At a moment when public broadcasters are staggering from the loss of $1.1 billion in federal funds over the next two years, Boston’s two leading public media executives say that rebuilding trust and community are the keys to survival.
“I think the best way to build trust is from the local community up,” said Susan Goldberg, president and chief executive of GBH, which operates television, radio, and digital platforms. She touted the radio station’s studio at the Boston Public Library as a way for people to come in “and watch us create the content in front of them,” saying: “I think it’s that kind of transparency that can help build back trust.”
Margaret Low, chief executive of WBUR Radio, agreed, observing that her station reaches beyond its airwaves and digital presence through events at its CitySpace venue and through such initiatives as the WBUR Festival.
“There’s something very powerful about bringing people together in a place to talk about some of the most pressing issues of the day,” she said. “And it’s different than the one-to-many that broadcasting is, or even a newsletter is. It’s actually people feeling like they’re part of something bigger than themselves, that they’re part of a community.”
Goldberg and Low spoke Wednesday at a webinar sponsored by the New England chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. The theme of the evening was survival. Earlier this summer the Republican-controlled Congress, acting at the behest of President Trump, eliminated the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a semi-independent agency that provided funding for PBS, NPR and local public television and radio stations.
Major philanthropies are stepping up to offset some of the cuts to public television and radio, Benjamin Mullin reports in The New York Times (gift link). But will it be enough? And what possible downstream effects might there be on local news organizations that also depend heavily on foundation money?
As we all know, the Republican Congress, acting at the behest of Donald Trump, eliminated funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting earlier this summer. The CPB, a semi-independent agency, had been set to spend $500 million over the next two years.
PBS and NPR receive most of their funding from grants and donations by, well, viewers and listeners like you, but their member stations — especially in less affluent and rural areas — are more dependent on government funding. Both national networks have been cutting their budgets in an attempt to help their member stations survive.
According to Mullin, foundations such as Knight, MacArthur, Ford and others have come up with an emergency $26.5 million to keep those stations afloat with a goal of reaching $50 million this year. “We believe it’s crucial to have a concerted, coordinated effort to make sure that the stations that most critically need these funds right now have a pathway to get them,” Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, the president and chief executive of the Knight Foundation, was quoted as saying.
This is ingenious. On Monday, Media Nation commenter Steve Stein asked:
The $1.1B cut to public broadcasting is less than $10 per taxpayer. (BTW, is that PER YEAR or over 10 years?) [Congress rescinded spending that had been approved over the next two years.]
I plan on upping my yearly pledge to public radio in some form. Should I up my pledge to WHYY? Would that help the situation nationally? (My guess is WHYY is doing very well compared to, say, WYSO in Yellow Springs OH) Do you think there will be a mechanism from NPR or CPB that could funnel money from the bigger stations to the rural stations that will bear the brunt of cuts?
Later that day, Nieman Lab mentioned a tool called Adopt A Station. You call up the public radio stations in your state (or in any state), and you are shown a station in another part of the country that’s losing more than 50% of its funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, whose funding was eliminated by Donald Trump and the Republican Congress. Overall, local public radio stations are losing $350 million in federal funding in each of the next two years.
If you call up Pennsylvania in Adopt A Station, you’ll see that Steve’s station, Philadelphia-based WHYY, is losing just 2% of its funding. But Adopt A Station suggests that he consider supporting not just WHYY but also WRVS in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, which is losing 71% of its funding. Elizabeth City is located in the northeast corner of the state, about 45 miles south of Norfolk Virginia.
I tried to look up Elizabeth City at the U.S. Census QuickFacts site only to find that it’s down, because of course it is. Thanks, Elon! But according to Wikipedia, Elizabeth City has about 18,700 residents, half of whom are Black, 38% white and 7% Hispanic. In 2011, about 28% of the population was below the poverty line, including 42% of those under 18. About 64,000 people lived in the metro area.
In other words, it’s exactly the sort of place that is being devastated by the CPB cuts, unlike affluent, well-educated metro areas like Greater Philadelphia — or, for that matter, Greater Boston, where WBUR Radio is losing 5% of its funding and GBH Radio is losing 1%. (GBH-TV is losing 8%, and, among Massachusetts public radio stations, WICN of Worcester is losing the most at 18%.)
Adopt A Station was designed by Alex Curley, who writes a newsletter about public media called Semipublic. The idea grew out of a long, data-heavy post he wrote that showed some 15% of public radio stations across the country are in danger of shutting down, including every station that’s losing 50% or more of its funding. He explained:
I was talking with friends within the public media system the next day, debriefing what is the most significant event in the industry’s history since President Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, when an idea was brought up: What if there was an easy way to connect donors looking to make the biggest impact with stations that were truly at risk?
In addition to volunteer efforts like Adopt A Station, NPR itself is cutting its budget by $8 million and will give that money to stations that are being the most harmed by the elimination of funding. NPR depends on direct federal funding for just 1% of its budget, but a much larger share comes from fees paid by local stations for programming such as “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered.”
