
Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think
The House's vote to claw back more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has sparked the kind of uproar you'd expect: Outrage from public media defenders, laments about the death of educational programming, and dire predictions for civic discourse generally. But here's the thing no one wants to say out loud — there's actually a rational case one can make as to why defunding NPR and PBS isn't nearly as unreasonable as critics suggest.
This post will attempt to separate the fundamentals of what just happened to NPR and PBS from the noise and the chaotic politics of the moment that led to the defunding — bearing in mind that there have been plenty of specious arguments and claims on both sides of the issue. The contrarian position here, in support of defunding, is certainly not a broadly popular one; that said, there is, in fact, a world where it can lead to a better outcome for all involved.
Incidentally, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of the U.S. adults who responded said they were either in favor of the defunding (24%) or that they weren't sure (33%), compared to 43% who said the funding should continue.
The arguments against taxpayers funding NPR and PBS
To start, we can probably agree on some basic facts about public broadcasting. Like the fact that NPR and PBS were created in an era of media scarcity — that is, when Americans had a handful of TV channels, and news options were limited. That's no longer the case today. You and I live in a golden age of content abundance, where thousands of media outlets compete for attention across every imaginable platform. And that fact, in and of itself, automatically weakens the justification for taxpayer-funded programming, especially when there's no shortage of high-quality reporting, children's content, and arts programming already available.
Which brings us to a second point that weakens the case further still:
For those of you against these cuts — are each and every single one of you currently directly contributing any money to public media in the form of a donation? If not, why should taxpayers be forced to step up and do the thing that you think is necessary but won't do yourself?
One could argue that there's also a First Amendment-adjacent argument to be had here. Setting aside the fact that citizens expect the press to hold power to account (rather than to regularly take its money), forcing taxpayers to financially support certain 'speech' sure seems like a clear violation of individual rights. People also shouldn't be compelled to subsidize viewpoints they may oppose, even indirectly. Else, why doesn't Newsmax or Breitbart get to likewise come before the federal government with outstretched hands?
Of course, critics of the defunding will argue that NPR and PBS still serve a vital public interest. But that argument starts to fall apart when we confront the elephant in the room: Bias.
NPR CEO Katherine Maher (who in the past has called the idea of truth a 'distraction') has defended her newsroom against accusations of bias, saying she welcomes feedback and insists the organization is nonpartisan. But to say that NPR is free of bias is to misunderstand how journalism works — and how the people who produce it are wired.
Bias doesn't have to embrace a particular ideology, nor does it even have to be overt (for that matter, it's also not something that will ever be identified uniformly). Bias can show up in what stories are covered, what angles are emphasized, and what's left out. No newsroom is immune — not NPR, not Fox News, not anyone. Bias, like beauty, is in the eye of those who behold it.
One can also credibly argue that not all bias is de facto 'bad.' Most of us, I'm sure, are biased in favor of things like democracy and free and fair elections (as opposed to their alternatives). Before you insist that public broadcasters occupy the dead center of the ideological spectrum, though, it would probably be worth taking a second look at things like NPR's early dismissal of the COVID lab-leak theory (no longer regarded as fringe) and its past resistance to covering stories perceived as helpful to President Trump.
This leads me to my final point.
I alluded above to the idea of an outcome where all sides are better off after decoupling NPR and PBS from the federal government. That's because NPR and PBS have already built strong foundations through audience-supported models. Their most loyal listeners and viewers have proven they're willing to give — not because they're forced to, but because they believe in the mission. And that is a far more stable and principled source of support than relying on federal funding, which can evaporate with a change in administration or the whims of lawmakers whose priorities often shift with the political winds.
