Ken Burns: Public media funding cuts ‘shortsighted'
'I think we're all in a bit of a state of a shock and also sort of reeling at the shortsightedness of it all,' Burns said to PBS host William Brangham on Friday.
'And what's so shortsighted about it, I think, is that this affects mostly rural communities or the hardest hit,' he added.
On Thursday, the Republican-controlled House sent the rescissions bill to President Trump's desk which aims to defund $9 billion in federal funding for USAID and public media. Trump is expected to sign the bill on Friday, along with other legislative wins for the administration.
Burns has had over 40 documentaries air on PBS, which were funded up to 20 percent by the government. However, he says others will suffer even more with projects that were previously financed by up to 75 percent with government dollars.
The impact on small, local news stations will also be felt across the country, he continued.
'And you begin to see the way in which, particularly in those small rural markets, the PBS station is really like the public library. It's one of those important institutions. It may be the only place where people have access to local news, that the local station is going to the city council meeting,' Burns said.
Local media is already degrading, according to a Rebuild Local News and MuckRack report, which stated that one in three counties in the U.S. don't have a local journalist. News stations in rural America will be hit the hardest; however, even stations in large cities depend on federal funding.
It was a tight battle in Congress to pass the bill. Multiple Republicans, including Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), voiced opposition against it.
'Some colleagues claim they are targeting 'radical leftist organizations' with these cuts, but in Alaska, these are simply organizations dedicated to their communities,' Murkowski posted on the social platform X.
Loyal MAGA Republicans, however, are celebrating this win by calling PBS and NPR biased.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on July 15, 'This is in our view the misuse of taxpayer dollars. They're biased reporting; they're not objective. They pretend to be so. And the people don't need to fund that.'
Burns said he will continue his work despite the changes.
'We will scramble. We will have to make it up. I'm confident that, with the extra work, it will happen,' he said of making up the loss of funding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
As Harvard and Trump head to court, the government piles on the pressure
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020, according to two people familiar with the subpoenas, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times. The agency gave the university a breakneck one-week deadline for compliance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also this month, the administration formally accused the school of civil rights violations, arguing that Harvard had failed to protect Jewish people on campus. The government also complained to the university's accreditor, which could eventually jeopardize Harvard students' access to federal financial aid. Advertisement Even so, both sides have continued discussions toward a resolution of the government investigations into the school and the sprawling legal fights, though they have made limited headway. This account is drawn from conversations with four people familiar with negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid endangering the talks, and from public statements and court records. Harvard leaders are well aware that a long fight with the government is perilous, threatening jobs, projects, reputations and academic independence. Some inside the university have feared that civil inquiries could become criminal matters. Advertisement Trump administration officials are looking to secure the most significant victory of their ongoing pressure campaign on academia. They are seeking to balance the long-term advantage of their powerful hold on the government with the short-term reality of working for a president who regularly favors dealmaking over systemic policy changes. Negotiators have been exchanging communications about what the administration wants from Harvard and what the university may be willing to accept. But the outcome of the hearing in Boston on Monday could shift how much leverage each side has in the talks. The case that will be before Judge Allison D. Burroughs began in April, after the Trump administration began to cut off billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard. The university sued to restore the funding, contending, among other arguments, that the administration's tactics were violating the university's First Amendment rights. On Monday, both Harvard and the government will try to persuade Burroughs to rule in their favor outright. Her decision will be a milestone in a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court on appeal and is already being regarded by West Wing officials and Harvard leaders as another bargaining chip. Before the lawsuit, the administration sent Harvard an extraordinary list of conditions, including new policies on hiring, admissions and faculty influence, compulsory reports to the government and audits of academic programs and departments. Since then, although officials acknowledged that sending the letter was a mistake, the government has barely budged from the demands. Advertisement And Trump aides have regarded the university's proposals as insufficient and anodyne. 'The Trump administration's proposition is simple and common-sense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students,' said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson. 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision.' Harvard declined to comment. Drawing out the talks has some benefits, too. Polls have suggested many Americans have become more distrustful of higher education, and the government's campaign has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of elite schools, which Trump and his allies argue have been captive to liberal ideas. Trump administration officials have especially reveled in squeezing Harvard, which, like other major universities, is deeply reliant on federal research money. But even though polling also suggests that many Americans disapprove of the Trump White House's tactics toward colleges and universities, administration officials have given little indication they want to end a clash that some Republicans have long craved. University officials have been trying to balance a sense of urgency with the advantages Harvard has drawn from the fight, including a show of public support. Besides the possibility of reclaiming leverage in the talks, university officials feel that a favorable ruling from Burroughs would give them greater credibility and cover to sell students, faculty members, donors and others on a settlement. Some officials expect the university to insist that any accord grant a judge or another figure the authority to enforce the terms. Harvard, wary of the White House's whipsaw approach to dealmaking, is not believed to be interested in an informal arrangement. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president who has sometimes sharply criticized the university, said that the absence of an agreement would leave Harvard vulnerable to new inquiries and a steady flow of court fights. He said he believed that the 'vast majority' of people with close ties to the school 'want to see all of this in the rearview mirror, if that's achievable.' Advertisement But Summers said that the conditions of any agreement will drive whether Harvard faces an internal rebellion. 