SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
committee to protect journalists
Free Press Defenders Rip Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'Bullsh*t' Attack on Public Broadcasters
"Elon Musk and Marjorie Taylor Greene are trying to defund Sesame Street and dismantle PBS and NPR," said one Democratic congressman. "Not on our watch. Fire Elon Musk, and save Elmo."
Mar 26, 2025
Progressives roundly ridiculed U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Wednesday after the serial conspiracy theorist made baseless claims that National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service are "radical left-wing echo chambers" with a "communist agenda" and called for their defunding.
"Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
Greene (R-Ga.)—who chairs the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency (DOGE, but not part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency)—convened the hearing, titled "Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable," to examine alleged "biased news" and whether American taxpayers "will continue funding these leftist media outlets."
"After listening to what we've heard today, we will be calling for the complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting," the congresswoman told
NPR CEO Katherine Maher and the PBS CEO Paula Kerger during her closing remarks, referring to the nonprofit that helps fund PBS and NPR.
"Here's how it works: In America, every single day—every single day—private businesses operate on their own, without government funding," she added. "We believe you all can hate us on your own dime."
PBS gets about 16% of its funding from federal sources. For NPR, the figure is around just 1%.
Greene—who has amplified conspiracy theories including QAnon, Pizzagate, the 9/11 "hoax," government involvement in mass shootings, "Jewish space lasers" causing wildfires, the U.S. government controlling the weather, and the "stolen" 2020 presidential election—made more blatantly false claims during Wednesday's hearing, including that PBS used "taxpayer funds to push some of the most radical left positions like featuring a drag queen" on one of its children's programs. This never happened.
Nevertheless, Greene used props including a blown-up photo of drag queen Lil' Miss Hot Mess, a children's book author and Drag Queen Story Hour board member, whom the congresswoman called a "monster," while baselessly accusing Maher and Kerger of "grooming and sexualizing" children.
Another Republican member of the panel, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky, appeared to not understand the difference between an editorial—an opinion article—and the the work and standards of media editors:
oh my god -- Comer thinks "editorial standards" literally refers to standards for editorials and is corrected by the NPR head
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) March 26, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Democrats on the DOGE subcommittee pushed back against the attacks by Greene and other Republicans on the panel. Mocking Greene's assertion that PBS and NPR have a "communist agenda" and referring to one of the most beloved characters on the long-running children's show Sesame Street, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) asked Kerger a McCarthyesque question: "Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party? A yes or no."
Kerger answered "no," prompting Garcia to retort: "Now, are you sure, Ms. Kerger? Because he's obviously red... He also has a very dangerous message about sharing. And helping each other; he's indoctrinating our kids that sharing is caring. Now maybe he's part of a major socialist plot and maybe that's why the chairwoman is having this hearing today."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) responded to a false assertion by hearing guest Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation—the main force behind Project 2025, the plan for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that includes defunding public broadcasters—as well Musk's glaring conflicts of interest by referring to a popular porcine protagonist of Muppets fame.
"To your knowledge, has Miss Piggy ever been caught trying to funnel billions of dollars in government contracts to herself and to her companies?" Casar said.
At the end of his remarks, the progressive lawmaker implored Greene to "leave Elmo alone" and instead bring in Musk, the de facto head of the other DOGE, for questioning. Musk, the world's richest person, and President Donald Trump support defunding public broadcasters.
In typically fiery fashion, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) told Greene and Republicans that "free speech is not about what y'all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit!"
Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at the media reform group Free Press, told Common Dreams after the hearing that Greene's "bogus attack against public media is a blatant attempt to further weaken the sort of journalism that questions the corruption and cruelty of the Trump administration."
"This is not about saving taxpayer dollars or based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much bias on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration," Karr argued.
"Greene may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that she's no fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable," he continued. "But she and her Republican colleagues are far out of step with the American people and their needs. Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions."
"In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less," Karr added. "Unfortunately, President Trump and his cronies in Congress have instead tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners oppose them and instead believe that support for public media is taxpayer money well spent."
On Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders sent a joint letter urging Greene's committee "to approach its examination of public broadcasting with the understanding that press freedom is not a partisan issue, rather a vital part of American democracy."