If anything, public media outlets like NPR and PBS might actually be in a stronger position long-term by fully embracing the model they already depend on: Earning the public's trust, delivering value, and letting the audience decide if it's worth sustaining.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House lashes out at 'South Park' Trump parody
The White House on Thursday lashed out at the creators of "South Park" after the bawdy satire skewered Donald Trump in an episode featuring an AI-generated version of the US president crawling naked through a desert. In a no-holds-barred season premiere, the animated Trump character is also seen begging Satan for sex, only to be rebuffed -- in part because his penis is too small. The White House was not amused. "This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention," spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. "President Trump has delivered on more promises in just six months than any other president in our country's history -- and no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump's hot streak." The adult animated series, which frequently touches on hot-button issues in American life, is now in its 27th season and remains one of the world's most valuable TV shows. The season premiere begins with the foul-mouthed Cartman appalled that NPR has been taken off the air by the president, while Randy, a parent, is disturbed by the presence of Jesus in public elementary school. Complaints to the fictional White House receive only a threat from Trump to sue the mountain town of South Park for billions of dollars. Meanwhile, animated Trump is threatening to bomb Canada "like I did Iraq." "I thought you just bombed Iran," the Canadian prime minister replies. "Iran, Iraq, what the hell's the difference?" replies Trump. The episode, which sees the fictional Trump ride rough-shod over many aspects of American life, ends after the town of South Park makes a financial deal with the president that includes an agreement to make public service announcements. The AI generated short that follows -- ostensibly one of those announcements -- shows an overweight Trump staggering through a desert as a narrator casts him as a latter-day Jesus. The short ends with a naked Trump as the narrator says: "Trump. His penis is teeny-tiny, but his love for us is large." - Merger - The episode aired days after creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone reportedly penned a $1.5 billion streaming deal with Paramount that gives the company global rights. The deal comes at a sensitive time for Paramount, which is trying to secure government approval for a multi-billion-dollar merger with entertainment company Skydance. The CBS parent caused a furor this month when it agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit Trump had brought over an interview the storied "60 Minutes" current affairs program aired with Kamala Harris ahead of last November's election. The payment was criticized by Democrats as little more than a bribe to help smooth the merger, with Paramount initially dismissing Trump's lawsuit as meritless. Last week CBS sparked fury after it cancelled "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" whose host is a pointed critic of the president. The network insisted it was a financial decision, but opponents have painted the move as the latest example of American institutions bowing to Trump. hg/aks


Buzz Feed
5 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Voter Regrets Medicaid Stance After Family Impact
As you likely know, Donald Trump signed his One Big, Beautiful Bill into law earlier this month, which includes major reductions in federal support for Medicaid. Ultimately, as reported by NPR, this will lead to about 12 million more people being without health insurance by 2034. It doesn't take much brain power to understand why that would be a very, very bad thing. Regardless, some people still struggle with the concept. One such person is the focus of this text exchange that recently went viral on Reddit: In a retelling of a recent conversation between their brother and themself, this texter wrote, "I mentioned in the family chat that 300,000 kids in Iowa are on Medicaid - they will all lose coverage." "My brother is like: well it least it's not touching Hawk-i, that's what my kids are on," they continued. For those outside of Iowa, the state's Medicaid and children's health insurance program is largely known by its nickname: Healthy and Well-Kids in Iowa or... hawk-i. So, upon learning his children's healthcare is in jeopardy, the brother responds with, "What? They better not." This is all made worse by the fact that the brother, apparently, has been a big proponent of cutting Medicaid. "Dude has been banging the drum for this stupid spending bill for weeks and didn't even realize he was rooting for his own kids losing their insurance," the texter concludes. Mining through the nearly 1,500 comments, a common frustration came from those who have seen stories of people voting against their own interests too many times before. Others questioned the brother's morality and wondered aloud why he was OK with children losing their health insurance (as long as they weren't his kids). "He never had a single thought about other people. The whole thing was about himself," Prosthemadera agreed. "Whether someone else's family will suffer, how many people will die, he doesn't give a shit." Additionally, "I'm 57 years old, no children, not religious. I have never taken a dime in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, or any public programs. I've never even filed for unemployment. But I want my tax dollars to help that guy's kids get healthcare and schooling, and housing. Guess I'm a libtard," weenie2323 said. Elsewhere in the comments, people shared similar stories of dealing with their own MAGA family members: "This is my mom," cheongyanggochu-vibe said. "My disabled brother is on Medicaid, which is supplemented by her state. She thinks that because he gets it from the state, he will be fine (even though the funds are majority federal)." "A colleague of mine lives in Utah, and he meets the threshold for Medicaid; everything is covered. I asked him, 'Say, aren't you worried about this bill working its way through Congress? You could lose your healthcare.' He said, 'What, no, that's for waste fraud and abuse, I'm on the state health care, not Medicaid.'" Overall, little sympathy was expressed. "Medicaid literally saved my life. Fuck these people," MidnightNo1766 added. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments.


Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Donations to NPR and PBS Stations Surge After Funding Cuts
The public broadcasting system in the United States suffered a seismic shock last week when Congress eliminated $550 million a year in federal funding for PBS, NPR and local stations across the country. But public radio listeners and public television viewers have been stepping in to help fill the gap, delivering a surge of donations. Over the past three months, as the prospect of the cuts intensified, roughly 120,000 new donors have contributed an estimated $20 million in annual value, said Michal Heiplik, the president and CEO of the Contributor Development Partnership, a firm that analyzes public media fundraising data. Overall this year, donations to public media are about $70 million higher than last year. The numbers are encouraging, Heiplik said, but far from enough to make up for the federal cuts. Scores of stations in the United States could struggle to continue operating without grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a taxpayer-funded company that has long distributed federal money to PBS and NPR member stations. 'It is still early, and we hope the support will continue to grow,' Heiplik said. 'Next few weeks will be telling.' Some stations have reported a particularly sharp uptick in donations in the days since Congress approved the cuts. Amanda Mountain, the president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Public Media, a PBS and NPR member network in Colorado, said she received 6,620 donations from Friday to Sunday, including 1,000 from new contributors. One donor gave a $500,000 gift. At WUNC, an NPR member station in North Carolina, a donation drive raised $155,360. WMNF, an NPR member station in Tampa, Florida, raised more than $280,250. The funding haul was unusually high for both stations. To help keep the momentum going, Rocky Mountain Public Media has started a $9.7 million campaign to support innovation in technology and local content, Mountain said. The campaign has already received $1.55 million in contributions, most of it from the network's board of directors. 'While this is a massive one-time immediate response from our generous community of public media fans, stations can't plan on this level of increased giving as a permanent strategy to fill the gap,' Mountain said. Republicans had been trying to defund public broadcasters in the United States for decades, arguing that programs from NPR and PBS have a liberal bias. Those efforts intensified after President Donald Trump's inauguration and succeeded last week with narrow votes in the Senate and House that clawed back funding that had been allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Both PBS and NPR addressed the funding cuts with employees Wednesday. Paula Kerger, the chief executive of PBS, said in a staff meeting in PBS' Washington headquarters that she had been talking to philanthropic foundations interested in helping local stations continue operating. Katherine Maher, the chief executive of NPR, spoke to employees from the Bay Area, part of a fundraising trip across California. In the near term, both NPR and PBS are looking for ways to weather the storm. Kerger told her staff that federal funding was about 20% of PBS' overall budget and that the network would immediately freeze open positions and pause all unnecessary spending. Maher told employees that the public radio network would be cautious about hiring, but noted that NPR could not 'cut our way to survival.' There are encouraging signs that the new donors aren't just making one-time contributions. Heiplik said fundraising appeals sent out by stations Friday, the day funding was cut, got triple the response rate of end-of-year requests, which are generally the highest-performing campaigns. And website traffic is up, as donors become more energized. 'It is great to see the community respond as it shows how much appreciation (and need) there is for public media,' he said in an email. 'Now we need this level of support to continue as we reinvent the infrastructure impacted by loss of federal funding.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025