logo
What's next for PBS and NPR after Republicans strip funding?

What's next for PBS and NPR after Republicans strip funding?

Yahoo2 days ago
Ken Burns has made more than 30 documentaries and won multiple Emmys.
But without funding from public television, his educational programming such as "The Civil War" and "Baseball" might never have existed, he told "PBS News Hour" in an interview Thursday.
Even today, the acclaimed filmmaker whose works — including his upcoming project "The American Revolution" — are broadcast on PBS, said his films get around 20% of their budgets from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the body Congress recently voted to defund.
Projects that receive a higher percentage of their funding through public media "just won't be able to be made," Burns said. "And so there'll be less representation by all the different kinds of filmmakers. People coming up will have an impossible time getting started."
The U.S. Senate this week passed the Trump administration's proposal to cancel $9 billion in federal funding previously allocated for foreign aid and public broadcasting, and the House of Representatives approved the package after midnight Friday, sending it to President Trump's desk.
The Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which administers the funds for NPR radio stations and PBS TV affiliates, is on track to lose $1.1 billion that had previously been budgeted for the next two years.
The impact of those cuts will be deeply felt across both NPR and PBS, leaders of both organizations told The Times. Layoffs and reduced programming are expected, and the blows will disproportionately strike smaller markets that rely more heavily on federal funding.
"This is going to hit hardest in the places that need it the most," said Gabriel Kahn, a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.
Read more: The Senate voted to defund NPR and PBS. How will local stations cope?
Stations in smaller markets are staffed significantly less than stations in larger cities, often because of the disparity in funding. The Corp. for Public Broadcasting acted as "the great equalizer," Kahn said, padding the budgets of smaller stations so they could continue operating.
"It's just going to be increasingly lonely out there as these voices, who were of the community and generally very well trusted, are going to disappear," Kahn said. "Because within a year, you're not going to be able to hear these things on the radio anymore in a lot of places."
Media leaders react
The cuts fulfill a longtime dream of conservatives and libertarians, who bristle at the notion of public funds supporting media organizations, especially ones they view as left-leaning. Republicans have for decades called for cuts to public broadcasting because of their perceived liberal slant of its programming.
Trump has called NPR and PBS government-funded 'left-wing propaganda.'
But several prominent voices in media and politics were quick to call attention to the harm the cuts will have, especially on communities where the local stations rely heavily on federal funding.
"A PBS station is really like the public library. It's one of those important institutions that may be the only place where people have access to local news," Burns said. "There's a kind of sense of local accountability, and as news becomes nationalized and even internationalized, there's a loss there."
PBS President Paula Kerger expressed similar concerns.
'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead,' Kerger said in a statement Thursday.
Read more: NPR stations targeted for cuts by Trump have provided lifelines to listeners during disasters
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of two Senate Republicans to vote against the package, said she strongly opposes the cuts to public media in a statement after the vote. She referenced a 7.3 magnitude earthquake in Alaska this week that triggered a tsunami warning as an example of the public service stations provide.
"My colleagues are targeting NPR but will wind up hurting — and, over time, closing down — local radio stations that provide essential news, alerts and educational programming in Alaska and across the country."
A devastating blow to SoCal stations
Public media outlets in Southern California's urban areas, which can turn to wealthy locals for donations, are less dependent on federal funding than stations in smaller markets. But they will still feel an immediate loss.
Washington, D.C.-based NPR has two major affiliates serving the Los Angeles area: LAist, or KPCC-FM (89.3), and KCRW-FM (89.9).
LAist, based in Pasadena, was set to receive $1.7 million, about 4% of its annual budget. Alejandra Santamaria, president and chief executive of LAist, said the money is equivalent to 13 journalist positions at the local news operation. KCRW in Santa Monica was expecting $264,000 from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting.
PBS SoCal, which operates member stations KOCE and KCET in Orange and Los Angeles counties, respectively, is facing a loss of $4.3 million in federal funding, according to Andy Russell, president and chief executive of the stations.
Connie Leyva, executive director of KVCR Public Media in San Bernardino, which operates PBS and NPR affiliates, said earlier this week that the Senate action will mean losing $540,000, about 6% of its operating budget. Thus, she has to consider cutting five positions on an already lean staff.
Kahn, the USC professor who is also the publisher and editor of Crosstown L.A., a nonprofit newsroom focused on local reporting and data journalism, said the cuts could have unintended consequences for Trump's own voters.
"The irony, of course, is that these are areas that generally support Trump with high margins, and they're are also areas that have the greatest allegiance to their local public radio station," he said.
Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's big bill offers $6K tax break for seniors — but not everyone gets a cut. Here's how much you may save
Trump's big bill offers $6K tax break for seniors — but not everyone gets a cut. Here's how much you may save

