57 ms·

Corporation for Public Broadcasting ceasing operations

624 points by coloneltcb 1y ago

AznHisoka 1y ago
Does this mean the end of PBS?
- huslage 1y ago
  No, but it means the end of financial support for many programs on PBS and NPR.
- atonse 1y ago
  No idea. Anyone have a good source of how much of PBS's funding comes from CPB? Update: Just confirmed, no. Federal funds only makes up 15% of PBS's funding. [1] 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-endowment-fund/ https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end...
- dingnuts 1y ago
  For the last twenty years PBS proponents have been telling me that PBS and NPR are mostly member supported, and that the Federal funds couldn't corrupt the messaging because there just wasn't enough of it to matter. So if that's true, I guess not. If it was actually a mouthpiece, I guess so
  - mc32 1y ago
    Yah they also took money from the “Archer Daniels Midland” corporation (not that I’d have anything against organic produce, for example) and the Ford and many other biased endowments —so I think it’d be hard to believe their messaging was unaffected. That or they bit the hand that fed it and the hand didn’t mind getting bitten for some reason.
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  It does for smaller stations that depended on federal funding to operate.
- legitster 1y ago
  Probably not. CPB gave funding to rural smaller stations which buy programming from PBS (or NPR). It will drastically scale back the funding and coverage of public broadcasters, but they should (hopefully) survive. That said, they effectively cease being public at this point. And ironically enough, they have no reason anymore to pander to wider audiences so if anything they will become more "left leaning" over time.
  - tyre 1y ago
    “Reality has a well known liberal bias”, as they say.
    - throw7 1y ago
      Nowadays they say, "Reality is a social construct."
      - immibis 1y ago
        I've never heard this saying.
- tptacek 1y ago
  No. What's really going to end PBS as we grew up with it is streaming. CPB is an vehicle for distributing public funding to PBS stations; only a small fraction of PBS station funding comes from CPB through the government.
- jordanpg 1y ago
  No, but I think it's likely that NPR and PBS will change because of this. A lot of people work there because of its explicit mission to serve the public. As with every other federal institution that's being pointlessly kneecapped, lots of good people will look elsewhere.
digitalsushi 1y ago
When I was a teenager in the 90s an old guy took me aside and told me there'd be a day we get rid of public radio, and a day we'd have our final serving of affordable tuna sushi, and that after that, I'd be living in what he deemed the future. One down.
- shmeeed 1y ago
  Hate to say it, but... username checks out, I guess
  - alostpuppy 1y ago
    I was curious about that as well.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tptacek 1y ago
  Public television and public radio isn't going anywhere, at least not anywhere any of the rest of linear media isn't already going.
  - vel0city 1y ago
    Public television and public radio stations are literally being shut down, now, as per the topic article. Any station meaningfully relying on CPB is done.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      I'm sure they will, but public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations amounts to something like 5% of their budget; they aren't going anywhere. NPR and PBS as institutions are more threatened by the Internet than they are by this funding cut. I don't support the cut, but I get the vibe that many people commenting on this thread don't know what CPB is.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" was so prescient. So sad to see its worst predictions come true.
- McAlpine5892 1y ago
  I am quite literally in the middle of reading this now [0]. This would be great required reading for high school students. Anyone that runs across this comment should put it at the top of their reading list. Most frustratingly, many people know how to be properly skeptical. To use Sagan's example, it comes out in full-force any time someone buys a used car. Never trust the dealer. Everybody knows that. I really appreciate that Sagan refrains from looking down on anyone. It's all too easy to do and I am guilty of it at times. It also leads to a much more useful conversation. Sagan provides hope that we can educate better. Compared to say, Dawkins, who I think has ultimately hurt the cause. Nobody will listen when they feel insulted. > So sad to see its worst predictions come true. The most recent bit of the book I read involved James Randi. I was curious about the guy so I did some other reading. Randi gave out an annual "award" called the "Pigasus Award" to fraudsters and similar. Mehmet Oz received the award [1] three times. Now Oz runs Medicaid! Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. Sometimes it feels like the world has lost any sort of check against gullibility. To paraphrase from the book, many scientists are particularly not equipped to call these scammers out. Scientists wrestle with nature - nature has laws. Trying to call out the Oz's of the world is hard because they don't play by the rules of reason. --- [0] https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 [1] https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-oz-andrew-wakefield-james-randi-awards-20110401-story.html https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-...
  - technothrasher 1y ago
    > Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. I had the privilege of meeting both Sagan and Randi at different points. Along with Paul Kurtz, also sadly gone now, these were some of the most in influential people in the beginnings of the modern skeptical movement. If you aren't familiar with Prometheus books and CSICOP (now CSI), look them up. You'll find years worth of groundbreaking skeptical reading material.
thevillagechief 1y ago
Woah! This stuff is unwinding faster than my priors. I'm going to have to re-evaluate everything I thought true about the US. I just always assumed "strong institutions" meant something here. That it was all a house built on sand is disconcerting.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  Institutions are only as strong as their defenders and supporters - and like countless Empires before it, the USA has bled its institutions dry of credibility and/or resources over the past several decades in a futile attempt to satiate a handful of wealthy extremists. This was entirely expected and predicted once neoliberalism took hold in the Democratic and Republican parties and began rotting out the central pillars of American Democracy and Empire.
  - entropicdrifter 1y ago
    Yep, billionaires-as-termites on the public infrastructure is an apt analogy
    - stego-tech 1y ago
      To be a little less glib or inflammatory: A lot of people are learning that institutions aren’t these bulwarks against hostile actors, but in actuality are collections of people aligned on a given mission. For decades, Americans have neglected these people, cut funding to the helpful institutions, and granted far too much funding to negative ones. This culminated in the vilifying of these pillars and their members by a cadre of politicians backed by wealthy donors seeking change preferable to their personal agendas at the expense of the people, and it takes decades of continuous chipping away to get to the situation of today. None of this is sudden, new, or shocking to those of us who have been staying informed, consuming legitimate news sources, and doing proper research with high-quality reference material. To the average person who merely consumes Cable News or mass media, this may all feel very sudden or surprising and therefore reversible. It’s not.
- Onawa 1y ago
BillSaysThis 1y ago
Unbelievable!
atonse 1y ago
According to this page [1] PBS only receives about 15% of its funds from federal funding. The rest is from donations. 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-endowment-fund/ https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end... So this certainly won't be the death of PBS, as I had feared. Update 2: For the record (easier to respond in this original post than to each response), I am not defending the decision at all. I grew up listening to NPR, and have been on recurring monthly donations to PBS for years. I was genuinely curious about what percentage comes from federal funds. So I am just trying to level-set and get ahead of any hysteria about the actual impact.
- g-b-r 1y ago
  The CEO stated repeatedly that many small stations are likely to be forced to shutdown
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  PBS themselves[1] state that CPB funding is what kept local stations solvent, so without funding, they will likely close. They also state that the bulk of CPB funding pays for national NPR and PBS programs, so those will see cuts, too. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-approval-to-trumps-9-billion-cut-to-public-broadcasting-and-foreign-aid https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-appr...
  - not2b 1y ago
    Rural stations relied heavily on CPB funding; urban stations get most of their funding from donations or corporate underwriting. So big city public TV and radio will survive, but those in less populated areas might go under unless some other source of funding is found.
    - atonse 1y ago