Despite these efforts, I wouldn’t be surprised if we still lose a few public radio and television stations over the next few years. But through cooperative projects such as Curley’s and NPR’s, the damage, I hope, will be minimized until the MAGA extremists can be voted out of power.
There is so much awful Trump-related news to make sense of today that I’m going to offer a roundup, though I doubt I’ll attain the eloquence or profundity of Heather Cox Richardson. I’ll begin with two stories that are puzzling once you look beneath the surface — CBS’s decision to cancel Stephen Colbert’s late-night show and The Wall Street Journal’s report on Trump’s pervy birthday greetings to Jeffrey Epstein.
First, Colbert. Late-night television isn’t what it used to be, though Colbert’s program was the highest-rated among the genre. Like most people, I never watched, and what little I did see of it was through YouTube clips. Still, it’s only natural to think that he was canceled because CBS’s owner, Paramount, which recently gifted Trump $16 million to settle a bogus lawsuit, is trying to win favor as it seeks regulatory approval for its merger with Skydance. Colbert is an outspoken Trump critic, and he hasn’t been shy about taking on his corporate overlords, either.
If that’s the case, it seems odd to announce that Colbert’s show will run through next May. That makes no sense if the idea is to appease Trump. If it’s a contractual matter, Colbert could be paid to stay home. Now he’s free to unload on Trump and network executives every night without having to worry about whether his show will be renewed. And for those who argue that Colbert is on a short leash: No, he isn’t. I suspect we’ll learn more.
Now for that Wall Street Journal story (gift link). I don’t want to minimize the importance of Trump’s demented message and R-rated drawings that he gave to Epstein for his 50th birthday. There was a time in public life when it would have — and should have — been a major scandal. But I didn’t think the article quite lived up to its advance billing. Before publication, media reporter Oliver Darcy called it “potentially explosive” and wrote about Trump’s personal efforts to kill it, but I’m not sure that it is.
This morning I feel like anyone who comments on media and politics ought to say something about Thursday’s unprovoked assault on U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla. But I’m at a loss for words. I assume you’ve seen it; if you haven’t, here it is (gift link), along with a detailed New York Times account.
Federal agents are seen dragging the California Democrat from a room where Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was holding a news conference, forcing him to the floor and handcuffing him. He was soon released and was not charged, but this is what an authoritarianism takeover looks like.
I was interested that Noem at least had the presence of mind to lie, falsely claiming that Padilla had “lunged” toward the stage and didn’t identify himself. All you have to do is watch the video to see the truth. All he was trying to do was ask a question. And, of course, Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have picked up on her lies. Heather Cox Richardson writes:
While much focus has been on the assault itself, what Noem was saying before Padilla spoke out is crucially important. “We are not going away,” she said. “We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”
In other words, the Trump administration is vowing to get rid of the democratically elected government of California by using military force. That threat is the definition of a coup. It suggests MAGA considers any political victory but their own to be illegitimate and considers themselves justified in removing those governmental officials with violence: a continuation of the attempt of January 6, 2021, to overturn the results of a presidential election.
Finally, I am never going to mention Noem without reminding you that she bragged about shooting her dog and her goat.
Public media’s last stand
I had hoped that President Trump’s plunge in the polls might stiffen the spines of House Republicans enough that they would not vote to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some of the revenues for PBS and NPR. No such luck.
As NPR reports, the House voted on Thursday to eliminate $1.1 billion in previously appropriated money that was supposed to fund CPB for the next two years. Another $8.3 billion was cut from international-aid programs. The measure passed, 214 to 212, with every Democrat and four Republicans voting against it.
So now it’s on to the Senate, where the Republican majority is slightly less right-wing than the House’s. At this point, though, all bets are off.
A curious omission
There is so much going on, nearly all of it bad, that I’m going to have to leave most of it aside. But I do want to mention that on Thursday I listened to Ezra Klein’s New York Times interview (you can subscribe to “The Ezra Klein Show for free at all the usual podcast haunts) with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who has accused the Netanyahu government of committing war crimes in Gaza.
It was a long, fascinating conversation. Yet there was scarcely a mention of Iran’s nuclear-weapons program and none at all of the possibility that Israel would soon act to destroy it — something that definitely had been in the news lately.
Kevin Dale, executive editor of Colorado Public Radio. Photo (cc) 2021 by Dan Kennedy.
I haven’t seen any explanation for why three public radio outlets in Colorado joined NPR in suing the Trump administration over its threat to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I’m glad they did, but it seems to me that all 246 member stations ought to sign on, including GBH and WBUR in Boston.
When I was in Colorado several years ago to interview people for the book that Ellen Clegg and I wrote, “What Works in Community News,” CPR was perhaps the largest news organization in the state, with a staff of 65 journalists. (I say “perhaps” because executive editor Kevin Dale thought one or two television stations might be bigger.) Some cuts were made last year as business challenges hit a number of public broadcasting outlets as well as NPR itself.