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's big bill offers $6K tax break for seniors — but not everyone gets a cut. Here's how much you may save

Donald Trump's big sweeping spending bill included a sweetener for many seniors across America. Starting this year, individuals over the age of 65 can claim $6,000 as a tax deduction in their next filing, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Those who file joint returns can claim this amount individually, which means a married couple could get deductions up to $12,000. Although this isn't the elimination of all income taxes on Social Security that he promised while campaigning, this new subsidy could still be a helpful financial boost for those who qualify. However, the real impact of this new deduction depends on your income bracket. Here's a closer look at how much you could save at different levels of income. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Low income Low-income seniors might not notice this new deduction because they already benefit from a standard deduction that reduces or eliminates the income taxes they owe. As of 2025, the standard deduction for someone over the age of 65 is up to $18,500 individually and up to $32,300 for joint filers. This category includes a significant number of American seniors. According to the KFF, one in three adults over the age of 65 had an income below $28,080 in 2022. Middle income Households with relatively modest incomes could see the most benefit from this new deduction. Because the deduction starts to phase out for single filers earning over $75,000 and married couples making over $150,000 — with full disqualification at incomes above $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples — the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that middle- and upper-middle-income households stand to gain the most. Read more: Americans are 'revenge saving' to survive — but millions only get a measly 1% on their savings. Seniors with incomes between approximately $80,000 and $130,000 are expected to benefit the most from this provision, which would cut their taxes by an average of $1,100, or around 1% of their after-tax income, according to their calculations. High income With a full phase out of the deduction at individual incomes above $175,000 and joint incomes above $250,000, high income tax payers won't benefit from this new incentive at all. Caveats Given all the rules and limitations, this new tax rule could best be described as helpful but limited. Based on the income limits, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that less than half of all seniors could see a tax reduction because of this new deduction. The rule is also time-limited and applies only to federal income taxes between 2025 and 2028. Altogether, the new deduction offers a modest cut to a highly specific group of seniors for a relatively short period of time. However, it does have a long-term impact on other government programs that many seniors rely on: Social Security and Medicare. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) projects that the new set of tax policies implemented by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) will hasten the insolvency of both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, moving their depletion date up from 2033 to 2032 — a full year sooner than earlier forecasts. What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of 'massive unemployment' in the US due to the 'biggest change' in history — and says this 1 group of 'smart' Americans will get hit extra hard. Are you one of them? How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance
US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance

US regulators have waived fines for automakers failing to meet fuel efficiency standards dating back to the 2022 model year, following a new law signed by President Donald Trump. This move, part of a tax and budget bill, puts an end to fines under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules established by a 1975 energy law. In a letter obtained by Reuters, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has informed automakers that it is re-evaluating its fuel economy regulations. The move aligns with other measures from Washington aimed at easing the production of gasoline vehicles and increasing the cost of electric vehicle (EV) sales. In the past, non-compliance with US fuel economy requirements has led to significant penalties for automakers. Stellantis, the parent company of Chrysler, incurred a $190.7m civil penalty for the 2019 and 2020 model years, adding to around $400m in fines from 2016 to 2019. Previously, General Motors (GM) paid $128.2m for 2016 and 2017. President Trump's recent actions also include nullifying California's goal to phase out gasoline-only vehicle sales by 2035. Meanwhile, Tesla has benefited from the situation, earning $2.8bn globally from regulatory credits through the sale of zero-emission EVs. The legislation signed this month by Trump states that vehicle fines will be eliminated for any year where NHTSA has not completed its rulemaking process. Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign director Dan Becker expressed disapproval of the decision, stating: "The Trump administration is reaching back in time to give an obscene gift to pollution law violators GM and Stellantis at the expense of the American taxpayer. 'The automakers lobbied hard for this 'get out of jail free' card. They get hundreds of millions in fines cancelled." GM and Stellantis have yet to respond to the development. Senate Republicans estimates that the law could 'save automakers' around $200m. The NHTSA under President Joe Biden proposed in 2023 to increase fuel economy standards through 2032, which would have cost the industry an estimated $14bn in fines, including $6.5bn, $3bn, and $1bn for GM, Stellantis, and Ford Motor, respectively. However, the final rule adopted last year significantly reduced these requirements, capping potential industry fines at $1.83bn from 2027 through 2031. "US automakers exempted from fines for fuel efficiency non-compliance" was originally created and published by Just Auto, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

