Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too

Washington Post

24-07-2025

Congress approved President Donald Trump's request to cancel $1.1 billion in government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Trump's executive order Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media said that neither PBS nor NPR 'presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.' As a former PBS producer, I take exception to his claim. Like my colleagues at PBS stations nationwide, I covered controversial stories from a wide variety of perspectives, including interviews with subjects of opposing political viewpoints, with respect and empathy. Public broadcasting is for MAGA, too.
To illustrate: PBS put my documentary, 'Battle at Weber Creek,' on YouTube. It focuses on the dispute between Alaskan gold miner Joe Vogler and the National Park Service over transport of heavy mining equipment along a historic trail through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Vogler had used the trail for years before the preserve was established in 1978 as part of the National Park System.
His armed confrontation with the preserve's superintendent at remote Weber Creek raised serious issues for environmentalists, gold miners, National Park Service officials, elected representatives and local landowners, all of whom expressed diverse opinions to inform a national audience. The documentary was balanced to appeal to local as well as national viewers, and the response was overwhelmingly positive from a wide and highly diverse audience, including Alaska's gold-mining community.
To present contrasting viewpoints on issues of interest to broad audiences around the United States is what public broadcasting does best. Its funding must be restored.
Robert A. Hooper, San Diego
The writer is a former producer at PBS member station KUAC in Fairbanks, Alaska.
The Post's July 16 interview with PBS president and chief executive Paula Kerger, 'PBS faces 'existential' threat, its chief says,' missed an opportunity to press for facts about the impact of funding reductions to public broadcasting. The questions focused almost exclusively on the politics of the proposed cuts.
Kerger characterized PBS as 'an aggregation of local stations,' to which most of the organization's funding is directed. She cited the Smoky Hills, Kansas, station, which airs 'a call-in medical show' and gets 54 percent of its money from the federal government.
The Post's follow-up question: 'Will rural stations be hit hardest?'
Kerger responded by mentioning PBS's 'great stations everywhere' — in D.C., New York and Boston, as well as in the small towns of Cookeville, Tennessee, and Granite Falls, Minnesota.
The interviewer should have pressed Kerger on the number of viewers in rural markets; on the federal dollars spent per viewer; on whether PBS could redirect dollars from richer, big-city markets with more broadband options; whether state governments could kick in some money; or even the basic policy question of whether the federal government should be helping fund this service at all given the plethora of sources of information. Instead, the interviewer focused on whether the proposed budget cuts are 'specific to PBS and NPR and the CPB' or 'part of a larger salvo from this administration against media.'
The issue of federal funding for public broadcasting is much more complicated and nuanced than presented in this interview. Taxpayers have been bombarded with 'the sky is falling' arguments over nearly every aspect of the federal budget process. Journalists can help by giving us facts instead of amplifying rhetoric.
Joseph A. Capone, Oakton
In 1993, a group of people, some of them refugees from countries with authoritarian regimes, were in my apartment watching David Letterman. Letterman was making various hard-hitting jokes about 'Tubby.' We were all laughing until one person in the group asked, 'Who is Tubby?' I told them it was a reference to President Bill Clinton.
Suddenly, I saw shock on the faces of my guests. They thought Letterman would be off the air in minutes and dead by the next day. I explained to them that this is America. Some people are well paid for making fun of the president.
Letterman went on to make fun of America and other presidents for decades to come. Today I wonder if the refugees were onto something.
Charles Plushnick, New York
What do good companies do when faced with declining audiences and revenue? They analyze options and make adjustments. CBS has said it was losing money on 'The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.' Is CBS different from any other company?
Sometimes the simplest answer is the truth.
Steve Henry, Springfield
When CBS chief executive George Cheeks announced the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,' he called it 'purely a financial decision.'
Cheeks has built his career on being genial, nonconfrontational and operationally smooth. But leadership isn't about being agreeable in times of turbulence. It's about taking a stand when the stakes are cultural, not just financial. Colbert wasn't just a talk show host. He was, for millions, a moral compass cloaked in comedy.
And that's the real reason he's gone.
There were other options. Cheeks could've shortened the production week, trimmed the budget or renegotiated Colbert's contract.
George Cheeks didn't make a tough call. He made a weak one.
Jeffrey Barge, Cleveland
Ryan Zickgraf's July 18 Friday Opinion essay, 'The scroll never stops. Will we?,' captures Neil Postman's prescient warning that democracy is being overentertained rather than overthrown. But although the argument about tech's grip on our attention is right, it misses the deeper issue: We are not just distracted; we are reprogramming our very understanding of truth.
Zickgraf points to Gen Z's retreat into more 'analog' pursuits as a sign of hope, but this is a passive rebellion, walking away from problems instead of confronting them. This opt-out mentality isn't enough. The real crisis is a society that no longer demands critical thought. Instead, we have substituted spectacle for reason, performance for debate and outrage for reflection.
If democracy is to survive this digital haze, it's not enough to just delete apps or 'go back to basics.' We need a resurgence of reasoned, intentional discourse — something that challenges the very algorithms shaping our worldview. If Zickgraf's two tribes of Gen Z offer a glimpse of a future, it's one where we'll need to do more than retreat: We'll need to actively reclaim the spaces where thought can flourish, beyond the scroll.
Regina Nappo, Triangle, Virginia
Issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein case, though of ethical, moral and perhaps legal concern, are no more than distractions and deflections. They won't motivate people to vote in 2026 or beyond.
Though titillating and potentially capable of increasing the audience share for news networks, at the end of the day, they likely will not significantly impact the outcome of the election. Notes Dan Rather: 'It is easy to stay swept up in the Epstein tsunami. … If the story is having an effect on Trump's political viability, then it is worth reporting on and reading about. But not at the expense of life-and-death stories with global consequences.'
As someone who studied political communication for 45 years, I am convinced that the Epstein case is essentially a 'not Trump' message and therefore will remain rhetorically ineffective. So, let me say it again: While talking about this issue is fair game, Democrats must offer vivid and compelling reasons why their vision and concrete plans for America are in the best interests of voters. After that, they can contrast their message to the policies of President Donald Trump and his Republican acolytes. Democrats must be disciplined and their messages tightly focused.
Richard Cherwitz, Carmas, Washington
Hunter Biden's claim that George Clooney and other high-profile Democrats undermined his father's bid for reelection does not hold up to scrutiny. On the contrary, President Joe Biden and his enablers undermined their own campaign by attempting to conceal Joe Biden's diminished mental acuity from voters. Voters deserve to know the truth about their leaders so they can make informed decisions.
When George Clooney spoke the truth about Biden's mental capabilities, he was speaking truth to power. If only more high-profile Democrats had done the same.
A few months ago, Joe Biden went on 'The View' to claim he would have beaten Donald Trump. Polls show otherwise. Now, Hunter is peddling his father's same misguided blustery machismo. If they would take the advice, please, of the legendary 'Mini-Me' character of Austin Powers movie fame, this Democrat and so many other Democrats would be happy.
'Zip it.'
Bruce Kirby, Rockville
Post Opinions wants to know: What would you add to a time capsule to represent America today? Share your response, and it might be published as a letter to the editor.