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
public media
What I Told House Republicans About Their Dangerous Attempt to Defund NPR
We need more—not less—public media.
May 09, 2024
Here we go again. Every couple of years, conservative members of Congress launch highly partisan attempts to root out alleged “bias” at NPR and PBS—which remain incredibly popular and trusted among the American public—and threaten to slash funding that supports local nonprofit radio and TV affiliates nationwide.
This year’s so-called outrage? A contentious and inaccurate critique of NPR published by a disgruntled editor. In it, then-NPR senior editor Uri Berliner claimed that NPR ignores conservative viewpoints and storylines.
GOP members of Congress claim that Berliner’s essay proves that “NPR suffers from intractable bias,” arguing that “it is time Congress investigates how federal dollars are being used at NPR and what reforms may be necessary.”
While I don’t represent NPR, PBS or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I was called to testify on May 8 before a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee to offer my views about public funding for local news and information, a pillar of Free Press’ work over the past 20 years.
In testifying, I hoped to provide a voice for NPR’s tens of millions of weekly listeners, who rely on the service for fact-checked journalism, local viewpoints, and international coverage. But I also hoped to paint a picture of the possibilities of an expanded public-media system, one that receives more robust public funding for the kinds of local news and information that have gone missing in local communities.
Inquiries like the House hearing will likely make NPR leadership more timid, and I imagine that’s the point.
Over the past two decades, I have been both an advocate for and a critic of the public broadcasting system—which I believe can do more to live up to its mandate and mission. This won’t be accomplished by tarnishing the reputation of NPR’s accomplished journalists, tearing down the institution, or starving it of funds.
But inquiries like the House hearing will likely make NPR leadership more timid, and I imagine that’s the point.
Defunding threats don’t just harm NPR executives—they endanger the work of more than 1,000 local radio stations providing essential information to communities large and small.
While I always welcome Congress’s interest in public media, especially given the crisis in local journalism, I’m perplexed that an essay by one disgruntled editor at NPR is cause for a congressional inquiry.
The United States spends a pittance per capita on public media when compared to other healthy democracies.
Berliner’s essay (which was published, confusingly enough, in a Substack publication called “The Free Press”) is riddled with fuzzy math and cherry-picked evidence. For example, he inaccurately describes several stories as going uncovered, when NPR did extensive reporting or publicly interrogated its own editorial decision-making about them.
That said, public media’s purpose should be to tell stories not already told by commercial media and serve audiences not represented elsewhere.
Berliner laments NPR’s increased focus on racial diversity since 2020. If in 2024 you’re still questioning whether systemic racism exists, you should probably spend more time listening to the experiences of your colleagues from different backgrounds.
If Berliner had done so, he would have found many people of color inside and outside of NPR and PBS who consistently and repeatedly criticized public media’s failures to reach and serve new and diverse audiences. Numerous NPR and PBS employees and associates also raised concerns about the workplace environment for people of color at NPR and PBS, editorial decision-making, and budgeting and funding priorities when it comes to media makers from marginalized backgrounds.
Berliner’s supposed bombshell that D.C. residents in NPR’s newsroom are all registered Democrats—in a city where just 5 percent of voters are registered as Republicans—doesn’t withstand scrutiny either. As NPR journalist Steve Inskeep points out, NPR has 662 people in its newsrooms around the world, including far more in D.C. than the 87 Berliner tallied. The numbers don’t add up.
While Congress has a role in overseeing the operations and financial management of NPR, threats to defund it based on a perceived failure to cover certain topics or hire certain people strike at the heart of journalistic freedom.
Yet these rickety claims have sent a GOP-controlled House subcommittee down a precarious path. I’m deeply concerned about the request the House majority sent in a letter to NPR CEO Katherine Maher, asking her to track and report to Congress on the political affiliations of NPR’s newsroom employees.
This dangerous overreach, which came at the urging of House Speaker Mike Johnson, raises serious First Amendment concerns and smacks of a political loyalty test. While Congress has a role in overseeing the operations and financial management of NPR, threats to defund it based on a perceived failure to cover certain topics or hire certain people strike at the heart of journalistic freedom.
Yes, there also must be a firewall between NPR executives and the newsroom. NPR’s new CEO may have once volunteered for a Biden campaign. The head of the CPB used to co-chair the RNC. Neither is, nor should be, involved in editorial decisions.
Berliner insists he doesn’t want NPR defunded, but his complaints have been seized upon by those who seek to defang or destroy public media. This is just the latest chapter in a long history of attacking NPR personnel on trumped-up charges of bias.
There is another path. Instead, Congress should take this moment of crisis in local journalism as an opportunity to talk about how to rebuild and expand the public-media system to meet the real needs of local communities.
Congress should take this moment of crisis in local journalism as an opportunity to talk about how to rebuild and expand the public-media system to meet the real needs of local communities.
There’s much common ground to explore on this topic. At the hearing, I found myself in agreement with Howard Husock of the American Enterprise Institute, who also argued that more public-media resources should be devoted to local journalism to replant news deserts.
With changes to the law, this could go beyond broadcasting to support emerging nonprofit news outlets that are providing in-depth and (as of this week) Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage. Right now, the United States spends a pittance per capita on public media when compared to other healthy democracies. That’s just $3.16 per capita a year in public funding compared to $75–$100 per capita or more annually in countries like England, France, Germany and Norway. That’s literally pocket change.
Instead of cutting back even further, Congress should increase funding for public media and ensure that locally engaged outlets—and those reaching the diverse audiences NPR hasn’t—can receive more support. This should not be a partisan debate about right versus left, but rather one about returning the public airwaves to local hands, lifting up diverse local viewpoints, amplifying community affairs and playing local music over the airwaves.
I imagine many members of Congress remember a time when there were multiple local outlets covering their campaigns and accomplishments—actually telling people back home what they do in Washington.
A renewed and vibrant public media system focused on local voices is possible. But it requires a different approach, one that builds on public media’s founding purpose, quoting President Lyndon Johnson, to use the public airwaves, “which belong to all the people … for the enlightenment of all the people.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Should We All Join Them?' NPR First Major News Outlet to Leave Twitter
"We are not putting our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public's understanding of our editorial independence."
Apr 12, 2023
NPR on Wednesday announced plans to leave Twitter—the social media platform now owned by billionaire Elon Musk—after being branded last week with a "state-affiliated media" label that, after backlash, was replaced with "government-funded media."
"NPR's organizational accounts will no longer be active on Twitter because the platform is taking actions that undermine our credibility by falsely implying that we are not editorially independent," the media organization said in a statement.
"We are not putting our journalism on platforms that have demonstrated an interest in undermining our credibility and the public's understanding of our editorial independence," the statement added. "We are turning away from Twitter but not from our audiences and communities. There are plenty of ways to stay connected and keep up with NPR's news, music, and cultural content."
After the platform's initial decision last week, NPR president and CEO John Lansing said that "we were disturbed to see... that Twitter has labeled NPR as 'state-affiliated media,' a description that, per Twitter's own guidelines, does not apply to NPR."
Others also criticized applying that specific label to NPR—including Liz Woolery, PEN America's digital policy leader, who called it "a dangerous move that could further undermine public confidence in reliable news sources."
\u201cIt won\u2019t be the last news org to do this. Interesting months ahead.\u201d— Richard Deitsch (@Richard Deitsch) 1681308253
In an email exchange, an NPR reporter informed Musk that—like other U.S. public media—only about 1% of NPR's budget comes from the government, while about 40% is from corporate sponsors and 31% is from local stations' programming fees.
Musk reportedly wrote to the journalist that "the operating principle at new Twitter is simply fair and equal treatment, so if we label non-U.S. accounts as [government], then we should do the same for U.S., but it sounds like that might not be accurate here."
Twitter then updated the label on NPR's main account—which has 8.8 million followers—to government-affiliated, a label that has also been applied to the BBC, which has disputed the platform's decision.