      I agree overall that this is not a good thing for also furthering a knowledge gap between rural and urban areas. But in the age of internet streaming, wouldn't rural areas still have access to stream public radio? Genuinely asking. I tried looking for sources on station audience sizes, alternatives they might have, etc. But it was difficult to find.
dingnuts 1y ago
[flagged]
abtinf 1y ago
Whenever the question of federal funding for public broadcasting has come up in the past, a small army of commenters would always claim that less then 1% of the funding for public media comes from the government. Turns out that was perhaps an incomplete argument.
- jumpkick 1y ago
  It's 15% for PBS, and CPB != PBS and CPB != NPR.
- darknavi 1y ago
  Certainly an incomplete picture. NPR its self may only get a small percentage of its total pie from CPB, but member stations (that license NPR content and what not) that exist all over the country use various amounts. The result will likely be that many small, local, already underfunded local stations will cease to function in their current capacity.
- tzs 1y ago
  For NPR 1-2% of their budget came directly from the federal government mostly through the CPB. That's where the 1% number some quote comes from. However, NPR also receives funding from member station fees, and those member stations typically get about 13% of their budgets from the federal government. Putting it all together about 10% of NPR's budget comes from the federal government. For PBS about 15% of their budget comes from the federal government. Some local PBS affiliates, especially in rural areas, get up to 60% of their budgets from the federal government.
munchler 1y ago
I listen to NPR every day and, honestly, I think this might be for the best. It's going to hurt for a while, but in the end, I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians.
- Pfhortune 1y ago
  > I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians. What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
  - munchler 1y ago
    Ideally, it would be entirely non-commercial, funded by direct donations from the public.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Eisenstein 1y ago
      What are taxes for, then?
      - otterley 1y ago
        The American public's attitude towards using taxes to support media has shifted over the past few decades. There's a perception (right or wrong) that public media is liberally biased, and it's getting government attention now, and so we're seeing the consequences of that.
      - munchler 1y ago
        Things that are supported by a durable majority of the population. I wish that included public broadcasting, but it doesn't. Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.
Pfhortune 1y ago
What's really horrifying here is that, even if the appetite for funding CPB were to come back in 2026, 2028, or whenever, you can't just spin it up again; those people have moved on, those assets are liquidated. You would have to start up again pretty much from scratch. That's why this careless crusade against governmental institutions is so horrific. Institutions with decades of history are being destroyed, and it would take years to decades to spin up something even close to equivalent, in an insane political environment where every public institution is framed as horrible socialism.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  I guess I just don’t find that as horrifying as you do. The market cannot hold public broadcasting accountable, and this is one of the few levers that we have to do so. Conservatives have wanted to defund public broadcasting for decades. What made it finally possible was that public broadcasting made their bias obvious and undeniable. Over the past 10 years, the stark shift leftward has been undeniable — they became what they’ve been accused of being for a very long time.
  - Pfhortune 1y ago
    Could you be more specific? What are some examples of the leftward shift? I hear this bandied about often but with little specificity.
infamouscow 1y ago
[flagged]
softwaredoug 1y ago
This is a better outcome than Trump minions taking over CPB
- tptacek 1y ago
  What would they have been able to do? CPB mostly just funnels money to stations. They don't produce content.
  - the_gastropod 1y ago
    Put conditions on said funneled money?
    - softwaredoug 1y ago
      "If you want CPB money, you'll have to make/broadcast a Trump PSA" seems totally within the realm of possibility. Which might still happen if rural PBS stations now need to take sketchy sources of money
  - burkaman 1y ago
    They could have chosen which specific shows they would fund, they weren't required to give out no-strings-attached grants. They once hand-picked Tucker Carlson to host a new PBS show that they would fund.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      OK, but now they're funding zero shows.
      - burkaman 1y ago
        I understand, just answering your question about what they would have been able to do.
legitster 1y ago
Contrary to the conservative spin over the years, I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available. (For their national broadcasts at least - local ... can be hit or miss). In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. And the PBS kids apps are one of the few things I can hand to my kid worry-free. And the fact that it's money-free and ad-free to access in this modern age is a miracle. The only people who could support this are not just wrong, they are people out of touch with reality. These are people who think public parks are a waste of space. Or that having nice things to share is elitist.
- another_twist 1y ago
  Thats expected. In functioning democracies state media is run for the purpose not profit. It doesnt have the corrupting influence of political money. PBS in the US could be so much better. Just look at what BBC is able to do in the UK.
  - thrownawaysz 1y ago
    >Just at what BBC is able to do in the UK. This is funny because BBC is a prime example of being a propaganda channel for the government of the day. And that's not new at all just look back at the coverage of the Troubles or the miners strikes in the 70s-80s. Yes it's not on the level of CGTN or Russia Today but BBC is not neutral at all https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...
    - fidotron 1y ago
      In fairness to the BBC on the rare occasions they do cross paths with the government this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry I'm not sure anyone that is familiar with this has been able to take what they say seriously since because they are so clearly on such a short leash.
    - 1y ago
aanet 1y ago
Exhibit 39 on the List of American Institutions That Have Been Killed shake my head
rectang 1y ago
I wonder if now, shorn of the need to “bothsides” everything to justify government funding, public radio news will begin to reflect the political affiliations of its donor base more closely.
falaki 1y ago
Every government program should have an expiration date attached to it when signed into law.
- ObscureMind 1y ago
  The expiration date should be 0 seconds after it's signed.
- tbeseda 1y ago
  Including the military. Hell, even the constitution.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    Well, looks like that problem has been solved for you!
- cabaalis 1y ago
  This. And to make it even better: every law should only be about one thing, just the thing it's meant to deal with, and nothing else.
  - tossaway0 1y ago
    I would have them split the laws up as separate entities but let them vote on a package of laws under one vote. I feel the current rules against earmarking has made it so they negotiate less.
- wvenable 1y ago
  Then the obstructionists will just always get what they want.
- jacobsenscott 1y ago
  There are plenty of countries where all government services have "expired". Which one would you like to live in?
- declan_roberts 1y ago
buildmonkey 1y ago
Must see TV when I was little was Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and Sesame Street. As I grew and my interest in what makes the natural world work became more sophisticated, Nova was something I watched regularly. Every one of these programs was supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am saddened by this loss.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  Sesame Street helped black boys succeed in school, whereas the new regime wants them to literally pick cotton. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20170300 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20170300 https://tonicrowewriter.medium.com/did-maga-farmers-believe-they-were-getting-their-black-slaves-back-bcf58de62125 https://tonicrowewriter.medium.com/did-maga-farmers-believe-...
- hinkley 1y ago
  This Old House taught me mortal fear of water damage, and The Woodwright’s Shop taught me terrible, terrible puns. And some woodworking skills. Roy, you absolute legend.
xer0x 1y ago
Don't worry, this will help us consume the new truth easier.
ivape 1y ago
The Taliban used to destroy their history too: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanista-taliban-archaeological-historical-sites-b2500425.html https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanista-tal...
smithkl42 1y ago
> Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,” Harrison said. If that was true, losing the CPB would be a travesty. But as a loyal NPR listener for decades, I've found their stuff lately to be unlistenable. It's Fox, but for the Left, and with a bit more of an intellectual spin. What makes it most annoying is their utter blindness to their own bias. The Fox hosts know that they're taking one side of a story. I've never gotten the impression that any of the NPR hosts are even that self-aware.
