logo
California's NPR and PBS stations will cut staff and programs after funding slashed

California's NPR and PBS stations will cut staff and programs after funding slashed

Small NPR and PBS stations in California are teetering after Congress pulled funding from public broadcasting. Even big stations are bracing for cuts.
Dozens of California public broadcasting stations will lose millions of dollars in funding after Republicans in Congress voted to strip them of federal funding, cutting off a vital lifeline in rural communities and limiting access to local news programming in an era of hyperpartisan national media.
While California broadcasters are assuring audiences that they plan to keep their signals running, they also warn that cost-saving changes are inevitable.
Radio and television stations of all sizes across the Golden State say that to survive, they'll likely be forced to lay off staff and cut programming unless they're able to make up the losses through fundraising. Their leaders warn that the cuts will disproportionately harm locally produced programs, the most expensive to create but among their most popular content, that inform millions of listeners and viewers.
Republicans have long wanted to cut funding for public broadcasting, arguing such services should be funded by private donors, not taxpayers. Their efforts prevailed when Congress last week finalized President Donald Trump's request to rescind $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides grants to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service, their affiliates and other independent public media creators. All nine of California's Republican members of Congress voted in favor of the funding cuts.
Now, roughly 35 stations from San Diego to Hoopa in Humboldt County have lost critical funding.
While many public broadcasters remain hopeful that they'll find ways to endure, all agree the rescission undermines the egalitarian mission of public media – to create a nationwide network that provides access to quality information, stories and music for local communities.
'That has been our superpower,' said Joe Moore, president and general manager of KVPR Valley Public Radio in Fresno. His station lost about 7% of its budget, or $175,000, from the CPB.
'The New York Times doesn't have the type of investment in Alaska or in North Dakota – or on tribal reservations, bringing local news from these communities – that public radio does.'
Smaller stations whose budgets relied heavily on federal dollars to make ends meet are the most at risk of closure. In Eureka, the community-owned PBS affiliate KEET-TV stands to lose $847,000 – nearly half of its operating budget – due to the defunding of CPB. To survive, all of its funding will need to come from community support, since the station has no institutional backer such as a local college or school district.
David Gordon, KEET's general manager and executive director, says that as much as he hopes the station will stay afloat even at reduced capacity, he won't make the same bold proclamation that, 'We're not going anywhere,' like some stations have.
'I can't guarantee that KEET will be here once the dust settles from this defunding move,' Gordon said. He emphasized that he was speaking for himself and not on behalf of his station.
'I hope it is, and I think there's a good chance that it'll survive in some form. But absolutely will it? I don't know if I can say that.'
Nearby, Mendocino-based NPR member station KZYX was forced to lay off its news director after losing 25% of its operating budget, or $174,000, from the CPB. That means news will include fewer in-depth stories, such as interviews with city council members or county supervisors, said Andre de Channes, KZYX's general manager and director of operations.
'There isn't the time to source out those kinds of things,' he said. 'So the news gets more like a headline news.'
The station serves roughly 130,000 listeners, including in Mendocino County and part of Lake County. When de Channes first learned about the CPB cuts, he immediately worried about fire safety, since listeners who live in off-the-grid rural areas without access to internet or cell service rely on KZYX for emergency information.
Those potentially lifesaving emergency alerts became a rallying cry for public media providers and their allies as they begged Congress to preserve funding for their stations, especially those in remote, rural areas that also tend to be Republican. Frank Lanzone, the longtime general manager of the NPR-affiliated KCBX in San Luis Obispo, said his station has sometimes been the only on-air source providing emergency information during severe weather events.
'There's been several times in very bad storms when we're the only station on the air in our area because of either power outages or people's generators ran out of propane,' said Lanzone, who has worked in public radio for more than 50 years.
KCBX, which serves about 45,000 listeners from Santa Barbara to Monterey, will lose $240,000 in funding from CPB, about 13% of its operating budget.
'It's going to hurt the stations and the people that listen to them who need it the most,' Lanzone said. 'The most vulnerable, the ones out in the middle of nowhere.'
Both radio and television station leaders emphasized that local programming – shows that are created and produced in-house rather than purchased from another producer – will be first on the chopping block. To produce locally focused public television programming, stations must invest additional time, money and work on top of the membership dues they pay to be affiliated with PBS, which unlocks a large catalogue of programming that they can air at no additional cost.
