How Defunding Public Media Could Shift the Landscape of Journalism

President Donald Trump has fulfilled his commitment to reduce funding for public media. He plans to eliminate the $535 million annual grant that public radio and television receive from the federal government. While he points out that these institutions often produce journalism exhibiting a bias—either through the stories they emphasize or those they overlook—Trump’s strategy may lead to unintended consequences.

Rather than shuttering PBS and NPR, the removal of federal funding could inadvertently allow these organizations to stand financially resilient and less accountable. Both PBS and NPR operate as federally chartered non-profit entities, which guarantees their continued existence, alongside approximately 1,000 local public broadcasting stations.

At the national level, it is reasonable to anticipate that liberal philanthropic organizations, such as the Gates, MacArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Carnegie, and Ford foundations, may step in to bridge any budget shortfalls. In recent years, these foundations have seen their endowments grow significantly, thanks to a bullish stock market.

These influential organizations already provide substantial financial backing to PBS and NPR, often earmarked for specific programming. Notably, the Rockefeller Foundation, derived from oil industry profits, has supported NPR’s climate reporting. The Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative has similarly invested in this area, while the Walton Family Foundation has contributed to NPR and PBS NewsHour’s environmental journalism initiatives.

This influx of funds raises serious concerns regarding the potential for such liberal donors to shape the narrative, effectively selecting which stories warrant coverage. The fundamentals of journalism demand attention to the decision-making process behind what gets reported. Herbert Gans, a sociologist, elaborates on this in his pivotal 1979 work discussing CBS, titled “Deciding What’s News.”

In the absence of federal funding, Congress will lose its authority to hold public media executives accountable, as evidenced by a recent inquiry from Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. The power of threatened funding cuts may be more significant than the loss of funds itself, impacting the editorial direction of these organizations.

For example, in a recent broadcast, PBS NewsHour featured guests representing diverse viewpoints, including Chris Rufo, a prominent critic of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, along with Oren Cass, head of American Compass, and Christopher Scalia from the American Enterprise Institute. This evolution in guest selection suggests an awareness of the need for balanced perspectives.

Rather than simply slashing budgets, policymakers might consider reforming the rules governing public media as outlined in the Public Broadcasting Act. Presently, these institutions predominantly cater to liberal audiences, primarily found in blue states and academic hubs. Congress should mandate these services to demonstrate their capacity to serve all communities by diversifying the content they provide.

Implementing annual hearings could play a vital role in ensuring accountability. Such measures could require public media to report on their audience demographics, including locations and political affiliations, helping to ensure a broader range of representation. This process could flip the script on diversity metrics, compelling NPR and PBS to adapt their programming accordingly.

Moreover, local stations, which currently pay dues to NPR and cover shows like