Have you ever spent a ton of money on something you barely use and then wonder why you’re still spending money on it? Lately, the Trump Administration has been wondering about that in the area of public broadcasting. Thanks to a recent Executive Order, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service may find their funding cut due to allegations of bias. Of course they deny it (using the same terminology, I might add), which leads us to the inevitable question: why do Republicans want to kill Big Bird?
Or, better yet, the inevitable Leftist Lexicon entry.
public broadcasting
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable service that provides balanced and factual reporting
What it really means – taxpayer-funded propaganda favoring the Left
Both NPR and PBS are under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private non-profit. They describe themselves as:
the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.
In other words, they handle the money once they get it from us. And with an operating budget of $545 million for Fiscal Year 2025, that’s ain’t petty cash. So, what are we getting for this investment?
That depends on who you ask. If you ask the heads of NPR and PBS (or their squawking heads), they’re providing a valuable service to society, the economy, and education. To someone who used to work there, it’s become a Leftist mouthpiece, which has negatively affected the public’s trust in it. To me, a consumer of what public broadcasting has put forth over the years, it’s a mixed bag.
Remember Slobodan Milosevic? Not only is it one hell of a Scrabble score, but he was the former leader of Kosovo, accused of ethnic cleansing. As it turns out, I first heard his name while listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and at the time I thought their coverage was pretty balanced. Then, when Leftists decided ethnic cleansing was bad, that coverage changed and Milosevic became Public Enemy #1. Well, #2 after Rush Limbaugh.
I bring that up to a) show off the big brain on Thomas, and b) give you an idea of the subtle biases that was already involved in NPR’s reporting. The Left doesn’t come right out and say “We’re biased as fuck and we don’t care.” At least, outside of MSNBC, and they’re not really a news channel as much as a way for Al Sharpton to keep getting a steady paycheck. Their bias comes through through less obvious means. A turn of a phrase here, a descriptive word there, and before you know it, you’re being indoctrinated.
Just ask Bernard Goldberg.
Where PBS and NPR get more cover than the traditional media is in the idea they just present facts. Welllll…that’s subject to debate. Sometimes they present facts, and other times they suppress them, like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story. Their now-infamous statement about why they didn’t cover it?
We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.
Yeah, because who would want to hear about what’s on the laptop of the President’s addict son during a Presidential election? That would be like…oh, I don’t know…covering when the Bush twins got busted for fake IDs when their dad was President.
Oh, wait…
Setting the bias aside for the time being, there is a serious question on the table: should we be funding public broadcasting using federal tax dollars? The artist in me says we should because it provides viewpoints and entertainment people might not get otherwise. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.” The capitalist in me says we shouldn’t because PBS and NPR should be able to stand or fall on its own merits like any other media outlet. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.”
Where I come down on the question is…kinda both options? I appreciate the fact public broadcasting exists and, when the product is closer to the lofty goals of the CPB, it’s pretty fucking good. When the product is tainted by biases, the image of public broadcasting suffers.
Although it would be easier to find a time when Adam Schiff hasn’t made himself look like a dumbass, I don’t think it’s impossible for public broadcasting to change its fortunes without costing taxpayers a fortune in the process. The first step (which is always the hardest, especially if you’re drunk) is to remove any pretense of moral and intellectual superiority. You may think you’re providing pure wisdom from the gods themselves, but you’re really just college radio and public access TV stations with a trust fund. Get off the Shetland Pony you call a high horse and just talk to us like we’re fellow human beings.
And while we’re here, let’s figure out a way to reduce dependence on donations and federal funding by spinning off popular intellectual properties. Take “Sesame Street,” for example. The nonprofit behind it struck a deal with HBO to run new episodes exclusively with those same episodes being shown on PBS after a few months. Now that this deal has reached its end, there’s a possibility of Disney buying it. And considering Disney already owns the Muppets, it’s not that much of a stretch.
Imagine being able to do that with other public broadcasting properties. Yes, I understand doing so would be hard for some people to take because they think selling a property is selling out. On the other hand, it’s really no different than what the CPB already does with different foundations and companies picking up the tab for programming. And, you might actually be able to get free of the federal influence, which will give you more freedom to thrive.
Unless, of course, you want to keep donating the GDP of small island nations to get a crappy tote bag. At least with a more capitalist approach, you might be able to get a crappy tote bag for a lot less.
Meanwhile, public broadcasting could use a few more encouraging voices to help them navigate the possibility of being without federal funding. When PBS and NPR do well, tell them and, if you’re so inclined, toss them a few bucks. When they fuck up, call them out and offer constructive feedback. They may not take it, but at least you tried in a way that doesn’t come off as automatically anti-public broadcasting.
When you really think about it (and I do because the Interwebs went out at Casa de Tomas recently), public broadcasting provides us with all sorts of programming that appeals to different audiences. And, aside from the amount we kick in unintentionally via taxes, it’s free-ish. You can do a lot worse than watching a nature documentary, period dramas, British sitcoms, and the occasional Doctor Who episode.
And given what DOGE has found so far, we’ve spent money on a lot worse.