For PBS viewers in the Inland Empire, that likely means the loss of popular local programs such as 'Inland Edition,' an Emmy-winning weekly half-hour public affairs show, and 'Learn With Me,' an award-winning bilingual English-Spanish children's show, both of which are produced in house by affiliate KVCR.
'The local stuff that's so important to people is probably the stuff that'll go away,' said Connie Leyva, executive director of KVCR and a former Democratic state senator. The station stands to lose about $550,000 in annual CPB funding, about 6% of its budget.
She emphasized that the station also wanted to preserve its journalism staff – two full-time reporters and one part-time – who have recently focused on federal immigration raids taking place across the region.
'If we're not here, the Inland Empire is just hearing about what's happening in Los Angeles,' Leyva said. 'We want to know what's happening in our backyard, what's happening at the schools around us, what's happening at the Home Depots around us.'
While larger radio stations such as KQED in San Francisco are better equipped than their smaller counterparts to withstand the blow to their budgets, they too will lose massive chunks of funding that currently fund journalist positions and popular shows. Tony Marcano, who runs a statewide partnership network of 14 public radio stations and CalMatters known as the California Newsroom, said the loss of public funding will require even more collaboration.
'Smaller stations are likely to be more affected, but that doesn't mean that the large stations are out of the woods,' Marcano said. 'There'll be pain.'
KQED, one of the country's most listened-to public radio stations and the largest in California, laid off 45 employees earlier this month and lost 10 more from early retirement offers. The 15% reduction came on the eve of Congress passing the budget cuts and is KQED's third round of layoffs in just five years. Though the station stressed that the cuts were due to longstanding financial challenges, KQED now stands to lose close to $8 million, or about 8% of its revenue.
LAist, the Los Angeles area's largest NPR affiliate, laid off eight people earlier this year and has slashed 61 positions since 2023. It will lose $1.7 million in federal funding, about 4% of its budget.
The consequences go beyond newsroom staff and programming. The federal government funds repairs to transmission infrastructure and played a role in helping negotiate artist royalty fees on behalf of local stations.
Radio Bilingüe, a Central Valley-based organization that is one of the largest Spanish-language radio outlets and broadcasts throughout the U.S. and Mexico, was in the final stages of negotiations for a $1.1 million grant from the CPB to improve its transmission equipment, which hasn't been updated since the 1980s. But the funding rollback means it will have to find the money elsewhere, said Hugo Morales, the group's co-executive director and founder.
'You're talking about transmitters that are 40 years old,' Morales said. 'At some point, it's going to give out, and we're going to have to find somewhere else to raise the money for that.'
Morales also made the difficult decision earlier this year to cancel the construction of three additional stations across Arizona and New Mexico that would have primarily served rural communities and farm workers who don't have access to broadband. The organization and its stations will lose $300,000 in annual CPB grants, roughly 7.5% of its yearly budget.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Radio Bilingüe shared vital information about testing centers, vaccine availability and how to sign up for social services in Spanish and Indigenous languages such as Mixteco and Triqui.
The loss of CPB funding will also jeopardize independent documentary filmmakers supported by the San Francisco-based ITVS, which Congress created in 1990 as an independent service with a mandate to increase diversity and innovation in public media. It received roughly 86% of its budget, $19 million, from federal grants.
ITVS leaders say the group has partnered with hundreds of independent filmmakers to co-produce more than 900 feature documentaries distributed to PBS stations nationwide.
'Public media is a space for all Americans,' said Carrie Lozano, the organization's president and CEO. 'These films are not partisan. They are, generally speaking, films that touch everybody's lives. They are there in service of the public.'
In anticipation of the cuts, the organization laid off 13 employees in June, or roughly 20% of its staff. Lozano expects roughly 10 films to lose out on funding this year – a big cut from the 20 to 40 feature and short documentaries that ITVS typically funds every year. While the organization is determined to stay afloat, Lozano worries the loss of federal investment will prevent important stories from being told and create a domino effect on the rest of the ecosystem.
'There's no question that this is a huge blow to the field,' Lozano said, 'and to everything that surrounds it.'
Miller and Mihalovich write for CalMatters.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Trump became the new master of the Senate
How Trump became the new master of the Senate