- setsewerd 1y ago
  Yeah I've been bummed by how far NPR has swerved leftward, especially since 2016. Even ten years ago I liked tuning in because it was quality journalism that still made an honest effort to cover multiple sides of an issue, even if the topics they chose were primarily "liberal" topics. But yeah, now they seem just as tribal as Fox.
  - buerkle 1y ago
    Not every side deserves to be covered for each story. This is the problem with major media today, they give equal opportunity to people that have no idea what they are talking about. It's like one side says 2+2=4, the other 2+2=5, and media gives them equal air time.
    - atonse 1y ago
      Can you point me to a good source that actually gives equal opportunity to multiple sides of a story? Because I rarely see that (regardless of which side), the whole reason why I subscribe to things like ground.news.
      - colechristensen 1y ago
        Axios does a pretty solid job of covering point and counterpoint on their stories not bias towards "equality" for different perspectives, but actually covering fully the different angles of a story. See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate
onepremise 1y ago
Again, it's all part of the plan, which is referred to as the butterfly revolution, by Curtis Yarvin. Leaders that have literally invested in this platform are buying into this nonsense. These guys have polarized the two parties to a point all weaknesses are surfacing. It isn't about democrats vs republicans. It's just working class vs the billionaires. You know the ppl sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. Literally, they want to break apart the US and discredit the constitution. Unless we come together and carve a new narrative that works. These guys may succeed and you can kiss your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness goodbye, as well bill of rights. Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter the butterfly revolution: 1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change. 2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation. 3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience. 4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term. 5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance. Resources: "The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen... Freedom Cities in Trumps presser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE Billionaire example: https://www.praxisnation.com https://www.praxisnation.com Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel on Ancient Prophecies and Modern Tec, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig A.I., Mars and Immortality: Are We Dreaming Big Enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p...
wbpayne 1y ago
Thank you so, so much GOP! Now children won't have the educational programming from PBS and us adults won't have our PBS documentaries and shows. I'm so very disappointed in our government right now.
ivape 1y ago
They also raised $100 billion from tariffs. No clue where all this money is being diverted to. Obviously not PBS.
- jleyank 1y ago
  [dead]
- nullc 1y ago
  Unfortunately we've been running a massive and growing budget defect since 2002. The government would need to bring in or cut an extra 1.6 trillion dollars per year to get back to balanced in order for your statement to make sense.
imsofuture 1y ago
Superficially this is 'just' partisan politics, but I wonder if it's actually much more of a death knell for traditional media.
nabwodahs 1y ago
Disgraceful.
BeetleB 1y ago
I identify neither as a liberal nor as a conservative, but outsiders will likely see a left bent in me. The thing about PBS and NPR: I just don't have any alternatives! Wherever I've lived, all the other radio stations/channels just suck - liberal or not. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News totally suck. ABC, CBS, NBC mostly suck. The half-good radio stations are just way too biased and make NPR/PBS appear like paragons of neutraltity. I can tolerate losing NPR/PBS if I had alternatives. I simply don't. Conservatives lump NPR/PBS viewers with other liberals. It's generally not true. All my liberal friends declare NPR to be "part of the problem". NPR/PBS viewers are just in another category altogether. They don't have choices. I'd really like to hear from conservatives: Are there any channels/radio stations they like? Their complaint is continually that NPR/PBS is too left wing (which I can dispute but won't). But do they have a gaping hole in their choices the way people like me are about to have?
- jleyank 1y ago
  Fox News. Supposedly they love the thing, although it gets a bit left-wing radical at times.
- unnamed76ri 1y ago
  I’ll listen to snippets of right wing talk radio but it generally doesn’t take long before the exaggeration (Glenn Beck) or Trump idol worship (Clay Travis) get annoying. I like hearing perspectives on stories that I won’t hear elsewhere but in general, I don’t need very much political news in my life. I’m happier spending my time on audio books and podcasts. I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged with NPR beyond seeing conservatives mock some of their silliest propaganda headlines in the past few years.
  - BeetleB 1y ago
    > I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged with NPR beyond seeing conservatives mock some of their silliest propaganda headlines in the past few years. What about all the nonpolitical shows on NPR/PBS? Snap Judgement, This American Life, Prairie Home Companion, Nature, NOVA, etc. Lots of people watch PBS/NPR not for politics, but for the entertainment/educational content.
delichon 1y ago
I hear many things on broadcast media that are contrary to my values, and tend to prune those sources from my media diet. When I am obliged by law to support those sources anyway, I get resentful. So I have been wishing for this since Ronald Reagan proposed it. To me the bright line of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is crossed at least in spirit when the state seizes a dollar from a taxpayer and spends it on speech, because that abridges the taxpayer's resources for speech by a dollar. "You have free speech but I can take the money you use to be heard to speak against you" is a big loophole.
- bix6 1y ago
  So the government should just not say anything? Let’s just get all our news from X, the famously truthful platform!
  - jleyank 1y ago
    And balanced. Don't forget balanced.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawa14223 1y ago
    Yes the government should just not say anything but this is not dependent on X existing or not existing.
    - bix6 1y ago
      So the current government will stop talking as well then?
      - throwawa14223 1y ago
        This is a step towards that which is a step in the right direction.
  - 1y ago
kianN 1y ago
I think the children's programming is a really undiscussed aspect of this. Some investments don't have immediately measurable outcomes. But as someone whose parents worked long hours growing up, I'm really grateful that my exposure to television was PBS rather than cable children's shows.
- ivape 1y ago
  If your parents couldn't afford cable, then you couldn't get round the clock children's content from Nickelodeon. Your content during day time would have been stuff like the Maury Show, all the Judge shows, soap operas, and day time talk shows. PBS would have been the thing that offered the free children's content.
breakyerself 1y ago
I can't fucking stand these Republican fucks
qrush 1y ago
A good day to make sure you're a member of your local public media station and supporting them directly.
UncleOxidant 1y ago
I'm pretty certain that if public libraries didn't already exist and someone proposed the idea now it would be labeled "woke" and "socialist" and not get anywhere. We're in a very weird era, but pendulums swing and this too shall pass (in the meantime lots of damage is being done).
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  There's a reason public libraries are under attack, and it's this.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > I'm pretty certain that if public libraries didn't already exist and someone proposed the idea now it would be labeled "woke" and "socialist" and not get anywhere. Public libraries do already exist and they are labeled "woke" and "socialist" and are dealing with both assaults on their funding and on their function.
  - UncleOxidant 1y ago
    True. I'm fortunate to live in a community that funds it's public libraries well, but I do know that downstate there are rural communities that have completely defunded theirs. I just don't think the idea of public libraries would get any traction now given how far to the right we've gone.
    - unnamed76ri 1y ago
      You don’t think it might have something to do with the Internet and having access to all of the knowledge in the world on your phone? I’m glad libraries exist but a lack of traction if the idea were introduced today would have more to do with the impracticality of them than any political leanings. My town spent millions on a small expansion to the library this past year. A project that if it was in the private sector would have cost a couple hundred grand at most. I can’t tell how they managed to spend as much as they did.
