When Republican lawmakers moved last year to end taxpayer funding for PBS and NPR, a constellation of media CEOs and experts warned that the cuts would result in the closure of dozens, possibly hundreds, of affiliate stations.
It has been nearly seven months since President Trump signed the bill eliminating $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the predicted newsroom Armageddon has yet to materialize.
In fact, of the more than 1,000 television and radio stations that make up the country’s public media system, only one has closed since the CPB was defunded. A second closure is expected later this year.
This is odd.
They told us the budget cuts would kill us all. No, wait. Sorry. That was net neutrality. The cuts to the CPB, whose chief purpose was to funnel taxpayer dollars into public media, were supposed to trigger a media “apocalypse.” Experts and the brass at PBS and NPR repeatedly warned that a loss of public funding would force affiliate stations nationwide to shut down, depriving rural Americans of crucial programming such as All Things Considered and 800-plus-word reports on the racially problematic legacy of the thumbs-up emoji.
There was that highly publicized analysis last year by the Public Media Company, which warned that at least 78 public radio and 37 TV stations would likely be forced to shut down.
There was also that New York Times analysis that claimed 245 stations in rural communities were “at risk of going off the air.”
NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher, who had no background in journalism before her current role, warned in July of last year that defunding the CPB would cause many “stations to go dark” as soon as next quarter.
We’re currently in the first quarter of 2026.
CPB CEO Patricia Harrison also cautioned that affiliate stations would have to shut down if they lost access to the public dole.
More specifically, Harrison said the cuts would “significantly” affect PBS, adding that the loss of taxpayer dollars “will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas.”
What gives? Where are the mass closures?
As it turns out, and to the shock of no one with any business sense, PBS and NPR are doing just fine in the open market, despite the lack of public funding and even the official dissolution of the CPB. Listener donations and philanthropic contributions have helped keep the lights on. Emergency grants have provided support. Some stations have also implemented austerity measures, drawing from reserves and laying off staff.
In other words, these formerly publicly funded news entities are now in the business of managing budgets responsibly and courting private investment, just like every other outlet in the industry.
The continued success of NPR and PBS comes not long after NPR, on its first day free of government funding, boasted that it was doing just as well as ever, maybe even better.
“WE WON’T BE SILENCED,” NPR declared on social media last year.
NPR host Leila Fadel also said that day, “We will not easily be silenced. We will continue to be advocates for the truth — for facts. We will ask the questions our listeners, the American public, want the answers to, even if those we’re asking don’t like our questions.”
Well, no one is trying to “silence” anyone. As for asking the questions the American public “want the answers to,” that has always been an option. You don’t need a taxpayer subsidy for that.
You certainly don’t need millions in public aid each year when your organization has viable commercial products and a large, built-in audience, as NPR and PBS do.
The truth is that neither newsgroup needed regular government handouts. Maybe they did at one point, but that was a long time ago.
NPR and PBS are fully able to stand on their own because they enjoy advantages most newsrooms only dream of: prestige, brand-name products, and a deep, nationwide network of affiliates.
You were misled when you were told PBS and NPR could hardly survive without taxpayer support. It’s more likely that the CEOs who alleged such a falsehood did so because they enjoyed not having to compete seriously in a cutthroat market. It’s either that or they have no idea what they’re talking about.
The current media landscape is undeniably a difficult and precarious one, as evidenced by recent layoffs at the Washington Post. Many newsrooms, including NPR and PBS, are experiencing a kind of sugar crash following Trump’s first term. The audiences that once boosted viewership and subscription numbers have declined, now tired of frenetic, mostly substance-free “resistance”-style reporting.
Still, things are not as bad as what was predicted last year for the media entities that previously benefited from the taxpayers’ somewhat involuntary largesse. The worst of it for PBS and NPR is that they now have to compete seriously on a level playing field in a highly competitive market.
In the words of Detective Lieutenant John McClane: “Welcome to the party, pal.”
No comments:
Post a Comment