The basis of the lawsuit, writes NPR media reporter David Folkenflik, is that CPB is an independent, private nonprofit that is funded by Congress. The suit claims that the president has no right to rescind any money through an executive order; only Congress can do that. Moreover, the suit contends that this is pure viewpoint discrimination, as demonstrated by Trump’s own words — that NPR and PBS, which also relies on CPB funding, present “biased and partisan news coverage.”
Much of what President Trump is doing, or at least flapping his gums about, is illegal. An example would be his demand that Harvard be stripped of its tax exemption. Such a move would not only be illegal but Trump also arguably broke the law just by saying it, since, as Rachel Leingang reports in The Guardian, “Federal law prohibits the president from directing or influencing the Internal Revenue Service to investigate or audit an organization.” Paging Pam Bondi!
With that as context, I want to discuss Trump’s executive order that PBS and NPR be defunded. I certainly don’t think we should dismiss the threat. The authoritarian era has now fully descended upon us, and Trump may be able to get away with his lawbreaking if no one will stop him. Still, there’s reason to think that public media are in a better position to withstand his assault than are some other institutions.
As all of us should know by now, executive orders are not laws, and Trump’s ability to impose his will through them is limited. Last Monday, Trump tried to fire three of the five board members at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It didn’t go well. NPR media reporter David Folkenflik reported that the CPB filed a lawsuit to stop the firings, arguing that it was specifically set up to be free from White House interference.
Folkenflik wrote that “the law specifically states that the CPB ‘will not be an agency or establishment of the United States Government’ and sets up a series of measures intended to ‘afford the maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.’” The CPB itself said:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is not a government entity, and its board members are not government officers. Because CPB is not a federal agency subject to the President’s authority, but rather a private corporation, we have filed a lawsuit to block these firings.
Reporting for the “PBS NewsHour,” William Brangham said that the heads of the CPB, NPR and PBS have all pointed out that the CPB reports to Congress, not to the president.
Moreover, the CPB’s budget is set two years ahead, and is already funded through 2027. The agency describes it this way: “The two-year advance funding underscores Congress’ intention that CPB have operational independence, that public media could better leverage other funding sources, and that producers have essential lead time to develop high-quality programming and services.”
So what would a cutoff of government funding mean for NPR and PBS? As Folkenflik writes, the CPB distributes more than $500 million every year, with most of that money going to local television and radio stations. PBS and its stations are actually quite dependent on these funds, getting about 15% of their revenues from the CPB.
NPR depends on the CPB for just 1% of its budget. But that oft-cited 1% figure is poorly understood, because NPR-affiliated stations get about 10% of their revenues from the CPB. According to NPR, the network receives about 30% of its revenues from fees paid by local affiliates so they can broadcast “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered” and other programs. In other words, a cutoff would actually affect NPR quite a bit.
By most accounts, large public radio stations that serve affluent communities, such as WBUR and GBH in Boston, would be less affected by the cuts than small outlets and those that serve rural areas and communities of color. Writing in The Washington Post (gift link), Scott Nover, Herb Scribner and Frances Vinall report that stations like WWNO in New Orleans say a cutoff of funding would hamper their ability to cover natural disasters such as Hurricane Ida in 2021.
In fact, public media are a lifeline in less affluent areas across the country, which is why even Republican members of Congress have blocked efforts to cut the CPB, as Republican presidents have tried to do going back to Ronald Reagan.
Although public media asks for viewer and listener donations, they are available for free to those who can’t (or won’t) pay, making NPR as well as PBS shows such as the “NewsHour” and “Frontline” our most vital sources of free, reliable news.
In the short run, public radio and television are probably safe. In the long run, who knows? As with so many of our institutions right now, we need to withstand the authoritarian gale and hope that it blows itself out.
You may have heard that less than 1% of NPR’s budget comes from the federal government. That figure is sometimes bandied about by those who wonder why the news organization doesn’t just cut the cord and end the debate over taxpayer-funded news. The problem is that it’s more complicated than that.
In today’s New York Times morning newsletter, media reporter Benjamin Mullin explains the reality. Public radio stations in general are highly dependent on funding from the quasi-governmental Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and those member stations pay a lot for NPR programming.
In rural areas, in particular, public radio is a primary source of news when there is an emergency such as a tornado or flooding. And many of those stations would not survive a cutoff in government funding. Mullin writes:
NPR can weather the funding cut, … thanks in part to aggrieved listeners: Executives predict a sudden boom in donations if Congress defunds it, as listeners rush to defend their favorite programs. But they will likely give more in big-city markets.
Or as former CPB board member Howard Husock has put it: “NPR may receive little direct federal funding, but a good deal of its budget comprises federal funds that flow to it indirectly by federal law.”