"The BBC operates through a Royal Charter agreed with the U.K. government, which states the corporation 'must be independent,'" the British outlet explained Wednesday. "Its public service output is funded by U.K. households via a TV license fee, as well as income from commercial operations."
In a wide-ranging Tuesday interview with the BBC, Musk said: "We want [the tag] as truthful and accurate as possible. We're adjusting the label to [the BBC being] publicly funded. We'll try to be accurate."
\u201cBefore we get too lost in the latest @NPR/@Twitter scuffle, it's worth noting that having more "publicly-funded media" is a proven positive for democratic nations.\n\nIf anything, the U.S. doesn't have enough. \n\nht @jbenton, @VWPickard & @Teejneff \n\nhttps://t.co/5r9VBAQCOf\u201d— Tim Karr (Hold This Space for Substack Notes) (@Tim Karr (Hold This Space for Substack Notes)) 1681314683
Since Musk finalized his $44 billion purchase of Twitter in October, when he was the world's richest man, "it has been quite a rollercoaster," Musk admitted to the BBC. "It's been really quite a stressful situation."
The billionaire has come under fire for various platform policy and business decisions, from suspending journalists reporting on the movements of his private jet to laying off Twitter staff. While there was an initial exodus of advertisers, Musk said Tuesday that "I think almost all advertisers have come back or said they are going to come back."
However, the battle over how or even whether to label publicly funded media and NPR's decision to become the first major media outlet to ditch Twitter have some users, such as the U.S.-based advocacy group Free Press, asking, "Should we all join them?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why NPR's Layoffs Are a Public Policy Problem
The struggle to find the revenue to keep NPR reporters on their beats is a failure to advocate for policies that would increase the public funding it and other noncommercial media outlets need to thrive.
Feb 25, 2023
More than 50 years on, it's easy to wonder what went wrong with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the legislation that created public media as we've come to know it in the United States. Despite the popular understanding that a healthy democracy requires a free press, the U.S. Congress remains reluctant to offer public subsidies for any journalism that doesn't operate under the dictates of the commercial marketplace.
Nowhere is this more evident than in news from earlier this week that NPR plans to cut 10% of its staff to make up a budget shortfall of $30 million. The reason NPR's chief executive gives for the layoffs is not the routine failure of Congress to fund public radio journalism at the level it needs, but a "sharp decline in our revenues from corporate sponsors."
Say what?
"Despite being the wealthiest nation on the planet, the United States impoverishes its public media infrastructures," writes professor Victor Pickard, co-director of the Media, Inequality, and Change Center at the University of Pennsylvania (and Free Press' board chair). This has left nominally public media outlets to fend for themselves in the marketplace. Outlets like NPR and PBS—as well as the many local stations affiliated with them—receive the "bulk of their funding in the form of private capital from individual contributors, foundations, and corporations," he adds.
The net effect of this private sector dependency is a public media system that is by definition not noncommercial. And that affects not just the future of journalism in the United States but our democracy as well.
The Public Broadcasting Act is very clear on the matter: It amends a section of the 1934 Communications Act by inserting the word "noncommercial" to describe the type of radio and television outlets that would receive public funding from the newly created Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
It's an insertion that underscores the act's goals: to set up a free and functional noncommercial media sector that could counterbalance the market-driven media that dominated the public sphere then as it dominates it now.
The poor antidote
The CPB was supposed to fund this antidote to profit-driven news and information. In the words of President Johnson, who signed the Public Broadcasting Act, this was about offering public support for media that serve "great and not the trivial purposes."
But such greatness is hard to achieve with Congress' paltry annual offering to the CPB: At $465 million in FY 2022, the public allocation boils down to a little more than $1.40 per capita in the United States. By comparison, the United Kingdom spends more than $81 per person, and France more than $75. Head further north and the numbers head north as well: Denmark's per-person spending is more than $93, Finland's more than $100, and Norway's more than $110. And it isn't just a European trend: Japan (+$53/capita) and South Korea (+$14) show their appreciation for publicly funded media at levels that put the U.S. outlay to shame.
