logo
Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think

Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think

Forbes5 days ago
The CEO and President of National Public Radio (NPR), Katherine Maher, testifies during a House ... More committee hearing in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images)
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jeff Bezos Reportedly Eyes Purchase of CNBC as Tech Billionaires Gobble Up Media
Jeff Bezos Reportedly Eyes Purchase of CNBC as Tech Billionaires Gobble Up Media

Gizmodo

time3 minutes ago

  • Gizmodo

Jeff Bezos Reportedly Eyes Purchase of CNBC as Tech Billionaires Gobble Up Media

Jeff Bezos is thinking about buying the financial news network CNBC, according to a new report from the New York Post, which cites anonymous sources. Given the damage Bezos has already done to the Washington Post, anyone who values the information they get from CNBC should probably be worried. An unnamed source told the New York Post that Bezos buying CNBC would 'align well with his interests,' and it would remain a 'neutral voice.' CNBC is being offloaded by its parent company, Comcast, into a new publicly traded company called Versant by the end of 2025. The company's other cable TV networks, which include MSNBC, SYFY, the Golf Channel, USA Network, and E!, will also join Versant. The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that a source 'close to Bezos' told the news outlet that he's 'not considering a bid to buy CNBC,' but the man himself has not commented on the possibility yet. The Daily Beast denial is also just one line with no further explanation. Sources might insist to the New York Post that Bezos only wants CNBC as a 'neutral voice' in his media portfolio, but anyone who thinks Bezos is above tinkering with the editorial content of his media properties hasn't been paying attention. The 61-year-old Amazon founder purchased the Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million and, by all public accounts, didn't mess with the day-to-day direction of the newspaper. But that all changed shortly before the 2024 presidential election, when the Washington Post editorial board planned to endorse then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate who was running against current President Donald Trump. Bezos not only spiked the endorsement of Harris but set about purging the writing staff of liberal voices on the opinion pages. Recently, writers like liberal columnist Jonathan Capehart, TikTok guy Dave Jorgenson, and polling expert Philip Bump have left the paper, taking buyouts offered to people who don't want to be involved in the new era of Bezos meddling. Those kinds of changes are any newspaper owner's right, but the shift has set off a wave of anger and outrage among people who see Trump's presidency as a threat to the future of the United States as a liberal democracy. According to NPR, Bezos lost the newspaper about 250,000 subscribers in the span of a week after news broke about the Harris endorsement, and he reportedly lost 75,000 more as the billionaire announced that anyone who didn't adhere to his particular ideology of 'free markets and personal liberties' should leave the storied media institution. Bezos also cozied up to Trump, attending the president's inauguration in January and more recently meeting with the president at the White House last week, according to CNBC. The dude is apparently all-in on the MAGA agenda of competitive oligarchy. Rumors recently circulated that Bezos may be interested in buying Condé Nast, the media company that owns magazines like Vogue and Wired. There was speculation that Bezos might even just carve out Vogue for his new bride, Lauren Sanchez, whom he married last month in Venice, Italy, a wedding that was met by protesters who didn't appreciate his proximity to Trump. At this point, it's rumors and speculation. But sometimes rumors turn into reality. And if Bezos buys CNBC, there's a good chance it could become the latest political instrument of a man worth over $200 billion.

Data nerds are banding together to preserve government information under attack by the Trump administration
Data nerds are banding together to preserve government information under attack by the Trump administration

Fast Company

time3 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Data nerds are banding together to preserve government information under attack by the Trump administration

