After last week’s news that President Trump passed an Executive Order to defund public broadcasting, there has been no shortage of emotional wailing and supposedly stern demands made by those affected at the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio. What has been absent from these voices is a tendency to sit back and actually consider what it is they are saying. It has all been reactive and not at all reflective.
We all have heard the reflexive argument that NPR and PBS only receive a small percentage of their budgets from these federal payouts. Usually, we see a number around 3 percent tossed around. This is a completely empty argument, of course. For starters, if it is so inconsequential, then it could easily be made up through other backers. The other way it gets dispelled is that the level of shrieking over this “negligible” amount defies the claim.
This is because for both outlets, they do, technically, collect that level of direct funding from federal grants. However, they collect anywhere from 15-30 percent of taxpayer money indirectly. This occurs because the Corporation for Public Broadcasting tosses out payments to stations across the country, which then use those funds to pay to license the programming from the national outlets.
One of the first signs of trouble was heard when the outlets' first verbal defenses were that they did not have a bias and were instead independent and balanced. How exactly can you possibly sell the concept of being “independent” while at the same time demanding your outlets remain subsidized with federal funding?! This is the same daft position seen from Planned Parenthood, when they crow about the government needing to fund abortions while at the same time demanding “we need to keep the government out of our uteruses!”
But there was another revealing slip-up seen over the weekend. In the effort to claim there is no bias from these public broadcasters, somehow, they managed to deliver the same talking point. Not a similar concept, but alleged conservative David Brooks on PBS, and the head of NPR, Katherine Maher, parroted the same talking point, delivered verbatim. Hard to sell your independent thinking when you are sharing PR notes at the very same time:
🚨In the past 48 hours, NPR’s Katherine Maher and PBS’ David Brooks have both claimed their respective organizations report
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) May 4, 2025
“Straight down the line."
Repeating this absurd lie is a prime example of why these entities are propaganda outlets and deserve zero taxpayer dollars. pic.twitter.com/TZGgL27k5c
The desperation seen elsewhere has been amusing. Jonathan Capehart is leading the charge that this move by President Trump violates the Constitution. It is a tidy little talking point, but it withers from a lack of logic. Just start with the concept that the Constitution was written two centuries before the existence of his network.
But what Capehart is leaning on is the vacuous claim that this call to defund is a First Amendment violation, while it is nothing of the sort. PBS is in no way being silenced or shut down; no pundit is being jailed for an opinion. They are facing having their subsidy removed, nothing more. Jonathan can prattle on all he likes, he’ll just need to do so in the marketplace.
Here was another dose of unintentional obliviousness, from “PBS NewsHour” fixture, Lisa Dejardins. She detailed something she experienced while dining out in D.C. with others. Supposedly, a viewer and fan came over and declared their support for them and paid for their meals. What she does not realize is this displays exactly what many prefer to take place; if you are so vital and have this level of support, then by all means, have these devout viewers pony up for your service, not the American taxpayers:
Reminder of this good country and our great news audience.
— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) May 3, 2025
THANK YOU to the kind man who paid for dinner last night across the restaurant, when he saw our @NewsHour team together - and sent the message that he heard about @potus’ PBS/NPR order and wanted to show support.
PBS and NPR are perfectly free to go with advertiser support on their broadcasts. They practically do so already, as most programs begin and end with a list of corporate donors who cut checks for their content. It is basically a sidestep to go forward with advertising during the shows. But this is the last thing Ms. Dejardins and the others want because they are fully aware of the ratings for their product, and how those figures will not generate a supportive revenue.
So they are left with worst-case levels of defense against this loss of subsidized existence. But Katherine Maher probably delivered the worst of defenses by essentially making the case FOR President Trump and those wanting to cease these spending programs. As Maher, along with the CEO of PBS, Paula Kerger, sat in with Margaret Brennan on “Face The Nation,” she managed to deliver the best talking point for her outlet's opponents.
I interpret the intention of this being trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence. That is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom, and we will always have an independent newsroom. From my perspective, part of the separation of the First Amendment offers is to keep government out.
Defunding your network of federal payments is exactly how you keep the government out of your enterprise. If you take in taxpayer monies, then you are beholden to the government, so the government is involved. It is also a problem of independence in general, because taking federal funding skews your approach to the government as a news agency. Do you withhold certain stories so as not to upset those paying out? Do you approach other entities aggressively because they are targeting your funding?
These two outlets have been proven multiple times over in recent years to be wildly partisan in fashion, from killing the Hunter Biden laptop story to the recent baseless report that the White House was shopping for a replacement for Pete Hegseth. These are not outlets that operate in the manner of their formation, that they provide content for “the common good.” They report with a distinctly Leftist approach, and for this reason, they need to divest from the trough of the common tax base:
This @NPR story is total FAKE NEWS based on one anonymous source who clearly has no idea what he or she is talking about.
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) April 21, 2025
As the President said this morning, he stands strongly behind @SecDef. https://t.co/5Npig8968v