This bleak math is all too familiar to those who follow public media policy in the United States. Lawmakers here continue to believe that publicly funded media should remain subordinate to its corporate counterpart—and that the work of journalism is best suited to the private sector.
That doesn't make sense. Commercial journalism has been in crisis for decades now, as popular news consumption habits have changed and advertisers have had to find new ways to reach these consumers—including ways that don't help fund the sorts of journalism democracies need to stay healthy. Between 2008 and 2020, more than 1,000 U.S. newspapers ceased printing, and the number of newspaper newsroom employees shrank by more than half.
As the commercial model for news production falters, the last thing we should be doing is funding public interest journalism at levels that force noncommercial outlets like NPR to mimic the for-profit news business. "Allowing our public media to become so dependent on advertising revenue (and other sources of private capital and 'enhanced underwriting') was always bad social policy," Pickard wrote in response to my online comments about NPR's current dilemma.
A 2021 study co-authored by Pickard and professor Timothy Neff of the University of Leicester finds that more robust funding for public media strengthens a given country's democracy—with increased public knowledge about civic affairs, more diverse media coverage, and lower levels of extremist views.
Conversely, the loss of quality local journalism and investigative reporting has far-reaching societal harms. Josh Stearns of the Democracy Fund (and a former Free Press staff member) has cataloged the growing body of evidence showing that declines in local news and information lead to drops in civic engagement. "The faltering of newspapers, the consolidation of TV and radio, and the rising power of social media platforms are not just commercial issues driven by the market," Stearns writes. "They are democratic issues with profound implications for our communities."
Innovations in noncommercial media are poised to help fill the massive local news-and-information gap that the collapse of market-driven news models has created. But these innovative outlets require help via local, state, and federal policies.
Global policies, local examples
As a start, Free Press Action has called for a quadrupling of public funds for noncommercial news and information. This kind of congressional commitment would recognize that depending on the private sector and emulating commercial models isn't a viable approach for the longevity of local news and information. To get there at the federal level, Free Press Action has proposed a new tax on digital advertising to fund the kinds of innovative news production that are now needed. A tax of 2% would generate more than $2 billion annually, enough to support new noncommercial media models, and lessen any dependence on corporate underwriters for revenue.
Dramatically increasing public investment in locally engaged reporting would help support the wide array of new nonprofit outlets that are focused on meeting the information needs of communities that commercial media too often ignore. Many of these new models are profiled in The Roadmap for Local News, an actionable plan to ensure that every U.S. community has access to necessary public interest news and information.
Co-authored by Elizabeth Green of Chalkbeat, Darryl Holliday of City Bureau, and Mike Rispoli of Free Press, The Roadmap expands journalism's forms into new and previously underserved communities while sharpening the definition of what it is for. It calls on lawmakers to cultivate and pass public policies that support the expansion of civic information while maintaining editorial independence.
In New Jersey, Free Press Action helped conceive and create the New Jersey Civic Information Consortium, an independent nonprofit funded by a state budget appropriation. The consortium, whose board includes representatives from public colleges and universities across the state, supports inventive local news projects like the Newark News & Story Collaborative and the Bloomfield Information Project, which train local residents to report the news from their own perspectives.
In California, Free Press Action supported state legislation that dedicated $25 million to fund local reporting in underserved and underrepresented communities statewide. The money will be distributed through a fellowship program housed at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism. (Free Press' Rispoli will serve on the program's Advisory Board).
More than 50 years after the Public Broadcasting Act, Free Press is also looking 50 years into the future. Through the work of the Media 2070 project, Free Press envisions ways the media can serve as levers for racial justice. This includes engaging policymakers in the repair and reconciliation needed to redress centuries of harm news outlets have inflicted on Black communities.
As NPR struggles to find the revenue to keep its reporters on their beats, it shouldn't see the problem as a failure to raise advertising revenue from corporate underwriters. It's a failure to advocate for policies that would increase the public funding it and other noncommercial media outlets need to thrive.
If we're serious about the future of journalism and civic information in the United States, we need to look locally for innovations in not-for-profit news production, and abroad for examples of more robust ways to fund it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular