More than a half-century ago, the federal government took a big step toward the media business when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act into law.
Because of that bill, PBS, NPR and other public broadcasters in the United States receive more than $500 million annually from the government-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
That support is now hanging in the balance. The Senate is planning to vote this week on a proposal to strip the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a move that could be catastrophic for radio and TV stations across the country.
Here’s what you need to know.
Would NPR and PBS survive?
Yes. NPR gets about 2 percent of its annual budget directly from federal grants, including from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; for PBS, that amount is about 15 percent. Both organizations also get federal money indirectly, through payments from member stations across the country that receive government funding, though it’s difficult to estimate precisely how much.
The real pain will be felt by local stations in far-flung locations like Unalakleet, Alaska, and Pendleton, Ore. Those broadcasters often rely disproportionately on federal grants for their operations because of a funding formula that takes into account the fact that they have fewer donors and programming sponsors.
What about local stations?
An internal NPR report from 2011 obtained by The New York Times said that if Congress cut off funding to the public radio system, up to 18 percent of the roughly 1,000 member stations would close, with broadcasters in the Midwest, South and the West affected the most. Nationwide, up to 30 percent of listeners would lose access to NPR programming.
For PBS, local TV stations would also bear the brunt of the cuts. And popular programs like “PBS NewsHour” and “Nature” might need to find money elsewhere, such as from donations or syndication.
What’s the argument for defunding NPR and PBS?
Critics of public broadcasters argue that the media organizations have a liberal bias that taxpayers should not have to support.
Uri Berliner, a former senior editor at NPR, argued in an essay last year that journalists at the public radio network had “coalesced around the progressive worldview,” faulting its coverage of stories such as the controversy surrounding the laptop of then-President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s son, Hunter.
Some Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, have argued that widespread internet access has made news coverage from rural stations increasingly unnecessary.
Some Republican critics of PBS have taken issue with content that they believe is too focused on issues of race and gender. Those concerns were aired during a Congressional hearing this spring where lawmakers grilled Katherine Maher, the chief executive of NPR, and Paula Kerger, the chief executive of the Public Broadcasting Service.
What’s the argument for keeping government funding intact?
Proponents of public radio and TV in the United States argue that the organizations provide essential, free, and in some cases lifesaving information for Americans across the country for little cost to taxpayers.
In some places, including remote locations that could be most affected by the cuts, public media is one of the only sources of local news.
In addition to news programs like “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition” on NPR, public broadcasting advocates are quick to extol the power of educational programs like “Sesame Street” and “Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.”
Defenders of public broadcasting also underscore the virtues of vigorous journalism aired by PBS — programs like “Frontline” and “PBS NewsHour” — and investigations published by NPR, such as a recent deep dive into the Trump administration’s impact on the federal health care budget.
What will happen next?
The Senate must act on the proposal to cut the funding, known as a rescission request, by Friday, July 18; the House has already approved it. If the measure passes, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting will no longer be able to make grants after September.
If the rescission is enacted, it would probably not seriously affect any local radio and TV stations until this fall, when the next payment from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting fails to arrive.
Benjamin Mullin reports for The Times on the major companies behind news and entertainment. Contact him securely on Signal at +1 530-961-3223 or at [email protected].
The post What Would Funding Cuts Do to NPR and PBS? appeared first on New York Times.
