We Won’t Miss Government Media

At NPR and PBS, bias has long been the biggest problem. Let 1,000 podcasts bloom

By Andy Kessler. Excerpts:

"A year ago, NPR had 87 Democrats and zero Republicans on its editorial staff in Washington, according to a senior editor there."

"Answering claims of bias, NPR CEO Katherine Maher recently told CNN, “please show me a story that concerns you.” Within hours, Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) gave many examples on the Senate floor, including the claim that interstate highways are racist. Twitter users found boatloads more—including a managing editor saying, “we don’t want to waste the listeners’ ” time on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Ms. Maher has famously said, “Truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.” All things considered, that’s a $1.1 billion mistake."

[An NPR host said to Mr. Kessler] "“I hate that you and Silicon Valley techno-capitalists purposely destroy careers with technology. What you’re doing is awful.”"

"do we need PBS in an era of YouTube and streaming, even for “intellectual” programming?"

"Freedom of the press should mean freedom from government control that comes via funding. Spectrum license renewal still overhangs over-the-air TV network owners. The Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, forced media to run opposing views. Its repeal in 1987 allowed media to pick sides and flourish, from Rush Limbaugh to MSNBC."  

Should Government Fund Public Broadcasting?

By Jeffrey Miron & Jonah Karafiol of Cato. Excerpt:

"such funding is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Any government policy or program has a viewpoint, but funding television and radio broadcasting is especially problematic, since government financing inevitably subsidizes some perspectives over others. Even a formally ‘neutral’ grant process cannot escape this effect: public money sustains the editorial judgments of the recipients and leaves rival voices to fend for themselves.

public funding is not a convincing response to any externality or public goods problem. This is separate from whether PBS programming is “good.” Let’s stipulate that it is. But so is any product that survives in the market. The question for government funding is whether the market will fail to provide a particular type of programming that is valuable.

No convincing argument exists for this view. A wide variety of news and media platforms cater to a diverse set of demands and viewpoints: Disney and Adult Swim for different age groups; The Atlantic and Fox News for different political demographics. So, assuming done in a constitutionally valid way, eliminating CPB funding is the right policy.

This is not to say CPB-backed stations should disappear, only that they should compete on the same footing as other outlets. NPR, PBS, and their affiliates can—and already do—attract listener donations, corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and digital subscription revenue. Freed from federal appropriations, they would retain full editorial independence while sparing taxpayers the cost and constitutional headaches that accompany government patronage of the press."

Let’s cut the cord on federal funding for NPR and PBS

By Brian A. Rankin of CEI.

"They are products of a media landscape that no longer exists.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was born through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. CPB was created as a private, non-profit organization to receive and manage federal government funding. Among its purposes are to “facilitate the full development of public telecommunications” and maintain a “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs” of a controversial nature.

NPR and PBS followed shortly thereafter, at a time when there were far fewer media outlets than today and choices for news, information, and educational programming were much more limited.

Yet almost 60 years after CPB’s birth and despite tremendous changes in the media landscape, public media continues to receive substantial federal funding. CPB’s 2024 federal appropriation was $525 million and is $535 million for 2025.

Public media is a system of independently operated local public radio and television stations, and CPB directs federal funding to those affiliates. Government funding represents roughly 10 percent of local affiliate revenue so they also have other funding sources (as anyone who has sat through a pledge drive can tell you).

But the receipt of federal funding brings limitations. Section 399b of the Communications Act forbids NPR and PBS affiliates from running commercial advertising. They are permitted to air acknowledgments (e.g., “American Experience is brought to you by The Ford Motor Company”), but not actual ads.

FCC Chair Brendan Carr recently directed the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to investigate whether NPR and PBS affiliates are unlawfully running commercial advertising. Whatever the motivation for the investigation, the Chair’s letter also raises a different, fundamental question: Why does CPB continue to receive an over half a billion-dollar federal appropriation?

The timing for this question is ripe. The national debt stands at $36 trillion and it grows every day. Well publicized efforts to reduce the government’s size are underway and spending is under scrutiny. The need for the efficient allocation and prioritization of federal funds is clear.

Further, with cord cutting, streaming, podcasting, and other platforms, the CPB appropriation funds legacy media, now only one of many different sources for news, information, and educational programming. The government is funding 1967-inspired media in a YouTube era.

Given these realities, NPR and PBS affiliates should move to a market-based model. The law should be changed to discontinue federal funding, winding it down over a period of years to provide a financial transition, particularly for rural affiliates for whom federal dollars represent a larger share of their overall funding. NPR and PBS affiliates should also be allowed to carry commercial advertising to earn revenue.

If there is a market for NPR’s and PBS’s programming, their affiliates should be able to attract commercial advertising, raise revenue, and survive like any other media outlet. If there is an insufficient market for their programming, the affiliates will need to adjust their programming or do whatever is needed to succeed. In either case, they will succeed or fail based on the market for what they offer and their ability to grow their audiences, just as commercial radio, television, and other platforms do today.

Both NPR and PBS have a history of award-winning programming and well established brands and audiences, so they have the potential to succeed without federal funding. In fact, moving away from the limits that come with federal funding will create the freedom to further diversify revenues and compete in a fast-changing media landscape without being tethered to the federal government.

Cutting the cord on federal funding will mean change for public media, but it will recognize today’s fiscal realities and diverse media landscape."

David Boaz On Public Broadcasting

From the Cato Institute blog. Excerpt:

"And the number one reason to privatize public broadcasting is:

1. The separation of news and state. We wouldn't want the federal government to publish a national newspaper. Why should we have a government television network and a government radio network? If anything should be kept separate from government and politics, it's the news and public affairs programming that Americans watch. When government brings us the news—with all the inevitable bias and spin—the government is putting its thumb on the scales of democracy. It's time for that to stop."