Former NPR CEO: ‘This has not been a great week for free speech'
'This has not been a great week for free speech and speaking truth to power, without a doubt,' Schiller said on MSNBC.
CBS has garnered criticism for the move, which many took in the context of its decision earlier this month to settle a lawsuit brought by President Trump for $16 million. CBS's parent company, Paramount, is currently seeking federal approval for a merger deal with entertainment conglomerate Skydance.
Colbert panned CBS's move afterwards, calling the settlement a 'big fat bribe' in his monologue and pointing out Paramount's merger effort. Paramount's lawyers had previously characterized the lawsuit, which took issue with CBS's editing of an interview with former Vice President Harris, as 'without basis in law or fact.'
Schiller acknowledged Saturday that the evidence around the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' was 'circumstantial,' but still called the move 'curious.' The network has maintained that the decision was motivated by financial concerns.
'We have to also make note that Stephen Colbert is unafraid to, again, speak truth to power,' the former NPR executive said. 'He does it in a very bipartisan way over the years, and comedy and parody is an important part of a democratic ecosystem.'
Schiller's comments come after a difficult week for NPR, the media organization she helmed for three years. Republicans voted to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofit that provides a small slice of money to NPR's national headquarters and a significant portion of revenue for the broadcaster's member stations.
Schiller told NPR's media reporter this week that she thought the loss of federal funds was inevitable, and that the network should have better prepared itself ahead of the vote by Congress.
'Any evidence-based news organization that reports critically is going to be accused of left-wing bias,' she said. 'Journalism and government funding in the United States — those two things are incompatible.'
Schiller exited NPR in 2011 over her own controversy surrounding federal funding. Republicans at the time were threatening to cut the broadcaster's funding when video surfaced of a prominent NPR fundraiser attacking Tea Party activists.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Top GOP campaign committees dominate Dems in 2025 fundraising
WASHINGTON — Top Republican campaign committees have mostly dominated their Democratic counterparts in fundraising so far in 2025, according to new Federal Election Commission filings. The Republican National Committee — led by Chairman Michael Whatley and finance Chair Vice President JD Vance — racked up $96,419,883 in contributions and has $80,782,884 cash on hand, an FEC filing Sunday shows. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin and finance Chair Chris Korge meanwhile amassed $69,224,921 and recorded a $15,220,609 war chest. Advertisement 6 The Republican National Committee, led by Chairman Michael Whatley, has racked up more than $96 million in contributions so far this year. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post For upcoming Senate races, the National Republican Senatorial Committee's donations tally was $48,625,839, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled down $40,311,986.31 in contributions. Among House campaigns, the National Republican Congressional Committee got $68,955,791 in donations, compared with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's 66,009,100 in total fundraising. Advertisement But the NRSC has just $7,801,380 cash on hand, whereas the DSCC has a $13,509,018 war chest. Still, the GOP committee recorded being exactly $2 million in debt, while the top Senate Democratic campaign arm was $5,250,000 in debt. 6 Vice President JD Vance is finance chairman of the top GOP fundraising arm. Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/Shutterstock The DCCC meanwhile slightly surged ahead of the NRCC with its total cash on hand: $39,717,727 to $37,575,291, respectively. Advertisement The fundraising totals come as Democrats are still 2.5 percentage points ahead of Republicans on a generic 2026 ballot of congressional races, according to the RealClearPolitics polling aggregator. The DNC has been plagued by internal strife since former Vice President Kamala Harris's disastrous 2024 presidential defeat. The MAGA coalition has likewise been strained by tech billionaire Elon Musk's explosive split from President Trump. 6 Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin's organization amassed nearly $70 million so far this year. Getty Images for One Fair Wage Musk went ballistic on Trump and congressional Republicans over their tax-and-spending package signed into law July 4, which the Tesla and SpaceX owner called a 'disgusting abomination,' even going so far as to float the creation of a new political party, the 'America Party.' Advertisement As for the Dems, while also struggling with leadership challenges, their fundraising drought led some party bosses to consider taking out a loan. Martin has said he remains optimistic that they will not have to fall back on that lifeline. Cracks in the blue coalition began to appear with the bitter departure of former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg, who attempted to inject $20 million into primary coups against incumbent moderate Dems. 6 Cracks in the blue coalition began to appear with the bitter departure of former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg. The