The data nerds are fighting back. After watching data sets be altered or disappear from U.S. government websites in unprecedented ways after President Donald Trump began his second term, an army of outside statisticians, demographers and computer scientists have joined forces to capture, preserve and share data sets, sometimes clandestinely. Their goal is to make sure they are available in the future, believing that democracy suffers when policymakers don't have reliable data and that national statistics should be above partisan politics. 'There are such smart, passionate people who care deeply about not only the Census Bureau, but all the statistical agencies, and ensuring the integrity of the statistical system. And that gives me hope, even during these challenging times,' Mary Jo Mitchell, director of government and public affairs for the research nonprofit the Population Association of America, said this week during an online public data-users conference. The threats to the U.S. data infrastructure since January have come not only from the disappearance or modification of data related to gender, sexual orientation, health, climate change and diversity, among other topics, but also from job cuts of workers and contractors who had been guardians of restricted-access data at statistical agencies, the data experts said. 'There are trillions of bytes of data files, and I can't even imagine how many public dollars were spent to collect those data. … But right now, they're sitting someplace that is inaccessible because there are no staff to appropriately manage those data,' Jennifer Park, a study director for the Committee on National Statistics, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, said during the conference hosted by the Association of Public Data Users (APDU). 'Gender' switched to 'sex' In February, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's official public portal for health data, was taken down entirely but subsequently went back up. Around the same time, when a query was made to access certain public data from the U.S. Census Bureau's most comprehensive survey of American life, users for several days got a response that said the area was 'unavailable due to maintenance' before access was restored. Researchers Janet Freilich and Aaron Kesselheim examined 232 federal public health data sets that had been modified in the first quarter of this year and found that almost half had been 'substantially altered,' with the majority having the word 'gender' switched to 'sex,' they wrote this month in The Lancet medical journal. One of the most difficult tasks has been figuring out what's been changed since many of the alterations weren't recorded in documentation. Beth Jarosz, senior program director at the Population Reference Bureau, thought she was in good shape since she had previously downloaded data she needed from the National Survey of Children's Health for a February conference where she was speaking, even though the data had become unavailable. But then she realized she had failed to download the questionnaire and later discovered that a question about discrimination based on gender or sexual identity had been removed. 'It's the one thing my team didn't have,' Jarosz said at this week's APDU conference. 'And they edited the questionnaire document, which should have been a historical record.' Among the groups that have formed this year to collect and preserve the federal data are the Federation of American Scientists' which monitors changes to federal data sets; the University of Chicago Library's Data Mirror website, which backs up and hosts at-risk data sets; the Data Rescue Project, which serves as a clearinghouse for data rescue-related efforts; and the Federal Data Forum, which shares information about what federal statistics have gone missing or been modified — a job also being done by the American Statistical Association. The outside data warriors also are quietly reaching out to workers at statistical agencies and urging them to back up any data that is restricted from the public. 'You can't trust that this data is going to be here tomorrow,' said Lena Bohman, a founding member of the Data Rescue Project. Experts' committee unofficially revived Separately, a group of outside experts has unofficially revived a long-running U.S. Census Bureau advisory committee that was killed by the Trump administration in March. Census Bureau officials won't be attending the Census Scientific Advisory Committee meeting in September, since the Commerce Department, which oversees the agency, eliminated it. But the advisory committee will forward its recommendations to the bureau, and demographer Allison Plyer said she has heard that some agency officials are excited by the committee's re-emergence, even if it's outside official channels. 'We will send them recommendations but we don't expect them to respond since that would be frowned upon,' said Plyer, chief demographer at The Data Center in New Orleans. 'They just aren't getting any outside expertise … and they want expertise, which is understandable from nerds.'

‘South Park' makes fun of Trump over Epstein list, Paramount lawsuit
‘South Park' makes fun of Trump over Epstein list, Paramount lawsuit

Washington Post

time3 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

‘South Park' makes fun of Trump over Epstein list, Paramount lawsuit

'South Park' has already begun making waves with a particularly raunchy season premiere Wednesday night. The episode took aim at President Donald Trump as his administration faces pressure to release the Epstein files and featured jabs about his Paramount settlement. 'Sermon on the Mount,' the Comedy Central show's first episode of its 27th season, repeatedly showed the 'South Park' version of Trump trying to cozy up in bed with Satan.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store