People Are Calling Out The "Rudest" Things You Should Never, EVER Do At A Wedding, And I Hope You're Not Guilty Of These
People Are Calling Out The "Rudest" Things You Should Never, EVER Do At A Wedding, And I Hope You're Not Guilty Of These

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

People Are Calling Out The "Rudest" Things You Should Never, EVER Do At A Wedding, And I Hope You're Not Guilty Of These

We recently asked the BuzzFeed Community to tell us the "normal" things wedding guests do that are actually rude, and you miiight want to take notes. Here are the eye-opening results: 1."Have the courtesy to RSVP. If people send paper invitations, they come with a SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED RSVP. There is literally no excuse for you not to send it back. Also: 1) Don't say yes and then not show up (outside of the rare occasion when something outside of your control happens to prevent you from attending)." "AND 2) Don't say no or not respond at all and then show up expecting to have a seat and eat for free." —mishybp73 2."Bringing your kid to a child-free wedding, thinking that somehow your circumstances or your child's excellent behavior will make you an exception to that rule. This isn't your day; it's the couple's. Your little angel may be your universe, but the actual universe will not stop if your child doesn't go to a wedding they aren't wanted at to begin with." "It's hugely disrespectful to the couple to disregard their wishes, hugely disrespectful to the other adults who may have wanted a peaceful getaway from their kids, and makes you look entitled to be the only one there with a kid running around when everyone else listened and left theirs at home." —misaamaneyagami 3."Getting plastered at the reception. Just because it's an open bar doesn't mean you have to drink your weight in vodka. Have some cocktails and enjoy yourself, but have some self-control." —mishybp73 4."Getting a gift that isn't on the registry. There are some exceptions, but unless you know the couple INCREDIBLY well, it's best to stick with what they requested. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Many people who attended my wedding/showers know that I love to cook and bake, so I was overwhelmed with kitchen gadgets I didn't ask I already had them!" —stephaniep461d11578 5."I HATE when everybody takes out their phone as the bride walks down the aisle. First of all, what will you do with that picture? Post it on socials before the bride gets to do it? Your arm/phone is probably in somebody else's face while you're trying to get a pic, and the bride gets to look at a sea of cellphones on what should be the most special walk she ever takes. Just be in the moment for once, damn." —Anonymous, 35, Indiana "I think having your phones out to take videos and pictures during the wedding ceremony is rude. There are usually designated photographers, and the couple usually doesn't want random guests taking crappy photos of them during the most important part of their wedding. And it just seems like those people aren't being present for the actual vows because their heads are stuck in their phones — and blocking other people's view." —Anonymous 6."Asking the couple when they're having a baby. And not asking if they're having a baby. So instead of, 'Do you think you guys want kids?' It's, 'So, when are you guys going to have kids?' It's slight, but it always annoyed me. My wife and I have been getting that question for years, especially on our wedding day. We're very happily kid-free." —flyerboy6 7."Leaving before the couple. I know it's late, and you're tired, but you agreed to share their special day with them. No couple wants to walk out and see half the party is gone!" —Anonymous, 25, Texas 8."Not adhering to the dress code. If it says cocktail attire, don't wear shorts or sweats. Women should NEVER wear white, unless it's specified that it's OK. If the invite says pastels, wear them. If you are expected to wear something out of your comfort zone, and you're uncomfortable, don't go." —Anonymous, 56, California 9."Dragging people onto the dance floor. What can be seen as encouraging by some can feel like a lot of pressure that can be very uncomfortable. If you have an injury, upset stomach, or aren't in the headspace to dance, having five people trying to cajole you onto the floor at the same time can seem intimidating. Some folks aren't interested in dancing, and