The attack on @pbs.org and @npr.org is an attack on journalism. The administration is just going after them first because public funding makes them the low-hanging fruit. We're proud to partner on this letter with CPJ and @rsf.org. cpj.org/2025/03/cpj-...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation ( @freedom.press) March 25, 2025 at 9:07 AM
"The tone and conduct of the proceedings matter," the groups' letter asserts. "The American public deserves access to quality, independent journalism, regardless of geography, income, creed, or political views. Public broadcasting delivers on this vital need by providing high-quality, fact-based reporting to the American public, including underserved communities across the nation."
"Congressional scrutiny of public broadcasting must not undermine the ability of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal," the groups stressed. "Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be set that could further erode trust in the media and undermine press freedom more broadly."
The Communications Workers of America (CWA) union is sharing a petition telling Congress to protect public broadcasting.
"Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump administration are following the Project 2025 playbook and trying to shut down funding for independent public television and radio stations," the petition states. "Many CWA members work at these locally owned stations and play a crucial role in keeping our communities informed. Without public television and radio stations, we will lose access to critical local news and programming."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Latest Attack on Media, Trump White House Takes Control of Press Pool
"This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States," said the head of the White House Correspondents' Association. "In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps."
Feb 25, 2025
As part of U.S. President Donald Trump's long-running war with the news media, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Tuesday that the administration will now decide which outlets get to participate in the presidential press pool.
The widely condemned announcement came just a day after U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump appointee, declined to lift the White House's ban on Associated Press reporters attending press briefings and Air Force One flights because the outlet refuses to call the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America" in line with the president's January executive order.
The White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) has managed the press pool since the 1950s. While the group has faced its share of criticism, journalists and others also weren't buying Leavitt's attempt to frame the Trump takeover of the responsibility as an effort to include reporters previously denied the significant access to the president that pool members have.
"This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States. It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps," WHCA president Eugene Daniels said in a Tuesday statement.
As Daniels detailed:
For generations, the working journalists elected to lead the White House Correspondents' Association board have consistently expanded the WHCA's membership and its pool rotations to facilitate the inclusion of new and emerging outlets.
Since its founding in 1914, the WHCA has sought to ensure that the reporters, photographers, producers, and technicians who actually do the work—365 days of every year—decide amongst themselves how these rotations are operated, so as to ensure consistent professional standards and fairness in access on behalf of all readers, viewers and listeners.
To be clear, the White House did not give the WHCA board a heads-up or have any discussions about today's announcements. But the WHCA will never stop advocating for comprehensive access, full transparency, and the right of the American public to read, listen to and watch reports from the White House, delivered without fear or favor.
His remarks followed reporting that the WHCA was trying to quietly resolve the dispute with the AP. CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter said on social media last week: "So why aren't more reporters and media outlets speaking out more vehemently to help the AP? In part, I'm told, it's because the WH Correspondents' Association is trying to work out a solution behind the scenes."
The WHCA did file a motion on Sunday seeking to submit an amicus brief in the AP case before McFadden. The document states that "the government should never interfere with the operation of an independent press, nor should it demand that reporters adopt the government's messaging, framing, and, indeed, ideological worldview. Such conduct is wholly at odds with the Constitution and cannot be permitted to persist."
boy i'll tell you, it does not seem like the white house correspondents' association read this well at all
[image or embed]
— Alex Kirshner ( @alexkirshner.com) February 25, 2025 at 1:56 PM
Daniels was far from alone in blasting the Trump administration's decision on Tuesday. The APreported that the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press called it "a drastic change in how the public obtains information about its government."
Bruce D. Brown, the group's president, said that "the White House press pool exists to serve the public, not the presidency."
The Committee to Protect Journalists said on social media that it "is alarmed by the White House's decision to pick who can be part of the press pool. Given the White House's decision to ban the AP from pool activities in retaliation for an editorial choice, it is concerning that the administration will now exert yet more control over which outlets are able to access the president and events he attends."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "the president does not get to handpick his news coverage, and he cannot condition access to the White House on an outlet's speech alone. The First Amendment protects the rights of outlets to make their own editorial decisions, but this decision opens the door for government punishment of outlets that don't comply with the White House's editorial demands. This is not just about silencing reporters but about dodging accountability and keeping the American people in the dark about important news that impacts each and every one of them."
Some journalists pointed to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Susan Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker, warned that the Trump White House is "on the way to establishing its own version of a Kremlin press pool, approved media only."
Glasser co-authored the book Kremlin Rising with her husband, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker. He said Tuesday that "having served as a Moscow correspondent in the early days of Putin's reign, this reminds me of how the Kremlin took over its own press pool and made sure that only compliant journalists were given access."