Yahoo

time3 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Trump became the new master of the Senate

The most eventful week to date in the midterm battle for the Senate just came to a close. The field in one of the marquee races of 2026 finally took shape in North Carolina, the lead architect of Project 2025 launched a primary challenge against South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Mike Collins joined the Georgia GOP Senate primary, appointed Florida Sen. Ashley Moody continued on her special election glide path when her most serious Democratic challenger dropped out, and we got a little more insight into Nebraska. But don't lose sight of the larger narrative. Whatever else is happening in these races from week to week, the single most important factor determining the outcome of the 2026 Senate election cycle is President Donald Trump. Nothing else is even close. His approval ratings are part of this equation. Trump is famously rangebound in the polls, with a low ceiling and a high floor, but his popularity next year will matter — midterm history shows there is a correlation between a president's ratings and his party's fate. But Trump's unique ability to unleash the forces of electoral chaos is what really makes him the single most influential character. No one — not Mitch McConnell, not the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not Majority Leader John Thune nor anyone else — has done as much as Trump to directly shape the Senate GOP Conference over the past decade. Since taking office in 2017, he's hounded a handful of members out of office, been the proximate cause of lost Senate seats in Georgia and blown opportunities elsewhere (just Google McConnell and 'candidate quality'). By elevating JD Vance and Marco Rubio from their Senate seats into his administration, Trump created two more new Republican senators. Most recently, Trump upended the landscape in North Carolina. The traditional presidential play would have been to cut GOP Sen. Thom Tillis some slack, recognizing the complexity of the terrain and the party's need to maximize Tillis' chances of holding his seat. Instead, Trump became the catalyst for his retirement, enhancing Democratic chances of flipping the seat in one of the most competitive states in the nation. So far, Trump has been unusually disciplined when it comes to the Senate — by his standards, at least. Surrounded by the most capable political team he's ever assembled — and tempered by the bracing experience of two unsuccessful midterm elections — the president has judiciously dished out endorsements to incumbents and strategically withheld them. He's also largely avoided trashing wayward Senate Republicans. Until now. Whether it's the pressure from the Jeffrey Epstein saga or a reversion to the mean, the cracks are beginning to show. The gravitational pull toward chaos is overtaking his strategic imperatives. In the last week alone, Trump has publicly whacked three Senate Republicans — Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and 91-year-old Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the longest-serving member of the Senate — for largely minor political offenses. [Here's a thought exercise: Try imagining Barack Obama lighting up Robert Byrd for respecting an informal Senate practice, or George W. Bush torching Strom Thurmond. The missile aimed at Collins, who has consistently vexed the president, was predictable, though not particularly productive. Dragging one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents doesn't advance the goal of holding a Senate majority. The dig at Grassley — especially after the Senate Judiciary chair and champion of whistle-blowers fell in line on the Emil Bove nomination — was simply gratuitous. The Iowan's GOP bona fides date back to the Eisenhower era; his ticket's been punched in the Iowa Legislature, the House and nearly a half-century in the Senate. To suggest Grassley lacks political courage, or is a RINO, or that the president carried him to reelection in 2022, is to play cat's paw with him. It also served no discernable purpose, other than to remind Grassley and everyone else of Trump's dominion over the Senate, which isn't really in question anymore. Grassley's meek response was revealing: he said he was 'offended' and 'disappointed' by the insult. Welp. Trump can't seem to help himself: He delights in taking down members of the world's most exclusive club. Counting his Truth Social posts aimed at Chuck Schumer and four other Senate Democrats ('SLEAZEBAGS ALL') Trump leveled public attacks on eight different senators in recent days. The equal-opportunity disparagement helps explain his deep connection with the base of an increasingly populist GOP: The grassroots appreciates the fact that, when it comes to Trump, everyone in a position of power — senators, foreign leaders, former presidents, billionaires and Fortune 500 CEOs — is fair game. The GOP begins with a structural advantage on the 2026 Senate map: Nearly all of the Republican seats up for election are in states Trump carried easily last year, while Democrats must defend at least four seats that are more precariously perched. While the midterm political winds typically blow against the party in power, to win back the majority Democrats have to flip four Republican seats, while not losing any they currently control. It's a daunting task, but Trump looms as the great equalizer. It wouldn't take more than a few impulsive, undisciplined moves — such as endorsing slavishly loyal but unelectable candidates in key races, or creating messy primaries by torpedoing shaky GOP incumbents — to create just enough opportunities for Democrats to compete on what is otherwise an unforgiving Senate map.

