In a bold move, President Donald Trump has followed through on his promise to withdraw federal funding from public media, a decision that will affect the $535 million annual budget of public radio and television.
This action comes in response to what Trump perceives as biased journalism often seen in these outlets, citing their constant focus on diversity and "reproductive choice" stories, and their conspicuous silence on issues such as the Hunter Biden laptop controversy.
According to Fox News, while some may find satisfaction in the defunding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)an organization where I once served on the board of directors and attempted to caution my colleagues about the threat of liberal biasthis move by Trump could potentially backfire. Public media outlets like PBS and NPR could potentially emerge stronger financially and become immune to public accountability.
The withdrawal of federal funds will not necessarily spell the end for public media. Both PBS and NPR, federally chartered non-profit organizations, will continue to operate, as will approximately 1,000 local public broadcasting TV and radio stations. It is likely that liberal foundations such as Gates, MacArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Carnegie, and Ford, which have been instrumental in the creation of public broadcasting, will step in to bridge the budget gap. The recent bull market has significantly increased the endowments of these foundations.
These foundations have been known to provide financial support to public media, including funding for specific types of programming. For instance, the Rockefeller Foundation, whose endowment is rooted in oil industry profits, is financing NPRs "climate desk" reporting staff. Similarly, the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative and the Walton Family Foundation have contributed to environmental journalism on NPR and the PBS News Hour.
This method of filling the federal funds vacuumthrough liberal donors effectively purchasing the type of stories that make the "news"is concerning. As any experienced journalist understands, the decision about what to cover is more impactful and fundamental than the style of coverage itself. This is the central argument in sociologist Herbert Gans' influential 1979 book about CBS, "Deciding Whats News."
Without federal funding, Congress loses its ability to hold public media executives accountable, as Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene did in March. The threat of funding cuts can often be more influential than the actual loss of funding.
For instance, the "PBS News Hour" recently featured guests such as Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, who has been vocal against university DEI programs, Oren Cass of American Compass, a key Trump-friendly policy thinker with close ties to Vice-President JD Vance, and Christopher Scalia of the American Enterprise Institute, author of "Thirteen Novels Conservatives Will Love." This suggests that the "News Hour" is feeling the pressure to diversify politically, which is a positive development.
A more effective approach than abruptly threatening public media funding would be to modify the rules governing it, as per the Public Broadcasting Act. Currently, public media primarily serves liberal audiences in blue states and college towns. Congress should demand that these services demonstrate their ability to cater to the entire country, which would necessitate adjustments in their programming and news content to appeal to a geographically and politically diverse audience.
Annual hearings would be beneficial in this regard. In essence, federal funding should come with constructive conditionssuch as requiring annual reports about the demographics and political affiliations of the audience. This would effectively turn the diversity metrics on their head and hold NPR/PBS accountable.
Simultaneously, local stations, which currently pay NPR dues and contribute to carry "All Things Considered," should retain the $267 million in "community service grants"half of CPB funding. They should be mandated to use these funds to cover their local governments, especially at a time when the closure of newspapers is creating news deserts. NPR listeners in cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas, and Los Angeles already receive more local newsalbeit with a progressive slantthan they would otherwise.
Public media has indeed earned much of the criticism it has received, particularly for its lack of willingness to change, especially in terms of the topics and locales of its journalism. My personal experience on the CPB board, where my criticisms similar to those of Trump were disregarded and I was marginalized, is a testament to this. However, defunding public media, while appearing as a conservative victory, could result in NPR and PBS remaining operational but without any accountability.
Login