
Public media has earned our trust — and government funding
When Hurricane Helene struck North Carolina last fall, Blue Ridge Public Radio leapt into action. When cell service went down, they kept reporting. When power went out, they switched to a backup generator.
When other reporters needed a place to work, they opened their doors. Broadcasting for 12 hours or more each day, and constantly updating their website, Blue Ridge Public Radio became a crucial source of information for a devastated community.
At Knight Foundation, where I'm president and CEO, we know that a well-informed public is the cornerstone of a thriving democracy. It's why the free press is guaranteed in our Constitution, so that citizens have the information they need to make informed choices.
Opinion: Make Indiana Healthy Again is about cost-cutting, not wellness
And it's why proposals to defund NPR and PBS − and by extension, thousands of public media stations across the country, which deliver reliable news to their communities − are not just misguided but dangerous.
Public media is one of the few civic institutions that still commands broad trust in an age of division and disinformation. Nearly twice as many Americans support continued federal funding for NPR and PBS as oppose it, according to a study conducted by Pew Research Center just last month.
The two public broadcasters − and the local stations that bring their programming to communities large and small − serve a unique and essential role: delivering free, fact-based news and educational content to everyone, regardless of income or ZIP code.
Like Blue Ridge Public Radio, they provide the important, sometimes lifesaving, information a community needs.
In communities across the country, public radio and television stations are reporting on the happenings at city hall; holding school boards accountable, spreading the word of local triumphs and helping residents understand the issues that affect their lives.
Critics argue that public broadcasting is biased. But year after year, surveys show that PBS is the most trusted source of news in America − more trusted than cable networks, newspapers or social media. And Pew's recent research showed that twice as many Americans trust NPR as distrust it.
Both broadcasters are guided by strict editorial standards and bipartisan governance, and they operate with remarkable efficiency. The entire budget of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees both PBS and NPR, costs each American about $1.60. That's less than one cup of coffee a year for an essential public service.
By law, about 70% of CPB's budget goes directly to local stations through annual community service grants. Nearly half of those grant recipients are classified as rural stations.
PBS reaches 89% of lower-income families, offering trusted educational programming that commercial networks won't touch. NPR's member stations reach more than 40 million listeners each week, including in communities that are otherwise news deserts. And in an emergency − from hurricanes like Helene to wildfires to health crises − it's often a public station that stays on air and delivers critical updates.
Hicks America's research dominance was hard-won. We're sabotaging it.
Federal support helps make this possible, but it also acts as a force multiplier: every dollar Congress allocates to public media helps generate about eight more in private and philanthropic support. That kind of leverage is rare for any federal program − and it's part of what makes public broadcasting so resilient and responsive. But federal support matters most in small and rural communities, where corporate and philanthropic support can be harder to come by, and government funding keeps those stations on the air.
At a time when many local news sources are closing, a public station is in some places the last truly local newsroom. Eliminate the funding, and you silence local voices. You shrink civic space. You take away access to trusted information in communities that need it most.
This moment requires us to see clearly what's at stake. The crisis in local journalism, the erosion of civic trust, the proliferation of misinformation − all of it points to a need for more investment in fact-based, public interest media, not less. The federal government cannot fix the information crisis alone, and philanthropies like Knight are actively engaged in finding solutions. But the government can − and should − continue to play a vital role in sustaining a media ecosystem that serves all Americans.
Public media is not perfect. But it is irreplaceable. At a time when Americans are desperate for institutions they can trust, public broadcasting continues to deliver − with integrity, with reach, and with deep community roots.
Congress should reject calls to defund NPR and PBS. Not as a partisan statement, but as a commitment to democracy itself.
Maribel Pérez Wadsworth is the president and CEO of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, as well as a trustee of the foundation. She is the first woman and the seventh president to lead the foundation. Drawing on her experience as the former president of Gannett Media and publisher of USA Today, Wadsworth brings a well-honed commitment to Knight's mission of informing and engaging communities.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Don't defund NPR, PBS. They're irreplaceable. | Opinion

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Chad announces suspension of visas to US citizens in response to Trump travel ban
N'DJAMENA, Chad (AP) — Chad's President Mahamat Idriss Deby has announced that his country will suspend the issuing of visas to U.S. citizens in response to the Trump administration's decision to ban Chadians from visiting the United States. President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term when he announced the visa ban on 12 countries including Chad, accusing them of having 'deficient' screening and vetting, and historically refusing to take back their own citizens who overstay in the United States. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven others in the new travel policy, which takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. In a Facebook post, Chad's president on Thursday said he is directing his government to suspend visas to U.S. citizens 'in accordance with the principles of reciprocity.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride,' Deby said, referring to the $400 million luxury plane offered to his administration as a gift by the ruling family of Qatar. Republic of Congo calls the ban a mistake The new travel policy has triggered varied reactions from Africa, whose countries make up seven of the 12 countries affected by Trump's outright visa ban with some exemptions. In the Republic of Congo, government spokesperson Thierry Moungalla said he believes the country was among those affected because of a 'misunderstanding' over an armed attack in the U.S. with the perpetrators 'mistaken' to be from the Republic of Congo. 'Obviously, Congo is not a terrorist country, is not home to any terrorist, is not known to have a terrorist vocation. So we think that this is a misunderstanding and I believe that in the coming hours, the competent diplomatic services of the government will contact the American authorities here,' he said in the capital of Brazzaville. In Sierra Leone, among countries with heightened travel restrictions, Information Minister Chernor Bah said the country is committed to addressing the concerns that prompted the ban.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.


San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. While many of the listed countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the U.S. are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat court challenges by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.