to add: Just sentimental but I'll miss hearing "this program was made possible by The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions from viewers like you!"
Xkcd comic is closer to reality. There is a base load to public good and we are about to find out
People would say "should we setup a donation site" or "how can we build a product that saves local affiliate stations money" etc etc etc. Maybe that's still happening quietly. But I just see a lot more doom nowadays in HN comments. (Just a feeling, obviously no data whatsoever to back it up)
Let's bring back those supposed good 'ol days!
What are some valid business models that could successfully fund local affiliates? Knowing nothing of the industry, some initial questions come to mind:
- Is there value in cross-affiliate connections and referrals where a broadcasting association could work?
- Direct donations seems like a filled market, but what about donation pooling?
- Does private equity have an interest in these affiliates and why or why not?
- Is there a product in marketing and branding local stations that appeases YouTube and related algorithms? Would this fundamentally work against the mission?
It’s solid PR to mumble something about effective altruism being the justification for predatory capitalist behavior.
It just becomes hard to believe after the company was sold and the employees screwed over and the customers screwed over and the founders used their gains to financially support whatever authoritarian fantasies they had all along.
Turns out, people who are good at being ruthless aren’t doing so for a secret ethical reason: they’re just ruthless people.
Yeah... I have no idea why HNers seem more negative these days?
We are now well on our way to George Orwell's 1984 dystopia.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/01/business/trump-job-report-num...
> GBH, which produces Frontline, gets $177MM in revenue from major donors and viewer subscriptions.
Given Frontline is a production for public consumption, for public good, it shouldn't have to be financed by donations, it absolutely should be financed by the federal government.
I find your tone (sorry) offensive, in the sense that you DON'T find it dramatic and just plain terrible that CPB had to cease operations, just because billionaires feel it's a waste of "money that could be in their pocket" and obviously they prefer the greater population to be clueless and ignorant.
Me? I am furious. But what can I do besides the usual? Write my congresscritters, call them, write angry posts on Hackernews, donate?
In West Virginia, a state with a population of 1.8 million, West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported 193,687 weekly TV viewers and 85,933 weekly radio listeners in FY 2023. https://wvpublic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WVPB-Annual-...
In New Mexico, a state with a population of 1.8 million, New Mexico PBS reported 720,000 weekly TV viewers in 2024. https://www.newmexicopbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/NMPB...
In Montana, a state with a population of 1.1 million, Montana PBS estimated around 250,000 weekly TV viewers and Montana Public Radio estimated 70-80 thousand weekly radio listeners as of a couple weeks ago. https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-and-regional-news/montana-...
– Nearly one in five households lacks any fixed home internet connection. Many of those rely on cellular data that’s unreliable or capped, i.e. not viable for high‑quality streaming. [1]
– Over 20% of residents, especially in rural and tribal areas, live in broadband deserts where wired speeds of 25/3 Mbps simply aren’t available. [2]
– Among tribal communities, up to 80% of individuals may lack internet access altogether. [3]
– Even for those who can stream, broadband plans often cost around $69/month, and Passport itself requires a donation of at least $60/year or $5/month. [1][4] That may not sound like a lot to us, but it’s a non-trivial monthly expense for a family living in the 6th-poorest state in the US. [5]
Public broadcasting remains vital for people without digital access, whether due to infrastructure shortages, affordability, or demographic factors like age and tech comfort. Streaming can complement, but cannot replace, over‑the‑air reach in New Mexico. The same is likely true for overlapping reasons in the other states that OP mentioned.
1. Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. Affordable Broadband for Every Household in New Mexico. https://www.benton.org/blog/affordable-broadband-every-house...
2. Viante New Mexico. Broadband Internet in New Mexico. https://viantenm.org/broadband-internet-in-new-mexico
3. Native American Budget and Policy Institute / UNM. Broadband Access on Tribal Lands in New Mexico. https://nabpi.unm.edu/assets/documents/covid-19-research/nab...
4. PBS Digital Support. What is PBS Passport? https://pbsdigital.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/folders/5...
5. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poorest-sta...
For the small number of people using it, it’s better to spend the money on internet infrastructure to bring them into the current century. Broadcast tv is one step up from old time radio.
If you were in a place without internet streaming, consider whether you’d have the economic means to pay for Starlink. Not everyone is earning the median Hacker News contributor’s income.
Radio: $20 + $0/month
Pretty much everyone has a cell phone.
Did he?
> As it turns out, the offer wasn’t as generous as it seemed, it’s really more of a new customer promotion.
> The Register pointed out that if anyone goes to sign up for the “free” service, there’re hit with a harsh reality: you have to pay for the equipment.
> But try to sign up for the ostensibly “free” service in an area Starlink has designated as a Helene disaster zone, and surprise: You still have to pay for the terminal (normally $350, but reportedly discounted to $299 for disaster relief, though that’s not reflected in Starlink’s signup page), plus shipping and tax, bringing the grand total to just shy of $400...
> According to the Starlink Helene page, new customers who qualify for free access will be automatically moved to a paid $120-a-month residential subscription tied to the location the terminal was set up for after 30 days.
> Even if you’re a victim that happens to be an existing Starlink customer, if you want those fees waived, you’ll have to file a waiver and then wait for it to be approved. [1]
Not sure why you're taking the world's richest sociopath at his word. And even if he were as charitable as you say (which I obviously don’t stipulate), that would mean... what? We wait for another Hurricane Helene to hit every person without internet access? Then wait even longer for a billionaire to bail them out?
1. https://qz.com/elon-musk-free-spacex-starlink-hurricane-hele...
As opposed to 95% of US homes that have at least one radio receiver? https://www.insideradio.com/inside-story-radios-in-more-u-s-...
Usable digital cell service still doesn’t reach a good chunk of rural Americans.
I’m not sure why an expensive, technically-complicated solution would be an alternative to a free, simple, widely-deployed one.
You’ve framed this as if the disappearance of CPB and its money is basically a big nothing-burger, which is extremely far from the truth.
Source: I work in the system at a level with visibility into these things.
I'm just one person, but I definitely am watching the local PBS over an antenna, and so do several members of my family (living in different households).
The local broadcast is excellent quality, I get a good signal to it, never any glitches, and I enjoy the local news and other programming too.
The PBS budget has been cut by 15%, and the NPR budget by 1%. That's not enough to end either one at the national level. However, local stations depend on the CPB funding for 50% or more of their budgets. (Local stations provide local disaster alert systems and local programming.) There will definitely be local station closures and major cutbacks in the stations that survive. Large metropolitan areas will be the least affected. PBS and NPR will continue at the national level, as before.
The funding cuts are the result of an executive order that Trump issued on May 1, ordering the immediate cessation of all federal funding. Similar executive orders have been found to be illegal in federal court. (Congress had already guaranteed funding for CPB from 2025-2027, and only congress can take that money away.)
However, congress supported Trump a short while later (on July 24) by passing the Rescissions Act, which officially (and legally) ended all funding for CPB. And that's the reason for the current crisis: all federal funding for CPB is ending by the end of this year, which is only a few months away.
These days sending alerts via texting them to phones should be far more effective.
Our local news stations do an amazing job and they don't ask me to donate.
Internet access was down, cable was down, cell service wasn't there or was overloaded 2G that was useless, but I had did have OTA DTV. The local PBS partner station covered pertinent information about what was going on, recovery efforts, when/where to get fuel and other assistance, what kind of disaster relief to expect and when, etc.
Something similar happened to me like 15 years ago, and I just had a AM radio.
When I was a kid in Kansas in the 1960s, the tornado warnings were done with a siren. And yes, we got hit by a tornado, but were safe because we heeded the siren.
It is not a given that they will continue as they did before, CPB's funding mostly goes to PBS and NPR for content, some programs are funded more than other via the CPB.
It is likely PBS and NPR will continue, but not as before, the cuts will impact programming and their ability to buy content that's produced at smaller stations that rely on CPB funds more.
I’d happily donate some cash to keep PBS’s lights on in red states.
https://help.pbs.org/support/solutions/articles/5000692392-w...
Some are a little difficult because they're kind of fractured, like Missouri is a St. Louis link, Texas is an Austin link, Tennessee is a Nashville link, so its challenging to tell if your donation is going to the state in general or just the local town PBS. (May want to check specifically if you're targeting a specific market). Most tend to be statewide portals. However, you seem like you want to support PBS, so here's some links.
Alabama (https://donate.aptv.org/aptv/donate), Alaska (https://alaskapublic.org/support), Arizona (https://azpbs.org/support/), Georgia (https://www.gpb.org/support), Idaho (https://idahoptv.pledgecart.org/home?campaign=1FF20990-A386-...), Kansas (https://donate.kansascitypbs.org/kcpbs/donate), Kentucky (https://ket.secureallegiance.com/ket/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P...), Louisiana (https://lpb.secureallegiance.com/lpb/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P...), Mississippi (https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/donate), Missouri (https://www.ninepbs.org/support/), Montana (https://donate.montanapbs.org/kusm/donate), Nebraska (https://donate.nebraskapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donat...), North Dakota (https://www.prairiepublic.org/support/), Oklahoma (https://www.pbs.org/donation/?station_id=edf8065c-f56a-42f7-...), South Carolina (https://www.pbs.org/donation/?station_id=50ac3de0-09e0-43db-...), South Dakota (https://sdpb.pledgecart.org/donate/home), Tennessee (https://donate.wnpt.org/wnpt/donate), Texas (https://donate.austinpbs.org/austinpbs/donate), Utah (https://donate.nprstations.org/upr/support-upr?gad_source=1&...), West Virginia (https://afg.secureallegiance.com/wvpb/WebModule/Donate.aspx?...), Wyoming (https://donate.wyomingpbs.org/kcwc/donate)
The more important thing is that this is just another tiny step in the death spiral of the United States. Sad to watch.
Purchased using funds from CPB. Most of the grants went to stations, not content producers. But pulling funds from stations will in fact harm the content producers too.
Really the 1960s and 70s were such an insane era we should examine all government programs from that era that are still in commission with very suspicious eyes.
I like all of those. NPR: $300m budget / 42m listeners = $7.14/yr. Sounds like if I donate $5/mo to KQED and $5/mo to KCSM, I'm supporting them to cover myself and couple other citizens?
I don't get what I can do to support PBS - when I press donate on PBS site, it sort of wants to direct me to KQED/KCSM donations again.
Anyone here with a little more time to understand/explain it?
But I was dismayed to see how NPR turned a blind eye to stories like the Hunter Biden bombshell. NPRs CEO started wearing a Biden hat, and openly criticizing Trump. A former NPR employee wrote a well publicized substack article (irony!) that claimed deep, systemic political bias. It’s hard not to agree.
I hope NPR and PBS take a hard look at themselves and come up with some ways to assure political neutrality. Absent that, I have to agree that tax dollars should not be spent here.
digitalsushi•12h ago
One down.
shmeeed•12h ago
alostpuppy•11h ago
tptacek•11h ago
vel0city•11h ago
tptacek•11h ago
I don't support the cut, but I get the vibe that many people commenting on this thread don't know what CPB is.
vel0city•11h ago
Ah, so it's not going anywhere because it's not directly affecting your station. Got it. For many other people it is going away.
This will affect your station though. Lots of stations spent a good bit of their budgets on content from PBS and NPR. While direct federal sources aren't a massive chunk of their income, revenues from member stations is. This will impact the content your local public TV and radio station will get.
glial•11h ago
drozycki•11h ago
Some stations will lose 2%, others 98%.
tptacek•10h ago
drozycki•9h ago
tptacek•9h ago
anigbrowl•11h ago
tptacek•10h ago
Like, for elderly viewers, availability of linear media still matters (something I've learned tediously through serving on a local commission managing our cable franchise). But... that's basically it?
So, back to: this is not an existential threat to PBS or NPR. I think people think I'm being glib when I say the Internet is a bigger threat to PBS (as an institution called "PBS") than this funding cut. I'm not being glib.
mulmen•10h ago
Is the source of that 60/40 more substantial than any part of your anatomy?
> Like, for elderly viewers, availability of linear media still matters (something I've learned tediously through serving on a local commission managing our cable franchise). But... that's basically it?
Ok so you hear from elderly viewers that they care about this content and because you don’t hear from anyone else you assume they don’t exist? Are you really satisfied with that conclusion? Is it possible other listeners just have less time to be involved? Have you reached out to get their thoughts? Why are you so willing to dismiss the elderly?
> So, back to: this is not an existential threat to PBS or NPR. I think people think I'm being glib when I say the Internet is a bigger threat to PBS (as an institution called "PBS") than this funding cut. I'm not being glib.
I do think you are being glib. I don’t care about the comparison you’re making and I think it’s incredibly shallow. By your own estimate this will negatively impact 40% of NPR listeners. The existence of a larger threat is no consolation.
Why do PBS and NPR need to compete with anything? This is a public good, not a competitive business. That’s the entire point.
Does this funding cut somehow help NPR and PBS generate non-linear programming or online content? Of course it doesn’t. This is a bad thing for NPR and PBS even if they continue operating in spite of it.
tptacek•9h ago
bpt3•10h ago
To be clear, I am not in favor of these cuts, but nothing is preventing state, local or private contributions from keeping these stations on the air.
JeremyNT•11h ago
Somewhat ironically a lot of the extreme cuts (this included) only serve to reinforce the status of major blue state metros as more desirable, since they have more resources available to fill the gaps left by federal austerity.
timr•11h ago
If the people in the red states aren't willing to pay for it, it would seem that they don't think it's desirable. Capitalism is funny that way.
I get that you're trying to say that the pie is smaller overall, but the principle still applies.
perfectviking•10h ago
timr•10h ago
Great! It isn't a problem, then. Again, capitalism is funny that way.
mulmen•10h ago
timr•10h ago
Last time I checked, "society" is a concept defined entirely by the behaviors and preferences of the people within it. You may want society not to be capitalist, but that's your opinion.
tptacek•9h ago
wffurr•11h ago
fsflover•11h ago
dfxm12•11h ago
annoyinglawyer•11h ago
JohnMakin•11h ago