bentt 1y ago
This is sad but the US is too diverse to have a single source of public broadcasting. It was always destined to end like this.
supplied_demand 1y ago
I'm sure the elimination of free, educational content will be great for the working class.
bbanyc 1y ago
When Congress passed the CPB defunding bill, the Republican sponsors paraded around the most deranged takes to air on NPR in the last few years and asked, why should our tax dollars keep going to this? And I'll be the first to admit that NPR has completely lost its mind, it's losing its listenership, and it needs to be humbled a bit. But audio is much cheaper than video and NPR's remaining listeners will easily be able to make up the shortfall. Meanwhile we're going to see PBS, whose news coverage mostly avoided the pitfalls NPR fell into and who run a lot more non-news programming, take a huge funding hit and resort to even more pledge drives and reruns, while local affiliates in large swaths of the country have to close entirely. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and not even throwing out the bathwater.
SV_BubbleTime 1y ago
Am I mistaking that repeatedly CBP claimed that they were only minority government funded?
- rgblambda 1y ago
  You might be mistaking CBP for PBS or NPR.
dfilppi 1y ago
[dead]
throwawayohio 1y ago
Commenters in this thread citing NPR as a reason that dollars shouldn't go towards helping kids learn how to count and not be antisocial is the kind of win right wing media could only dream about a decade or so ago. Absolutely embarrassing for a site like this that claims to value education and democratizing it (and always jumps into threads about childrens education with all of their anecdotally built ideas, of course!) isn't condemning this.
abeppu 1y ago
As with many things, I wonder if we should start unbundling services the federal government provides. If many states like public broadcasting, what if a pool of states were to opt-in to continuing to fund it (and decide whether to limit it to supporting stations in those states)? Some things (defense, diplomacy) perhaps can only be done through the federal government. But so many things (national weather service operations, HUD housing assistance, grants for local PBS stations, SNAP benefits) have a largely local or regional benefit. Rather than disassembling these things entirely, why not allow them each to be run by and for a coalition of states (or even cities?) which opt to participate?
- duped 1y ago
  > But so many things (national weather service operations, HUD housing assistance, grants for local PBS stations, SNAP benefits) have a largely local or regional benefit. You should look up which states/regions/counties provide the funding and which states/regions/counties receive the benefits, it's disproportional. Unironically, unbundling HUD, SNAP, and NWS would probably cause famine in Mississippi.
  - abeppu 1y ago
    Oh I'm acutely aware that my taxes have been subsidizing people in red states that call me a slur. But it's pretty messed up that presently the places that _were_ willing to pay for these things are deprived of the benefits. If instead we kept things alive on an optional basis, the participating states might get _better_ services and outcomes for a while because some poor red state communities would not be a sink for funds. But also, if the political pendulum swings the other way in a future election cycle, and more places opt-in, then having kept these programs alive in a reduced form would put them in a better position to resume activity.
  - subsistence234 1y ago
    the disproportionately black american mississippi?
wnevets 1y ago
The amount of damage trump and musk have done this is country is absolutely criminal.
declan_roberts 1y ago
It's a terrible time to be convincing the American public that the media is trustworthy. It will regain its trust, but it has a long, uphill battle to get there since, especially since the months leading up to 2016.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > It will regain its trust, but it has a long, uphill battle to get there since, especially since the months leading up to 2016. Why do you think that? Do you imagine that the individuals and institutions pushing the idea that the media is untrustworthy will suddenly stop pushing their agenda?
aagha 1y ago
Turns out elections have consequences.
mring33621 1y ago
[flagged]
neilv 1y ago
I certainly remember hearing the name many times, on good TV programming, so am surprised that the Wikipedia article doesn't talk much about the CPB's impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca... The Wikipedia page looks almost entirely about politics and funding.
tptacek 1y ago
This is a giant thread full of people lamenting the demise of public broadcasting so it seems like someone should write the comment that points out that CPB doesn't do PBS programming. They don't develop content. They're a grantmaking organization that manages the distribution of the congressional PBS appropriation. The actual PBS and NPR shows you're familiar with are generally developed and produced privately, and then purchased by local PBS stations (streaming access to PBS content runs through "Passport", which is a mechanism for getting people to donate to their local PBS station even while consuming that content on the Internet). This (and other streaming things like it) is how most people actually consume this content in 2025. If your local PBS affiliate vanishes, you as a viewer are not going to lose Masterpiece Theater or Nova, because you almost certainly weren't watching those shows on linear television anyways. The cuts are bad, I just want to make sure people understand what CPB ceasing operations actually means.
- kyo_gisors 1y ago
  [dead]
- deadbabe 1y ago
  I mean you kind of made it sound not too bad at all.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- hyperpape 1y ago
  This is useful, though it leaves open the question of what it means in practice that the grant-making organization is disappearing.
- vel0city 1y ago
  > and then purchased by local PBS stations If those stations go off the air, who is buying that content? It's like arguing it doesn't matter if the stream dries up the plants don't get water from the stream, the plants get the water from the ground. Where did that water in the ground come from? The stream! You're right, these shows aren't going off the air tomorrow. But this does affect the funding for the shows produced by PBS and NPR.
randcraw 1y ago
With the inevitable cutbacks coming to NPR, I wonder how big a hit classical music will take. NPR delivers 95% of the classical music that airs in America, much of which comes from small market stations which will be the first to die with the end of CPB.
- gazpachotron 1y ago
  [dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
excalibur 1y ago
Coming soon to a Tiny Desk Concert near you: Ticketmaster!
devwastaken 1y ago
a corrupt government would have appropriated it for propaganda. instead an old and out of use tax payer forced program is being finally put to rest.
outside1234 1y ago
Trump sucks
none_to_remain 1y ago
I recall NPR throwing a fit over getting a "state media" label on Twitter.
nemo44x 1y ago
Good it’s a completely outdated concept. There’s no barrier to producing and distributing content today. That public tax dollars go to a place where partisans distribute it to their favorite projects is a 1960s era concept that needs to die. Really the 1960s and 70s were such an insane era we should examine all government programs from that era that are still in commission with very suspicious eyes.
wkoszek 1y ago
From Claude -> Notable Programs They Fund: Public television shows like Sesame Street, NOVA, PBS NewsHour, and Masterpiece, as well as NPR programming like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I like all of those. NPR: $300m budget / 42m listeners = $7.14/yr. Sounds like if I donate $5/mo to KQED and $5/mo to KCSM, I'm supporting them to cover myself and couple other citizens? I don't get what I can do to support PBS - when I press donate on PBS site, it sort of wants to direct me to KQED/KCSM donations again. Anyone here with a little more time to understand/explain it?
- staticautomatic 1y ago
  Basically, you donate to a PBS member station, and the station uses at least some portion your money to pay PBS dues.
EverydayBalloon 1y ago
[dead]
RickJWagner 1y ago
I loved many NPR / PBS creations, like “Car Talk”. What a great show. But I was dismayed to see how NPR turned a blind eye to stories like the Hunter Biden bombshell. NPRs CEO started wearing a Biden hat, and openly criticizing Trump. A former NPR employee wrote a well publicized substack article (irony!) that claimed deep, systemic political bias. It’s hard not to agree. I hope NPR and PBS take a hard look at themselves and come up with some ways to assure political neutrality. Absent that, I have to agree that tax dollars should not be spent here.
ashoeafoot 1y ago
One has to see the positives. After the isolationist, fiscal conservatives caused their great depression , they turn for one generation into fishes. Any public discussion, mouth opens, brain reminds them of the backlash they will get for what they caused, no sound escapes, mouth closes. Fishes.
Blackstrat 1y ago
Very simple question, which I've not seen answered anywhere: with all the media options available to consumers today, why should US taxpayers be paying for any entity like the CPB? If they can't compete in the market, go out of business.