'If they tell us we have to take certain books out of our library, we have to say no to that. If they tell us certain people can't be on our faculty, we have to say no to that,' said Summers, who added: 'If they tell us we've got to follow the law on reverse discrimination, we can say yes to that.' Harvard, he suggested, should also be open to changing some of its leadership. How hard of a bargain either side can drive is expected to become clearer Monday, when lawyers for the university and the government go before Burroughs for their first substantive oral arguments in Harvard's signature case against the administration. (Burroughs is also presiding over another case involving the government's quest to keep Harvard from enrolling international students. She has granted the university a series of interim victories in that matter.) Harvard is expected to argue that the Trump administration is trampling on constitutional protections, as it seeks greater influence over the university's operations. Harvard is also making an array of technical arguments, including that the government failed to follow long-established, written procedures for revoking funding. The administration has argued that it had followed certain regulations and that the case is essentially a contract dispute. In a court submission, the Justice Department said that federal research funds were 'not charitable gratuities.' Advertisement 'Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,' the Justice Department wrote, adding: 'If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.' The government's lawyers also contend that an 1887 law means that the dispute should be moved out of the Boston federal court entirely. Rather, they argue, the case should be heard in Washington by a specialized court that considers claims related to money. Harvard, which has said that Burroughs should keep the case because it involves constitutional questions that go beyond dollars and cents, suggested in court filings that the government was presiding over a jumbled assault. In one this month, the university told Burroughs that even after the government said it was terminating many grants to Harvard, the Defense Department paid the university hundreds of thousands of dollars for a grant that had supposedly ended. The government's attempted hardball tactics against Harvard have a fan in Trump. After all, the president himself mused in April: 'What if we never pay them?' Linda McMahon, the education secretary, told Trump during a Cabinet meeting July 8 that the administration was 'negotiating hard' with Harvard and Columbia University, another elite school that the White House has targeted. 'It's not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we're getting there,' McMahon said as the cameras rolled. ICE's subpoenas arrived in Cambridge later that afternoon. Harvard made no secret of its disdain the next day, openly eschewing any talk of reconciliation and decrying the subpoenas as 'unwarranted.' 'The administration's ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty and staff against harmful government overreach,' the university said. Harvard, it added, was 'unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Second suspect sought in shooting of off-duty Border Patrol agent
Authorities searched Sunday for a second suspect in the shooting of an off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer in an apparent botched robbery on Saturday. New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said the 42-year-old officer was injured after he was approached by two men on a moped while sitting with a woman in a park under the George Washington Bridge just before midnight. When one man got off and approached the officer, the officer drew his service weapon and the two exchanged fire, officials said. The officer was shot in the face and in the arm. Police said the man attempting the robbery was injured before he drove away with the moped driver. The officer was not in uniform and there was no indication that he was targeted because of his employment, Tisch said. Police took a person of interest, 21-year-old Miguel Mora, into custody after he arrived at a Bronx hospital to be treated for wounds to the groin and leg. Mora is an undocumented immigrant with an extensive criminal history, Tisch said, adding that he entered the country illegally through Arizona in 2023 and was arrested twice in New York for domestic violence. He was also wanted in New York on accusations of robbery and felony assault, Tisch said. In Massachusetts, he was wanted in a case involving stolen weapons. President Trump seized on the incident as an example of what he views was an inadequate immigration policy under President Biden. 'Last night, in New York City, an incredible CBP Officer was shot in the face by an Illegal Alien Monster freed into the Country under Joe Biden. He was apprehended at the Border in April 2023 but, instead of being deported, was RELEASED,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Sunday afternoon. 'The CBP Officer bravely fought off his attacker, despite his wounds, demonstrating enormous Skill and Courage. The Democrats have flooded our Nation with Criminal Invaders, and now, they must all be thrown out or, in some cases, immediately prosecuted in that we cannot take a chance that they are able to come back. That's how evil and dangerous they are!'
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Minnesota senator's guilty verdict could put Democrats' narrow majority in play
Political control of the Minnesota Senate could be up for grabs following Democratic state Sen. Nicole Mitchell's conviction on felony burglary charges. The latest: The first-term senator from Woodbury is facing growing pressure to resign in the wake of Friday's guilty verdict, with top DFL leaders saying that they expect her to follow through on private promises to step aside if convicted. Mitchell hasn't commented on her plans, though her attorney told Axios she will appeal in the criminal case. Why it matters: The fallout and political fight over the case could again upend the balance of power at the narrowly divided Capitol, putting Democrats' 34-33 majority in the Senate in play. That's because if Mitchell steps down — or is eventually removed from office via a vote of her Senate peers — it will trigger a high-stakes special election that will determine control of the chamber. State of play: Democrats have carried the east metro area covered by the suburban Senate District 47 by comfortable margins in recent elections. Mitchell secured a four-year term with about 58% of the vote in 2022. She wasn't up for reelection in 2024, but the two Democrats who won the nested House seats — Reps. Ethan Cha and Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger— won by 9 and 21 percentage points, respectively. Yes, but: The chance to flip the seat in a low-turnout, off-year special election would fuel a hotly contested race that attracts gobs of spending from both sides. Case in point: Outside groups poured seven figures into the majority-making west metro Senate district that was on the November 2024 ballot due to another DFL senator's decision to step down amid a run for Congress. The intrigue: A successful run by either Cha or Hemmingsen-Jaeger would trigger yet another special election that would put control of the House in play. That chamber is expected to return to a tie when slain Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman's seat is filled in September. Neither lawmaker replied to a request for comment sent to their campaign email accounts over the weekend. What we're hearing: Republican Dwight Dorau, who ran against Mitchell in 2022 and Cha in 2024, is also seen as a potential candidate for a special election. He did not respond to a request for comment sent through his campaign Facebook page Sunday. Between the lines: A vacancy this summer or fall would allow Mitchell's seat to be filled before the Legislature reconvenes in February. Waiting until the next year could leave the chamber deadlocked 33-33 for weeks of the already short legislative session. Zoom out: The renewed Mitchell drama is the latest in a series of twists for the narrowly divided Legislature, which has been rocked over the last year by lawmaker deaths, residency drama and the resignation of a GOP member who was arrested for underage solicitation. What we're watching: What Democrats do next if Mitchell doesn't step aside.