Washington Post via Getty Images Hogg's 'Leaders We Deserve' group was opposed by Martin, who mounted a pressure campaign on Hogg to force him to bend the knee and sign a neutrality pledge. The 25-year-old refused to comply and soon faced a complaint that his election to the post had been a violation of the DNC's 'gender parity' rules. Rather than go through another round of DNC elections, Hogg stepped down from the role due to 'fundamental disagreements' with his colleagues. Hogg has not been the only DNC leader to split from the beleaguered institution. A week after his departure, two top union chiefs followed suit. 6 The DNC's Martin has insisted the Dems' lagging finances won't be an issue for long. PBS NewsHour Randi Weingarten, leader of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, declined offers to retain at-large memberships with the DNC. Advertisement 'While I am proud to be a Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities,' Weingarten wrote in a letter to Martin. To add to the DNC's predicament, the rise of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has further widened divides in the Democratic coalition. 6 Hogg's 'Leaders We Deserve' group was opposed by Martin, who mounted a pressure campaign on Hogg to capitulate. ABC Advertisement Top Dem leaders have withheld endorsements of the Democratic Socialist, including prominent figures in blue New York. Empire State Democrats Gov. Kathy Hochul, Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have yet to take a stance on Mamdani's bid for mayor, even as lefty members of the party have rushed to back him. 'You can't really have a party that stands for anything when you have a Marxist running, and the three main leaders in New York of the Democratic Party — Jeffries, Schumer and Hochul — are all hiding in the weeds,' said New York ex-Gov. George Pataki (R) on WABC 770 AM The 'Cats Roundtable' program Sunday.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CBS staffers question why Stephen Colbert's show was canceled, calling it a ‘chilling of free speech'
CBS staffers are questioning the motives and timing behind the network's decision to cancel 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.' The late-night landscape was rocked when CBS and host Stephen Colbert announced 'The Late Show' was coming to an end in May 2026, ending the franchise after more than 30 years on the air. 'I am having a hard time believing it,' one CBS staffer told Fox News Digital. CBS said in a statement that it was 'purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' but the network insider wasn't buying it. 'I've lost interest in extreme POVs on either end, but I see this as a chilling of free speech and the timing seems to send a strong message that this is cause and effect for what he said about the settlement,' the CBS staffer said. 'The CBS leadership could have cloaked it somehow, but made a decision not to.' 5 The late-night landscape was rocked when CBS and host Stephen Colbert announced 'The Late Show' was coming to an end in May 2026. colbertlateshow/Instagram 5 CBS said in a statement that it was 'purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' but the network insider wasn't buying it. Christopher Sadowski 'This one action against Colbert will change multiple peoples' willingness to give their opinions or perspectives – that's how I see it,' the staffer added. Just days before the announced cancellation, Colbert took aim at his corporate bosses at parent company Paramount Global for settling President Donald Trump's lawsuit. 'I believe this kind of complicated financial sentiment with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. 'It's a 'big fat bribe,'' Colbert told his audience. 'Because it all comes as Paramount's owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance!' 5 Stephen Colbert on The Late Show. CBS via Getty Images 5 Just days before the announced cancellation, Colbert took aim at his corporate bosses at parent company Paramount Global for settling President Donald Trump's lawsuit. CBS via Getty Images There had been concerns within Paramount that not settling Trump's lawsuit would halt its Skydance merger, which needs the approval of the FCC. The merger is expected to move forward this year. A second CBS staffer told Fox News Digital 'the timing is weird,' suggesting it's tied with the forthcoming merger but didn't rule out the financial reasoning the network gave. 'I mean with the layoffs and everything that's happened recently nothing surprises me,' the staffer said, later adding that the 'timing is definitely sketchy though.' Paramount did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. While many critics, including top Democrats, have speculated the late-night cancellation was a political one, one report shed light on the financial struggles of 'The Late Show.' Puck News' Matt Belloni reported the late-night show has been losing 'more than $40 million a year' for CBS and that it had a budget of 'more than $100 million per season,' contrasting it with network's daytime and primetime programming, which he noted were 'still profitable.' 5 A second CBS staffer told Fox News Digital 'the timing is weird,' suggesting it's tied with the forthcoming merger but didn't rule out the financial reasoning the network gave. AFP via Getty Images ''Late Show,' with its topical humor and celebrity interviews pegged to specific projects, has struggled on Paramount+. And of the three network late-night shows, 'Late Show' has by far the smallest digital footprint on YouTube and other platforms,' Belloni wrote. 