making them get on the floor when they don't want to or can't is really rude. Let them enjoy watching the dancing from their seat!" —Anonymous, 30, Washington 10."Trust me, nobody wants to hear your seven-minute speech about how drunk the groom got in college, or how you and the bride cried over ice cream after breakups in the past. The speech should be 45 seconds to a minute tops. Honestly, speeches are drawn out and almost always about the speech giver rather than toasting the couple." "Also, you most definitely don't need to bring your emotional support dog to a wedding." —Anonymous, 38 11."Sneaking their own alcohol into the venue. Not cool." —Anonymous 12."Proposing at a wedding is the most selfish and tacky thing you can do. You are not only taking away the focus from the couple getting married, but you are using all the hard work they put into making their day special to make your own moment special. There are 364 other days of the year. Put in a little effort, and make one of those days special for you instead of stealing someone else's." —catsarebetterthanpeople21 "It's also not okay to ask permission to do it. The bride and groom have enough going on without worrying about hurting feelings for saying no or saying it's okay when they really think it isn't." —mishybp73 13."Wedding planner here. Moving floral/decor!!! Putting aside the creative aspect that we spend working on with clients, you risk breaking something. A guest won't care, but that expense will be passed onto the couple, not to mention the potential mess that could also be caused." —Anonymous, 35, Washington, D.C. 14."Showing up several days early and expecting pre-wedding events specifically for them. My husband and I had out-of-town guests come five days before the actual wedding (they were notified of the dates for the wedding multiple times) who were upset to find out that we didn't have brunches and dinners and other events set up for them." "I understand that sometimes travel can be tricky, but if you are planning to arrive early, understand that the burden is on you to entertain yourself before official wedding activities." —Anonymous, 32, USA 15."[Making entitled requests.] Our church is very large, and we also have an even larger room for parties, so we rent the sanctuary and party room frequently for weddings. My daughter and I supervise during these rental events. We go out of our way to accommodate almost anything the couple and their families want. The guests are another problem altogether! During these rental events, we have had guests make strange requests." "For example: 'Where is the church nursery so I can drop off my children?' Answer: 'Ma'am, the nursery has not been rented for this event.' 'Where are the rest of the bathrooms?' Answer: 'We have ten stalls altogether in the building. The line should shorten as we get closer to the ceremony.' 'We will be requiring a wheelchair for Uncle Bob.' Answer: 'I'm sorry, we don't have a wheelchair on the premises.' (We do have one now.). 'Where is the bar?' Answer: 'This is a church, sir, even the communion wine is Welch's grape juice.' And finally, 'Where can I smoke my cigar?' Answer: 'Outside.'" —Anonymous, Indiana 16."When pregnant guests make a huge fuss about the champagne toast. Please just take the glass, raise it high, toast the happy couple, get the group photo, and THEN PLACE IT on a table or gift it to your partner. You audibly fussing, fighting, resisting, opposing, or dramatically waving off the waitstaff while rubbing your belly in protest, is a whole lot of rude, selfish energy." "You likely just had YOUR stagette, YOUR wedding, YOUR baby shower. This moment isn't about you, babe. Just take the damn glass!!!" —Anonymous, 42, Canada And finally... 17."Being late for any reason that isn't related to the function of the wedding. A handful of people always walk in so close to when the bride walks in. People usually expect to see her, but instead, some late people walk in, all bashful. If you're late, just skip the ceremony and catch the reception. Save yourself the awkward entrance and eye rolls." —Anonymous Note: Some responses have been edited for length and/or clarity. Honestly, YIKES. What are some other common things wedding guests do that are actually rude? Tell us in the comments, or if you prefer to remain anonymous, you can use the form below. Solve the daily Crossword

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