The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn

CNN

time3 minutes ago

  • CNN

The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn

Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.

Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines
Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines

New York Post

time4 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Party poopers: Less than 10% of American friendships cross political lines

Only a tiny portion of friendships in the US are between a Democrat and a Republican, an eye-opening new study found. Researchers at Wellesley College looked at 971 adult friend pairs and found that most Americans are not willing to agree to disagree. The study, published July 5 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, analyzed two separate friend samples, one in-person and one online. Advertisement 5 Researchers found that in real-life samples from New York and Boston, only 3% of friendships paired a Democrat and a Republican, a sign of deepening political silos. Jacob Lund – One study surveyed 537 friend pairs in deep-blue cities like New York and Boston, plus three liberal campuses — Wellesley, Amherst and Babson — and found just 3% of friendships crossed party lines. Nearly half of participants were Democrats. Only 7% were Republicans. Advertisement The second group, 434 friend pairs surveyed online, was more politically balanced — and the number of cross-party friendships more than doubled. With 42% Democrats and 31% Republicans, 8% of friendships spanned the aisle, hinting conservatives may be more willing to mix than their liberal peers. Even when friendships did cross the aisle, they scored lower on trust, emotional support and mutual understanding, the study found. 5 The study surveyed more than 970 friend pairs and found that almost all shared similar views on hot-button issues like abortion, gun control and immigration. fizkes – But there was one silver lining: the rare few who crossed party lines regarded the other side with less hostility. Advertisement 'Part of what is destroying our social fabric is that we have set an expectation that to be a good Democrat or Republican, you have to unconditionally hate the other party,' said Sean Westwood, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. 'There is evidence that this social pressure to hate makes the state of partisan conflict seem worse than it actually is.' That pressure only grows, he added, when people don't have personal ties to someone on the other side. 'If you don't know a Republican or Democrat, it is easier to assume that they are unpatriotic, evil or immoral,' Westwood told The Post. 'Without a personal connection you can get lost in the nonsense coming from social media, cable news and Washington DC.' 5 Even when friendships crossed political lines, participants rated them as less close and less satisfying compared to ideologically aligned relationships. lesslemon – Advertisement Only about a quarter of friend pairs said they disagreed on major issues like abortion, immigration or gun rights, suggesting most people befriend those who already see eye to eye. And when politics entered the chat, things got even rockier — a quarter of those who disagreed said the conversation damaged the friendship. Some simply obliterate the friendship entirely, a 2024 study found One in five adults have cut off a close relative over politics, and half said the break happened in 2024 leading up to the election, a 2024 survey from The Harris Poll found. 5 Despite the tension, those with politically opposite friends showed more tolerance toward outgroups, suggesting some benefits to bipartisan bonds. be free – Among those still in contact, a third said they felt uncomfortable at a family gathering because of someone's political views, and just as many feared future events could turn ugly. 'It is rewarding to be around people who validate your views of the world and of the moral order, and from mildly stressful to absolutely intolerable to be around people who disagree with beliefs and values that are important to us,' Dr. Peter Ditto, a psychology professor at UC Irvine, told The Post. And it's a vicious cycle. Advertisement 'The more people hear about polarization, hostility and how few Democrats and Republicans are friends, the more they become convinced that they should also keep quiet,' said University of Michigan political communications professor Yanna Krupnikov. 5 In a more balanced national sample, 8% of 434 friend pairs crossed party lines — slightly higher than the 3% found in liberal strongholds. – Ditto warned that as politics becomes more central to people's identities, it's taking a toll on their personal lives. 'I worry as I see more and more evidence that politics is getting personal … that the corrosive political polarization in contemporary U.S. politics is seeping into people's everyday lives in ways that impact their well-being,' he said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store