624 points by coloneltcb 1y ago

AznHisoka 1y ago

Does this mean the end of PBS?

huslage 1y ago
No, but it means the end of financial support for many programs on PBS and NPR.
atonse 1y ago
No idea. Anyone have a good source of how much of PBS's funding comes from CPB? Update: Just confirmed, no. Federal funds only makes up 15% of PBS's funding. [1] 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-endowment-fund/ https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end...
dingnuts 1y ago
For the last twenty years PBS proponents have been telling me that PBS and NPR are mostly member supported, and that the Federal funds couldn't corrupt the messaging because there just wasn't enough of it to matter. So if that's true, I guess not. If it was actually a mouthpiece, I guess so
- mc32 1y ago
  Yah they also took money from the “Archer Daniels Midland” corporation (not that I’d have anything against organic produce, for example) and the Ford and many other biased endowments —so I think it’d be hard to believe their messaging was unaffected. That or they bit the hand that fed it and the hand didn’t mind getting bitten for some reason.
oldpersonintx2 1y ago
[dead]
heavyset_go 1y ago
It does for smaller stations that depended on federal funding to operate.
legitster 1y ago
Probably not. CPB gave funding to rural smaller stations which buy programming from PBS (or NPR). It will drastically scale back the funding and coverage of public broadcasters, but they should (hopefully) survive. That said, they effectively cease being public at this point. And ironically enough, they have no reason anymore to pander to wider audiences so if anything they will become more "left leaning" over time.
- tyre 1y ago
  “Reality has a well known liberal bias”, as they say.
  - throw7 1y ago
    Nowadays they say, "Reality is a social construct."
    - immibis 1y ago
      I've never heard this saying.
tptacek 1y ago
No. What's really going to end PBS as we grew up with it is streaming. CPB is an vehicle for distributing public funding to PBS stations; only a small fraction of PBS station funding comes from CPB through the government.
jordanpg 1y ago
No, but I think it's likely that NPR and PBS will change because of this. A lot of people work there because of its explicit mission to serve the public. As with every other federal institution that's being pointlessly kneecapped, lots of good people will look elsewhere.

digitalsushi 1y ago

When I was a teenager in the 90s an old guy took me aside and told me there'd be a day we get rid of public radio, and a day we'd have our final serving of affordable tuna sushi, and that after that, I'd be living in what he deemed the future. One down.

shmeeed 1y ago
Hate to say it, but... username checks out, I guess
- alostpuppy 1y ago
  I was curious about that as well.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 1y ago
Public television and public radio isn't going anywhere, at least not anywhere any of the rest of linear media isn't already going.
- vel0city 1y ago
  Public television and public radio stations are literally being shut down, now, as per the topic article. Any station meaningfully relying on CPB is done.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    I'm sure they will, but public funding for my local NPR and PBS stations amounts to something like 5% of their budget; they aren't going anywhere. NPR and PBS as institutions are more threatened by the Internet than they are by this funding cut. I don't support the cut, but I get the vibe that many people commenting on this thread don't know what CPB is.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" was so prescient. So sad to see its worst predictions come true.

McAlpine5892 1y ago
I am quite literally in the middle of reading this now [0]. This would be great required reading for high school students. Anyone that runs across this comment should put it at the top of their reading list. Most frustratingly, many people know how to be properly skeptical. To use Sagan's example, it comes out in full-force any time someone buys a used car. Never trust the dealer. Everybody knows that. I really appreciate that Sagan refrains from looking down on anyone. It's all too easy to do and I am guilty of it at times. It also leads to a much more useful conversation. Sagan provides hope that we can educate better. Compared to say, Dawkins, who I think has ultimately hurt the cause. Nobody will listen when they feel insulted. > So sad to see its worst predictions come true. The most recent bit of the book I read involved James Randi. I was curious about the guy so I did some other reading. Randi gave out an annual "award" called the "Pigasus Award" to fraudsters and similar. Mehmet Oz received the award [1] three times. Now Oz runs Medicaid! Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. Sometimes it feels like the world has lost any sort of check against gullibility. To paraphrase from the book, many scientists are particularly not equipped to call these scammers out. Scientists wrestle with nature - nature has laws. Trying to call out the Oz's of the world is hard because they don't play by the rules of reason. --- [0] https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 [1] https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-oz-andrew-wakefield-james-randi-awards-20110401-story.html https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2011-apr-01-la-heb-dr-...
- technothrasher 1y ago
  > Sadly, we've lost Sagan and Randi. I had the privilege of meeting both Sagan and Randi at different points. Along with Paul Kurtz, also sadly gone now, these were some of the most in influential people in the beginnings of the modern skeptical movement. If you aren't familiar with Prometheus books and CSICOP (now CSI), look them up. You'll find years worth of groundbreaking skeptical reading material.

thevillagechief 1y ago

Woah! This stuff is unwinding faster than my priors. I'm going to have to re-evaluate everything I thought true about the US. I just always assumed "strong institutions" meant something here. That it was all a house built on sand is disconcerting.

stego-tech 1y ago
Institutions are only as strong as their defenders and supporters - and like countless Empires before it, the USA has bled its institutions dry of credibility and/or resources over the past several decades in a futile attempt to satiate a handful of wealthy extremists. This was entirely expected and predicted once neoliberalism took hold in the Democratic and Republican parties and began rotting out the central pillars of American Democracy and Empire.
- entropicdrifter 1y ago
  Yep, billionaires-as-termites on the public infrastructure is an apt analogy
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    To be a little less glib or inflammatory: A lot of people are learning that institutions aren’t these bulwarks against hostile actors, but in actuality are collections of people aligned on a given mission. For decades, Americans have neglected these people, cut funding to the helpful institutions, and granted far too much funding to negative ones. This culminated in the vilifying of these pillars and their members by a cadre of politicians backed by wealthy donors seeking change preferable to their personal agendas at the expense of the people, and it takes decades of continuous chipping away to get to the situation of today. None of this is sudden, new, or shocking to those of us who have been staying informed, consuming legitimate news sources, and doing proper research with high-quality reference material. To the average person who merely consumes Cable News or mass media, this may all feel very sudden or surprising and therefore reversible. It’s not.
Onawa 1y ago

BillSaysThis 1y ago

Unbelievable!

atonse 1y ago

According to this page [1] PBS only receives about 15% of its funds from federal funding. The rest is from donations. 1: https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-endowment-fund/ https://foundation.pbs.org/ways-to-give/gifts-to-the-pbs-end... So this certainly won't be the death of PBS, as I had feared. Update 2: For the record (easier to respond in this original post than to each response), I am not defending the decision at all. I grew up listening to NPR, and have been on recurring monthly donations to PBS for years. I was genuinely curious about what percentage comes from federal funds. So I am just trying to level-set and get ahead of any hysteria about the actual impact.

g-b-r 1y ago
The CEO stated repeatedly that many small stations are likely to be forced to shutdown
heavyset_go 1y ago
PBS themselves[1] state that CPB funding is what kept local stations solvent, so without funding, they will likely close. They also state that the bulk of CPB funding pays for national NPR and PBS programs, so those will see cuts, too. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-approval-to-trumps-9-billion-cut-to-public-broadcasting-and-foreign-aid https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-gives-final-appr...
- not2b 1y ago
  Rural stations relied heavily on CPB funding; urban stations get most of their funding from donations or corporate underwriting. So big city public TV and radio will survive, but those in less populated areas might go under unless some other source of funding is found.
  - atonse 1y ago
    I agree overall that this is not a good thing for also furthering a knowledge gap between rural and urban areas. But in the age of internet streaming, wouldn't rural areas still have access to stream public radio? Genuinely asking. I tried looking for sources on station audience sizes, alternatives they might have, etc. But it was difficult to find.

dingnuts 1y ago

[flagged]

abtinf 1y ago

Whenever the question of federal funding for public broadcasting has come up in the past, a small army of commenters would always claim that less then 1% of the funding for public media comes from the government. Turns out that was perhaps an incomplete argument.

jumpkick 1y ago
It's 15% for PBS, and CPB != PBS and CPB != NPR.
darknavi 1y ago
Certainly an incomplete picture. NPR its self may only get a small percentage of its total pie from CPB, but member stations (that license NPR content and what not) that exist all over the country use various amounts. The result will likely be that many small, local, already underfunded local stations will cease to function in their current capacity.
tzs 1y ago
For NPR 1-2% of their budget came directly from the federal government mostly through the CPB. That's where the 1% number some quote comes from. However, NPR also receives funding from member station fees, and those member stations typically get about 13% of their budgets from the federal government. Putting it all together about 10% of NPR's budget comes from the federal government. For PBS about 15% of their budget comes from the federal government. Some local PBS affiliates, especially in rural areas, get up to 60% of their budgets from the federal government.

munchler 1y ago

I listen to NPR every day and, honestly, I think this might be for the best. It's going to hurt for a while, but in the end, I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians.