"The message is clear," Baker continued. "Given that the White House has already kicked one news organization out of the pool because of coverage it does not like, it is making certain everyone else knows that the rest of us can be barred too if the president does not like our questions or stories."
MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend—who served as chief spokesperson for former Vice President Kamala Harris—suggested that "the reporters should refuse to comply and should continue the precedent of deciding the pool themselves."
"Do I wish I could have picked the reporters in the press pool who were covering the VP when I worked at the White House? Some days… yes," she said. "But that is not how this works."
This article has been updated with comment from the ACLU.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Targets AP, Media Urged to Resist Moves Like 'Gulf of America' Renaming
"It's at times like these that journalists need to put down their pens and advocate for accountable leadership," asserted one campaigner.
Feb 14, 2025
First Amendment defenders are calling on media organizations and journalists to stand up to bullying and intimidation by U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration on Friday confirmed the indefinite exclusion of one of the world's largest news agencies from White House press briefings and Air Force One flights over its refusal to adopt the Republican leader's new name for the Gulf of Mexico.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said that because The Associated Press "continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change" of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, it will be indefinitely banned from White House news conferences and the president's official airplane.
"The level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation."
The New York-based AP, which provides news content to roughly 15,000 media outlets in over 100 countries, has explained that, because the gulf is an international body of water, it will continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico because Mexico—whose president on Thursday threatened to sue Google for adopting Trump's name change—and other countries do not recognize the new name.
In contrast, the AP said it will call Denali, the highest peak in North America, Mt. McKinley following a name change by Trump because the Alaska mountain is located entirely inside the United States.
Budowich said the AP's decision on the Gulf of Mexico exposes the agency's "commitment to misinformation."
"While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces," he argued.
But critics said the Trump administration's behavior is about a lot more than just a spat over a name change.
"Of course, this is just more petty behavior by a president seeking to punish any news organization that doesn't follow his dictates, regardless of how ridiculous they may be," Timothy Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, told Common Dreams on Friday.
"It's at times like these that journalists need to put down their pens and advocate for accountable leadership," Karr stressed. "They need to advocate for themselves, their colleagues, and for journalism writ large."
"The good news is that more than a dozen of the mass market news outlets have refused to adopt Trump's name change for the Gulf of Mexico," he added. "That's a start. They now need to speak out against his First Amendment threats, despite the consequences. There is much more at stake now than just having access to the White House."
"By defying Trump, the AP has created a rallying point for other organizations and individuals to find their spines and defy him as well."
Writing for Public Notice Friday, Noah Berlatsky commended the AP for "not changing their style to suit the whims of a would-be tin-pot dictator."
"And by defying Trump, the AP has created a rallying point for other organizations and individuals to find their spines and defy him as well," Berlatsky added.
Those include the heads of the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), as well as groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists, National Press Club, PEN America, and Society of Professional Journalists.
"The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors' decisions," WHCA president Eugene Daniels said earlier this week.
RSF USA executive director Clayton Weimers said in a statement that "the level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation."
"A sitting president is punishing a major news outlet for its constitutionally protected choice of words," Weimers added. "Donald Trump has been trampling over press freedom since his first day in office."
President Trump banning the Associated Press from an event over their usage of "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America" may seem more absurd than alarming, but Trump's attacks on the free press are no joke.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) February 11, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Numerous experts highlighted what they called the unconstitutionality of banning a media outlet from press briefings for political reasons.
"The AP—a major news agency that produces and distributes reports to thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters around the world—has had long-standing access to the White House," Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote on Friday.
"It is now losing that access because its exercise of editorial discretion doesn't align with the administration’s preferred messaging," Terr added. "That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's unconstitutional."
Berlatsky wrote: "As ABC, Meta, the LA Times, The Washington Post, and Google demonstrate, you lose 100% of the fights you preemptively and despicably surrender. The AP has already won an important victory by refusing to change the Gulf of Mexico to some random other name at the whim of a power-mad orange gasbag."
"If any portion of Trump's agenda is to be stopped, we need people and organizations who are willing to defy him and speak truths he doesn't want to hear," he added. "Despite Trump, the
AP still calls the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. In doing so, it's reminding us what freedom looks like. It's also demonstrating us that if you don't want to lose your freedoms, you have to use them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular