Public media saved lives during Helene. It shouldn't be defunded
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.
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.
Opinion: Marjorie Taylor Greene often errs, but not about defunding public broadcasting
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.
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: NPR, PBS shouldn't be defunded. Public media saves lives | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
South Korean and U.S. militaries begin annual summertime drills to cope with North Korean threats
SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea and the United States began their annual large-scale joint military exercise on Monday to better cope with threats by nuclear-armed North Korea, which has warned the drills would deepen regional tensions and vowed to respond to 'any provocation' against its territory. The 11-day Ulchi Freedom Shield, the second of two large-scale exercises held annually in South Korea, after another set in March, will involve 21,000 soldiers, including 18,000 South Koreans, in computer-simulated command post operations and field training. The drills, which the allies describe as defensive, could trigger a response from North Korea, which has long portrayed the allies' exercises as invasion rehearsals and has often used them as a pretext for military demonstrations and weapons tests aimed at advancing its nuclear program. In a statement last week, North Korean Defense Minister No Kwang Chol said the drills show the allies' stance of 'military confrontation' with the North and declared that its forces would be ready to counteract 'any provocation going beyond the boundary line.' Ulchi Freedom Shield comes at a pivotal moment for South Korea's new liberal President Lee Jae Myung, who is preparing for an Aug. 25 summit with President Donald Trump in Washington. Trump has raised concerns in Seoul that he may shake up the decades-old alliance by demanding higher payments for the American troop presence in South Korea and possibly reducing it as Washington shifts its focus more toward China. Tensions on the Korean Peninsula remain high as North Korea has brushed aside Lee's calls to resume diplomacy with its war-divided rival, with relations having soured in recent years as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un accelerated his weapons program and deepened alignment with Moscow following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 'What's needed now is the courage to steadily take steps toward easing tensions, grounded in a firmly maintained state of ironclad security readiness,' Lee said during a Cabinet meeting on Monday. South Korea also on Monday began a four-day civil defense drill involving thousands of public workers, often scheduled alongside the allies' summertime military exercises. Seoul's previous conservative government responded to North Korean threats by expanding military exercises with the United States and seeking stronger U.S. assurances for nuclear deterrence, drawing an angry reaction from Kim, who last year renounced long-term reconciliation goals and rewrote the North's constitution to label the South a permanent enemy. In his latest message to Pyongyang on Friday, Lee, who took office in June, said he would seek to restore a 2018 inter-Korean military agreement designed to reduce border tensions and called for North Korea to respond to the South's efforts to rebuild trust and revive talks. The 2018 military agreement, reached during a brief period of diplomacy between the Koreas, created buffer zones on land and sea and no-fly zones above the border to prevent clashes. But South Korea suspended the deal in 2024, citing tensions over North Korea's launches of trash-laden balloons toward the South, and moved to resume frontline military activities and propaganda campaigns. The step came after North Korea had already declared it would no longer abide by the agreement. When asked whether the Lee government's steps to restore the agreement would affect the allies' drills, the South's Defense Ministry said Monday that there are no immediate plans to suspend live-fire training near the Koreas' disputed western maritime border. While the allies have postponed half of Ulchi Freedom Shield's originally planned 44 field training programs to September, U.S. military officials denied South Korean media speculation that the scaled-back drills were meant to make room for diplomacy with the North, citing heat concerns and flood damage to some training fields. Dating back to his first term, Trump has regularly called for South Korea to pay more for the 28,500 American troops stationed on its soil. Public comments by senior Trump administration officials have suggested a push to restructure the alliance, which some experts say could potentially affect the size and role of U.S. forces in South Korea. Under this approach, South Korea would take a greater role in countering North Korean threats while U.S. forces focus more on China, possibly leaving Seoul to face reduced benefits but increased costs and risks, experts say.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Oh no! Hypocritical celebrities abandon US, blaming Trump. What will we do now?
If celebrities, or anyone else, want to flee the US because a Republican is president, by all means, good riddance. I've never been so mad at a political party or a politician that I felt like leaving my country. I love America too much to even consider it. But a slew of celebrities have done that. Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel just announced during an appearance on the "The Sarah Silverman Podcast" on Aug. 7 that he obtained Italian citizenship. Kimmel alluded that President Donald Trump and the political climate he's created were contributing factors. It's not clear if Kimmel plans to move to Italy full time. "What's going on is as bad as you thought it was going to be," Kimmel said to Silverman during the podcast. "Way worse," Silverman said. "It's so much worse. It's just unbelievable," Kimmel said about America's political climate. "Like I feel like it's probably even worse than he would like it to be." Kimmel joins other celebrities who fled America and blame Trump Kimmel joins several high-profile celebrities who have sought refuge elsewhere because of Trump. It's a fascinating example of how self-aggrandizement, celebrity and perception do not always equate to reality, common sense and gratitude. If anything, it fuels hypocrisy. People magazine reported in 2024 that the comedian and former daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, had moved to England. DeGeneres confirmed in July that Trump's return to the White House prompted her move across the Atlantic. In March, comedian Rosie O'Donnell announced in a TikTok video that she moved to Ireland with her child. She's working on obtaining Irish citizenship. In the video, she said she moved because she didn't think she'd have equal rights under Trump. If these celebrities' ties to our nation were so weak that they could be severed because Americans elected a Republican president, how much did they care about the United States to begin with? Were they ever really freedom-loving Americans? Subscribe to my newsletterhere and get exclusive access to columns like this one – before anyone else Celebrities who abandon the US are hypocrites Celebrities are often hypocritical when it comes to their real lives, political beliefs and their careers. They'll claim they're anti-gun but make films with jarring violence and hire armed security for themselves. They'll tell other Americans how to vote − and it's mostly for Democrats − but live a lifestyle free of the economic and financial pressures that regular Americans face. Celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer, Cher and Whoopi Goldberg threatened to leave America if Trump got elected in 2016, but they are still here. Perhaps they at least realize how silly it is to abandon their country because millions of their fellow citizens democratically elected a Republican into office. Perhaps they realized how hypocritical it was to live a life of luxury, thanks to America's free market principles, and then spit in its face because an election didn't go the way they wanted. When O'Donnell says she fled to Ireland out of fear that Americans like her would lose their rights, what does that really mean? Trump has signed no executive orders and Congress has passed no laws that strip any Americans of their fundamental rights. Federal anti-discrimination laws remain in place to protect all Americans, including the LGBTQ+ community. It's strange for someone like Kimmel, with a reported net worth of about $50 million, to flee the United States because of a supposedly difficult political environment. He still has a platform on network TV to ridicule Trump and other conservatives who don't support Kimmel's ultraprogressive opinions. Trump, meanwhile, is doing what 77 million voters said they wanted in November. He's secured the southern border, brought illegal immigration under control, bolstered the economy and is working to secure peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. If celebrities, or anyone else, want to flee the United States because a Republican is president, by all means, good riddance. If they can't appreciate the country that paved the way for their wealth and fame, and they want to believe they are victims of a difficult political climate, they deserve to wallow in their hypocrisy in a country that is a distant second to America's greatness. Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The unusual GOP alliance pushing earmarks in this fall's funding fight
Conversations around government funding are ongoing. But so far, signs point to earmarks being one of the most viable pathways for breaking the impasse. It's a sweetener leaders can use to satisfy holdouts who want to be able to deliver wins for their districts — and represents a compromise for hard-liners like Harris who think this arrangement might present the best possible outcome for members who want to spend as little money as possible. Harris, who is also chair of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Agriculture and FDA, has floated the year-long, flat-funded spending bill that contains earmarks — but paired with the guarantee that Congress will also pass several more rescissions packages to claw back funds already appropriated by Congress. He also wants the White House to send over a major package of pocket rescissions that would unilaterally cancel tens of billions of dollars. Unlike with a typical rescissions bill, where Congress has 45 days to pass it before the administration is forced to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended, a pocket rescissions measure is transmitted to Capitol Hill with 45 or fewer days left until the end of the current fiscal year — and if Congress doesn't take any action by that deadline, the money is considered revoked. There's no certainty Congress can even pass a second rescissions request, while legal experts and the federal government's top watchdog have questioned the legality of the pocket rescissions process. But the pitch could be appealing to even the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who is chair of a House Oversight subcommittee tasked with identifying government waste. She said in a social media post earlier this month she was uninterested in 'another CR that will leave out much needed appropriation requests that benefit our districts.' 'Funding to support critical infrastructure projects like water, roads, and community projects will AGAIN be left not funded,' she said of a government spending bill without earmarks. Greene's position signals a critical opening for proponents of earmarks — and something of a change of tune for Republicans.