Pfhortune 1y ago
> I think public broadcasting will be stronger when it stands on its own without interference from politicians. What does the "public" in "public broadcasting" mean to you?
- munchler 1y ago
  Ideally, it would be entirely non-commercial, funded by direct donations from the public.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    What are taxes for, then?
    - otterley 1y ago
      The American public's attitude towards using taxes to support media has shifted over the past few decades. There's a perception (right or wrong) that public media is liberally biased, and it's getting government attention now, and so we're seeing the consequences of that.
    - munchler 1y ago
      Things that are supported by a durable majority of the population. I wish that included public broadcasting, but it doesn't. Personally, I'm tired of hearing conservatives whine about public broadcasting. This will at least shut them up for good.

Pfhortune 1y ago

What's really horrifying here is that, even if the appetite for funding CPB were to come back in 2026, 2028, or whenever, you can't just spin it up again; those people have moved on, those assets are liquidated. You would have to start up again pretty much from scratch. That's why this careless crusade against governmental institutions is so horrific. Institutions with decades of history are being destroyed, and it would take years to decades to spin up something even close to equivalent, in an insane political environment where every public institution is framed as horrible socialism.

frumplestlatz 1y ago
I guess I just don’t find that as horrifying as you do. The market cannot hold public broadcasting accountable, and this is one of the few levers that we have to do so. Conservatives have wanted to defund public broadcasting for decades. What made it finally possible was that public broadcasting made their bias obvious and undeniable. Over the past 10 years, the stark shift leftward has been undeniable — they became what they’ve been accused of being for a very long time.
- Pfhortune 1y ago
  Could you be more specific? What are some examples of the leftward shift? I hear this bandied about often but with little specificity.

infamouscow 1y ago

[flagged]

softwaredoug 1y ago

This is a better outcome than Trump minions taking over CPB

tptacek 1y ago
What would they have been able to do? CPB mostly just funnels money to stations. They don't produce content.
- the_gastropod 1y ago
  Put conditions on said funneled money?
  - softwaredoug 1y ago
    "If you want CPB money, you'll have to make/broadcast a Trump PSA" seems totally within the realm of possibility. Which might still happen if rural PBS stations now need to take sketchy sources of money
- burkaman 1y ago
  They could have chosen which specific shows they would fund, they weren't required to give out no-strings-attached grants. They once hand-picked Tucker Carlson to host a new PBS show that they would fund.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    OK, but now they're funding zero shows.
    - burkaman 1y ago
      I understand, just answering your question about what they would have been able to do.

legitster 1y ago

Contrary to the conservative spin over the years, I have found public broadcasting to be one of the least biased sources of headline news and information available. (For their national broadcasts at least - local ... can be hit or miss). In particular, their kids programming is the absolute best. Nothing flashy or exciting, but it's laser focused on education and has zero agenda. And the PBS kids apps are one of the few things I can hand to my kid worry-free. And the fact that it's money-free and ad-free to access in this modern age is a miracle. The only people who could support this are not just wrong, they are people out of touch with reality. These are people who think public parks are a waste of space. Or that having nice things to share is elitist.

another_twist 1y ago
Thats expected. In functioning democracies state media is run for the purpose not profit. It doesnt have the corrupting influence of political money. PBS in the US could be so much better. Just look at what BBC is able to do in the UK.
- thrownawaysz 1y ago
  >Just at what BBC is able to do in the UK. This is funny because BBC is a prime example of being a propaganda channel for the government of the day. And that's not new at all just look back at the coverage of the Troubles or the miners strikes in the 70s-80s. Yes it's not on the level of CGTN or Russia Today but BBC is not neutral at all https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-...
  - fidotron 1y ago
    In fairness to the BBC on the rare occasions they do cross paths with the government this happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry I'm not sure anyone that is familiar with this has been able to take what they say seriously since because they are so clearly on such a short leash.
  - 1y ago

aanet 1y ago

Exhibit 39 on the List of American Institutions That Have Been Killed shake my head

rectang 1y ago

I wonder if now, shorn of the need to “bothsides” everything to justify government funding, public radio news will begin to reflect the political affiliations of its donor base more closely.

falaki 1y ago

Every government program should have an expiration date attached to it when signed into law.

ObscureMind 1y ago
The expiration date should be 0 seconds after it's signed.
tbeseda 1y ago
Including the military. Hell, even the constitution.
- mcphage 1y ago
  Well, looks like that problem has been solved for you!
cabaalis 1y ago
This. And to make it even better: every law should only be about one thing, just the thing it's meant to deal with, and nothing else.
- tossaway0 1y ago
  I would have them split the laws up as separate entities but let them vote on a package of laws under one vote. I feel the current rules against earmarking has made it so they negotiate less.
wvenable 1y ago
Then the obstructionists will just always get what they want.
jacobsenscott 1y ago
There are plenty of countries where all government services have "expired". Which one would you like to live in?
declan_roberts 1y ago

buildmonkey 1y ago

Must see TV when I was little was Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and Sesame Street. As I grew and my interest in what makes the natural world work became more sophisticated, Nova was something I watched regularly. Every one of these programs was supported by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I am saddened by this loss.

jeffbee 1y ago
Sesame Street helped black boys succeed in school, whereas the new regime wants them to literally pick cotton. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20170300 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/app.20170300 https://tonicrowewriter.medium.com/did-maga-farmers-believe-they-were-getting-their-black-slaves-back-bcf58de62125 https://tonicrowewriter.medium.com/did-maga-farmers-believe-...
hinkley 1y ago
This Old House taught me mortal fear of water damage, and The Woodwright’s Shop taught me terrible, terrible puns. And some woodworking skills. Roy, you absolute legend.

xer0x 1y ago

Don't worry, this will help us consume the new truth easier.

ivape 1y ago

The Taliban used to destroy their history too: https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanista-taliban-archaeological-historical-sites-b2500425.html https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghanista-tal...

smithkl42 1y ago

> Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country,” Harrison said. If that was true, losing the CPB would be a travesty. But as a loyal NPR listener for decades, I've found their stuff lately to be unlistenable. It's Fox, but for the Left, and with a bit more of an intellectual spin. What makes it most annoying is their utter blindness to their own bias. The Fox hosts know that they're taking one side of a story. I've never gotten the impression that any of the NPR hosts are even that self-aware.

setsewerd 1y ago
Yeah I've been bummed by how far NPR has swerved leftward, especially since 2016. Even ten years ago I liked tuning in because it was quality journalism that still made an honest effort to cover multiple sides of an issue, even if the topics they chose were primarily "liberal" topics. But yeah, now they seem just as tribal as Fox.
- buerkle 1y ago
  Not every side deserves to be covered for each story. This is the problem with major media today, they give equal opportunity to people that have no idea what they are talking about. It's like one side says 2+2=4, the other 2+2=5, and media gives them equal air time.
  - atonse 1y ago
    Can you point me to a good source that actually gives equal opportunity to multiple sides of a story? Because I rarely see that (regardless of which side), the whole reason why I subscribe to things like ground.news.
    - colechristensen 1y ago
      Axios does a pretty solid job of covering point and counterpoint on their stories not bias towards "equality" for different perspectives, but actually covering fully the different angles of a story. See yourself in their article from a couple of weeks ago about the federal funding cut of CPB. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate https://www.axios.com/2025/07/18/npr-pbs-funding-senate

onepremise 1y ago

Again, it's all part of the plan, which is referred to as the butterfly revolution, by Curtis Yarvin. Leaders that have literally invested in this platform are buying into this nonsense. These guys have polarized the two parties to a point all weaknesses are surfacing. It isn't about democrats vs republicans. It's just working class vs the billionaires. You know the ppl sitting behind Trump at his inauguration. Literally, they want to break apart the US and discredit the constitution. Unless we come together and carve a new narrative that works. These guys may succeed and you can kiss your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness goodbye, as well bill of rights. Peter Theil, JD Vance, Marc Andreesen, Garry Tan, Srinivasan, and many others, wanting to overthrow democracy and dissolve nation states. This effort is to establish Network States with those that worship them, sycophants and cults. They want to transform the US into an Autocracy. The polarization of the media and political parties is on purpose. They want America to fall. It's not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It's definitely being rolled out by billionaires. It would be wise for others here to really do your research and understand why we are being polarized to hate each other. Enter the butterfly revolution: 1. Reboot (“full-power start”) Suspend or bypass existing constitutional limits; concentrate absolute sovereignty in one new organization—analogous to Allied occupation powers in post-1945 Japan/Germany. Eliminate checks and balances that block rapid change. 2. CEO-Monarch model A single executive (chosen like a corporate CEO) rules; the former president becomes a figurehead “chairman of the board.” Treat the state as a firm run for efficiency, not democratic representation. 3. RAGE strategy “Retire All Government Employees” by mass-firing the civil service and replacing it with loyal appointees. Remove institutional resistance (“the Cathedral”) and ensure obedience. 4. Parallel regime Build a fully staffed shadow government in exile before inauguration; unveil it on Day 1 to take over agencies at once. Prevent the bureaucratic slow-rolling that stymied Trump’s first term. 5. Media & academia clampdown Defund or shutter universities and independent press seen as hostile. Break what Yarvin calls the Cathedral’s cultural dominance. Resources: "The Straussian Moment", https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-momen... Freedom Cities in Trumps presser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJA_GBhCGgE Billionaire example: https://www.praxisnation.com https://www.praxisnation.com Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel on Ancient Prophecies and Modern Tec, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqHueZNEzig A.I., Mars and Immortality: Are We Dreaming Big Enough? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV7YgnPUxcU&t=404s https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-in... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/11/patchwork-p...

wbpayne 1y ago

Thank you so, so much GOP! Now children won't have the educational programming from PBS and us adults won't have our PBS documentaries and shows. I'm so very disappointed in our government right now.

ivape 1y ago

They also raised $100 billion from tariffs. No clue where all this money is being diverted to. Obviously not PBS.

jleyank 1y ago
[dead]
nullc 1y ago
Unfortunately we've been running a massive and growing budget defect since 2002. The government would need to bring in or cut an extra 1.6 trillion dollars per year to get back to balanced in order for your statement to make sense.

imsofuture 1y ago

Superficially this is 'just' partisan politics, but I wonder if it's actually much more of a death knell for traditional media.

nabwodahs 1y ago

Disgraceful.

BeetleB 1y ago

I identify neither as a liberal nor as a conservative, but outsiders will likely see a left bent in me. The thing about PBS and NPR: I just don't have any alternatives! Wherever I've lived, all the other radio stations/channels just suck - liberal or not. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News totally suck. ABC, CBS, NBC mostly suck. The half-good radio stations are just way too biased and make NPR/PBS appear like paragons of neutraltity. I can tolerate losing NPR/PBS if I had alternatives. I simply don't. Conservatives lump NPR/PBS viewers with other liberals. It's generally not true. All my liberal friends declare NPR to be "part of the problem". NPR/PBS viewers are just in another category altogether. They don't have choices. I'd really like to hear from conservatives: Are there any channels/radio stations they like? Their complaint is continually that NPR/PBS is too left wing (which I can dispute but won't). But do they have a gaping hole in their choices the way people like me are about to have?

jleyank 1y ago
Fox News. Supposedly they love the thing, although it gets a bit left-wing radical at times.
unnamed76ri 1y ago
I’ll listen to snippets of right wing talk radio but it generally doesn’t take long before the exaggeration (Glenn Beck) or Trump idol worship (Clay Travis) get annoying. I like hearing perspectives on stories that I won’t hear elsewhere but in general, I don’t need very much political news in my life. I’m happier spending my time on audio books and podcasts. I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged with NPR beyond seeing conservatives mock some of their silliest propaganda headlines in the past few years.
- BeetleB 1y ago
  > I’m not sure I’ve ever engaged with NPR beyond seeing conservatives mock some of their silliest propaganda headlines in the past few years. What about all the nonpolitical shows on NPR/PBS? Snap Judgement, This American Life, Prairie Home Companion, Nature, NOVA, etc. Lots of people watch PBS/NPR not for politics, but for the entertainment/educational content.

delichon 1y ago

I hear many things on broadcast media that are contrary to my values, and tend to prune those sources from my media diet. When I am obliged by law to support those sources anyway, I get resentful. So I have been wishing for this since Ronald Reagan proposed it. To me the bright line of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" is crossed at least in spirit when the state seizes a dollar from a taxpayer and spends it on speech, because that abridges the taxpayer's resources for speech by a dollar. "You have free speech but I can take the money you use to be heard to speak against you" is a big loophole.

bix6 1y ago
So the government should just not say anything? Let’s just get all our news from X, the famously truthful platform!
- jleyank 1y ago
  And balanced. Don't forget balanced.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawa14223 1y ago
  Yes the government should just not say anything but this is not dependent on X existing or not existing.
  - bix6 1y ago
    So the current government will stop talking as well then?
    - throwawa14223 1y ago
      This is a step towards that which is a step in the right direction.
- 1y ago

kianN 1y ago

I think the children's programming is a really undiscussed aspect of this. Some investments don't have immediately measurable outcomes. But as someone whose parents worked long hours growing up, I'm really grateful that my exposure to television was PBS rather than cable children's shows.

ivape 1y ago
If your parents couldn't afford cable, then you couldn't get round the clock children's content from Nickelodeon. Your content during day time would have been stuff like the Maury Show, all the Judge shows, soap operas, and day time talk shows. PBS would have been the thing that offered the free children's content.

breakyerself 1y ago

I can't fucking stand these Republican fucks

qrush 1y ago

A good day to make sure you're a member of your local public media station and supporting them directly.

UncleOxidant 1y ago

I'm pretty certain that if public libraries didn't already exist and someone proposed the idea now it would be labeled "woke" and "socialist" and not get anywhere. We're in a very weird era, but pendulums swing and this too shall pass (in the meantime lots of damage is being done).

heavyset_go 1y ago
There's a reason public libraries are under attack, and it's this.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> I'm pretty certain that if public libraries didn't already exist and someone proposed the idea now it would be labeled "woke" and "socialist" and not get anywhere. Public libraries do already exist and they are labeled "woke" and "socialist" and are dealing with both assaults on their funding and on their function.
- UncleOxidant 1y ago
  True. I'm fortunate to live in a community that funds it's public libraries well, but I do know that downstate there are rural communities that have completely defunded theirs. I just don't think the idea of public libraries would get any traction now given how far to the right we've gone.
  - unnamed76ri 1y ago
    You don’t think it might have something to do with the Internet and having access to all of the knowledge in the world on your phone? I’m glad libraries exist but a lack of traction if the idea were introduced today would have more to do with the impracticality of them than any political leanings. My town spent millions on a small expansion to the library this past year. A project that if it was in the private sector would have cost a couple hundred grand at most. I can’t tell how they managed to spend as much as they did.

bentt 1y ago

This is sad but the US is too diverse to have a single source of public broadcasting. It was always destined to end like this.

supplied_demand 1y ago

I'm sure the elimination of free, educational content will be great for the working class.

bbanyc 1y ago

When Congress passed the CPB defunding bill, the Republican sponsors paraded around the most deranged takes to air on NPR in the last few years and asked, why should our tax dollars keep going to this? And I'll be the first to admit that NPR has completely lost its mind, it's losing its listenership, and it needs to be humbled a bit. But audio is much cheaper than video and NPR's remaining listeners will easily be able to make up the shortfall. Meanwhile we're going to see PBS, whose news coverage mostly avoided the pitfalls NPR fell into and who run a lot more non-news programming, take a huge funding hit and resort to even more pledge drives and reruns, while local affiliates in large swaths of the country have to close entirely. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and not even throwing out the bathwater.