'So from a business perspective, the cancellation makes sense.' 'Colbert gets no advertising and late night is a tough spot,' one person with knowledge of CBS' decision told FOX Business' Charles Gasparino. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Belloni said the sources he spoke with at CBS and Skydance Media, the company that is set to buy the network's parent company Paramount Global as part of an $8 billion merger, insist Colbert's cancellation was 'based on economics, not politics,' pointing to the decision to give his show a 10-month extension instead of pulling the plug immediately as evidence. 'Still, two other people with deep ties to CBS and Late Show suspect otherwise,' Belloni said. 'After all, when a network decides that a show is too expensive, executives typically go to the key talent and ask them to take pay cuts, fire people, or otherwise slash costs. That didn't happen here—though with Colbert said to be making between $15 million and $20 million per year, a pay cut wouldn't have solved the problem on its own.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Not even Trump can fire Jerome Powell
It's just six months into President Trump's second term, and speculation is swirling about the fate of his Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. Headlines pulse with the drama of his impending firing, and pundits are debating the consequences — as if such an act were merely a question of presidential will. Yet beneath the spectacle lies a profound misunderstanding, not just of law but of the very architecture of American governance. The truth is simple: the president cannot legally remove the Fed chair at will. This is not political theater — it is constitutional guardrail. As the Brookings Institution artfully explains, the Federal Reserve's independence is no accident or mere convention. It is the deliberate product of decades of legal and institutional design intended to shield monetary policy from transient political pressures. Jerome Powell's term as chairman is set by a statute duly enacted by Congress and signed by a president. He serves a fixed four-year appointment as chair and a 14-year term on the Board of Governors — tenures designed to transcend electoral cycles and partisan shifts. The president's authority does not extend to firing him without cause — and 'cause,' in this context, means serious misconduct, not simply disagreement over interest rates or inflation management. The media frenzy around Trump's desire to oust Powell plays to a broader narrative about executive power run amok. Yet this impossible scenario risks distracting us from more urgent economic realities and undermining the fragile trust in our financial institutions. As key Republicans are currently attempting to point out to the president, this risks normalizing the idea that the Fed chair is a political appointee, subject to the caprices of whoever occupies the White House. This threatens the very confidence that markets and the public place in the central bank's impartiality and stability. It would be nothing less than a body-blow to American democracy. Why then, does this myth persist? Part of the answer lies in the deeply performative nature of modern politics and media in the Trump era. The president's public disparagement of Powell and the Fed feeds into a spectacle that blurs the line between political rhetoric and constitutional fact. For Trump's supporters, talk of firing Powell signals a willingness to challenge entrenched powers. For opponents, it offers a rallying cry to defend democratic norms. But for the country at large, it can be confusing, sowing doubt where clarity is sorely needed. This moment calls for a sober reassessment of how we talk about the Federal Reserve. The real threats to its independence are subtle and systemic: political pressure applied through legislation, undermining funding, or eroding norms that protect its autonomy. These dangers do not announce themselves with fireworks; they creep in quietly and cumulatively. The distraction of an illegal firing narrative is a convenient smokescreen that allows these risks to go largely unexamined. We need to confront the actual economic challenges in this country that demand our attention. Inflation remains a persistent concern; global economic uncertainty looms large; and the labor market is evolving in ways that require nuanced, long-term policy responses. The Fed's role in steering the economy through these complexities is critical, and must remain insulated from political impulse. Historically, the independence of the Fed has been fiercely guarded, even amid the most intense political storms. Since the Fed was founded in 1913, no president has ever removed a Fed Chair over a policy disagreement. This resilience is a testament to the wisdom of the legislators who recognized that monetary policy divorced from partisan politics is essential to economic stability and democratic governance. In the end, the renewed speculation about Trump firing Powell serves neither truth nor the public interest. It is a distraction — one that misrepresents legal reality and trivializes the importance of independent institutions. Our focus should be on safeguarding those institutions, understanding the economic stakes, and fostering a political culture that respects the boundaries of power. Because in a functioning democracy, some walls are meant to hold firm, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