SV_BubbleTime 1y ago

Am I mistaking that repeatedly CBP claimed that they were only minority government funded?

rgblambda 1y ago
You might be mistaking CBP for PBS or NPR.

dfilppi 1y ago

[dead]

throwawayohio 1y ago

Commenters in this thread citing NPR as a reason that dollars shouldn't go towards helping kids learn how to count and not be antisocial is the kind of win right wing media could only dream about a decade or so ago. Absolutely embarrassing for a site like this that claims to value education and democratizing it (and always jumps into threads about childrens education with all of their anecdotally built ideas, of course!) isn't condemning this.

abeppu 1y ago

As with many things, I wonder if we should start unbundling services the federal government provides. If many states like public broadcasting, what if a pool of states were to opt-in to continuing to fund it (and decide whether to limit it to supporting stations in those states)? Some things (defense, diplomacy) perhaps can only be done through the federal government. But so many things (national weather service operations, HUD housing assistance, grants for local PBS stations, SNAP benefits) have a largely local or regional benefit. Rather than disassembling these things entirely, why not allow them each to be run by and for a coalition of states (or even cities?) which opt to participate?

duped 1y ago
> But so many things (national weather service operations, HUD housing assistance, grants for local PBS stations, SNAP benefits) have a largely local or regional benefit. You should look up which states/regions/counties provide the funding and which states/regions/counties receive the benefits, it's disproportional. Unironically, unbundling HUD, SNAP, and NWS would probably cause famine in Mississippi.
- abeppu 1y ago
  Oh I'm acutely aware that my taxes have been subsidizing people in red states that call me a slur. But it's pretty messed up that presently the places that _were_ willing to pay for these things are deprived of the benefits. If instead we kept things alive on an optional basis, the participating states might get _better_ services and outcomes for a while because some poor red state communities would not be a sink for funds. But also, if the political pendulum swings the other way in a future election cycle, and more places opt-in, then having kept these programs alive in a reduced form would put them in a better position to resume activity.
- subsistence234 1y ago
  the disproportionately black american mississippi?

wnevets 1y ago

The amount of damage trump and musk have done this is country is absolutely criminal.

declan_roberts 1y ago

It's a terrible time to be convincing the American public that the media is trustworthy. It will regain its trust, but it has a long, uphill battle to get there since, especially since the months leading up to 2016.

mcphage 1y ago
> It will regain its trust, but it has a long, uphill battle to get there since, especially since the months leading up to 2016. Why do you think that? Do you imagine that the individuals and institutions pushing the idea that the media is untrustworthy will suddenly stop pushing their agenda?

aagha 1y ago

Turns out elections have consequences.

mring33621 1y ago

[flagged]

neilv 1y ago

I certainly remember hearing the name many times, on good TV programming, so am surprised that the Wikipedia article doesn't talk much about the CPB's impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca... The Wikipedia page looks almost entirely about politics and funding.

tptacek 1y ago

This is a giant thread full of people lamenting the demise of public broadcasting so it seems like someone should write the comment that points out that CPB doesn't do PBS programming. They don't develop content. They're a grantmaking organization that manages the distribution of the congressional PBS appropriation. The actual PBS and NPR shows you're familiar with are generally developed and produced privately, and then purchased by local PBS stations (streaming access to PBS content runs through "Passport", which is a mechanism for getting people to donate to their local PBS station even while consuming that content on the Internet). This (and other streaming things like it) is how most people actually consume this content in 2025. If your local PBS affiliate vanishes, you as a viewer are not going to lose Masterpiece Theater or Nova, because you almost certainly weren't watching those shows on linear television anyways. The cuts are bad, I just want to make sure people understand what CPB ceasing operations actually means.

kyo_gisors 1y ago
[dead]
deadbabe 1y ago
I mean you kind of made it sound not too bad at all.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
hyperpape 1y ago
This is useful, though it leaves open the question of what it means in practice that the grant-making organization is disappearing.
vel0city 1y ago
> and then purchased by local PBS stations If those stations go off the air, who is buying that content? It's like arguing it doesn't matter if the stream dries up the plants don't get water from the stream, the plants get the water from the ground. Where did that water in the ground come from? The stream! You're right, these shows aren't going off the air tomorrow. But this does affect the funding for the shows produced by PBS and NPR.

randcraw 1y ago

With the inevitable cutbacks coming to NPR, I wonder how big a hit classical music will take. NPR delivers 95% of the classical music that airs in America, much of which comes from small market stations which will be the first to die with the end of CPB.

gazpachotron 1y ago
[dead]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

excalibur 1y ago

Coming soon to a Tiny Desk Concert near you: Ticketmaster!

devwastaken 1y ago

a corrupt government would have appropriated it for propaganda. instead an old and out of use tax payer forced program is being finally put to rest.

outside1234 1y ago

Trump sucks

none_to_remain 1y ago

I recall NPR throwing a fit over getting a "state media" label on Twitter.

nemo44x 1y ago

Good it’s a completely outdated concept. There’s no barrier to producing and distributing content today. That public tax dollars go to a place where partisans distribute it to their favorite projects is a 1960s era concept that needs to die. Really the 1960s and 70s were such an insane era we should examine all government programs from that era that are still in commission with very suspicious eyes.

wkoszek 1y ago

From Claude -> Notable Programs They Fund: Public television shows like Sesame Street, NOVA, PBS NewsHour, and Masterpiece, as well as NPR programming like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. I like all of those. NPR: $300m budget / 42m listeners = $7.14/yr. Sounds like if I donate $5/mo to KQED and $5/mo to KCSM, I'm supporting them to cover myself and couple other citizens? I don't get what I can do to support PBS - when I press donate on PBS site, it sort of wants to direct me to KQED/KCSM donations again. Anyone here with a little more time to understand/explain it?

staticautomatic 1y ago
Basically, you donate to a PBS member station, and the station uses at least some portion your money to pay PBS dues.

EverydayBalloon 1y ago

[dead]

RickJWagner 1y ago

I loved many NPR / PBS creations, like “Car Talk”. What a great show. But I was dismayed to see how NPR turned a blind eye to stories like the Hunter Biden bombshell. NPRs CEO started wearing a Biden hat, and openly criticizing Trump. A former NPR employee wrote a well publicized substack article (irony!) that claimed deep, systemic political bias. It’s hard not to agree. I hope NPR and PBS take a hard look at themselves and come up with some ways to assure political neutrality. Absent that, I have to agree that tax dollars should not be spent here.

ashoeafoot 1y ago

One has to see the positives. After the isolationist, fiscal conservatives caused their great depression , they turn for one generation into fishes. Any public discussion, mouth opens, brain reminds them of the backlash they will get for what they caused, no sound escapes, mouth closes. Fishes.

Blackstrat 1y ago

Very simple question, which I've not seen answered anywhere: with all the media options available to consumers today, why should US taxpayers be paying for any entity like the CPB? If they can't compete in the market, go out of business.